Gearslutz

Gearslutz (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/)
-   Mastering Forum (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/)
-   -   When someone says -12db RMS. (https://www.gearslutz.com/board/mastering-forum/352357-when-someone-says-12db-rms.html)

imdookieatmaster 25th December 2008 04:23 AM

When someone says -12db RMS.
 
When someone says radio pop an average volume of -12 db RMS.
What does this mean? -12 db RMS?

I know -12 db means the volume level but what is the RMS mean?

Thanks.

audiovisceral 25th December 2008 04:41 AM

Root mean squared - it's a type of average, so basically average volume of the track.

I like -10ish on the loudest song parts, and I can tolerate up to -8, but most audiophiles prefer quieter (just for example).

tribeofenki 25th December 2008 04:45 AM

also mathematically known as the quadratic mean
 
This an Evil Root *

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/...1122d53f47.jpg

* Image NOT related whatsoever hidz


Yes, seriously is a mathematical way of giving a value to the noise signal...
You can still have spikes of +10 dB in a RMS part of +8

Let's say these maths are done to compensate the logarithmic nature of dB: an high, sometimes excessive pendence.

hirocaster 25th December 2008 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by i604 (Post 3760824)
This an Evil Root *

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2226/...1122d53f47.jpg

* Image NOT related whatsoever hidz

I lol'd

imdookieatmaster 25th December 2008 04:57 AM

So it's like a unit of measure right? Like 25 liters of water, or 25 grams of gold, -12 db rms right? So -12 db rms = -12 db

tribeofenki 25th December 2008 05:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3760845)
So it's like a unit of measure right? Like 25 liters of water, or 25 grams of gold, -12 db rms right? So -12 db rms = -12 db

It is a DIFFERENT unit indeed. It is used simply because sometimes engineers just can't view, count and do the maths with all those dB spikes !!

dB is for kids and Gigs, while RMS is for guys with big, huge lens instead of big eyes... just keeping on kidding.


dB : RMS as 1.000 apples : 100 bags of ten apples

andsonic 25th December 2008 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3760845)
So it's like a unit of measure right? Like 25 liters of water, or 25 grams of gold, -12 db rms right? So -12 db rms = -12 db

Not quite. When someone says "-12 db", they're usually referring to peak level, which shows the loudest spikes of audio. RMS level is, as said before, average level. An analog VU meter shows averaging. A mix that is -12db RMS can have peaks at -3db or more. My last mix had an RMS level between -24 to -18db with peaks up to 0 dbfs.

imdookieatmaster 25th December 2008 06:55 AM

So then what is the purpose of an RMS, if we can just look at the peak level and get it away from -0 db.

audiovisceral 25th December 2008 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3761027)
So then what is the purpose of an RMS, if we can just look at the peak level and get it away from -0 db.

every song that has been normalized will peak at 0. that only tells you what the biggest spikes are.

rms tells you how loud it sounds by looking at the average intensity of the signal between the peaks.

ie. -12 rms peaking at 0 will sound quieter than -8 rms peaking at 0.

24-96 Mastering 25th December 2008 01:19 PM

PEAK level does not take TIME into account. PEAK level only looks at one "moment" in time.
RMS Level "averages" PEAK readings over time and thus gives you an idea of average level. RMS level is a also a much better (although far from ideal) indication of perceived volume than peak level.

JPeters86 25th December 2008 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 24-96 Mastering (Post 3761338)
PEAK level does not take TIME into account. PEAK level only looks at one "moment" in time.
RMS Level averages PEAK readings over time and thus gives you an indication of average volume. RMS level is a also a much better (although not ideal) indication of perceived volume than peak level.

Exactly.

An average of -12db RMS is very nice though! It's what I usually aim for as well.

Merry xmas.

Lagerfeldt 25th December 2008 02:16 PM

One man's -12 dB RMS can sound a lot more squashed than another man's -9 dB RMS.

I don't think you should look at RMS isolated.

aivoryuk 25th December 2008 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt (Post 3761400)
One man's -12 dB RMS can sound a lot more squashed than another man's -9 dB RMS.

I don't think you should look at RMS isolated.

couldn't agree more, one of the reasons the loudness wars are about people are more concerned about figures rather than how things sound

Bob Yordan 25th December 2008 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt (Post 3761400)
One man's -12 dB RMS can sound a lot more squashed than another man's -9 dB RMS.

I don't think you should look at RMS isolated.

I agree.

http://byd-media.net/Plugtest.wav

Below -8 dB average RMS but looks like -12 dB RMS on the wave form. gooof

By eg manipulating a lot of bass into a mix it is possible to get ridicolous
RMS values.

Merry X-mas

howdy

imdookieatmaster 26th December 2008 08:11 AM

Wow so all this time I was dumb for just trying to take the Peak away from -0 db. I never knew RMS was important. So what can I do to raise the level of the RMS without affecting the peak.

