Solution 1: Again try to install the update. Here’s how: • Restart your console. • Press the Guide button (the larger central X button) on your controller). • Go to Settings, and then select System Settings. • Select Network Settings. • Select Wired Network or your wireless network name (if you are prompted to do so). ![]() So recently I was going to buy Borderlands 2 GOTY for the xbox 360, as I have originally played Borderlands GOTY and was unable to install the DLC. How to install: 1.)Open Horizon 2.)Inject the DLC (To your USB) 3.)When you play borderlands select Portable Device instead of hard drive Here are the links Mechromancer. • Select Test Xbox Live Connection. • Select Yes if you are prompted to update your console software. ![]() If this didn’t fix the problem, try the next solution. Solution 2: Make sure you have enough storage space The latest console software update requires at least 190 megabytes (MB) of storage space (or 256 MB if you live in Japan). If you don’t have enough free space, you need to move or delete some items. If this didn’t fix the problem, try the next solution. Solution 3: Clear the system cache. Removing the temporary files on your console might solve the problem. After you clear the cache, try the update again. If this didn’t fix the problem, try the next solution. Solution 4: Reinsert the storage device • If you’re using an Xbox 360 Memory Unit or a USB flash drive instead of a hard drive, remove and reinsert the Memory Unit or USB flash drive. • If you have a hard drive, try. After you replace the storage device, try the update again. If this didn’t fix the problem, try the next solution. Solution 5: Copy the update to removable media and install it from there. Here’s how: • Copy to a USB flash drive Note The USB flash drive must use the FAT32 file system. • Plug your USB flash drive into a USB port on your computer. • Click Save to save the console update.zip file to your computer. • Unzip the file. • Copy the contents of the.zip file to the root directory of your USB flash drive. • Unplug the USB flash drive from your computer. • Plug the USB flash drive into a USB port on your Xbox 360 console. • Restart the console. • When the console restarts, the installation program starts automatically. Select Yes when you’re prompted to update the new console software. • Burn to CD or DVD You can also download the update to your computer, burn the update to a CD or DVD, and then install the update on your console. Here's how: • On your computer,. • Click Save to save the console update.zip file on your computer. • Unzip the file. • Insert a blank, writeable CD or DVD into your computer. • Copy the contents of the.zip file to the root directory on your CD or DVD, and write (burn) the files to the disc. • Remove the disc from your computer and insert it into the disc drive on your Xbox 360 console. • Restart the console. • When the console restarts, the installation program starts automatically. Select Yes when you’re prompted to update the new console software. Today's Best Deals In addition to the free monthly games and discounted prices at the PSN store, you'll need the PS Plus membership to play online multiplayer. We always recommend getting the 1-year subscription since the cost per month is lower than the 1-month or 3-month subs. Currently sells for $60 from PSN, but there are a few stores that offer the membershp for $10 less. • • • • Here are the FREE March games exclusively for Playstation Plus Members. • • • • • • ----------------------------- This is the lowest price we've seen for this game (the last time we saw this price, the deal only lasted one day). Rated 7.7/10 on IGN. • • • • • For Gamestop, use code ' SAVER' to get free shipping ----------------------------- Use code 'GDC20'. Amazon is celebrating GDC 2017 with a rare 20% off coupon code on select gaming peripherals. Use code 'GDC20' to get the prices below: • • • • ----------------------------- Starting today and lasting for a limited time, you can grab Loot Crate's Mass Effect: Andromeda themed crate for $49.99 (plus $10 shipping and handling). Developed in cooperation with Bioware, this crate includes exclusive collectibles, apparel, and more totaling $90+ in value. Ships by June 2017. 20% off New and Upcoming Games w/ Amazon Prime Not interested? To skip this section entirely This remastered release improves on the original with native 1080p rendering, fully reworked and improved graphics, and 60fps gameplay. There's an interesting loophole here. The PS4/Xbox One versions have been out for a while. However, the Wii U version is not released yet. Yet, the 20% off Prime discount works on all versions! • • • ----------------------------- There are 5 total amiibo to choose from. They are compatible with both the Nintendo Switch and Wii U consoles and each impart unique in-game perks. These can be used in-game once per day. An interesting fact is that ANY amiibo (even non-Zeldo amiibo) can be used in this game, but the Zelda amiibo will give you the best perks. • • Drops random amount of mushrooms, weapon or a horse saddle • • Drops random amount of fish and meat and rare bow-type weapons • • Drops variety of meat and powerful club-type weapons • Out of Stock! • Drops metal boxes containing food, rare weapons or ancient arrows • Out of Stock! • Drops random selection of plants or the Hylian Shield ----------------------------- Get 20% off with Amazon Prime or Best Buy GCU membership on the Xbox One and PS4 versions. PC versions are cheapest at GamersGate and Green Man Gaming. The Deluxe Edition gives you extra DLC content, including a new motorbike, new weapon, and XP booster. The Gold Edition gives you the Season Pass (access to two major expansions) as well as all the DLC content. Xbox One: • • • • Out of Stock! • Playstation 4: • • • • • PC (thanks lizardspenguin) • • • ----------------------------- just came in for Nier: Automata, and it's been rated 8.9/10 'Great'. The Day 1 Edition of this Japenese action RPG includes the game, reversible box art, and bonus DLC skins and accessories. • • • ----------------------------- Awarded Editors Choice with a perfect on IGN. The unanimous opinion across the internet is the the Switch isn't worth buying without this game right here. • • • • • ----------------------------- Horizon Zero Dawn was awarded IGN Editors' Choice with an 'Amazing' 9.3/10 rating (check out the review ). Watching the editors play here makes me wonder if this can topple Uncharted 4 as best graphics (IMO) on the PS4. Get an automatic 20% off with Amazon Prime or Best Buy GCU. • • • Out of Stock! • Out of Stock! • ----------------------------- Mass Effect: Andromeda is set to release on March 21, but CDKeys is already busting out a 27% off discount on the PC version. For the console versions, both standard and deluxe editions are 20% off with Amazon Prime and you get the benefit of the Preorder Price Guarantee. • • • • • • ----------------------------- It's too bad this game isn't released at the same time as the Switch console, but at least we have a definite release date and it's next month! Mario Kart, along with Super Smash Pros and Mario Party, is Nintendo's definitive party game. There are plenty of better looking, more realistic, and more unique racers out there, but Mario Kart is IMO the funnest. More Deals This one isn't officially licensed, but it is practically the only Nintendo Switch screen protector with a great user rating and decent number of reviews on Amazon. Not only is it $9 cheaper than the, it is made of tempered glass (the official one is plastic). Tempered glass is much easier to install (since it can be reapplied) and is more scratch resistant. TechMatte offers free shipping on this item AND includes two screen protectors in case you mess up. • ----------------------------- GamersGate has brought back the 20% off discount for all PC versions of For Honor. Rated 8/10 'Great' on IGN, Brandin Tyrell writes 'For Honor’s combat system is the most tactically complete and flexible version of melee combat I’ve ever experienced.' • • • • ----------------------------- I myself put over 100 hours into this game and absolutely loved it. The graphics are great, the open world layout is liberating, but it's the gameplay that really makes this game amazing. It's a pity that the campaign is pretty short (and unfinished) but still an absolute steal at this price. • ----------------------------- The PC version boasts 4K/UHD and multi-monitor support, 60fps framerates, longer draw distances, better effects, precision aiming with the mouse, and the ability to switch from mouse to controller on the fly. All of this makes the PC port the superior way to play this game. • • ----------------------------- Rated 8/10 'Great' on IGN. This is a shooter with 'time amplified mechanics', meaning you can freeze and manipulate objects, including people (sort of like FEAR). The missions are tied to a live-action show that unfolds as you progress through the game. The game also includes a full version of Alan Wake and The Signal and The Writer add-ons. • ----------------------------- Normally $4. 'Love You to Bits is a crazy cute, purely visual, puzzle-filled, point-and-click, sci-fi adventure spanning all around the universe.' • ----------------------------- The vendor antonline (via eBay) is pretty reputable - I've personally bought a few items myself from them in the past. Price is currently $4 less than Amazon with tax in fewer states too. • • ----------------------------- Use code: 'AFFLT539'. Core i7 laptops under $550 are pretty rare. In this case, you're getting a 15' 1080p Full HD display, 6th generation Core i7 processor, 8GB of memory, 1TGB hard drive, Windows 7 Professional (with a Windows 10 Pro license included), and 1-year Dell warranty. The Radeon R5 M335 discrete graphics can run intensive games (like GTA V) at arond 30-35fps at the lowest settings and at a reduced 1366x768 resolution. It should be able to run most Steam indie games perfectly well. • Use code: 'AFFLT539' ----------------------------- Use code: ' 85802' to drop the price from $52 to just $8, a savings of 85%. You're basically paying $0.15 per issue. This particular print subscription also includes digital access at no extra charge. DiscountMags offers free shipping, no tax, and best of all, no auto-renewals. • Use code: ' 85802' ----------------------------- Use code: ' AZ4EXDHC' to drop the price from $25 to just $16.99. This is one of the lowest prices we've seen for a very substantial 20,000mAh capacity power bank, plus you can recharge it using your Apple Lightning cable (for iPhone users) or your Micro USB cable (for Android users). • Use code: ' AZ4EXDHC' ----------------------------- Use code ' RAV20100'. The great thing about power banks is that they are designed to juice up any mobile accessories with USB input, including smartphones, tablets, Nintendo 3DS, and more. In buying a single power bank, you essentially extend the battery life of all of your mobile devices. A note on the Nintendo Switch. The description on the page says that it is not compatible with the Nintendo Switch. This might be because of liability issues and the fact that it does not support USB-PD (which is considerably more expensive). However, according to powerbank testing on and the user's, charging via USB Type-C resulted in 'while playing Zelda (30 min): 84% --> 90% (+6%)'. This sounds promising (and I ordered one myself to try out), but you charge at your own risk! • Use code ' RAV20100 ' ----------------------------- Use code 'CHANGEIT'. We all love to play games, but have you ever considered a career in games? For only $10, you could start training yourself in tools, software, and programming languages specific to the gaming industry. Because most of the courses are user-submitted, Udemy implements a rating system so you can check user reviews. • Use code 'CHANGEIT' • Use code 'CHANGEIT' ----------------------------- This TV sells for $800 everywhere else, so you're basically getting a free $250 Dell credit. Use it to help pay for an (which pairs perfectly because it can play 4K Blu-ray movies) or a. • ----------------------------- You may have to jump through a hoop to get this deal. The $498 price ($800 everywhere else) is reserved for Sam's Club members. If you don't have a membership, you can for $45 and get a $25 Sam's Club Gift Card. Even with the $20 net that you would spend on the membership, it's still way cheaper than any other vendor. • • ----------------------------- You'll always need the Xbox Live Gold membership to play online, but there are other perks as well. You get discounts on select games every month. We always recommend getting the 1-year subscription since the cost per month is lower than the 1-month or 3-month subs. • • • (started 2/16) • (starts 3/1) • (starts 3/16) • (starts 3/1) • (starts 3/16) • ----------------------------- The $249 Playstation 4 Slim discount was supposed to expire on the 24th (it's back up to $300 almost everywhere else). If you're still looking to pick up a console, i.e. For the new Horizon Zero Dawn game, you might want to snag the last of these deals before it's too late. • ----------------------------- Right out of the box, the Nintendo Switch has 32GB of