|
|
Are you sure you're not looking at just your downloaded titles instead of the defaults? There's a menu filter for displaying available titles.
Randy B.
|
|
|
Quote:
rbowser,
The faders in PD9 don't have pro audio style db meters, so I couldn't pinpoint lowering by 3 to 6 dbs.
Maybe you would like to have DB meters show a relative level on your computer.
This meter uses the stereo mix to show the digital audio level on your computer, it is affected by the volume level of your Windows volume slider. (The source is selectable).
http://minorshill.co.uk/pc2/meters.html#digital
It is a good visual of the audio level however.
Very neat, Carl - Those meters look very helpful. Thanks!
Randy B.
|
|
|
Quote:
Like everyone who produces music in a home studio, I make sure my tracks are at a strong, healthy level, coming in on the average just a hair under "0" DB, the optimum high level.
If you have not yet uploaded a new copy to Youtube,
you might try setting the audio level at -3 DB or even -6 DB, then try that level in PD.
I personally like to do my audio levels at -3 to -1 DB peaks.
When I use Audacity, I do the levels at -1 DB peaks maximum.
I did some experimenting this morning, making several different copies of the project, with the sound track progressively lower. The faders in PD9 don't have pro audio style db meters, so I couldn't pinpoint lowering by 3 to 6 dbs. What I did was change the default volume of 50 to 40, then 30. These new produced files didn't sound any different - I didn't use anything to actually measure the volume, but it sounded the same to me in the version I did yesterday and these two versions I did today. So - I didn't upload a new version to You Tube since there was no improvement.
BUT--this is very interesting - I checked the You Tube version to do some comparisons with these various produced versions I had of the project. At You Tube- despite the compression they do to videos, the sound was better--!--?!--- There was the slight grunginess to the sound, as there always is on You Tube, and the video quality was slightly pixilated, that was to be expected. But it's as if the sound was re-expanded somehow - The moments in the track which sound suddenly squashed, which is the sound of a compressor suddenly being kicked in - that's basically not there in the You Tube version - It actually sounds better. So, I'm content, and will leave it at that.
--Side note, Carl, about mixing. - When I produce my music in Cakewalk/Sonar, I keep the volume to around -3, like you're saying you do in Audacity. But that mix coming out of Sonar then needs to be Mastered. We leave the original mix at around -3 dbs in order to have head room left for the final mastering. I use Sound Forge for the final work on the 2 track master, and that's when the signal is brought up to near "0." I aim for between -.3 and -.1 dbs, so there's still a tiny bit of headroom to compensate for players that clip at lower levels than they should.
Anyway - I'm happy enough. But I'm still surprised to see that PD9 squashes signals like this, without the user having any control over it. As I said earlier, I am sure that the designers put that invisible compressor in to make it easy for users to avoid getting distortion. Without the compressor, users could easily get into the red, have horrible digital distortion on their tracks, and they'd be frustrated. This way, it's really hard to get distortion in PD9 - it's more fool proof. It's just pretty harsh on sensitive audio material.
Randy B.
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I hadn't noticed this before, because it's the first time I've produced a music video with PD9.
What file format did you produce the music video in?
Quote:
But a compressor is an audio production tool that pulls up the level of soft passages and squashes down the volume of louder passages. When over-used, it can squash the life out of music, make it all artificially about the same volume throughout
This sounds very similar to other issues observed with Dolby Digital in PD which is default in many profiles. I'd maybe try a custom profile with LPCM and see if it corrects the issue.
Jeff
Oh, Hi, Jeff---Didn't see your reply earlier. You must've been writing when I was replying to Carl.
I produced it as an MPG 2, highest quality settings possible in all areas, including audio. It's a custom profile - I'll have to look and see if Dolby Digital is on, I'm not sure. Thanks for the tip!
Randy B.
|
|
|
|
Quote:
I do know what a volume leveler (compressor) can do to sound.
This is just a guess, is the volume level in the audio tracks of Powerdirector at a high level?
PD seems to like lower level audio, when it burns a disk, you are probably correct that a compressor is in use during the disk creation process.
You might go into the Audio Mixing Room and lower the horizontal slider to the left. That slider is a over all level for that track.
The Audio Mixing Room has a slider for each track that has audio.
Hi, Carl - Thanks for the reply.
That is good, logical, and excellent suggestion. I'll make another copy with the imported audio track at a lower volume. It probably is hitting some kind of ceiling in PD9, and the program is pushing down the peaks.
Like everyone who produces music in a home studio, I make sure my tracks are at a strong, healthy level, coming in on the average just a hair under "0" DB, the optimum high level. It could be too much for PD9's limit. I do wish the program wouldn't do that, but with the suspected invisible compressor in the chain, they're just making sure the average user doesn't end up with distorted sound.