I acknowledge everyone has a different view on what an average RMS level should be, What would be a good average for Hip-Hop and Pop.

What would be good for Rock Music? So if for example a good RMS level for R&B is -14 db. This means I should have the song try to stay in the -14 db range?


Thanks

Lagerfeldt 26th December 2008 10:17 AM

Try reading no. 12 answer from the top again, there's your answer.

Marando 26th December 2008 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imdookieatmaster (Post 3762813)
... So what can I do to raise the level of the RMS without affecting the peak...

Compression and limiting will. But please, if you don't know what you are doing when compressing/limiting a track, often the result will sound bad!

If you have a song that peaks a few times a 0 dbfs and you have a RMS of -19dB, you could, if you wish, compres it a little bit, with a good bus compressor.

Most of the time I let somebody else do my mastering, but when I master a demo track, I use the Waves SSL G bus compressor (attack 10ms, release 300ms, ratio 2:1 ) and I move the treshold until it compresses about 3dB on avarage. Then I use the Sonnox limiter and I will raise the imput gain, until it does a little bit of gain reduction, like 3dB.

Most of the demo tracks I "mastered" myself have an RMS of -11dB tot -14dB. It's not killing the sound, but it makes it all a little bit louder. heh

Thomas W. Bethe 26th December 2008 02:01 PM

If you want to get into the math this will do it for you.

root mean square: Definition from Answers.com

NFL 26th December 2008 02:42 PM

Isn't it strange that whenever these kind of discussions come up, nobody mention for the newbie that there are in fact two different ways of measuring RMS, and that they are 3 db apart, and that some applications use one and some others use the other one?

It always struck me as very strange... there's argument over numbers and nobody mentions to what reference, like, comparing apples with very big apples??

Haha!

Well, however, – now I mentioned it!


As to paraphrase Lagerfelt; one man's -12 RMS can sound exactly like another man's -9 RMS!

kfhkh

ninjaneer 26th December 2008 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFL (Post 3763126)
Isn't it strange that whenever these kind of discussions come up, nobody mention for the newbie that there are in fact two different ways of measuring RMS, and that they are 3 db apart, and that some applications use one and some others use the other one?.......

good point.

might be time for a gearslutz glossary page.
could be added to the tips and tricks section.

lm66 26th December 2008 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Yordan (Post 3762167)
I agree.

http://byd-media.net/Plugtest.wav

Below -8 dB average RMS but looks like -12 dB RMS on the wave form. gooof

howdy

According to AES17 standard for RMS values, this track is around -4.5 dB RMS.

Of course sound is awfully distorted...

Lagerfeldt 26th December 2008 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NFL (Post 3763126)

As to paraphrase Lagerfelt; one man's -12 RMS can sound exactly like another man's -9 RMS!

kfhkh

Haha kfhkh In reality there are many more variations as you can often specify the time reference for the rms yourself (such as in Waves PAZ), which will give you an almost infinite amount of arbitrary reference points if people don't agree on a setting when comparing.

Peter Oxford 26th December 2008 09:36 PM

Dear Mr. Imdookieatmaster.... Happy Christmas!

People are trying to explain this in a way that’s easy for you to understand.


But really, you truly need to read and study a great deal more before depending upon Forums for clarification.



Perhaps one way to help you understand the importance involved in what is being discussed here is to reflect that in the late 50’s and in the 60’s Guitar amplifiers made in America were usually rated in advertising using the measurement of a Peak rating, and those made in the U.K. with an RMS rating.

The Peak rated amplifiers had hugely inflated, quite enormous figures that seemed to be very impressive.

But the RMS rated amplifiers, with a much more conservative specification often half that of a Peak rated product, were invariably the equal of them. To say the very least.



When I first asked the white coated Bod’s I worked with about this difference, I was told a rough rule of thumb would be, that if I halved the Peak rated amplifiers figures, it would give me a general approximation for the purposes of comparison with RMS rated equipment.

Now I’m sure that basis of comparison is not at all strictly accurate from a precise technical point of view, but never the less, I have found it an immutably reliable guide to get me in the ball park, for more decades than I am ever willing to publicly admit to.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, product information, let alone actual American product itself here in the U.K. was extremely rare, and it was difficult to make direct comparison’s, so one’s instantaneous first impressions of sound quality, tonality, and loudness before audible distortion; along with one’s retentive memory, came to be extremely important as one’s brain, gradually developed a comprehensive database of reference.

Scientist’s will tell you today that an ABX comparison is the only one that counts, but sometimes in life one has to do the best one can under the circumstances that prevail. Experience and comprehensive trial can go a long way in informing one’s judgement, and I would say that as someone who has many years of it.