built-in memory. That'll cover almost everyone for Day 1's downloads, but if you're planning on becoming a frequent eShopper and see yourself buying lots of digital-only releases like, and in the near future, you'll want to look into upgrading your Switch's storage by investing in a Micro SDXC Card. The Switch only has one memory card slot, so your best bet would be to get enough space to last the Switch's lifetime. • • • ----------------------------- There hasn't been a better case to jump onto the VR bandwagon until now. For March, Oculus has docked $100 off the price of the headset and the controllers each. If you were to buy both together, you'd save $200. What might actually be an even better reason to get the Oculus is that the newly released Robo Recall shooter is included for FREE. I've played Robo Recall and it is a REALLY good game that does an outstanding job of immersing you with the VR technology. If you don't believe me, you can check out. • • • • • ----------------------------- For those people like myself who stay up late playing video games and still have to wake up early for work, every hour of sleep is precious. If you are willing to buy a comfortable, ergonomic chair, you should do the same with your mattress. This is one of the lowest prices we've seen for a queen-sized foam mattress (and it's not Ikea-thin either). Memory foam distributes your body weight across a large area to create that float-like sleep. In addition, the foam material is hypoallergenic, dust-mite resistant, and anti-microbial. It also flat packs in a surprisingly compact box so that it is easier and cheaper to ship and very simple to install. • • • • ----------------------------- Use code 'XFFQ$2R6F92JX?' To take a whopping $465 off the retail price. This laptop doesn't just do gaming, it's powerful enough to serve as a great video or graphics editing workstation. The GeForce GTX 960M video card, although an older model, is still pretty good at playing games up to 1080p. Other notable specs include a 4K 3840x2160 touchscreen display, 6th generation Intel Core i7 processor, 16GB RAM, and dual storage drives (1TB hard drive + 128GB SSD). • Use code 'XFFQ$2R6F92JX?' Regular Offers If you're looking for Nintendo Switch accessories, check out our guide, which is our comprehensive list of Nintendo and Officially Licensed 3rd Party hardware, games, and accessories that are available/will be available within Nintendo's launch window. ----------------------------- This month's highlighted game as part of the Humble Monthly Bundle is The Witness, which sells for $40 by itself on. This is one of the rare games that was given a on IGN. Let's not forget though that there are other games included, and the package retails for $100+. • ----------------------------- Use code 'RADARLOOT'. Loot Gaming's March theme is 'Future Tech' and includes items from Overwatch, Mass Effect: Andromeda, TRON, and Prey. Expires 3/31. • Use code 'RADARLOOT' ----------------------------- Loot Crate sends you a 'mystery crate' packaged with 4-6 items plus a t-shirt every month based on a particular theme. March's theme is 'Primal' and will include items from X-Men, Overwatch, and Predator. Expires 3/19. • Use code 'RADARLOOT' ----------------------------- Crunchyroll is Netflix for anime. Gives you unlimited streaming access to brand new anime, ad-free, as well as tons of classics like Re:Zero, One Piece, JoJo's Bizarre Adventure, Gintama, and Fate/Stay Night. A Crunchyroll Premium free trial is normal 15 days, but we can hook you up with a 30-day trial,. ----------------------------- ----------------------------- Gamefly is normally $15 a month, but you right now you can. Watch out for that auto-renew, as the third month will be $15, but you can always set a calendar reminder to cancel in time. ----------------------------- Not all credit cards are created equal. If you want a card that can get you the most cash back,. ----------------------------- Students can sign up for a and then 50% off Amazon Prime 1-year membership, only $49.50 (normally $99).
0 Comments
Download This eBook Format Url Size //www.gutenberg.org/files/5-h/45215-h.htm 957 kB //www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45215.epub.images?session_id=42c3a4ad8011fa447e02fcef0ad006f4f171617d 474 kB //www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45215.epub.noimages?session_id=42c3a4ad8011fa447e02fcef0ad006f4f171617d 474 kB //www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45215.kindle.images?session_id=42c3a4ad8011fa447e02fcef0ad006f4f171617d 1.8 MB //www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/45215.kindle.noimages?session_id=42c3a4ad8011fa447e02fcef0ad006f4f171617d 1.8 MB //www.gutenberg.org/files/5-0.txt 814 kB http://www.gutenberg.org/files/45215/. Enter your search terms separated by spaces, then press. Avoid punctuation except as indicated below: Suffixes. Exact match Prefixes a. Language # ebook no. One night at call center in hindi pdf free download anleitung eos 600d pdf download chaconne in d minor guitar pdf. Pdf creator download free italiano vero recu de caisse pdf download rural development class 11 pdf. Imperium-le-guerre-galliche-ita reallifecam dashboard. Baby Daddy S05E10 720p HDTV HEVC. May 31, 2013 - 6 min - Uploaded by ItalianEazyGamersLink per Daemon Tools Lite: Link per. Category Operators Always put spaces around these.|! Not ( ) grouping this query finds shakespeare hamlet 'Hamlet' by Shakespeare qui. 'qui', not 'Quixote' love stories love stories a.shakespeare by Shakespeare s.shakespeare about Shakespeare #74 ebook no. 74 juvenile l.german juvenile lit in German verne ( l.fr| l.it ) by Verne in French or Italian love stories! Austen love stories not by Austen jane austen cat.audio audio books by Jane Austen. Oct 20, 2013 - 4 min - Uploaded by Cazzeggio CittadinoLink Gioco: http://www.torrenthound.com/hash. Ou Annibal, Alexandre, Cesar et Napoleon: Consideres politiquement et militairement (1843). Aneddoti punici - I: Le antichita puniche di Plinio il Vecchio. Athenaion/Lumieres Internationales. (Italian) 32. Acquaro, Enrico (2006). I fondamenti di un. ![]() ![]() ![]() UpdateStar is compatible with Windows platforms. UpdateStar has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, Windows 8. Please note that most of these Brand Names are registered Trade Marks, Company Names or otherwise controlled and their inclusion in this index is. ![]() Hi billybuxton, Firstly, welcome to the TSG - Virus & Other Malware Removal Forum. My name is Scolabar, and I'll be helping you with your malware problems. Logs can take a while to research, so please be patient. I am currently working under the guidance of teachers, everything I post to you, will need to be reviewed by them. This additional review process can add some extra time to my responses, but hopefully not too much. Please note the following important guidelines before proceeding: • The instructions that will be provided are for YOUR computer and system only! Using these instructions on a different computer can cause damage to that computer and possibly render it inoperable! • If you have any questions or do not understand something, please do not hesitate to ask, don't guess or assume. • Only post your problem at One help site. Applying fixes from multiple help sites can cause problems. • Only reply to this thread, do not start another. Please, continue responding, until I give you the All Clean. Absence of symptoms does not necessarily mean that everything is clear. • DO NOT run any other fix or removal tools unless instructed to do so! • DO NOT install any other software (or hardware) during the cleaning process. This adds more items to be researched. • Print each set of instructions, if possible. Your Internet connection will not be available during some fix processes. • Your security programs may give warnings for some of the tools I will ask you to use. Be assured, any links I give are safe. Please be aware that removing Malware is a hazardous undertaking. I will take care not to knowingly suggest courses of action that might damage your computer. However it is impossible for me to foresee all interactions that may happen between the software on your computer and those we'll use to clear you of infection, and I cannot guarantee the safety of your system. It is possible that we might encounter situations where the only recourse is to re-format and re-install your operating system, or to necessitate you taking your computer to a repair shop. VShare Plugin P2P File Sharing Programs are used as a major conduit for spreading malware infection to computer systems these days. P2P programs open up access to the computer on which the program is installed. The computer's settings are more often than not changed in a manner that renders the computer insecure and access to the computer remains open even when the program is not in use. Consequently, the system's security is completely compromised. So be aware that it is not just what is downloaded that causes problems, just having a P2P program installed is like leaving all the doors to your house unlocked. I advise you take the time to read the following articles that explain the risk of installing these programs. I strongly recommend that you uninstall the P2P software as follows: Remove P2P Program(s) • Click on Start > Control Panel and double-click on Programs and Features. • Locate the following program: vShare Plugin • Click on the Change/Remove button to uninstall it. • Repeat instructions 2 and 3 for each of the programs listed. • When the program(s) have been uninstalled Close the Programs and Features and Control Panel windows. Step 3: Registry Cleaners I see that you are using the IObit Advanced SystemCare 4 Registry Cleaner on this computer. I don't personally recommend the use of ANY registry cleaners. Here is an excerpt from a discussion on regcleaners. Click to expand. IOBit has a very poor reputation. See: As such, I also recommend uninstalling IObit Malware Fighter. In addition, Lavasoft's Ad-Aware is also deemed ineffective in today's fight against malware and so I also advise that that program is also removed. If you choose to do so, you can remove those programs using the instructions below: • Click on Start > Control Panel and double-click on Programs and Features. • Scroll down the list of installed programs and select each of the following programs: Ad-Aware IObit Advanced SystemCare 4 IObit Malware Fighter • Click on the Change/Remove button to uninstall it. • Repeat insructions 2 and 3 for each of the programs listed. • Close the Programs and Features and Control Panel windows when the removals have been completed. Step 4: MGA Diagnostics • Please download from Microsoft and Save it to your Desktop. • Double-click on the MGADiag.exe icon to launch the program. Vista - W7 users: Right-click on MGADiag.exe and select 'Run As Administrator' to launch the program. If you receive a UAC prompt, please allow it. If you receive an Open File Security Warning click on the Run button. • Click on the Continue button to proceed. • The program will now run. It will take a short while to complete its diagnosis, please be patient. • When it has finished click on the Copy button. • Open Notepad by clicking Start > Run, type in Notepad then click OK. • Paste the copied contents into the new Notepad window and Save the file as mgadiag.txt to your Desktop. • Click on the OK button to exit the MGA Diagnostics program. • Then Copy and Paste the entire contents of mgadiag.txt into your next reply. Step 5: CKScanner • Please download and Save it to your Desktop. Make sure that CKScanner.exe is on your Desktop before running the application! • Double-click on the CKScanner.exe icon to launch the program and then click on the Search For Files button. Vista - W7 users: Right-click on CKScanner.exe and select 'Run As Administrator' to launch the program. If you receive a UAC prompt, please allow it. • When the scan has finished (- the hourglass cursor will disappear when the scan has completed) click on the Save List To File button. A text file will be created on your desktop named ckfiles.txt. • Click on the Exit button to close the program. • Double-click on the ckfiles.txt file to open it. • Then Copy and Paste the entire contents of the file into your next reply. Step 6: RSIT (Random's System Information Tool) • Please download by random/random and save it to your Desktop. • Double-click on RSIT.exe to run the program. Read the disclaimer and then click on the Continue button. Vista - W7 users: Right-click on RSIT.exe and select 'Run As Administrator' to launch the program. If you receive a UAC prompt, please allow it. • RSIT will start running. • When the program has finished two logs files will automatically open in Notepad: • log.txt. CKScanner - Additional Security Risks - These are not necessarily bad c: program files common files native instruments shared content sounds massive crackle carl.ksd c: program files common files native instruments shared content sounds massive digitoy crackle.ksd c: program files vstpluginsegg vst plugins vst effects shapeshifter1.2 waves standard all crackler.ssw c: program files waves plug-ins xcrackle.dll c: program files waves plug-ins plug-in settings