Click to expand.There's a difference between scanning, and producing one sheet with all of the songs data included on it. The newer versions than the first v1.0.0 do scan all of the songs, in any folders and of any file type, but they create the log for each on in it's own origin folder. The newer versions refuse to just give me a one log file with all of the playlist in it. I have messy playlists, especially when checking between two of the same song from different CD's, and it's where, in the past with v1.0.0, I'd select the files, scan them, open notepad and past the report for the two files. All the later versions produced separate logs containing only the data of the files in their own folder, but scanning all the files.
No one log for a jumble of stuff. Yeah that was my opinion of MasVis. Lots and lots of data, but how to make useful concise and easy sense of it all in the way of comparison between two masterings can take a fair few words, nonetheless, it provides arguably enough statistical data to argue a point. I still have it on my system, but haven't really used it much as there is just a case of information overload.
Nice to see the latest beta v6 TT DR Meter for Foobar release up there. Works real nice, good options so there should be enough for everyone.
I have been playing around with this on my Mac. In the thread and on the TT screen it mentions 'offline check for wave 44.1kHz/16Bit only'. I have used it with AIFF files of 44.1kHz/16Bit and 48/88.2/96kHz/24and with 'Logfile' box checked it seems to work fine. The readings seem accurate to me and it generates a text file report and places it within the appropriate album folder. Some of the readings I have match the readings I have seen others post online for the same titles. Am I missing something or doing something wrong by using these files?
EDIT: I should describe my process which is pretty simple. I search the album folder using Finder and simple drag the folder to the top gray bar on the TT DR Meter which automatically loads and reads each song file and as stated generates a text file of the report.
I have a few questions about this. Does 'acceptable' DR depend on the TYPE of music? For example I listen to a lot of electronic music. The Pet Shop Boys album 'Please' from 1986, original CD release gets a 15 using the foobar plugin. Its remaster from 2001 gets a 9. The 2009 Kraftwerk remasters get excellent results. My point is that should an album comprising of no real instruments be cut some degree of slack when measuring DR?
My thinking is that because space MAY not be as big an issue in this type of music, a rating of 8 or 9 may not be acceptable? I'm still a novice with this stuff. I bought EVERYTHING in remastered versions until I learned about this stuff. What IS considered an acceptable level in general terms? Going by would this be anything in the Transition section? Obviously the 'bad section' is to be avoided.
I have a few questions about this. Does 'acceptable' DR depend on the TYPE of music? For example I listen to a lot of electronic music. The Pet Shop Boys album 'Please' from 1986, original CD release gets a 15 using the foobar plugin. Its remaster from 2001 gets a 9. The 2009 Kraftwerk remasters get excellent results.
My point is that should an album comprising of no real instruments be cut some degree of slack when measuring DR? My thinking is that because space MAY not be as big an issue in this type of music, a rating of 8 or 9 may not be acceptable? I'm still a novice with this stuff. I bought EVERYTHING in remastered versions until I learned about this stuff. What IS considered an acceptable level in general terms? Going by would this be anything in the Transition section? Obviously the 'bad section' is to be avoided.
I tend to not think too much about the dynamic range tool anymore. I tended at first, when on my fast audio learning curve, to lean heavily on the dynamic range stats when comparing two mastering.
I'd take the more dynamic rather than listening intently. Sure, it's a likely indication of how much compression has been used in the mastering process, but it isn't a tool that gives definite answers. The problem lies with this kind of example scenario: Master A: Original 80's CD with a bit thin bottom and a bit too much air.
Master B: Audiophile remaster, something like from our hosts catalogue. Master C: later 90's remaster, compressed a bit, and mildly inflated bottom and top end.
Master A will have the largest DR score, B will have something less, and C will likely be less still. Is A the best because it has the biggest DR score? The thing is that the DR score is affected by tonality. If you get a great mastering really faithful and direct from the master tapes, it's going to have a great sound with no stupid EQ. The DR score is going to be smaller and indicate that an audiophile master has less dynamic range than a relatively lousy thin and bright early mastering. So, acceptable level is difficult to pin down. Couple different Genre - as you say like electronic styles - into the mix and the acceptable DR score becomes undefinable.