I was informed that the Peak rating is what the equipment could, in a research laboratory under test conditions, be capable of given a particular signal level absolutely optimised for input.

The RMS power rating is a measure of continuous power and means the device is either able to provide or accept the specified power over a significant length of time without failure.


Usually with speakers, I was told this time measurement was typically 10 mins for test and specification purposes.




Now, I guess you’re wondering what this Amplifier history lesson is for?

The important point to appreciate is that the human ear does not primarily respond well to Peak power.


Often these Peaks of power would occur very suddenly, and be extremely transient in nature. The human brain needs steady and continuously flowing sound.

In fact, even when there is no sound appearing to occur at all. The brain via the ear continuously scans everything that is occurring in the background, and the existing ambient situation.




Perhaps you have been in a party, with lots of talking, and without trying to listen, someone across the room mentions your name, and you instantly know.

I could explain why this is so, but it would involve a much longer post, and there are still a great many things that are quite unknown about how human hearing works.

As a member of my family headed the team that developed the model of the human hearing that every scientist and audio designer depends upon, I hope you will trust me.

All the scientifically determined figures that are liberally quoted by audio specialists were provided by testing the hearing of thousands of human beings under scientifically controlled conditions.




But earlier this year at Oxford University, a break through occurred in research that further proved all that I am writing to you about, including some speculative notions I have discussed in my former posts on PSW.




Anyway, the really salient point to absorb is that, as has been recognised for a long time, the human ear, fundamentally responds best to continuous levels, or the RMS level in the case of Mastering musical sound.

The brain and the ear judge how loud something is by the RMS level it hears, not by the ephemeral transient Peak.

Today most people interested in Audio Engineering seem obsessed with Peak level.

But Mastering Engineers can utilise highly accurate averaging meters.

Dorrough

To aid them in their assessments.




I presume that you are attempting to maximise output level.

But I would commend you to consider that presuming you have a T.V. just as your TV has Brightness and Contrast controls.

To fully maximise one parameter by an extreme adjustment, would be to the clear detriment of other parameters and to the entire detriment of the picture overall.

One should then, attempt to fully optimise the important factors, but in proper balance with a number of essentially vital parameters, in order to be able to preserve and correctly discern a detailed image.




Contrast ratios are extremely important.

Aurally just as much as visually in fact!

With peaks and averages and silence.




If you absolutely maximise the RMS.

Then what ever will you have.

By way of relief?




Loud ‘Forte’ passages sound altogether louder and appear to be at their very loudest when they are strongly in juxtaposition with extremely quiet ‘Piano’ passages.

Great music has its most powerful impact when the natural dynamics and contrasts are preserved that make sound continually interesting to the ear and brain, in a way, that naturally engages them.

If you fail to hold the listeners attention over time, by not providing proper relief for their ears and brain by eliminating the contrasting dynamics that would demand their listening attention and enrapturing enthral them.

Ultimately you will force the listener away from the source of sound, if you insist upon totally maximising level continuously, for in the last resort, the ear has a safety mechanism called ‘temporary threshold shift’ which acts to shut off sound, when it is delivered above a certain level continuously.




Great composers, musical arrangers, and song writers, determine where the emotional peaks of the song or music are, and work, building both to the emotional peak, and from peak to peak. This is a fundamentally sound musical approach that works tremendously well quite regardless of genre, class or idiom.

You see, as I wrote earlier, the ear and the brain, need to continually check and scan the background ambience, for a person to feel safe and content even when they are being excited. And yes, that will often mean we prefer some 'relief' to listen to, and to hear the slightest modicum of tape hiss, or vinyl surface noise, as it allows our ears and brain to believe they are scanning properly and satisfy these deeply instilled requirements.

Absolute silence as such is a completely foreign, unnatural phenomenon.




In effect, when you totally max out sound continuously, you actively work against nature and the very manner humans beings have come to deal with sound, with their ears and their brain that they have depended upon down the millenniums for their very survival.

People that buy music today quickly discard and dispose of it, because it has been pushed to unnatural extremes that militate against every natural order in the way sound is created, how it is absorbed by the ear and understood by the brain.

When we produce recorded music that is presented to the ear, working in the way our ears and brains work themselves, people will enjoy listening to music once again, and want to buy it.

I can’t wait for that day to re-emerge!

Can you?






P

Bob Yordan 27th December 2008 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Oxford (Post 3763777)
Dear Mr. Imdookieatmaster.... Happy Christmas!

People are trying to explain this in a way that’s easy for you to understand.

But really, you truly need to read and study a great deal more before depending upon Forums for clarification.



Perhaps one way to help you understand the importance involved in what is being discussed here is to reflect that in the late 50’s and in the 60’s Guitar amplifiers made in America were usually rated in advertising using the measurement of a Peak rating, and those made in the U.K. with an RMS rating.