x-crackle settings.xps scanner sequence 3.EM.11 ----- EOF. Hi, I have some technical questions about the MP3Gain and SSL's auto gain feature that I was hoping the Serato guru's could help out on. When using MP3Gain, it analyzes the song and based on the target volume, it will tell you if the track is going to clip. What I wanted to know is if SSL's auto gain feature is using the same (or a similar) algorithm to end up at a particular target volume. The reason I ask is because I currently have my target volume in both SSL and MP3Gain set to 92. Let's say I have a particular track that I've analyzed with MP3Gain and it's telling me that a track will be clipping at 92, does it mean that same track processed by SSL with the auto gain set to 92 will also be clipping? What I'd like to know is if MP3Gain is going to yield the same target volume as SSL's auto gain feature. What I don't want is that MP3Gain's target volume of 92 is pushing tracks towards clipping and SSL's auto gain is not, or vice versa. So I did some research on a test track. I had a track that before applying 1.5db of gain, it was at 90.8 (not clipping), and after applying the track gain, it was now at 92.3 (clipping). Honestly, I'd consider auto-gain to be far from a perfect solution for the reasons listed above. And if you're adjusting it by hand, then you really have no reference at all other than your ear, and that's only for the one particular portion of the song that you're listening to. For all you know you're bumping other portions of the track into the clipping zone and/or creating an overall imbalance between that track and others that have been adjusted with auto gain. But yeah, sometimes auto gain doesn't work quite right, and I've adjusted it, but now I'm going to be *very* cautious about adjusting up, especially if 92 is going to yield tracks that are close to clipping. Btw, it looks like I've just found out that SSL's detection is in-fact different than MP3Gain and is definitely less conservative. I have both SSL and MP3Gain set to 92 and 'Pachelbel's Canon In D Major (piano)' noticeably clips in SSL using only SSL's auto gain. This means that the detection algorithms between the two programs are different as clipping occurs with SSL's auto gain and not with MP3Gain's gain adjustment. This has pretty much sealed the deal for me to use MP3Gain instead of SSL's auto gain. Still waiting on the MP3Gain track analysis to finish - about 1/4 of the way done. As another interesting sidenote, so far probably 98% of my tracks are show as clipping in MP3Gain and about 7% or so are shown to be clipping at the 92.0 db target value. That should be a good indicator that if you don't hear it clipping at a higher value (as it came from the artist), then you won't hear it at the lower level. The ones to watch out for are where it pushes the value up - most of my tracks are getting pulled down. That's another nice feature of MP3Gain is that you can sort by the clipping or Track Gain fields and instantly see what's going on. I can't believe I didn't play with this a loooooong time ago. So, after scanning all of my tracks (2156), I noticed something interesting that will affect what I set my target volume levels to. I sorted the list of tracks from loudest to softest and I'd say 5/6 of my entire libary is already clipping, with 'No Doubt - Just a Girl' peaking out at a volume of 103 db. I wasn't the one that encoded that file so someone really cranked it up because it's got easily over 1000 audible clips - oddly, I didn't really notice the clips, but that's because the track is highly compressed with a lot of transients and like I mentioned before, whether a clip is audible or not depends on the program material. Also, about 5/6 of the way is where songs with an original volume of 92 db ends and gets softer from there. I mention that because a lot of people use 92 for their SSL auto gain value (myself included), so if I were using 92 db for auto gain, I'd be pulling down 5/6 of my tracks and adding gain to 1/6 of them. That being said, songs that MP3Gain reports as originally clipping (before any adjustments are made) start to thin out around the 90 db mark and below that are less and less tracks that are clipping at their original volume. That said, those clips might not be audible - MP3Gain is just reporting that a number of samples hit 0 db and it thinks its a clip. So the ultimate goal is to have all of the tracks end up at the same loudness but try and keep the volume as loud as possible without introducing NEW clipped tracks. Remember, if a track is already clipped, it doesn't matter because once a file is clipped, turning it down just lowers the volume, but if the clip was audible at 92, there will still be an audible sound at whatever lower volume you pick. MP3Gain is only looking to see if your waveform is hitting 0 db, not what it sounds like. In other words, if the track sounds like crap at 92 (clipped, distorted, whatever), it will sound like crap at any volume lower than that - the damage is already done. Fortunately, if you're messing around with MP3Gain and you cause your tracks to noticeably clip, it's not permanent. MP3Gain is only just turning the volume knob up and down and not editing the waveform. As long as you have recorded your perfect mix (with the included clips), you can just readjust your MP3Gain target value to something lower and be on your way. Now it's time for some testing - we need to figure out what to set the target value to so that we avoid clipping tracks that weren't originally clipped while trying to keep the volume of all tracks as loud and consistent as possible. Quote: I'm sure Seratos auto gain only applies to the setting in the program and the levels by each deck will show you whether or not clipping is happening, obviously you should be to hear it aswell. Serato has an algorithm to detect the perceived loudness of a track and MP3Gain has an algorithm to do the same thing - so yes, SSL's auto gain only applies to the program, but it still is *in addition* to any pre-processing done in your DAW or via MP3Gain. If I remember correctly they vary very slightly in their detection methods, but ultimately they're doing the same thing. Quote: You've done a lot of testing and seem to be interested in getting the best sound possible, my advice is if you still have a SL1 as is showing in your hardware info is to get any of the newer interfaces as the sound quality and dynamic range are greatly improved! Changing the hardware has nothing to do with clipping and I'm pretty happy with the sound quality of my hardware. What I don't want is the distorted sound of clipping, and that's something that can be easily avoided without any added expense (other than time). I could have the best hardware in the world and if a track clips, it clips - the MP3 is still going to clip at 0db. So I'm not really feeling it at 89 as I'm raising my noise floor. I'm debating going up a db or two to 90 or 91 and see how that feels. It seems like a lot of the songs that are clipping tend to be ones with weird dynamics or very quiet with rare loud sections. As for all of my house music, it can handle a few clips here and there without consequence, and most of them aren't clipping anyways. I was looking at Platinum Notes as it actively adjusts the dynamics in the file, but then I'll have to re-add all of my cues and that's not something I'm willing to do right now. I will post more when I have a better idea of what I'm going to do. For now I need to make a mix so auto gain it will be for the near future. Quote: The SSL autogain feature is essentially a black box as you really don't get a great overview of clipping tracks until you actually play the song back and *happen* to see it peaking - I think this is a huge disadvantage. Also, you don't get consistent waveform sizing. It would be nice if SSL took care of that. We are always working hard on improving our software. In regards to those two feature ideas, they may benefit other users out there. I recommend you jump into our forums 'Feature Request' area. Start a thread about these features, if enough people out there support your idea, it may be something we look at implementing further down the track. Quote: I recommend the SSL Auto Gain because its built into the application so there is less chance of files becoming corrupt / unsupported. -- This can happen when you put music files through other applications to re-encode / re tag the file etc. First, MP3Gain does not re-encode the MP3 and it's changes are non-destructive and completely reversible. Is it Serato's stance to not use applications such as Mixed in Key, Platinum Notes, MixMeister BPM counter, or any other pitch detection or tagging program because they edit the MP3? That just doesn't seem like a realistic argument. I would venture to guess that MP3Gain has been out longer than than the above applications and has a huge installation base, especially because it's free. It is compatible with all MP3 players as it adjusts the volume of each frame in the MP3, so it doesn't rely on custom tags requiring the player to make the volume adjustments. I still think MP3Gain provides more value to the DJ than Serato's autogain feature. The funny part about the above post is that it completely defeats the purpose of auto-gain. Auto-gain/MP3Gain change the volume based on apparent loudness in an attempt to get all tracks sounding the same volume and do a pretty good job of it. One of the problems with SSL's auto-gain is that it doesn't tell you anything about clipping caused by its process so the only way you find out about that clipping is during playback - which is a horrible time to find this out. At least MP3Gain will tell you immediately whether you're clipping the track. If you really wanted to have consistent volume levels that don't clip, the above quoted post should really read: 'I use SSL auto-gain as a rough start, then if a track is clipping, I turn down the SSL auto-gain master adjustment to keep this track from clipping while keeping the track's volume consistent with all the other tracks in my library.' Were you to use SSL's auto-gain or MP3Gain in this manner, you wouldn't be tweaking individual tracks unless there was a problem with the SSL auto-gain or MP3Gain algorithm. The problem is not everyone really understands what's they're doing, hence the +1s above. Quote: My understanding is that SSL auto-gain doesn't actually change the track, it only adjusts the 'input gain' of the track. If you see red on the track's output meter, just turn it down. Correct, but again, you've now negated the whole purpose of SSL's auto-gain feature. You should really be changing the master level so that the track's volume level stay's consistent with all the other tracks. The problem is that you're arbitrarily picking a volume level to which you're adjusting all of your tracks to. Unless you listen to every single track in your library and watch the meters, you have no idea which tracks are clipping. Quote: On the other hand, with a third party software that changes the actual file, you can turn it down all you like in SSL and it's still churning out flattened waves. Turning up SSL's auto-gain too high will have the exact same effect. Whether you turn up the volume in SSL or MP3Gain, you're still running the same risk of clipping tracks. The nice part about MP3Gain is you can see the changes right away and choose whether or not you want those changes. In regards to MP3Gain, it adjusts the volume of each MP3 frame and is non-destructive, so if you went too hot, just go lower. But again, you won't be spitting out clipped tracks all the time as you wouldn't have made the mistake of picking the wrong master level from the get-go. Quote: The problem is that you're arbitrarily picking a volume level to which you're adjusting all of your tracks to. Unless you listen to every single track in your library and watch the meters, you have no idea which tracks are clipping. I do these adjustments at the club, using headphones and PFL meters on the mixer, then listening in the monitors. It's not rocket science to tell if a track is too quiet or loud. I managed to mix vinyl for years and keep consistent volume from record to record, it's a lot easier now that I only have to make that adjustment once, if ever. The algorithm isn't perfect, obviously, so some tracks still need to be turned up or down slightly in SSL after running auto-gain on them. In this case I only need to change the gain on a single track, not the whole library. Assuming that SSL didn't make a mistake, you're now making the apparent volume level of that track different from all of the other tracks in your library, which is defeating the whole purpose of auto-gain. If it did make a mistake, then you need to now listen to the current track and other tracks to make the volume levels consistent. It would be really nice if SSL's analyze feature spit out a spreadsheet with the volume levels so you could see how many tracks you're clipping by using a particular master auto-gain level. That being said, I did realize another thing - MP3Gain only works on MP3s where I'm *guessing* that SSL auto-gain works on other formats - is that correct? So if you are mixed-format, then using MP3Gain