Unfortunately, I already uploaded to You Tube,- but I'll either replace it with a new copy if it comes out better, or I may try You Tube's service of replacing just the sound track, using the original 2-track master.
EDIT: Ah, just came back from You Tube. The sound track replacement thing isn't what I thought it was. They just provide some canned music to put on your video if you want. Nooooo thank you. I'll try a new video export tomorrow as per your suggestion, Carl.
Thanks again.
Randy B.
|
|
|
I hadn't noticed this before, because it's the first time I've produced a music video with PD9.
I've chosen the highest available quality for the video's sound track, but I can hear that a compressor is being used during the burning process. This makes the music's volume "pump" audibly.
MP3 is a compressed audio format, and that's one thing - that's a process that simplifies a signal so the file is much smaller than the original full resolution audio. But a compressor is an audio production tool that pulls up the level of soft passages and squashes down the volume of louder passages. When over-used, it can squash the life out of music, make it all artificially about the same volume throughout. The dynamic range is greatly reduced, and so is the power of the music. Works OK for loud rock, but sounds horrible on music which is more subtle than rock.
This is music I've produced, and the original file is exactly the way I want. I know what MP3 copies of the original file sound like - they sound fine. But once I've produced a video using the music, the levels have been flattened, and it sounds pretty bad to my musical ears.
There are no controls for a compressor in PD9, no indication that a compressor is kicking in. A sound track which is mostly vocal can benefit from this kind of evening out, but music like what I've written greatly suffers.
Are there any users here familiar with what I'm talking about? And if so, do you have suggestions of how to reduce this horrible compression?----What I'm afraid of is that Cyberlink has that compressor in there, invisible, knowing it will mostly help home users, and that it can't be bypassed. But man it's pretty bad- and something that didn't happen with my previous Brand X video software - sound always came out just the way it went in, with that program.
Randy B.
|
|
|
Bizarre, Halloweenish thing you went through there, micncue --Carl is steering you right, as he always does when he responds to posts. Auto-Save is your friend--you have to get familiar with where those files are kept. You're only a click away from saving either all, or at least most of your work.
RB
|
|
|
I had a similar artifact on some clips before. They'll appear to be OK, but aren't in the final product. I looked more closely, and was able to detect that problem when I was zoomed in enough.
What fixed it for those cases I'm talking about was turning the "snap to" off, and in the preview window, enlarging the image just a tiny bit, enough that the very edge of the clip was actually off screen.
RB
|
|
|
|
Quote:
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page
try this...
You're right, Dave - That works too. I think we got this linking to page issue licked at least! :
RB
|
|
|
Ah ha! That did it, Carl - Thanks. Yes, of course, a ? is the syntax for using text as a "cover" for a URL, not a bracket.
It's odd that both Jerry's original link, and the URL I copied from my own browser when I was on that page put a bracket there instead of the ?
Well, mystery partly solved. Still don't get why browsers are putting in a bracket instead of a ?-- It really could be a Firefox issue - It's my browser of choice, but it seems to be getting less reliable.
This is all pretty much OT, except that the Forum is about members helping each other, and this thread did start with a legit PD issue. So, we're doing ok.
Thanks for the posts, guys.
RB
|
|
|
|
Quote:
Don't forget to leave the bracket off.
I wonder if the URLs are user-specific.
I used the Forum search, and found your thread, Jerrys - Here's the URL pasted in without it being an active link. That works for me--not sure why it didn't when you posted it? It was invisible for me on your post too. Quirky - I wonder if it's a Firefox problem? Dunno!
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page]why your CPU should run at 100%
INSTANT CORRECTION! -- So I found your old thread with the Forum search, and of course that opened - but actually, that URL for it, when I copy and pasted it into a new tab out of curiosity, - I got the same "not found" error message! Beats me all to heck.
RB
|
|
|
Quote:
The bracket belongs there. That's the syntax for using text as a "cover" for a URL. Again, what can I say? 
Hmm, well, I dunno - I copy and paste that URL into a new browser tab and it comes up with an error message, no such address. I don't get it, Jerrys - I never have problems navigating around on this computer. Don't know what to tell ya. I'll do a Forum search to dig up that thread.
RB
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.
RB
Oh, no -- not another one.
What can I say, the link works for me.
Hmmm, the link doesn't show up at all for me from just looking at your post. Only when I click to reply with quote do I see the address - and this is it:
http://forum.cyberlink.com/forum/posts/list/0/19699.page]why your CPU should run at 100%
Notice the odd placement of a bracket after Page - I've tried several different versions of that addy, none work. Hmmmm.
Otown, thanks for the screen shot - I guess I need to check to see if I have GPU turned on or not!
rbowser
|
|
|
Great, thanks for your feedback on this too, otown.
RB
|
|
|
Follow-up-- Jerrys, I've tried numerous versions of the hidden URL in your post, but can't get the page to come up. Something's wrong in that address. Maybe you could check on that.