The Peak rated amplifiers had hugely inflated, quite enormous figures that seemed to be very impressive.

But the RMS rated amplifiers, with a much more conservative specification often half that of a Peak rated product, were invariably the equal of them. To say the very least.



When I first asked the white coated Bod’s I worked with about this difference, I was told a rough rule of thumb would be, that if I halved the Peak rated amplifiers figures, it would give me a general approximation for the purposes of comparison with RMS rated equipment.

Now I’m sure that basis of comparison is not at all strictly accurate from a precise technical point of view, but never the less, I have found it an immutably reliable guide to get me in the ball park, for more decades than I am ever willing to publicly admit to.

Back in the Fifties and Sixties, product information, let alone actual American product itself here in the U.K. was extremely rare, and it was difficult to make direct comparison’s, so one’s instantaneous first impressions of sound quality, tonality, and loudness before audible distortion; along with one’s retentive memory, came to be extremely important as one’s brain, gradually developed a comprehensive database of reference.

Scientist’s will tell you today that an ABX comparison is the only one that counts, but sometimes in life one has to do the best one can under the circumstances that prevail. Experience and comprehensive trial can go a long way in informing one’s judgement, and I would say that as someone who has many years of it.



I was informed that the Peak rating is what the equipment could, in a research laboratory under test conditions, be capable of given a particular signal level absolutely optimised for input.

The RMS power rating is a measure of continuous power and means the device is either able to provide or accept the specified power over a significant length of time without failure.

Usually with speakers, I was told this time measurement was typically 10 mins for test and specification purposes.




Now, I guess you’re wondering what this Amplifier history lesson is for?

The important point to appreciate is that the human ear does not primarily respond well to Peak power.

Often these Peaks of power would occur very suddenly, and be extremely transient in nature. The human brain needs steady and continuously flowing sound.

In fact, even when there is no sound appearing to occur at all. The brain via the ear continuously scans everything that is occurring in the background, and the existing ambient situation.



Perhaps you have been in a party, with lots of talking, and without trying to listen, someone across the room mentions your name, and you instantly know.

I could explain why this is so, but it would involve a much longer post, and there are still a great many things that are quite unknown about how human hearing works.

As a member of my family headed the team that developed the model of the human hearing that every scientist and audio designer depends upon, I hope you will trust me.

All the scientifically determined figures that are liberally quoted by audio specialists were provided by testing the hearing of thousands of human beings under scientifically controlled conditions.




But earlier this year at Oxford University, a break through occurred in research that further proved all that I am writing to you about, including some speculative notions I have discussed in my former posts on PSW.




Anyway, the really salient point to absorb is that, as has been recognised for a long time, the human ear, fundamentally responds best to continuous levels, or the RMS level in the case of Mastering musical sound.

The brain and the ear judge how loud something is by the RMS level it hears, not by the ephemeral transient Peak.

Today most people interested in Audio Engineering seem obsessed with Peak level.

But Mastering Engineers can utilise highly accurate averaging meters.

Dorrough

To aid them in their assessments.




I presume that you are attempting to maximise output level.

But I would commend you to consider that presuming you have a T.V. just as your TV has Brightness and Contrast controls.

To fully maximise one parameter by an extreme adjustment, would be to the clear detriment of other parameters and to the entire detriment of the picture overall.

One should then, attempt to fully optimise the important factors, but in proper balance with a number of essentially vital parameters, in order to be able to preserve and correctly discern a detailed image.




Contrast ratios are extremely important.

Aurally just as much as visually in fact!

With peaks and averages and silence.




If you absolutely maximise the RMS.

Then what ever will you have.

By way of relief?




Loud ‘Forte’ passages sound altogether louder and appear to be at their very loudest when they are strongly in juxtaposition with extremely quiet ‘Piano’ passages.

Great music has its most powerful impact when the natural dynamics and contrasts are preserved that make sound continually interesting to the ear and brain, in a way, that naturally engages them.

If you fail to hold the listeners attention over time, by not providing proper relief for their ears and brain by eliminating the contrasting dynamics that would demand their listening attention and enrapturing enthral them.

Ultimately you will force the listener away from the source of sound, if you insist upon totally maximising level continuously, for in the last resort, the ear has a safety mechanism called ‘temporary threshold shift’ which acts to shut off sound, when it is delivered above a certain level continuously.




Great composers, musical arrangers, and song writers, determine where the emotional peaks of the song or music are, and work, building both to the emotional peak, and from peak to peak. This is a fundamentally sound musical approach that works tremendously well quite regardless of genre, class or idiom.

You see, as I wrote earlier, the ear and the brain, need to continually check and scan the background ambience, for a person to feel safe and content even when they are being excited. And yes, that will often mean we prefer some 'relief' to listen to, and to hear the slightest modicum of tape hiss, or vinyl surface noise, as it allows our ears and brain to believe they are scanning properly and satisfy these deeply instilled requirements.