would probably be more problematic than helpful. The algorithm isn't perfect, obviously, so some tracks still need to be turned up or down slightly in SSL after running auto-gain on them. In this case I only need to change the gain on a single track, not the whole library. Assuming that SSL didn't make a mistake, you're now making the apparent volume level of that track different from all of the other tracks in your library, which is defeating the whole purpose of auto-gain. If it did make a mistake, then you need to now listen to the current track and other tracks to make the volume levels consistent. It would be really nice if SSL's analyze feature spit out a spreadsheet with the volume levels so you could see how many tracks you're clipping by using a particular master auto-gain level. That being said, I did realize another thing - MP3Gain only works on MP3s where I'm *guessing* that SSL auto-gain works on other formats - is that correct? So if you are mixed-format, then using MP3Gain would probably be more problematic than helpful. But some tracks do 'sound quieter', regardless of what a computer algorithm or spreadsheet tells me. I adjust these tracks to 'sound' the same volume as the track that is playing, which sounded the same as the last track and the one before that. Now the track's volume in question is more in line with the rest of my library. Changing the master will change all of them up or down, so the individual difference between tracks will still exist. And yes, I mainly use mp4 at this stage. I do these adjustments at the club, using headphones and PFL meters on the mixer, then listening in the monitors. It's not rocket science to tell if a track is too quiet or loud. I managed to mix vinyl for years and keep consistent volume from record to record, it's a lot easier now that I only have to make that adjustment once, if ever. Yes, and like I just said in my previous post, if you adjust the level of that one track, you're now changing the apparent volume level of that track compared to the apparent volume level of the rest of your library. You can't use a peak meter on a mixer as it's showing peak level, not apparent loudness - these are two different things. You can have transient peaks all over the place and still have a relatively soft apparent loudness. Quote: Yes, and like I just said in my previous post, if you adjust the level of that one track, you're now changing the apparent volume level of that track compared to the apparent volume level of the rest of your library. You can't use a peak meter on a mixer as it's showing peak level, not apparent loudness - these are two different things. You can have transient peaks all over the place and still have a relatively soft apparent loudness. OK, I kind of see what you are saying. But the thing is once I make this adjustment once, live, in the actual setting of where I use it, I don't ever need to make it again. I only need to worry about this with new tracks that I've just added to the library. Even then, SSL auto-gain has already done half the work for me. Quote: But some tracks do 'sound quieter', regardless of what a computer algorithm or spreadsheet tells me. I adjust these tracks to 'sound' the same volume as the track that is playing, which sounded the same as the last track and the one before that. Now the track's volume in question is more in line with the rest of my library. Yes, I agree that adjusting to the previous track does work, but you're still potentially causing clipping on the current track (if turning it up) and you won't know unless you watch the SSL meter the entire time. It would be nice if they at least had a resettable clip indicator that reset every time you loaded a new track. I'm just saying that we should tend to be making our changes to the auto-gain master instead of tweaking individual tracks. The problem is that everyone wants their music to be LOUD so they pick a high value. If you notice, the default value is 92db and based on my research in MP3Gain, that causes a LOT of tracks to clip. If it's dance music, you probably won't hear the clips, but other types of music can suffer greatly from this. The only real way to fix this problem is to do a lot of mastering work on the tracks (difficult and time-consuming) or use a program like Platinum Notes to do it for you. I don't use PN because it would be hugely time-consuming to redo my entire library, but I've considered it. SSL auto-gain and MP3Gain are not perfect solutions by any means, but MP3Gain has some great advantages over SSL's auto-gain as stated towards the beginning of this thread. Quote: The Master level is totally separate from the individual track gain (which is adjusted by auto-gain). You seem to be confusing the two and talking about them interchangeably. Yeah, I meant to say the auto-gain master - sorry! I still think that's the same thing. The Auto-Gain master in setup adjusts every song up or down a little based on the overview analysis data. Tweaking each individual track is the only solution. I do see your point about clipping. If the Auto-Gain was set to 98dB, all my tracks would be clipping. Better to keep that low and then turn up the SSL Master output or the channel inputs on the mixer. Some tracks will still need to be turned up/down to 'sound' the same level, and if that causes it to clip, then you need to adjust the auto-gain level or the master level accordingly. Quote: OK, I kind of see what you are saying. But the thing is once I make this adjustment once, live, in the actual setting of where I use it, I don't ever need to make it again. I only need to worry about this with new tracks that I've just added to the library. Even then, SSL auto-gain has already done half the work for me. Yeah, but you could have processed your tracks with MP3Gain and then make your tweaks in SSL in real-time as well - there's no reason you can't still turn it up in SSL - you'll potentially still cause the exact same damage you did with SSL's auto-gain - gain structure really hasn't changed. The nice part about pre-processing with MP3Gain is that you saw what was going on clipping-wise ahead of time and all of your waveforms are a consistent size - not a bad thing. Quote: And everyone has time for that? Headphones at home and nightclub systems don't really compare. I would bet you still need to make adjustments on the fly at the club. Heh, it's all time-consuming one way or another - it really sucks when you hear the clipping in your recording!!;) The nice part about MP3Gain is you're getting a great visual representation of what's going on, so it's actually saving you time and headache down the road. Believe me, I understand how time-consuming all of this is! Quote: Oh dear. Haha +1 Like I said above, clipping is clipping, so if you're gonna laugh at me just because I have an SL1 box, then you're not paying attention to the discussion and really just being a distraction to the actual issues. That, or you don't understand the concepts being discussed. Clipping will affect the best equipment to the worst equipment. It would be nice if you appreciated that I'm taking the time to help everyone here, and all of my research is being done before it ever hits the SL1, as you would have noticed if you read through my initial posts. Who's faffing about now;) Oh, and if you're going to give me a hard time for using MP3s, feel free to back up your chides and see if you can *audibly* tell the difference between MP3s and lossless files: Good luck! Quote: I still think that's the same thing. The Auto-Gain master in setup adjusts every song up or down a little based on the overview analysis data. Tweaking each individual track is the only solution. Tweaking is the only solution for tracks that SSL's auto-gain (or MP3Gain) gets wrong, adjusting the SSL master auto-gain is a great solution to avoid a LOT of tracks from clipping, something you'd only know if you played each and every track. MP3Gain will tell you immediately whether a track is clipping. Download MP3Gain and run an analysis on your library - you'll be pretty amazed to see what is already clipping. Then put the volume level to your current SSL auto-gain level and you'll probably be pretty shocked to see the resultant output - it's kinda scary. Quote: I do see your point about clipping. If the Auto-Gain was set to 98dB, all my tracks would be clipping. Better to keep that low and then turn up the SSL Master output or the channel inputs on the mixer. Unfortunately that won't work either - the gain structure in SSL is kinda weird so if you turn down the track and then turn up the master, you'll still clip the output (if I remember correctly). We had this discussion a few years back and my recommendation was to get rid of the master volume knob entirely because it really is confusing and pointless. I think the master volume value is just added or subtracted to the track's volume and then applied to the audio, so there isn't any headroom there. If it clips it clips - I'll have to double check this or have someone correct me on this one. It was a long time ago. Quote: Some tracks will still need to be turned up/down to 'sound' the same level, and if that causes it to clip, then you need to adjust the auto-gain level or the master level accordingly. Yes, some tracks will need to be adjusted if SSL's auto-gain (or even MP3Gain) screwed up, but if you turn it up, you run the risk of clipping portions of the track. Adjusting the SSL auto-gain or master volume after the fact just complicates the problem. Leave the master volume be and adjust the auto-gain to a conservative value and then fix any problem tracks. But don't go changing both all the time - you'll drive yourself nuts! Quote: First, MP3Gain does not re-encode the MP3 and it's changes are non-destructive and completely reversible. Is it Serato's stance to not use applications such as Mixed in Key, Platinum Notes, MixMeister BPM counter, or any other pitch detection or tagging program because they edit the MP3? That just doesn't seem like a realistic argument. Its just my recommendation. Serato has a built in Auto Gain feature that works really well, so I recommend you simplify things and use whats built into the software already. I am not familiar with the program MP3Gain. I was referring to third party applications in general. -- They CAN cause issues for files, making them become corrupt. Mixed in Key is a great program and its key detection works really well. -- Metabliss is also a great ID3tag editing program. Quote: Because even after auto-gain, I still find some excessively loud/quiet tracks when I'm cueing that need to be matched up more accurately. Just refining really. Which is really what most people are doing because the algorithms aren't perfect. This is especially true with tracks that have a very sustained loudness and then spike or dip - the algorithms don't seem to handle that very well. If you glance at the results at the beginning of this thread, you'll notice that very minute increments in gain can cause you to clip. That said, the clipping is probably inaudible, but you're still causing clipping, and potentially causing more clipping than you might have already had. This is why I recommend that people at least try an analysis using MP3Gain to see what tracks are already clipping as SSL's auto gain feature doesn't give you a 'big picture' view of what's going on with your tracks. Quote: I am not to familiar with the program MP3Gain. I would *highly* recommend that you try it. It's a free download and it's been around for ages and has a huge install base. While you enjoy the use of SSL's auto gain feature, you too might be surprised at how many of your tracks are already clipping, and how many more you're causing to clip (or cause further clipping) if you're pushing a higher value on SSL's auto gain. Do you know how many of your MP3s are currently clipping? Do you know how many previously non-clipping tracks you're now causing to clip by using auto gain? These are really important questions and Serato is making a very broad recommendation to use something that could be quite damaging if used incorrectly, and if people are setting it at 92db as the default, they're probably causing a lot of tracks to clip and degrade audio quality (just look at my results). Quote: I was referring to third party applications in general. -- They CAN cause issues for files, making them become corrupt. Mixed in Key is a great program and its key detection works really well. -- Metabliss is also a great ID3tag editing program designed by Mixed In Key. But those programs can potentially cause corruption as well;) I'm just bustin' your chops on that one, but in all seriousness I just didn't want you to discount MP3Gain because it's a third party app while endorsing other programs such as Mixed in Key or Metabliss. It is a legitimate program and has been discussed widely on the forums as well. Quote: I'm not personally aware of any Scratch Live issues from files with MP3Gain tags, but the general advice given was solid. No gain-finding algorithm (Serato's, MP3Gain or anything else) is going to 100 percent 'normalize' perceived volume levels. There's a lot of factors that play into 'perceived volume level'. And the comparative