Hello Dave,

Thanks for sharing your knowledge. I became the audio engineer for the band simply because in practice I wound up standing by the mixer. For a garage band even the simplest 8 track has been a quantum leap of quality over our old cassette recorder. So I mix an mix and get a decent product but I am awe of what it takes to master and make it a product worth listening to. Thanks for the education, I will send out my product to master and focus on scales before the arthritis gets any worse!

To: Dave Moulton
Re: http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton'

I, too, am annoyed with the audio level discrepancies found on supposedly high-tech rebroadcast systems.
I read your disertations on tvtechnology.com/features/Inside-Audio/index.shtml, 'Inside Audio: Dave Moulton', with much interest. I inadvertantly discovered the site ia a Birthday celebration of the VTR machine. As you note, I found there to be wild differences between the same broadcaster's air signal and ExpressVu's version as well.
ExpressVu said it was the broadcaster's fault. They even tried to sell me an upgraded set top box. What a hoot. The broadcaster says their product is just fine and that is confirmed with my antenna. I was about to set up and record the two comparison audio streams on my laptop for lab tests to determine the actual delta but realized there was no point to it.
The actual problems are that ExpressVu's personnel no longer have the education, training, expertize or motivation to understand and operate the technology. ExpressVu isn't interested in changing any of that either. I'm pretty sure they now no longer know where their head ends are located nor how to actually adjust them if they ever did find them. The folks they employ only know how to unpack a box and plug it in like most folks do with the wireless router they just bought at the supermarket. The programming and level setting procedures got tossed out along with the box.
My communications to the CRTC, Bell and others produced no results.
I am a radio systems specialist with over 45 years experience in analogue voice and data wireless transmissions systems. I'm especially proud of the performance of receiver voting systems I've set up. No one could ever tell from which of 26 receivers anyone was coming through on the largest one or the one with just two. This in spite of poor telco circuits, radio links, co-located receivers or microwave/fibre paths. It is simply a matter of utilizing published procedures, proper test gear and, above all, an understanding of how things work.
I am disheartened to see low pay getting low education/capabilities, the assumption that everything works right out of the box (plug & play?), that if the sales rep says it's so, it must be...
Sorry, starting to rant. But, I'm sure you get the idea.
I've attached a copy of some of my correspondance for your amusement. The canned paragraphs are especially interesting:

I believe you neglected to take into account the contractual obligations you have to provide me with a satisfactory product as well as that of your supplier of programming to provide you with a satisfactory product.
Does "I pay you and you pay them" not ring any bells with you?

Thanks for a great website Dave. It's like a true oasis in a desert of confusion and obfuscation. Many thanks. PRB

Thanks for the informative article in TV Technology.
Sadly, the CCTA has just ceased operations. They claim they can no longer fullfill their mandate. Just when we need them most to help through the transitions you describe!

Hey Dave! whats the word on the new A8 are they going to give you one or what!? haha let me know if they do because you have to give me a ride! haha!! Hope all is well
Best of luck
-Chris

Dang it, I just wanted to send an email to you, but guess I'm left with the guest log and just hope you find it someday.
I searched and scoured the sites I and II, looking for your input on frequencies and bits.. I found both subjects, however none touched on what I was looking for, and it seems no one is touching on it. Even when I tried to touch on it with a tech at M-AUDIO, I got pushed aside as a "whatever" canidate. I'm not running for relection for "whatever", but I would like to see some topics on the following subject matter regarding digital audio.
I have worked in analog, and anyone who has, knows that aside from the "device" recording the event,, there is tape quality and speed variables to consider.. Generally faster tape, begets higher frequencies, because it captures more time, it has a higher resolution..
Now,, to digital, in relation,, if you take a 32bit recording event at 48khz,, I can record the exact same event, at 16 bits, and have more information and higher fidelity = resolution.. by recording at 192khz
-- also,, I can achieve a higher quality mixdown, by remaining in 16bit realm,, and avoiding someone's mathmatical algorithym or dithering process which does random splash data removal to make it sound "similar" to the original recording. But, 16 bit math, within it's own common denominator will divide data evenly, quickly and with better results and true=er math.. You can do the same process with jpg's, bmp's, or image files to "see" the results of dithering and other mathmatical approximities..
EXAMPLE: Take a digital camera that has 3MP against a camera with 1MP and reduce them to a common small size, and the 3MP looks more vivid, has more detail and retains more information in greater detail, than the one captured at the lower resolution, the exact same is true with digital audio.
If you listen to a 16bit/192khz recording of a train panning left to right, and compare it to the exact same recording using 32bit/48khz,, you will hear the difference.. You WILL hear it.
It's like using a prestine metal choromium top of the line grain analog tape, and recording at a slower speed, you won't get the quality,, without the speed.. and 192khz is faster than 48khz... also,, 16 bits is fine enough grain and easier to process, and mathmatically easier for a cpu to toss back at you... That's all I wanted to say,, except, that I wish I had a job like you.. Not meaning to sound envious or jealous, but it's unavoidable.. I am..
But God bless you and your website.. And good luck to all who read this and understand it.. a Tech at M-Audio who provides support for sound cards, doesn't agree with me,, which is well, I won't go there. Peace...