Absolute silence as such is a completely foreign, unnatural phenomenon.




In effect, when you totally max out sound continuously, you actively work against nature and the very manner humans beings have come to deal with sound, with their ears and their brain that they have depended upon down the millenniums for their very survival.

People that buy music today quickly discard and dispose of it, because it has been pushed to unnatural extremes that militate against every natural order in the way sound is created, how it is absorbed by the ear and understood by the brain.

When we produce recorded music that is presented to the ear, working in the way our ears and brains work themselves, people will enjoy listening to music once again, and want to buy it.

I can’t wait for that day to re-emerge!

Can you?






P

Great post, cool research you are working with. kfhkh

imdookieatmaster 27th December 2008 05:03 AM

So Mr. Peter,

What all that meant was that, using a Peak or an RMS is upon our preference right? And everything in the utilization of Peak and RMS should be controlled by our taste right?

Thanks

MASSIVE Master 27th December 2008 07:38 AM

What he meant is that meters are only as good as the listening skills of the guy looking at them.

Peak and RMS are not directly related. A very loud recording can peak much lower than a very quiet recording that peaks at full-scale.

Peter Oxford 27th December 2008 09:30 AM

“What all that meant was that, using a Peak or an RMS is upon our preference right? And everything in the utilization of Peak and RMS should be controlled by our taste right?”






Dear Mr. Imdookieatmaster...


No!

Not at all.


To imagine that for the most transitory ephemeral of moments, is with all due respect, singularly delusory, beguilingly fallacious and conceptual‘listically, utterly and entirely phantasmagorical.

With all due respect, your comments read as if you have written something else entirely, that you had seen and read somewhere else.






“What he meant is that meters are only as good as the listening skills of the guy looking at them.”





Just so, and that all technical listening and musical skill, is tremendously aided by understanding how we assimilate sound.

For instance, if a Composer or Musical Arranger knows that the human ear will struggle to follow more than three threads simultaneously.

He can work with the ear and brain to compose or arrange music presented in a manner that the ‘average’ person can readily assimilate easily.

Peak and RMS meters are sophisticated tools that require considerable depth of experience, to be able to properly interpret, and utilise constructively.

In this respect, you may find a previous post highly advantageous to properly absorb.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...uidelines.html I trust so!






Frankly, and again with respect, you will not have the necessary experience to formulate proper taste and judgement or make any reliably sound decisions, regarding mastering music that will translate properly across a wide spectrum of audio devices for a very considerable time, and certainly not without a massive financial commitment to highly expensive equipment of absolutely superlative quality.

That is, not audio equipment that makes things sound good, but reference quality audio equipment, that is highly revealing indeed, that exposes every flaw made in the recording process, and probably makes things sound pretty bad, in many cases.

Though not of course, for anything really well recorded. How else would anyone ever know what needed to be compensated for, what needed to be corrected, and where adjustment was genuinely required?

There are no shortcuts to excellence in Mastering Audio.






Let me put my earlier post by analogy, like this.

Centuries ago, if you were the captain of a Galleon and wanted to traverse the great Oceans of the world as some of my ancestors did, rounding Cape Horn regularly; you would find it immeasurably helpful if you knew how, when and where, the great winds (like the Trade Winds) that spread across the Atlantic Ocean could be relied upon, and how, when and where, the great current flows, waxed and waned.

For instance, there is a cold water current that flows from the Artic deep under the Atlantic Ocean that emerges surfacing in the south Caribbean. Columbus (who didn’t traverse the Atlantic directly in a straight line) but travelled south down to remote Islands off the African continent, and from thence across to Islands off the American continent, strangely discovered very cold water rising, in this area of great tropical heat.

This is one reason and how we know which way he actually travelled, (which needed to differ from his log which was deliberately falsified in case of capture, because many areas of water off the European and African continents were controlled by opposing countries Navy's).

Of course, there is another current that flows from the Caribbean across the Atlantic Ocean back to England and the European continent. (Where history comes from). Surely the best way to sail was to observe, understand, and allow nature’s winds and currents to aid you, as you actively cooperated with the way it worked.

When you have an understanding of how and why things in nature occur the way they do; with a degree of perspicacity, shining insight into your understanding, it is possible to adjust ones timings and sails accordingly, and directly benefit from the incontrovertible aid of having a strong wind and current to helpfully waft you speedily to your destination.





If you read the post..

You will discover that I suggest we first learn and properly understand what, how and why our ears and brains prefer to hear things, the way they do.

How do we really experience sound? What mechanisms are, or could be at times, at work? How do we interpret what we hear, and assimilate that?

Then, we can produce and master truly musical recordings that flow well with the natural order of things, as they exist, which we cannot alter.