differences will vary depending on the playback system. But clipping is still clipping, and regardless of the playback system, if the clip is audible, you'll hear it (unless it's a horrible audio system). And unfortunately with SSL's auto-gain feature, you won't know it's clipping until you play the track, and a club is far from the ideal location to be listening for clipping audio. I prefer to be proactive and get a head's up before the track even gets imported into SSL. Quote: And unfortunately with SSL's auto-gain feature, you won't know it's clipping until you play the track, and a club is far from the ideal location to be listening for clipping audio. I prefer to be proactive and get a head's up before the track even gets imported into SSL. If you actually watch the meters ***when DJ-ing*** (not just using your computer in no-interface mode), you'll see on the more modern interfaces and mixers that any 'clipping' is really infrequent. Also if you're extra-worried about that you can always turn the master-gain down a bit. Plus so much aggressively-mastered music in the last 15 years already has a shit-ton of 'clipping' regardless of where you set playback levels. I really would suggest a newer SL interface if you're this concerned with quality. Quote: If you actually watch the meters ***when DJ-ing*** (not just using your computer in no-interface mode), you'll see on the more modern interfaces and mixers that any 'clipping' is really infrequent. Also if you're extra-worried about that you can always turn the master-gain down a bit. Or, you can pull it into a program like MP3Gain and see that it's a lot more frequent than you think;) Orrrrr. You're smart and happen to be using a lower SSL auto-gain value. Btw, turning down the master gain is the same as turning down the SSL auto-gain, something I recommended a few posts earlier. Quote: Of course you won't see them clip since the maximum possible level from a CD rip would be 0dbFS, but hard clipping is very often used in the mastering process (and often in the production process) as a means of gaining loudness. Hard *limiting* is a means of gaining loudness. Hard clipping means that your program material's waveform railed hard against the 0db limit and you're now essentially generating a squarewave - those are two very different things, one of which sounds much worse than the other (depending on the program material, of course). So, just so everyone is clear, do NOT try and induce clipping in your tracks to gain loudness - you will most likely get weird noises and it will not sound good. If you want to increase the apparent loudness of your track while keeping it as descent sounding as possible, use a high quality limiter in your DAW. This is essentially what Platinum Notes does, along with some other neat stuff such as EQ, multiband compression, and they've probably got a few other tricks up their sleeve. Honestly, I'm really starting to lean towards using Platinum Notes, but you lose all of your cue points in the process. Not something I am looking forward to! Quote: Honestly, I'm really starting to lean towards using Platinum Notes, but you lose all of your cue points in the process You also unavoidably transcode any lossy-encoded files going in. As far as clipping.whether you are aware or not, it's been used as a 'mastering' technique for a long time now. The levels on a given CD rip hitting 0dbFS or not isn't an indication. Looking at the waveforms will tell you a lot more. Clipping is also a commonly-used function in broadcast-audio processing to gain loudness, also is incorporated into some DAW limiter plug-ins (the Oxford limiter one such example). Quote: As far as clipping.whether you are aware or not, it's been used as a 'mastering' technique for a long time now. The levels on a given CD rip hitting 0dbFS or not isn't an indication. Looking at the waveforms will tell you a lot more. Clipping is also a commonly-used function in broadcast-audio processing to gain loudness, also is incorporated into some DAW limiter plug-ins (the Oxford limiter one such example). Well, upon further research, I stand corrected! I didn't know that they use clippers that way. I just did a bunch of reading through various threads and a lot of people say to use your ears for the sound you want to get, so if you like the sound of your audio clipped (and I don't mean that in a bad way), then it's definitely a tool people here can use. My worry is that it's going to color the track in a way that doesn't make it sound pleasing to my ear - but then again, it might not be that apparent, either. That's a tough one and a really good point and I think I mentioned it towards the beginning of this thread, the clipping may or may not be audible. That said, if people are using clipping as a tool, they should be listening to all of their tracks ahead of time to see how much clipping they'd really like to apply to their tracks and make sure it's the sound they want. I would still find MP3Gain, along with any other descent DAW, to be of great help in this process. I *maybe* should have mentioned.I've done quite a bit of mastering (for record labels, including a few major-label releases) and was formerly a broadcast engineer specializing in audio processing. So it takes relatively little motivation for me to get fairly verbose on this subject if time allows. I really don't advocate that DJ's use clipping as an effect. First off, because of the already mentioned aspect of a club sound system not always being the best reference point to listen for issues. Secondly, because the resulting high-frequency trash isn't the best thing for people's ears or for speakers. Presumably in production/mastering, the effect is controlled and bandlimited to a reasonable degree (ha!) but much harder to get control of that in a 'live' situation. So the initial 'quality' concern is something I fully appreciate and support. I just don't think it usually warrants too much concern if using reasonable gain settings and the more modern SL interface hardware (providing more internal headroom). Quote: The funny part about the above post is that it completely defeats the purpose of auto-gain. Auto-gain/MP3Gain change the volume based on apparent loudness in an attempt to get all tracks sounding the same volume and do a pretty good job of it. One of the problems with SSL's auto-gain is that it doesn't tell you anything about clipping caused by its process so the only way you find out about that clipping is during playback - which is a horrible time to find this out. At least MP3Gain will tell you immediately whether you're clipping the track. Would you undo the gain adjustment once you have found out that this one track clips, because it has a small clip? Quote: Btw, turning down the master gain is the same as turning down the SSL auto-gain, something I recommended a few posts earlier. Why would you recommend such a thing and at the same time using an SL1? By turning down the master gain in the software you are losing headroom and you are worsening the s/n ratio. When using the SL1 which has 'only' 16Bit D/A's. If you turn down the volume by 6dB you are reducing the resolution to 14Bit. Striving for best quality (which is good) and then sacrificing quality by using sub-optimal hardware doesn't make sense to me. Quote: I *maybe* should have mentioned.I've done quite a bit of mastering (for record labels, including a few major-label releases) and was formerly a broadcast engineer specializing in audio processing. So it takes relatively little motivation for me to get fairly verbose on this subject if time allows. I think it's great to get an educated opinion on this stuff. Many people aren't audio engineers, nor do they take the time to really delve into these subjects or understand what's going on. I enjoy these kinds of discussions because it really helps me further understand the technicalities of what's going on. Quote: I really don't advocate that DJ's use clipping as an effect. First off, because of the already mentioned aspect of a club sound system not always being the best reference point to listen for issues. Secondly, because the resulting high-frequency trash isn't the best thing for people's ears or for speakers. Presumably in production/mastering, the effect is controlled and bandlimited to a reasonable degree (ha!) but much harder to get control of that in a 'live' situation. Upon reading, it did seem like people were using it in a controlled environment and it seemed like they were using soft clippers and other equipment to ease the harshness of the sound. It was also interesting because the first thing I looked at was the Omnia processors as I do broadcast engineering, but I hadn't really paid much attention to the minute details in the processors. Sure enough, there were multiple clippers in addition to the limiters and levelers - interesting stuff! Quote: So the initial 'quality' concern is something I fully appreciate and support. I just don't think it usually warrants too much concern if using reasonable gain settings and the more modern SL interface hardware (providing more internal headroom). I disagree that modern hardware is going to change the amount of playback headroom. A computer, CD player, SL1, protools, digital console, and any other digital audio device has the same DAC limits - 0db (for those who don't know, DAC is digital-to-analog converter). And any headroom for further amplification in the digital file being played was taken away during the recording and mastering process, and relatively ignored with further usage of SSL auto-gain. If the waveform hits 0 (by whatever means - mp3gain, platinum notes, SSL auto-gain, gain knobs, master knob, etc), there's nothing left after that. If the artist (or DJ) chooses to rail harder against that 0db limit and clip their audio, having more headroom after the DACs (or wherever it supposedly exists) isn't going to make an ounce of difference - the DAC can only output the most that the digital file gives it, 0db, and beyond that (clipping), it's still only outputting the audio represented at 0db, but now it's a different sound (whatever that clipped audio happens to sound like). If you run 24 bit hardware, yes, you can now represent a wider dynamic range but you're still pushing the potential amount of volume bits in the *downward* direction, not the upward direction. You're not getting any more output out of the digital file - 0db is still 0db. I would assume these are things you know, but others might not. I am still surprised that you mentioned the hardware, though. Sure, there are different *quality* of ADCs, but that's an entirely different discussion. As for those that think 24bit is better than 16bit (this should address Nik39's statement about the SL1 as well), let's continue. I found a great article that talks about 24 vs 16 bit and here's an excerpt from the beginning of the article linked below: 'So, 24bit does add more 'resolution' compared to 16bit but this added resolution doesn't mean higher quality, it just means we can encode a larger dynamic range. This is the misunderstanding made by many. There are no extra magical properties, nothing which the science does not understand or cannot measure. The only difference between 16bit and 24bit is 48dB of dynamic range (8bits x 6dB = 48dB) and nothing else. This is not a question for interpretation or opinion, it is the provable, undisputed logical mathematics which underpins the very existence of digital audio.' And the next paragraph really hits it home, especially due to the fact that most of us are playing dance music that is highly compressed and has a *very* limited dynamic range: 'So, can you actually hear any benefits of the larger (48dB) dynamic range offered by 24bit? Unfortunately, no you can't. The entire dynamic range of some types of music is sometimes less than 12dB. The recordings with the largest dynamic range tend to be symphony orchestra recordings but even these virtually never have a dynamic range greater than about 60dB. All of these are well inside the 96dB range of the humble CD. What is more, modern dithering techniques (see 3 below), perceptually enhance the dynamic range of CD by moving the quantisation noise out of the frequency band where our hearing is most sensitive. This gives a perceivable dynamic range for CD up to 120dB (150dB in certain frequency bands).' This would accurately describe dance music as we're barely using any of the available dynamic range, both 16bit or 24bit. So the 24bit argument doesn't really apply here. Furthermore, this discussion is not about dynamic range or DAC quality, it's purely about clipping and the results of that clipped output. I think it's safe to say, due to the SSL auto-gain default of 92db, that most of the DJs using SSL auto-gain are clipping their outputs. Now whether it's audible or not is probably one of the most important items of discussion. Like DJMark said, we can use reasonable gain levels, which is precisely what I recommended, but nobody wants to turn it down - they all want to push it into the red. Nik39 also mentioned this as well. Quote: And then? Would you undo the gain adjustment once you have found out that this one track clips, because it has a small clip? And this is a great