RB
|
|
|
Hi, Jerrys - Thanks for the reply. Like I said in my original post, I was hoping for some reassurances to the contrary.
For some reason, the link you posted didn't show up when looking at your post, but I see the link here in the quote, so thanks for that, I'll take a look.
My computer guy built me a great machine, squeezing the most into it he could with his $1,000 budget. It's working great for everything, including using PD. He's just never heard of a program running at 100%, but of course he can't be the expert on everything.
"Put in a bigger fan"--- My rather non-techie self has to wonder why that would be necessary if there's no concern about the heat generated by high CPU usage.--?-- But, the tower is tricked out with a lot of fans, blowing right over the components as they should, so I'm rather sure the machine's ok in that department.
Thanks again for the reply, Jerrys, I appreciate it.
rbowser
|
|
|
|
Quote:
... I've never heard running at 100% for long periods of time is harmfull to the computer. Is there any proof anywhere?
Thanks for the reply, Otown
Searching the 100% CPU usage topic on the net of course brings up all sorts of advice about turning off unnecessary processes - because people with questions about 100% CPU usage have problems with their CPUs always shooting up to that when they do anything. That's a different problem, obviously, since I'm talking about one program, PD, using 100%.
My techie, the guy who put this machine together for me, said it's only logical that computer components aren't intended to run at 100% for sustained periods of time. Fans kick in to cool things down, because without cooling, the machine would shut down and the parts wouldn't last as long. It's this guy's opinion that PD and any program spiking that high hasn't been programmed efficiently. And his opinion that a computer will have a much shorter lifespan as a result is reflected in this example of a quote I pulled from online:
"...Learn how to define, monitor and control your computer's heart (the CPU) and its blood (its usage), because the heart that always frantically beats faster, faster and faster--at 100 percent--won't last long..."
My previous video editing program went up to around 50% while rendering a project to folder. Pushing the limits the way PD does is apparently just the tradeoff we have to live with for getting Cyberlink's high touted super fast rendering speed. Oh well!
rbowser
|
|
|
One of the first things I noticed about PD9 when I bought it just a couple of months ago, was how on my 6 core, 8 gig RAM (and brand new) computer, while burning a project to file, CPU usage would hover over 90% I posted a query into that, was told it's normal for PD to use that much CPU.
I think I posted about it again when I started fresh with my computer (had to re-install the OS)--because since that time, CPU usage can go up to a full 100% while burning to folder.
I finally mentioned this oddity to the computer expert who built my machine, and he was alarmed. He's never heard of a program doing that, and he was sure that the only thing that could cause that would be bad programming.
That subject came up on one of the music software forums I frequent, and the consensus is that a program using 100% CPU has to have major problems with it. Typically, while rendering music files, our machines use up to maybe 40%.
Both the tech who built my computer, and experts at this music forum think the only outcome from using a program that runs my computer so hot is that it will have a far shorter life span than it should.--
So I find myself avoiding finalizing my projects - and I really grin and bear it when I do burn to folder, getting worried over how PD pushes the computer so hard.
Any thoughts on this topic?--Info?- Reassurances to the contrary of what I've said here?--- Really not happy with this.
Randy B.
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
[ guess I just have to see what happens, but I did add some text in my description that the music came as a FREE file.
Again, I'm not a lawyer; but I would say that I own a license to use the music free of royalties.
I'm very sure you're correct, Jerrys. SS is the party responsible for any royalties due to music they use, and then they license it to users like us. In my book, there are No Worries about this issue.
RB
|
|
|
Yes, everybody automatically owns the copy-rights to what they create, down to scribbles on a piece of paper. The trick is that it's not so automatically easy to prove copyright ownership without officially registering work with a government's copyright office.
So I write a song, put it on the internet, it's "published"-- but impossible to prove it's really my creation without that proof residing in the U.S. copyright office.
rbowser
|
|
|
|
Quote:
That's a Smartsound track, right?
It's copyrighted, but royalty free. All SS music is. You can ignore the "alert", or contest it if you wish.
I have several alerts, but I've never had a video pulled or silenced.
That's exactly right. SmartSound charges users a fairly hefty fee for much of the music they provide. We have some free examples available in PD, but the SS company is making a lot of money- they can afford to offer some free samples. But they're the ones responsible for paying a fee for copyrighted music they provide.
Most all music written and published in the last 100 years is protected by copyright. You Tube is covering some legal issues about copyrighted material by issuing those "warnings" on almost anything uploaded there which includes audio or video from other sources. They used to be much more lax about all that, and got in trouble - now these warnings are in place, on the advice of their legal team.
But - no worries. SS has paid a fee for all copyrighted music they use - that's why it's royalty free to users.
Randy B.
|
|
|