Instead of producing and mastering inferior recordings, that quite ridiculously attempt, to defy nature itself spitting into the wind, as it were.





The latter, is the way the Recording Industry has attempted to travel over the last recent years of its rapid decline.

Inappropriate hands helplessly tacking against natures winds of life, its no wonder progress has been slow.

Eventually, even musical enthusiasts become disillusioned by the experience.

Completely disenfranchised, and thus terminate the journey.





Mastering music well is thus a job for the mature, experienced, highly competent and extremely well equipped, indeed.

And has a corresponding price tag attached in terms of time, steepness of learning curve, and incredibly expensive hardware.

If you have composed, arranged, recorded, and produced a recording of merit that represents a considerable investment.

The last thing you would want, is to put your hard work into the hands of the unlearned, inexperienced,

And inadequately equipped.





I note that elsewhere.

You have inquired about correcting artefacts.

This is the type of helpful tool many professionals would use.


CEDAR Audio Ltd: Audio Restoration Systems




The excellent Cedar audio restoration company is based in ‘another place’.

Where I live, the word ‘Cambridge’ is not normally ever mentioned, and by long standing, and historic tradition is always referred to as ‘another place’.

Cambridge is an historic English town. The University was formed in 1209, by students escaping from hostile townspeople in Oxford.

The oldest college that still exists, Peterhouse, which I’m sure you will agree has a wonderful name, was founded in 1284.




Basically, it is a relatively newer University formed by old former Oxford students.

The University of Oxford, is the oldest University in the English-speaking world.




I am given to understand that in a similar manner.

There are also two significant Universities.

In America.






I have a tremendously deep respect for the highly experienced Mastering Engineers like John that at times post and give helpful advice hereabouts.



And so my friend, should you!






P

imdookieatmaster 27th December 2008 10:36 PM

You're using too many hard words that's why sir I'm getting more confused. Can you break it down for me next time, like how massive did for me.

Thanks.

daveytinners 29th December 2008 07:44 AM

Thank you Peter for a very inspiring, enlightening post.

Even if the person you were trying to advise couldn't appreciate the points you were
putting to him, some of us did very much so.

Best,
David.

Peter Oxford 29th December 2008 10:52 AM

“You're using too many hard words that’s why sir I'm getting more confused.”






I fully appreciate your predicament.

The reason for this is that I’m a tremendous fan of the great American Author P.G.Wodehouse.


Wodehouse wrote books like Jeeves and Wooster, and in fact had a butler, in real life, who like the fictional Jeeves, was a veritable mine of information.

He spent most of his spare time, with his head in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, and other renowned books of reference, and could quote excruciatingly obscure facts verbatim.

Wodehouse wrote deliciously humorous volumes observing the traits and habits of the English Aristocracy, and would regularly include words, you had never heard of before, spread throughout most of his books.

Whenever I encountered a word I had never heard of before, I would pull out a dictionary and look it up to find out what it meant. Thus over a period of time one could accumulate and incorporate a great deal of new words into one’s vocabulary.

Was it an embarrassingly heartfelt frustration with the limits of his kinsmen’s deplorable lack of eloquence, that drove Wodehouse to employ such a subtly placed, but obvious device to encourage an active participation in furthering the use of excellent English? I believe so.

Such delightfully good reading, were his books that Her Majesty The Queen’s, Mother the Late Queen Mary, would dedicate an entire hour every afternoon, to giggling like a schoolgirl on the sofa and laughing out loud at the ridiculous situations Jeeves would rescue Wooster from.

Her favourite word, ‘perspicacity’ was liberally used by Wodehouse throughout his books, and she would also use it to utterly baffle and bemuse the policemen that regularly got under her feet, as they guarded and provided security, for her welfare and well being.






So may I respectfully commend to you that extraordinarily useful tome, The English Dictionary whenever you encounter a word you simply do not understand?

It is a helpful handy and useful reference to have always by ones side.

And would quickly dispel any element

Of misunderstanding whatever

On your part!






One reason this is important, is that American English historically stems from original work by the lexicographer Noah Webster. You will have heard of the Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Long before he began work on his American dictionary, Noah Webster had seen the need for one. English-language dictionaries then in existence ignored American words and used English spellings and pronunciations exclusively.


Webster had lustily hated English colonial rule, and was convinced that a national language would help unify his country and distance the cultural separation of the American nation from the British. Something he heartily craved and longed for.

The problem for him was that his country’s national language was English. The multitalented and intensely patriotic Webster soon moved his family to New Haven and in 1803 settled into a rigorous schedule of the research of language.

After three years of effort, Webster published ‘A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language.’ Many educators praised it, but some actively disagreed with his spelling reforms and quibbled about some of his pronunciations.

True to his own prejudices, Webster ignored critics and plunged into the preparation of a much longer dictionary, which consumed his energies for the next two decades.