one - some of these clips aren't audible, but some are - one of the issues I'm wrestling with is how hard can I push my program material before those clips become audible and should I even allow it to clip? And that also depends on the program material as well. That said, I still come back to my statement that SSL's auto-gain gives you no prior notice of what tracks are going to potentially clip, something that MP3Gain is great for. And furthermore, I'm moving towards the recommendation of turning it down in SSL (via a lower SSL auto-gain setting or lower MP3Gain setting) to have a more accurate representation of the original program material, because that's probably what we're going for, right? And I will repeat this one more time because everyone *still* likes to compare hardware. Clipping affects everyone! SL1, SL3, SL4, SL5000, computer, CD player, or any digital device. Don't think that because you have a better interface than the SL1 that you're immune to clipping, or that your clipping will sound any better than mine, because most likely it won't - if anything you have better hardware, you also have better DACs and it will probably sound even more obvious! I'm not doing this to prove that mine is better than yours, I'm doing this to help all of you make your music sound as good as possible. Quote: This would accurately describe dance music as we're barely using any of the available dynamic range, both 16bit or 24bit. So the 24bit argument doesn't really apply here. This is true. As DJMark has said, Dance music nowadays is a block of form (waveform would not apply here;)). However - suddenly you are changing your direction. Now suddenly 16 or 24Bit does not make a difference for you, because the material (Dance music) does not use the whole range. Suddenly you seem to mention that for normal music 12Bit is enough. How about you try your mp3 vs lossless music comparison on 12Bit vs 16Bit?;) Not that it would matter - but. Again you are changing direction. Are you looking for the best quality or not? Fact is, by reducing the internal volume of a track by half you are throwing away 1Bit. Reduce it to 1/4th, you just lost another Bit. If you don't care cause your initial material is sh**, then why would you worry about (minor) clipping! Quote: However - suddenly you are changing your direction. Now suddenly 16 or 24Bit does not make a difference for you, because the material (Dance music) does not use the whole range. Bit depth was never part of my discussion, because I'm not making a hardware comparison - if I or you or whoever else has to turn down their audio to avoid clipping, then we'll all suffer the consequences, the 24bit people to a lesser (and most likely inaudible) amount. The key here is what do we do about clipping, which as I will mention one more time, affects *everyone*, regardless of what interface you have. If you push your audio to 0db and I push mine to 0db, 16, 24, 256bits of dynamic range makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. Plus, we're not even using the full 16bit dynamic range anyways, so your 24bit interface isn't helping you, even if we both turn down the volume a small amount to avoid excessive and audible clipping. I'm happy to branch out this discussion as to how much clipping we should allow, but that's a tough one as you really need to listen to the program material to hear its affects. I'm trying to come up with a broad recommendation which is what SSL's auto-gain essentially is - a broad application of volume control. Unfortunately it has no reporting feature which is why I recommend MP3Gain. Quote: Are you looking for the best quality or not? I don't know how many times I'm going to have to say this, but I'll say it again - this is not a discussion about quality and it never was - it's a discussion about clipping - that affects everyone of all different interfaces. I don't mind that I don't have as good as equipment as everyone else and I am willing to make that sacrifice, but like I keep saying, clipping affects everyone, so this is not a me/you discussion, it's a 'how do we make the best compromise between loudness and clipping'. Furthermore, it's a discussion of the merits of MP3Gain vs SSL's auto-gain feature. Quote: Fact is, by reducing the internal volume of a track by half you are throwing away 1Bit. Reduce it to 1/4th, you just lost another Bit. If you don't care cause your initial material is sh**, then why would you worry about (minor) clipping! I think my material sounds good and sounds better than if it's clipping, and chances are that anyone playing lossless audio will also sound better than if it's clipping - I'm not saying mine is better than yours because it's not - but clipping affects all of us. While I didn't want to get into a bitrate discussion, it went there and it's not a horrible thing to briefly discuss it. But as the article describes, it has been show that if I lower the volume by a small amount I'm not losing much of anything because the dynamic range of dance music isn't utilizing the full dynamic range available anyways. Therefore the discussion of bitrate is pretty pointless for dance music in the scope of this thread. It might make a difference for the classical music DJs, but that's not what we're talking about and can be discussed in a different thread for all of the classical music DJs out there. Quote: While I didn't want to get into a bitrate discussion, it went there and it's not a horrible thing to briefly discuss it. But as the article describes, it has been show that if I lower the volume by a small amount I'm not losing much of anything because the dynamic range of dance music isn't utilizing the full dynamic range available anyways. Moving in circles, huh?;) Not much of anything because you already had sh*t before? You are degrading quality. That's what it is about. If you're argument is 'I am not losing much quality' - this applies to this entire discussion. I wont be losing much quality either when allowing that on vinyl crackle which has amplified to distortion to match the overall track volume.:). Quote: Bit depth is not a discussion bound to any hardware. Nor was it ever meant to be part of this discussion and it still doesn't apply because we're talking about the loud end of the dynamic range - and as that article linked above states, you won't even notice a difference between 24 and 16 bit when the dynamic range of dance music is something like 12db and the entire dynamic range is at least 96db. So even if I drop my volume 6db, I'm still not losing dynamic range because I'm getting nowhere near the -96db floor. That said, I'll entertain the conversation a little longer if you can justify it - please see the next quote below. Quote: Sure my 24Bit interface is helping. I would like to know in what way a 24bit interface is going to help when you turn down the volume down slightly to avoid clipping? The only benefit that I see to having a 24bit playback device is for recorded music that utilizes a large dynamic range. If you're playing dance music, you're not even using that entire range, nor do I really need to worry about bringing up my noise floor as you'll never hear it. So, how would 24bit playback be any different? Quote: While I didn't want to get into a bitrate discussion, it went there and it's not a horrible thing to briefly discuss it. But as the article describes, it has been show that if I lower the volume by a small amount I'm not losing much of anything because the dynamic range of dance music isn't utilizing the full dynamic range available anyways. Moving in circles, huh?;) Are you just going to tell me I'm going in circles because I'm willing to discuss something you wanted to discuss? I'm entertaining something you brought up - at least be polite enough to reply with some justifications of your thoughts instead of giving me a hard time because I'm entertaining something you wanted to bring up. Due to reasons stated above, bitrate doesn't play a role in this particular discussion, but I'm willing to discuss it because you don't seem to fully understand it - or I'm getting it completely wrong, which I'll accept, but you'll at least have to provide a valid argument other than telling me I'm going in circles. I'm trying to work with you here, but snide remarks towards me is far from constructive. Quote: Not much of anything because you already had sh*t before? You are degrading quality. That's what it is about. If you're argument is 'I am not losing much quality' - this applies to this entire discussion. I wont be losing much quality either when allowing that on vinyl crackle which has amplified to distortion to match the overall track volume.:) I'm sorry if the intention of this discussion was not properly stated at the very beginning, but so you now know, the intention of this discussion is to avoid coloration of the audio due to clipping and also to find the ideal volume levels to achieve audio clean of clipping coloration while maintaining loudness. Everything else you're bringing up is really great stuff and I'd be happy to discuss it in another thread, but it really isn't applicable in this thread for the reasons stated above. Quote: Bottom line: If your music is Dance crap (which could also use 12Bit) - you should not care about clipping. If you care about clipping, then your material should be worth more than 12Bit. If it is worth more thant 12Bit we can discuss about Bit resolution. What is dance crap? If you're referring to music that has very little dynamic range, then pretty much all dance music is crap. That being said, I'd rather not have my crap clip because that will potentially make it sound ever crappier. However, losing 6db to give me some headroom (to avoid clipping my crap), then another 12db of dynamics range for my crap song. Still leaves me a whopping 78db of dynamic range to go before my audience hears the noise floor. Heck, let's say my crap uses 40db of dynamic range, I still have 50db to go before I hit my noise floor. Also, did you not read that article? Like it says, dance music (crap) rarely uses more than 12db of dynamics - that means even 12bits is *more* than sufficient to represent the dynamics range of a typical dance crap, give it some headroom to avoid clipping, and still leave plenty of room above the noise floor. Quote: I disagree that modern hardware is going to change the amount of playback headroom. Two different things here. 1) I believe the newer SL-series interfaces *do* have higher maximum analog output levels. 2) the newer SL interfaces (and mixers) are internally-processing and D/A converting at 24 bits or higher (believe the 61/62/68 mixers are internally 32-bit floating-point). Therefore if you lower gain on a 16-bit file on the more modern hardware, you are NOT knocking off the bottom-most bits of audio as you would be if doing that with a 16-bit output. Quote: 1) I believe the newer SL-series interfaces *do* have higher maximum analog output levels. Where is that extra headroom worked in? We do have a relative max and that's clipping the input of the next device. Even if the output of the box is louder after the DAC, a 16 bit unit still has 96db of dynamic range and 24bit unit has 144db. Digital is digital and the DAC is just representing whatever the digital domain is pushing out and it can get no higher than 0db, regardless of whether it's 16, 24, or 32 bit. Furthermore, the analog side of the chain is, well. Analog, so anything after the DAC is not affected by the 16 vs 24 bit dynamic range, unless it's got louder amps, but then you still have to turn it down so as not to clip the next component in the chain. Quote: 2) the newer SL interfaces (and mixers) are internally-processing and D/A converting at 24 bits or higher (believe the 61/62/68 mixers are internally 32-bit floating-point). Therefore if you lower gain on a 16-bit file on the more modern hardware, you are NOT knocking off the bottom-most bits of audio as you would be if doing that with a 16-bit output. I'd like to understand this one more - the 16 vs 24 issue here has to do with dynamics, correct? We have 96db of dynamics range and even more with 24. I could understand if we were utilizing the entire range, then yes, by all means every single thing that Nik39 says holds true. The issue here is that we're not using the entire range, and far from it. I threw on some orbital tracks and the most that they used was 20db except for the fade-ins and fade-outs. So even if I lower the volume slightly, I'm not losing any dynamic range that the song was recorded with. Say I lower it 6db, song takes up 20db more, there's still 60db left. Am I screwing that part up? At 24 bits with the same song is still gonna be 6db less (because turning it down 6db whether it's 16 or 24), song uses 20db, and I I'm left with even more potential room to the headfloor. Which the song isn't using anyways. Quote: I have to say I really don't understand a discussion about 'avoiding clipping' that attempts to divorce that one thing from any other concerns about audio quality. Ok, how about this - audio quality is such a vague term and nobody has taken the time to define it. It can refer to many different things - noise, dynamic range, sound quality, etc. In this case (16 vs 24 bit), the