Hi Dave, I just received and read your article entitled "Taming Wild Mastering Levels" that was included in the 02.18.2006 iZotope Newsletter... Thank you, thank you. I have printed it out, laminated it & posted it in the lobby for all of our clients to read. - Jeremy Ryan

I read your article on delays and their use to simulate ambience. I have been a producer for a lot of years, but I have never gotten the clarity that I received in reading your article. Amazing!

hi!

excellent bock (total recording)!
extremely useful ear training!

thanx for that!!!

[thanks for the feedback! -- webguy]

Dave,
just wanted you to know that your class has really opened my eyes to a new field in the music industry. Psycoacoustics is something i could really see myself getting into. i was wondering if you might have some suggestions on books that would be good for me to read on this subject. thanks abunch i hope to stay in touch with you.
-chris

Dave,
I met you at the Parsons audio Expo Today 11-10-05, I was the guy from saratoga NY with the word clock problem.
Thanks for your help, I am going to sign up for your course January 12,2005.
Thanks Kevin

I have enjoyed your excellent articles in TV Technology, with the latest being "The Center Channel." I do think you may want to revisit your discussion re: assignment of the dialogue to the center speaker as a practice used in the days of CinemaScope and Todd-AO production, to keep it "on screen." As an attendee of many of those original productions in lavish theatres in New York City, (e.g. Around the World in 80 Days (1956 version)), I would disagree with your analysis. Dialogue was "panned" to match the position of the actor on the screen. Since there were three channels of sound reproduced by three speakers behind the large, wide screen, the movement of the dialogue matching that of the actor made for a far more dynamic presentation of the sound, compared to assigning all dialogue to the center speaker. This latter arrangement is satisfactory for small screen TV, although I believe the reecent DVD release of Todd's great travelogue, and a few other "spectaculars" of that era, retains the dialogue panning technique. With a matched set of speakers for a home theatre system, at least for nostalgia buffs like me, I vastly prefer panned dialogue to constraining it to one center channel. Thanks for listening (to me).

hey dave cool sight this stuff is awsome!! see ya in class

"First you lick the salt. The salt is to prevent dehydration. Then you drink the Tequilla. The Tequilla is to make you feeeeeeel good. Then you eat the lemon. The lemon is to prevent scurrrrrrvy!" thanks for all you taught! -- SRT 1987 Fredonia, NY

Very informative site. As a software engineer developing audio software, this site has been extremely helpful in my work, providing me with basic data to start with. Thanks a million for all the content.

hi! i'm using golden ear training and i think it's great. there's this song "signs of live" in one example, that i like very much but i couldn't find it, neither in the internet nor in record stores. maybe anyone writing in this guestbook knows where i can find informations about the band?

As a manufacturer of both audio and video equipment for broadcasting it is always interesting to read articles by those that have been on the front lines. We always like to learn

I discovered your site about a month ago. Fantastic articles! Keep up the great work! I'll probably get around to updating my surround sound site soon and I'll be sure to include a link to yours.

Just found your site. Did my first 5.1 mix (NBA game) a few months ago. Back channels were a little hot. I don't think I sent out (Dolby E) anything on the LFE (thump, thump, thump). I'll be exploring your site as time allows. Rock on!

Toodles.

I'd be embarrassed to give you my website. My hobby is writing music, but I'm not a good singer.

My interest in your work came about by reading your surround series in TV Tech. I had the good fortune to be at 20th Century Fox when they bought rights for a film transfer of Empire Strikes Back in early '83. I was tasked with getting two film transfer suites setup with this new "surround decoding gear" and supervise the transfer. My gosh, if I'd only known how big this was going to be. I had a prototype Dolby unit that no one at Dolby Labs knew anything about (so no setup documentation) and a Shure HTS100 that did have a book. I used that book to learn how to setup a decode system, and about 4 months later, got in on an early surround mix session. Wow!

Anyway, thankyou for your articles. Seems the basic transmission concepts really haven't changed in 25 years from what AES and others decided were going to be the standard.