Finally, in November, 1828, the two-volume, 70,000-word American Dictionary of the English Language came off the press.






Historians have attempted to rewrite history and tell us that Webster changed the spelling of many words in his dictionaries in an attempt to make them more phonetic. In fact, he was a man who was politically driven, by the desire to create a new language for a newly emerging culture.

And his hatred of the British drove him to make some quite ridiculous amendments to the language he inherited, the language, you will recall of Shakespeare, Shelly and Keats.

Many of the differences between American English and other English variants evident today lamentably originated this way.



For instance...

waggon became wagon

centre-center

musick-music

honour-honor



Some of Webster’s over enthusiastic ideas were rejected such as

tongue-tung

and

women-wimmen




Has it really helped America to make such puerile distinctions?

It’s a politically motivated device, forced upon a nation, simply for the need to be different.

Is it driven by an historic national inferiority complex? One wonders in quiet moments of despair, engaging in conversation.






Many of Webster’s statements and views would appear to us to be incredibly extreme today.

A Democrat was "a person who attempts an undue opposition or influence over government by means of private clubs, secret intrigues, or by public popular meetings which are extraneous to the Constitution."

That great American ideal, freedom was, to Webster a "violation of the rules of decorum."

A Republican was a "friend of our representative Governments."



Can you see?

He was politically driven, and clearly not only against The British, who should with hindsight, have allowed proper representation in Parliament to our colonial cousins.







Moreover..

In 1963 the G.C. Merriam Company introduced their periodic revision. They called it Webster's Third New International Dictionary.


What was unique about this version was it was based on linguistic principles, setting out to describe the language as it actually existed rather than acting as a policeman or legislator of language as had Johnson back in the 1750s. The immediate impact of this new approach was that slang words, offensive words, and certain incorrect words were admitted to the dictionary.

Henceforth, one could no longer assume that a word's inclusion in the dictionary meant that it was a correct word.





I trust with the benefit of this brief overview, you can fully appreciate what tremendous difficulty your country’s language is in?

And why, people so readily identify and sympathise with your redoubtable predicament.





And so my dear fellow, it’s quite obvious you will require a very good dictionary to be handy when you are in conversation.

With those in possession of a fully matured language, from different cultures.

Far away across great Continents and powerful Oceans.

I trust the sense of this will be entirely obvious.






Furthermore I additionally suggest this use of a dictionary, because it is reasonable to presume that whenever a person actively takes part in a Forum such as this, it is for one of three reasons.

They wish to share something important and enlightening.

They wish to learn and grow in understanding.

They are a Troll.






I have given you the benefit of doubt, presuming that you wish to learn.

If I gave you direct answers to your questions, it would teach you what you want to know.

The trouble is, that it would not teach you what you need to know, and that is to be in the active habit of learning.


Thus, I have written my posts in such a way that if you actively engage a genuine effort to follow the links I have pointed you toward, you will be amply rewarded for your trouble.

However, if like a Troll, you fail to put the required effort in, in order to understand what is written, you will find yourself, failing to appreciate the quality and depth of the knowledge being imparted.

Therefore the effort is not at all made by me, who can easily write quite prolifically, at considerable speed, but by you, as it should be, who is benevolently afforded the presumption that you genuinely wish to learn.






Doubtlessly, there are different types of knowledge, but knowledge that comes too easily, can be too little appreciated, in my experience.

It’s far too akin to ‘instant mashed potato’ or ‘instant coffee’ to be mistaken for the depth of knowledge borne of experience, painstaking trial and studious research.

Furthermore, instant knowledge falsely presumes to be affording instant expertise, and that is at the bottom of a great many difficulties that assail the Recording Industry. This point will not be lost to every working professional hereabouts.


None of the immense technical disciplines that underlay competent professional expertise, and have been accumulated with years of practical experience in creative problem solving have been learnt, and are thus, largely taken for granted, with such instant knowledge.

Therefore, all my posts are specifically written so that if you are of below average intelligence and ready to work a little to attempt to understand, then you can readily comprehend all the points quite easily, but will in point of fact rise no further than you can, by your very own effort.





Allow me to expand on this....

If someone came to me for advice, or to discuss what is to them a deeply insoluble situation, I would probably take them for a long walk around the grounds of Christ Church meadows.

Christ Church Website - Meadow Images

Christ Church Website - Christ Church Images




After they explained their dilemma, I would probably avoid addressing the actual problem completely. I would discuss things that at first, seemed entirely unrelated, and nothing whatever at all, to do with their actual problem. Inevitably, a deeply complex problem would involve considerable time, to circumvent entirely.

The anxiety and frustration of the individual may be palpable, but slowly and inexorably, like a great army encircling a besieged city it is about to storm, the vitally important components of battle, those glorious instruments of victory, would gradually become strategically positioned in their minds.

