Yes, that's what I mean, Walt. There is no meaning in setting a fixed
0-level, but rather a "fitting" level.
But I still might need to change the level!
Comparison: I can have a .tif picture. I can change the size of it (bigger
OR smaller) and clearly see how the sharpness go away. I can "sharpen" it,
and clearly see how tiny white lines grow around the egdes. For example.
Is that what happens to my sound files too?? More or less?
I might get provocative now, but it feels like these matters are terribly
basic! In the analog world it's "beginners level"! I'm actually a bit
chocked that there seems to be no answer in the digital world. Or is it jus=
Or can I be sure that the digital errors are always below audible level?
Digital recording is by all means better than analog recording! That's not
the issue here. The issue is if it is better to go analog with all changes,
and let the sound card only create the final digits?
The issue is wheather I can trust a WaveLab software install (looking like
hardware on my screen) to do the job as good as an analog likewise?
My son asked me the other day that "why do you care about those things, dad=
people won't hear it anyway because of the computer fan..."
Is he right?
>As for me I don't normalize final output to a setpoint, I listen to what
>I get and balance that. I do generally do sort of normalization before
>processing the sound. Both in choosing the settings when I record, but
>also by adjusting the level. I find I can get more consistent results
>out of filters if they are working on recordings that are at a similar
>level. It's not just in mp3 conversion you can find there is a optimum
>Since with most filtering we are removing sound energy, there is a
>tendency for the signal to drop in each step. I compensate for that too
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/=
Telinga Microphones, Botarbo,
S-748 96 Tobo, Sweden.
Phone & fax int + 295 310 01