If an artist makes a track with no dynamic movement, for effect - solid full and fleshed out electronic 'noises', with no kicking beat and no breathing space then it's going to have a low DR score - but it doesn't mean it was badly mastered, it's just that there is little dynamic content in the music. Ian Shepherd founder of Dynamic Range Day,. The thinking behind this minimum is that crushing dynamics of 'normal' styles of music any more tends to impact significantly on the sound quality. Of course it is accepted that crushing the dynamics in any way decreases sound quality. Ian accepts modern electronic styles have even less dynamic content before reaching mastering or a mix bus compressor - they are by their nature not very dynamic. Me personally, I would have liked the music industry as whole to have picked a sensible loudness level and released everything at that. This way the end user could swap between CD's or whatever all night long without having to ride the volume control with every new item.
I think the level should have been set for popular music to something like around the -20dB RMS / -20 LUFS ball parks. We've all got plenty of watts on our amplifiers, and a lot of the time they are barely above the point at which the pot logarithmic properties kick in - that cut off point at low volume when the sound goes from quiet but full to crapola with the tiniest tap on the dial. Digital has such low noise floors there was never an excuse for it when CD's came out. Maybe a bit too much waffle. I tend to not think too much about the dynamic range tool anymore. I tended at first, when on my fast audio learning curve, to lean heavily on the dynamic range stats when comparing two mastering. I'd take the more dynamic rather than listening intently.
Sure, it's a likely indication of how much compression has been used in the mastering process, but it isn't a tool that gives definite answers. The problem lies with this kind of example scenario: Master A: Original 80's CD with a bit thin bottom and a bit too much air. Master B: Audiophile remaster, something like from our hosts catalogue. Master C: later 90's remaster, compressed a bit, and mildly inflated bottom and top end. Master A will have the largest DR score, B will have something less, and C will likely be less still. Is A the best because it has the biggest DR score?
The thing is that the DR score is affected by tonality. If you get a great mastering really faithful and direct from the master tapes, it's going to have a great sound with no stupid EQ. The DR score is going to be smaller and indicate that an audiophile master has less dynamic range than a relatively lousy thin and bright early mastering. So, acceptable level is difficult to pin down.
Brainworx Tt Dynamic Range Meter Mac
Couple different Genre - as you say like electronic styles - into the mix and the acceptable DR score becomes undefinable. If an artist makes a track with no dynamic movement, for effect - solid full and fleshed out electronic 'noises', with no kicking beat and no breathing space then it's going to have a low DR score - but it doesn't mean it was badly mastered, it's just that there is little dynamic content in the music. Ian Shepherd founder of Dynamic Range Day,. The thinking behind this minimum is that crushing dynamics of 'normal' styles of music any more tends to impact significantly on the sound quality.
Of course it is accepted that crushing the dynamics in any way decreases sound quality. Ian accepts modern electronic styles have even less dynamic content before reaching mastering or a mix bus compressor - they are by their nature not very dynamic. Me personally, I would have liked the music industry as whole to have picked a sensible loudness level and released everything at that.
Θα σας έρθει ενημερωτικό email για την διαθεσιμότητα και την παραλαβή.) Greece € 0.00 Αυθημερόν Courier μόνο για Αθήνα (Εκτός Σαββάτου. Ώρες λειτουργίας Δευτέρα - Παρασκευή 10.00 - 18.30, Σάββατο 10.00 - 14.30. Ο EASY είναι εδώ για να σε βοηθά σε ότι απορίες έχεις σχετικά με την παραγγελία σου, την πλοήγηση στο site αλλά και οτι αλλό θές να ρωτήσεις! Για παραλαβή την ίδια ημέρα η παραγγελία θα πρέπει να καταχωρηθεί έως τις 15:00 ώρα GR) Greece € 10.00. Eleashop.gr mofan mf-002 hands free for mac. Το μυαλό του παρολό που είναι ηλεκτρονικό κατεβάζει συνεχώς νέες ιδέες που θα κάνουν την ζωή πιο εύκολη στους πελάτες του easytechnology.gr.
This way the end user could swap between CD's or whatever all night long without having to ride the volume control with every new item. I think the level should have been set for popular music to something like around the -20dB RMS / -20 LUFS ball parks. We've all got plenty of watts on our amplifiers, and a lot of the time they are barely above the point at which the pot logarithmic properties kick in - that cut off point at low volume when the sound goes from quiet but full to crapola with the tiniest tap on the dial. Digital has such low noise floors there was never an excuse for it when CD's came out. Maybe a bit too much waffle.