<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Komentáře: God damn! Why EBU R.128!?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/</link>
	<description>Výroba a tvorba TV reklamy, animace reklama, youtube video, tvorba videa, tvorba spotu, televizní reklama</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:10:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.12</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		Od: Aysun		</title>
		<link>https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-97</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Aysun]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motionboss.com/?p=780#comment-97</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Odpověď na &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-49&quot;&gt;Siso&lt;/a&gt;.

Given a continuous waorvfem encoded digitally, scaling the waorvfem such that the peak amplitude utilizes the full digital resolution is a more accurate representation of the original analog waorvfem than scaling it to use a fraction of the resolution. Scaling beyond will result in clipping the signal and a distortion of the original sound pressure wave.Based on the area of the poster labeled  dynamic , the author seems to be assuming that digital recording resolution was maximized in the early nineties and that any increases since then have resulted in clipping the signal. Indeed, this seems to be the primary criticism from the All Things Consisdered article (especially the discussion of the Beatles and Metallica).]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Odpověď na <a href="https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-49">Siso</a>.</p>
<p>Given a continuous waorvfem encoded digitally, scaling the waorvfem such that the peak amplitude utilizes the full digital resolution is a more accurate representation of the original analog waorvfem than scaling it to use a fraction of the resolution. Scaling beyond will result in clipping the signal and a distortion of the original sound pressure wave.Based on the area of the poster labeled  dynamic , the author seems to be assuming that digital recording resolution was maximized in the early nineties and that any increases since then have resulted in clipping the signal. Indeed, this seems to be the primary criticism from the All Things Consisdered article (especially the discussion of the Beatles and Metallica).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		Od: Mario		</title>
		<link>https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-96</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mario]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Feb 2016 11:25:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motionboss.com/?p=780#comment-96</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Odpověď na &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-45&quot;&gt;Mansoureh&lt;/a&gt;.

A simple eieerxmpnt is enough   if you own both a cd player and an old-fashioned analogue record-player, and a cd and vinyl copy of the same album.Switch the source on your amplifier from  cd  to  phono  (or whatever input serves the record player) at similar points of the same track.The cd will sound louder but the extremes will have been surpressed   or deleted totally   to save digital disc space.The record&#039;s playback volume will need turning up to match the actual sound emanating from the speakers, and you should hear more levels or tracks, such as hi-hat, cymbals, etc at one end, and more bass, kick-drum, etc at the other.Nowt to do with graphs and that, just personal experience.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Odpověď na <a href="https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-45">Mansoureh</a>.</p>
<p>A simple eieerxmpnt is enough   if you own both a cd player and an old-fashioned analogue record-player, and a cd and vinyl copy of the same album.Switch the source on your amplifier from  cd  to  phono  (or whatever input serves the record player) at similar points of the same track.The cd will sound louder but the extremes will have been surpressed   or deleted totally   to save digital disc space.The record&#8217;s playback volume will need turning up to match the actual sound emanating from the speakers, and you should hear more levels or tracks, such as hi-hat, cymbals, etc at one end, and more bass, kick-drum, etc at the other.Nowt to do with graphs and that, just personal experience.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		Od: Siso		</title>
		<link>https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-49</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Siso]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2015 21:44:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motionboss.com/?p=780#comment-49</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Odpověď na &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-45&quot;&gt;Mansoureh&lt;/a&gt;.

Is it way how to do Best export for the televisions and be still good audible in the plastic tv&#039;s speakers? ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Odpověď na <a href="https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-45">Mansoureh</a>.</p>
<p>Is it way how to do Best export for the televisions and be still good audible in the plastic tv&#8217;s speakers? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		Od: Mansoureh		</title>
		<link>https://www.motionboss.com/ebur128/#comment-45</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mansoureh]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 25 May 2015 18:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.motionboss.com/?p=780#comment-45</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Given a continuous waofverm encoded digitally, scaling the waofverm such that the peak amplitude utilizes the full digital resolution is a more accurate representation of the original analog waofverm than scaling it to use a fraction of the resolution Only with regard to dynamic range, really. It&#039;s not  more accurate , unless the given material has a dynamic range that exceeds what is possible in a given format. (A  more accurate representation of the waofverm  is also a function of sample rate, i.e. how many times per second a waofverm is sampled   44,100 samples/second is the norm for CDs, with 16 bits dynamic range.)A  bit  can represent 6 dB (a fourfold increase) of dynamic range, so a 16-bit system can represent 16 6, or 96 dB of dynamic range. Popular music may have 10-15 dB of dynamic range, which can actually be represented by 3 bits   and it doesn&#039;t really matter which 3 they are . At that point, you really are just talking about making it louder, not more accurate. Other forms of music have greater dynamic range, but 96 dB is a pretty wide range, and why most people find it acceptable. Step up to 24-bit audio, and you can represent 144 dB of dynamic range, which is approximately equal to the full range of human hearing.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given a continuous waofverm encoded digitally, scaling the waofverm such that the peak amplitude utilizes the full digital resolution is a more accurate representation of the original analog waofverm than scaling it to use a fraction of the resolution Only with regard to dynamic range, really. It&#8217;s not  more accurate , unless the given material has a dynamic range that exceeds what is possible in a given format. (A  more accurate representation of the waofverm  is also a function of sample rate, i.e. how many times per second a waofverm is sampled   44,100 samples/second is the norm for CDs, with 16 bits dynamic range.)A  bit  can represent 6 dB (a fourfold increase) of dynamic range, so a 16-bit system can represent 16 6, or 96 dB of dynamic range. Popular music may have 10-15 dB of dynamic range, which can actually be represented by 3 bits   and it doesn&#8217;t really matter which 3 they are . At that point, you really are just talking about making it louder, not more accurate. Other forms of music have greater dynamic range, but 96 dB is a pretty wide range, and why most people find it acceptable. Step up to 24-bit audio, and you can represent 144 dB of dynamic range, which is approximately equal to the full range of human hearing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