only thing we're dealing with is dynamic range, correct? If that's the case, I agree that turning down the music is losing potential dynamic range - for that I completely agree. But if a song is using, let's even say 60db of dynamic range and you turn it down 6db, you still have 30db before noisefloor becomes apparent - is there anything else that matters here? That's what this 16/24bit discussion is all about - avoiding bringing up the noisefloor. It seems obvious to me - am I seeing it incorrectly? I have to admit that I don't possess anywhere near the same level of knowledge of this subject as other here in this thread. So I can't really add much to the conversation (sorry). But what I do have is a question (or questions). But first, a little back story: I used to use Serato's built-in gain feature when adding new MP3s and analyzing the waveforms. I had it set it to 92 DBs. It seemed to work fairly well, but some tracks still seemed way too hot (and clipped) and other way too quiet. To compensate, I would move the gain 'knob' for each track and the software would save it's position for that song. I did this without really any further thought on the matter. Then, about a year ago, while encoding some vinyl and making some MP3s from some CDs of mine through Audacity, I began to give more headroom than I was typically seeing on purchased downloads or my CDs (at or near 0 DB). I started doing this while making a simple edit for myself. I added an effect and noticed the waveform on the affected section 'get bigger' after doing so. It led me to think that added effects essentially raised the gain of a given track and, by giving some 'headroom', one could possibly avoid clipping. Question number one and two: Is the above statement correct? Does using an internal effect in Serato (potentially) raise the gain of the track? So I began to take all new tracks into Audacity to view the waveforms. All MP3s without sufficient headroom were loaded into MP3 Gain one by one and reduced by 1.5 (not sure if the '1.5' in MP3 Gain refers decibels). Then I could double-check by reloading into Audacity and confirming the new level is to my liking. With this, I was hoping avoid clipping in the instances that I used an effect. To be clear, I don't often use effects while playing music. But I can on occasion and wanted to avoid problems. Question three and four: Am I wasting time with this? Could I be doing something better? If my thoughts on this are somewhat correct, I will go back to all the stuff in my library and execute the same process on my older tracks. But I need the help of much wiser people than myself. If they'd be willing to weigh in, I'd by highly appreciative. And sorry for the minor thread-jack. But it is related the original topic (gain) and also involves MP3 Gain and Serato. Quote: Was staring at my waveforms a bit last night and it occurred to me that it would be nice if the waveform shown in SSL corresponded to the end result of the auto-gain feature (as opposed to the original file's waveform). It would be similar to the waveform view that the OP is talkin about in MP3Gain, and would allo you to visually see which tracks were clipping Well, you won't be able to visually see them clipping because a waveform can be railed against the 0db limit (via compression or limiting) and still be fine. But, MP3Gain will tell you if the tracks are actually clipping, something SSL won't (easily tell you). Quote: I have to admit that I don't possess anywhere near the same level of knowledge of this subject as other here in this thread. So I can't really add much to the conversation (sorry). I don't know everything either, hence the reason for starting this thread. There are a lot of issues which are brought up which I then spend further time researching. DJMark brought up clipping as a means of making a song sound louder which I wasn't familiar with, but it is in-fact a legitimate means of making a track sound louder. That said, it is best to utilize this technique in the control room of your studio while mastering a track, not in the club;). Quote: But first, a little back story: I used to use Serato's built-in gain feature when adding new MP3s and analyzing the waveforms. I had it set it to 92 DBs. It seemed to work fairly well, but some tracks still seemed way too hot (and clipped) and other way too quiet. To compensate, I would move the gain 'knob' for each track and the software would save it's position for that song. I did this without really any further thought on the matter. This is what a lot of people do. You're either doing one of two things - fixing where SSL's auto-gain went wrong or changing that perceived volume of that track relative to the rest of your library. If you're doing the prior, awesome - if you're doing the latter, you should be adjusting the SSL auto-gain value instead. Quote: Then, about a year ago, while encoding some vinyl and making some MP3s from some CDs of mine through Audacity, I began to give more headroom than I was typically seeing on purchased downloads or my CDs (at or near 0 DB). I started doing this while making a simple edit for myself. I added an effect and noticed the waveform on the affected section 'get bigger' after doing so. It led me to think that added effects essentially raised the gain of a given track and, by giving some 'headroom', one could possibly avoid clipping. Headroom really applies to recording or the input device (i.e. Mixer, recording input, etc), not playback, especially in this instance where playback though SSL is ultimately limited by the digital domain (don't send your signal higher than 0db). That being said, it makes sense to give yourself some headroom when recording from an LP, tape, microphone, etc but you also need to understand what that means and the repercussions of doing so. Obviously you don't want to clip the recording device otherwise you're pristine LP now sounds like crap when it's digitized. However, you also don't want to give yourself so much headroom to the point that when you raise the volume of the track, you also end up raising the the noisefloor to an noticeable level. A little on noisefloor - there's always a noisefloor and it depends on your equipment and how noisy your room is. So, for example, you've got a mic setup in your studio and there's an air-conditioning unit blaring in the background. Your input meters show a steady input level at -30db - this means your noisefloor is -30db. A sound emitted below -30db will be unintelligible (masked by the AC unit) and anything louder will mask the noise of the AC unit (these are FAR from ideal conditions, obviously). If you now record continuous vocals never dipping below -25 or so and peak at -5db, you're fine because the vocals will mask the noisefloor. Normalize your track to 0db and the softest part of your vocals will come up to -20db and your noisefloor *will also come up* with it to -25db. As long as there aren't any pauses in the vocals, you'll never hear all that noise. However, if there are any pauses, you will now hear the noisefloor come through. In the case above, giving yourself 5db of headroom wasn't a bad thing because the softer parts of your vocals never hit the noisefloor - in other words, they never got softer than -25db. Imagine, though, if you gave yourself 10db of headroom during recording with the exact same vocal dynamic range - the softer segments of your vocals are now hitting the noisefloor and will become part of it and most likely become unintelligible. So, giving yourself some headroom is good as long as the dynamic range (the difference between the loudest and softest segments) of the music does not bring you close to the noisefloor. You can then peak normalize your music (making the loudest segment come up to 0db) which will maximize the volume of the track without clipping, but it also brings the noisefloor up with it. But again, if the dynamic range of your song never gets soft enough to bring you close to the noisefloor, then you're fine. Quote: So I began to take all new tracks into Audacity to view the waveforms. All MP3s without sufficient headroom were loaded into MP3 Gain one by one and reduced by 1.5 (not sure if the '1.5' in MP3 Gain refers decibels). Then I could double-check by reloading into Audacity and confirming the new level is to my liking. With this, I was hoping avoid clipping in the instances that I used an effect. To be clear, I don't often use effects while playing music. But I can on occasion and wanted to avoid problems. This is fine for the most part but you can be negating your work in MP3Gain by using SSL auto-gain because all it's going to do is pull it back up so the perceived volume is back at 92db. Also, you can't just look at the peak in a track and assume that's the loudest part of the song. The perceived volume is different than peak volume, and that's why you can't just apply an arbitrary gain reduction to all of your tracks - you need to let MP3Gain calculate the perceived volume and then lower the target value until as many tracks are not clipping while not pulling the volume so low to bring the soft parts close to the noise floor. Quote: Question three and four: Am I wasting time with this? Could I be doing something better? I think you should use either SSL auto-gain or MP3Gain, but not both. Like you said, bringing in a track that has it's volume reduced in MP3Gain is a step in the right direction, but that is for that particular track. MP3Gain (and SSL auto-gain) are looking to make the perceived volume the same for all tracks and do their best job to accomplish that goal. What you need to do is find a target volume (using one tool or the other) that will yield the least amount of tracks that are clipping, but also keep the softest segments of your music away from the noisefloor of your playback device. Btw, if you want to measure the noisefloor of your playback device (i.e. SL1, SL3, etc), generate a sine wave at 0db and play it out of SSL and set the input of your recording device so that it's meters peak at 0db. Now stop playback and see what level your input meters now show - that's your noisefloor. Now make sure the softest segments never get close to that level and you're good to go:) So now that we've explained the noisefloor, this allows us to turn our attention to something that Nik39 keeps bringing up. He keeps saying that turning down the volume by 6db to avoid the track from clipping means we're losing 1bit of dynamic range, and that statement is entirely correct. People also have kept criticizing me for using an SL1 because it's 16bit vs 24bit. What does this all mean? The SL-1, CD players, and most computer and even professional audio devices represent volume by a 16bit value. This means that the device is able to represent 65,536 distinct volume levels - or another way to look at it is that 1bit can represent 6db worth of dynamic range - 6db * 16bits = 96db. Wow, that's pretty awesome until you factor in noise in your mixer, unbalanced outputs (something all SL boxes use), induced hum, etc. Furthermore, you're most likely never going to play a track that has volume levels that get that go software than maybe -60db - like I've said repeatedly above, most of our dance music has a dynamic range of about 12db from the loudest portion of the song to the softest - heck, let's say you have a song that has a dynamic range of 40db and you turn the volume down by 12db, will you even come close the noisefloor of the SL1? No, of course not! So, you're next question is why go 24bit? Well, probably the same reason you won't see the manufacturer chime in. Marketing hype. 24bit dynamic range extends the dynamic range of volume levels down to -144db - this is well beyond the dynamic range of the human ear which is complete silence and the loudest volume possible (120db being near instant hearing damage). Obviously in theory 144db of dynamic range is better than 96db, but in practicality you will never be able to hear the difference, especially in the club or in your bedroom. The only place you *might* hear the difference was if you were in the studio and you were playing music that has a large dynamic range (i.e. But then you probably wouldn't be using SSL;). Oh, and before someone calls me out on it, in my example with the AC noise in the background and the vocals on top, the vocals would only mask the frequencies of the noise in the background - obviously the frequencies have to be similar so it was a somewhat bad example. But that said, if you have similar frequencies that are louder than background frequencies, they'll mask the background noise and make it difficult to notice those background frequencies. That said, if at any point you pull away the foreground noise, the background noisefloor may be apparent, depending on its volume level. Usually this noise takes the form of a general white/pink noise - try turning your amp up all the way (without anything playing) and then listening to the noise compared to when the volume was all the way down - that's an example of the amp's noisefloor, but you never hear that noise while you're playing music because the music masks that noise, especially because it's probably about 80db louder than the noise. Quote: So, for example, you've