And eventually, all the components relating to the resolution of the problem would be in place.

Now if the person is paying proper attention, their minds will out pace me altogether.

And they will come to see the solution of their problem.

For themselves
.




By placing the problem in a wider relationship altogether, involving the scope of many contributory factors that actively impinge and influence the situation, it is possible to fully appreciate an expanded, more comprehensive appraisal of the difficulties character and nature, and finally grasp the absolute nub of the problem, that is the key factor to actually resolving it.

When you understand a problem in the overall context of things, correctly appreciate every facet of its constitution, and thus evaluate its true proportions, you gain great insight thereby, and a proper sense of perspective.

This in itself is often enough, for a mental log jam to clear, and the individual to proactively discern the best way forward.

Its an extremely powerful way to learn, because rather than be given an answer, or taught something, by rote.

The individual has uncovered the truth!

Actively discovering it all

By themself.






Almost....






It’s the difference between reading an excellent novel written by a great Author, that uplifts, inspires and brilliantly fires ones own imagination to develop tremendously powerful images, deep within our creative minds.

And seeing a film, whose remarkable special effects, one instantly recognises as being entirely artificial, and easily generated by a computer.

The latter, is usually a dimly lit shadow of the former, by strict comparison.






What I’m really writing about, is the estimable and immeasurable power of uncovering and discovering things all for your self.

In a very real sense, one could be said to be doing you a very great disservice.

By answering any inanely vapid question too directly!





In this thread...

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/maste...se-clicks.html




John of the excellent ‘Massive Mastering’ you mentioned in your last post. Gave you the very best answer any one ever could.

It was to look for the answer in the manuals that Steinberg provided when they supplied their software.

You see, Steinberg is unusual in that their manuals are normally far better written than most.

The only people to who this information might not be available

Are those with a pirated copy.





I’m sure you will agree, that upon reflection, it is fair to write, that your over heated response was quite rude, and you chewed him off!

This is one reason, I don’t believe in too readily dispersing, too much knowledge and giving away, invaluable information too freely.

The true value of it is not always properly appreciated. I think its kind to give the right directions, and point the way.

But feel the individual should show themselves as prepared to work.

In order to learn the truth.




Torg’s post says it all.

So in appreciation, this.

Written by an old Oxford friend, is for him.

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/Resourc...fferent_A4.swf

Requires Macromedia Flash.







Watch these, videos you’ll learn a lot.. And have fun!

Desmond Morris - Information Page

Catapult - Examples - House of Lords




Some of my former clients like Author Desmond Morris, whom I admire greatly, are among the greatest observers of human kind, on the face of the planet.

Here are some of his books on the subject.

DESMOND MORRIS - BIBLIOGRAPHY




I believe he would say that we, as human beings, tend to assert ourselves most strongly, when we sense we are most deeply threatened.

Your strong reaction to John’s helpfully intentioned suggestion may therefore reasonably be perceived to be linked to the possibility of uncovering and exposure.

It is not my intention to infer that you are an actual user of pirated software, but rather to state that your strongly defensive reaction might quite naturally cause a seasoned reader hereabouts to do so.

I’m sure none of us would want to think that!





Can you see?

You write so little, but tell so much.

And all perspicaciously gain insight into your consuetude.








“Thank you Peter for a very inspiring, enlightening post.

Even if the person you were trying to advise couldn't appreciate the points you were putting to him, some of us did very much so.”







Very Gracious of You!

But thank the great American Author P.G. Wodehouse!

It is he that demonstrated so effectively to me that is it possible to be heartily entertained in such a way, that almost without realising it you are learning a very great deal whilst you are enjoying yourself.

In fact, I am a great believer in the tremendously underutilized notion that when people are enjoying themselves the most, it is then that they are in the best state to learn in a way that they will retain what they are learning.

For this reason, I always ensure that at the point of imparting some deep, profound and penetrating truth; that as many people as possible, are rolling in the aisles with belly rippling laughter, or wiping their eyes with a handkerchief.

This can have unfortunate consequences, as I visited my brother a little while ago, and after talking with him for three hours, he blew a gasket within his brain. Thankfully, now he is fully recovered, but it was 50/50 whether he would live for some time. Quincy had a similar problem very many years ago!

I wish Preachers could fully appreciate and grasp this notion when they communicate. After all, they are in possession of the gladness news that ever burst upon the human ear!

Though some might understandably bulk, at the notion of regularly using a dictionary.

I didn’t, because I wanted to extract every ounce of fun out of Wodehouse’s books.






I also believe, the music business, should be entertaining!

How can Orchestras keep a straight face?

The way some guys Conduct!






There are a great many quite wonderful contributors on this excellent Forum.


A Very Merry Christmas and Wonderfully Happy New Year to You All!







P