"Serge Auckland" <sergeauckland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:GZidnYi4Y4H6zWLanZ2dnUVZ8h-dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Don Pearce" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:47ff3bbc.187183906@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:19:59 +0100, "Serge Auckland"
>> <sergeauckland@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>"Mr.T" <MrT@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>news:47feff9a$0$13113$afc38c87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>> "Soundhaspriority" <moreinwebreg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:C42537E1.45506%moreinwebreg@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> "Robert Orban" <donotreply@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>> > Orban today announced that
>>>>> > the first public beta of Orban Loudness Meter software for
>>>>> > Windows XP and Vista is now available for free download
>>>>>
>>>>> In my long computing experience, you get what you pay for.
>>>>
>>>> In *my* long computing experience, price has very little relation****p
>>>> to
>>>> quality. I would have thought Microsoft was enough proof of that.
>>>> There are freeware packages available not bettered by more costly
ones.
>>>> However Bobs press relase makes it clear this is a "stripped" version
>>>> of a
>>>> commercial package, often a very cost effective solution I find, if
it
>>>> fills
>>>> your requirements. And a great way to get people to try it and
possibly
>>>> upgrade. That's what this marketing model is all about after all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I thought Orban was dead.
>>>>
>>>> Why?
>>>>
>>>> MrT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agreed. A free-of-charge working but stripped-down version is often
very
>>>welcome. As to Orban being dead, the Optimod is still the best and most
>>>widely used audio processor. The 8500 is capable of excellent sound
>>>quality
>>>in the right hands. Listen to Radio France , France Musique, sometime
>>>when
>>>over there to see how good classical music can sound even after
>>>processing.
>>>
>> Damning with faint praise! "Even after processing" is a very revealing
>> phrase. It is like selling makeup with the slogan "It hardly makes you
>> ugly at all".
>>
>> In these days of digital radio with decent signal to noise ratios,
>> there is no place for devices like Optimod.
>>
>> d
>>
>> --
>>
>> d
>
>
> Perhaps not with digital radio, provided that receiver manufacturers
> actually implemented dynamic range control. However, much (most?)
> listening is done on FM, and even AM, where processing has its uses. As
> with everything, it all depends on how well something is done. Near me
in
> Suffolk, there are two small stations, Star FM and 209Radio. Both
process,
> but in a car, both station have an excellent sound, especially on
speech.
>
> The Hospital Radio station I work with has a low-power AM license, and
> without fairly heavy processing, it would be completely unusable. It's
> marginal even so.
>
> Consequently, it's not correct to say there's no place for Optimods,
there
> are many cases where the Optimod is appropriate.
Not only that, but the main reason "processing" came into widespread use
was
because commercial radio stations wanted to be louder than their
competitors. The dynamic range of most commercially available program
material doesn't exceed the dynamic range of FM (or AM in many
situations).
I am not referring to the recording medium itself (e.g., CD), I am
referring
to the dynamic range of the actual program material being broadcast. Even
Nirvana is dead silent between tracks. Big deal.
It would not surprise me if digital radio stations begin using audio
processing when the competition begins to pick up. If you doubt me, look
at
what they're doing to CDs. Yet, CDs certainly have the dynamic range to
accommodate, without processing, any program material you'd care to listen
to. Audio processing (and sadly, its abuse) won't go away.
Bob Orban was (and is) a respected audio engineer, and he was dedicated to
getting the best quality sound in spite of the loudness wars. I have to
give
him credit for that.
|