got a mic setup in your studio and there's an air-conditioning unit blaring in the background. Your input meters show a steady input level at -30db - this means your noisefloor is -30db. A sound emitted below -30db will be unintelligible (masked by the AC unit) and anything louder will mask the noise of the AC unit (these are FAR from ideal conditions, obviously). If you now record continuous vocals never dipping below -25 or so and peak at -5db, you're fine because the vocals will mask the noisefloor. Normalize your track to 0db and the softest part of your vocals will come up to -20db and your noisefloor *will also come up* with it to -25db. As long as there aren't any pauses in the vocals, you'll never hear all that noise. However, if there are any pauses, you will now hear the noisefloor come through. In the case above, giving yourself 5db of headroom wasn't a bad thing because the softer parts of your vocals never hit the noisefloor - in other words, they never got softer than -25db. Imagine, though, if you gave yourself 10db of headroom during recording with the exact same vocal dynamic range - the softer segments of your vocals are now hitting the noisefloor and will become part of it and most likely become unintelligible. Why would you record with 10dB headroom? It makes no sense. You would record your voice as loud as possible, without clipping. Quote: So, giving yourself some headroom is good as long as the dynamic range (the difference between the loudest and softest segments) of the music does not bring you close to the noisefloor. You can then peak normalize your music (making the loudest segment come up to 0db) which will maximize the volume of the track without clipping, but it also brings the noisefloor up with it. But again, if the dynamic range of your song never gets soft enough to bring you close to the noisefloor, then you're fine. Again - this is theory. Vocals without any silence? Vocals using the exact same freq spec as the noise? C'mon, this is not a real life example at all, so no need to discuss this at all. Quote: So now that we've explained the noisefloor, this allows us to turn our attention to something that Nik39 keeps bringing up. He keeps saying that turning down the volume by 6db to avoid the track from clipping means we're losing 1bit of dynamic range, and that statement is entirely correct. People also have kept criticizing me for using an SL1 because it's 16bit vs 24bit. What does this all mean? The SL-1, CD players, and most computer and even professional audio devices represent volume by a 16bit value. This means that the device is able to represent 65,536 distinct volume levels - or another way to look at it is that 1bit can represent 6db worth of dynamic range - 6db * 16bits = 96db. Wow, that's pretty awesome until you factor in noise in your mixer, unbalanced outputs (something all SL boxes use), induced hum, etc. Furthermore, you're most likely never going to play a track that has volume levels that get that go software than maybe -60db - like I've said repeatedly above, most of our dance music has a dynamic range of about 12db from the loudest portion of the song to the softest - heck, let's say you have a song that has a dynamic range of 40db and you turn the volume down by 12db, will you even come close the noisefloor of the SL1? No, of course not! You're completely missing the point. As said before: Why would you discuss extensively about best quality and then leave out this part which has an impact (probably not a big impact)? BTW, mixers such as the 62,61,68 are all internally digital. Quote: So, you're next question is why go 24bit? Well, probably the same reason you won't see the manufacturer chime in. Marketing hype. 24bit dynamic range extends the dynamic range of volume levels down to -144db - this is well beyond the dynamic range of the human ear which is complete silence and the loudest volume possible (120db being near instant hearing damage). Obviously in theory 144db of dynamic range is better than 96db, but in practicality you will never be able to hear the difference I agree - as long as you're not manipulating music and reducing bit depths. I won't worry too much about effects, gains etc. When using 24Bit. But with 16Bit there might be negative effects, as explained before. Anyway, you seem to be happy with accepting negative impacts of 24Bit vs 16Bit and reducing the dynamic range/noisefloor etc. So I don't actually see any reason why you should care about small clippings. But hey, I don't need to understand everything, and I don't think there is a good explanation from your side to shed light on this contradiction. Since I don't seem to be the only one not being able to follow you - I assume it is what it is - a contradiction. No need to try to explain it any further as long as you're repeating yourself.;). Quote: So, you're next question is why go 24bit? Well, probably the same reason you won't see the manufacturer chime in. Marketing hype. 24bit dynamic range extends the dynamic range of volume levels down to -144db - this is well beyond the dynamic range of the human ear which is complete silence and the loudest volume possible (120db being near instant hearing damage). Obviously in theory 144db of dynamic range is better than 96db, but in practicality you will never be able to hear the difference. Quote: I agree - as long as you're not manipulating music and reducing bit depths. I won't worry too much about effects, gains etc. When using 24Bit. But with 16Bit there might be negative effects, as explained before. Anyway, you seem to be happy with accepting negative impacts of 24Bit vs 16Bit and reducing the dynamic range/noisefloor etc. So I don't actually see any reason why you should care about small clippings. But hey, I don't need to understand everything, and I don't think there is a good explanation from your side to shed light on this contradiction. Since I don't seem to be the only one not being able to follow you - I assume it is what it is - a contradiction. No need to try to explain it any further as long as you're repeating yourself.;) I'm not ignoring your previous comments as I think you have valid points, but I think we're talking about so many different things that it's difficult to debate each one individually when they're all really part of one main issue that you've brought up which is the 'negative impacts of 24Bit vs 16Bit and reducing the dynamic range/noisefloor etc'. You've mentioned a few times that bringing down the volume, let's say 6db, means you're losing 1bit of dynamic range. I completely agree with that statement, no argument what-so-ever. What I'm not seeing are the the negative impacts on *most of the music that we play* because the dynamic range of dance music doesn't get anywhere near the noisefloor. So, instead of talking theory, let's use a real-world example. My question to you is how exactly does -6db translate into a real-world problem? More noise, less quality, what is the actual problem? To make it understandable for everyone, pick a song in your collection and explain how that track is taking full advantage of the dynamic range available in 24bit audio - or even further, how is that track taking full advantage of the dynamic range in 16bit audio? How, in real-world terms, are we seeing the benefits or the negative impacts? Quote: 'Why would you recommend such a thing and at the same time using an SL1? By turning down the master gain in the software you are losing headroom and you are worsening the s/n ratio. When using the SL1 which has 'only' 16Bit D/A's. If you turn down the volume by 6dB you are reducing the resolution to 14Bit.' Since it's the first thing you brought up and challenged me on the topic, let's start there and discuss it. I agree that turning down the volume brings your softest segments closer to the noisefloor of the device (SL1, SL3, etc) - not great, but my claim is that it doesn't have an affect on the output, especially for dance music. Also, contrary to what you said above, you are actually increasing headroom between the peak of the track and the output limit of the device - that's a good thing. Furthermore, since we've been talking theoretical the whole time, I'm going to use a real-world example to illustrate how you're not losing any sound quality even though you're bringing the sound level of your softest segments closer to the noisefloor of your playback device. Furthermore I will show that it doesn't make a difference if you have a 16 or 24 bit unit which everyone loves to bring up. To highlight the first issue you brought up, I'm going to go a step further and bring the volume down a whopping -12db and use a real-world example to show how turning the volume down will not have a negative effect on the music being played. Let's take a dance classic: Orbital - Impact The track has a dynamic range of 30db - it peaks at 0db and the softest part of the track is at -30db. Awesome - the track is as loud as it can be (without compression or limiting). I now take that exact same track and load it up in Sound Forge and reduce the volume by 12db - dynamic range is still 30db but it now peaks at -12db and the softest part of the track is at -42db. Those are essentially identical tracks, each with 30db of dynamic range but they peak at different values (0db and -12db). We don't know where the recorded noisefloor is because we are never able to hear it because the song never gets softer than -30db - so the noisefloor of the track is essentially the softest part of the track. Now, I could take the second track, save it, then push the volume back up by 12db and it would be identical to the first track. Yeah, I could be bringing up the noisefloor while editing in the digital domain, which would probably be somewhere around -96db, but we can't hear it anyways so it's moot. So now let's do a device comparison because real-world numbers are never as good as theoretical numbers - according to the specs on the Rane site, the dynamic range of the SL1 (16bit) is 94db and the dynamic range of the SL3 (24bit) is 104db. That means they're saying the noisefloor of their device is somewhere around -94db or -104db for each device respectively otherwise they couldn't really claim to represent audio signals that soft, so we'll give Rane the benefit of the doubt here. Coming back to the Orbital track that was reduced by 12db, the softest section of the track is at -42db, which is still 52db away from the SL1's noisefloor. You not only kept that track from clipping, but you're a whopping 52db away from the playback device's noisefloor. And that's on my SL1! So you probably say, 'Mike, that was an unfair comparison because Orbital has no dynamic range'. Fine - I pulled up a professionally recorded classical track 'Peter Gynt - Suite Nr. Loudest part of the track is -1db and the softest is -50db (essentially the hiss of the hall it was recorded in). It is still nowhere near the noisefloor of the SL1. Heck, even if I reduced the volume of that track by 12db, it's softest part would now be at -62db - that would put the softest section of the song 32db away from the SL1's noisefloor (94-62=32). On a classical track! In other words, the SL1's noisefloor is still negligible, even for a measly 16bit device. So really, where's the problem? Quote: The track has a dynamic range of 30db - it peaks at 0db and the softest part of the track is at -30db. Okay this is where you're going wrong and misinterpreting 'dynamic range'. I don't know how (or with how much time-granularity) you're making these measurements, but even if the very quietest points in the track are measuring -30dBFS, you would almost certainly be hearing program material that's well below -30dBFS at the same time. To hugely simplify what I just said: if you play a 200Hz tone at -30dBFS, and have (just for an example) a 2,500Hz tone playing at -60dBFS at the same time, you WILL hear the higher tone as well as the lower one. Here's the issue with lowering gain on a 16-bit system by any significant amount: not only are you reducing the possible dynamic range by one bit for every 6dB, those bottom-most (least-significant) bits that are being dumped are be being replaced with noise and/or distortion (details depend on exactly how software and/or hardware is handling the gain-reduction/truncation/quantization/re-dithering process). Those artifacts, when amplified on a loud high-quality sound system, may well be audible. The principle is conceptually much the same (though differing in technical details) as how lower-bitrate lossy-compressed soundfiles can sound 'fine' at moderate listening levels, but then a/b one of those with a piece of vinyl or a linear-PCM copy of the same track in a club and the differences are readily heard and felt. Quote: The track has a dynamic range of 30db - it peaks at 0db and the softest part of the track is at -30db. Okay this is where you're going wrong and misinterpreting 'dynamic range'. I don't know how (or with how much time-granularity) you're making these measurements, but even if the very quietest points in the track are measuring -30dBFS, you would almost certainly be hearing program material that's well below -30dBFS at the same time. I don't mind defining things because people often use the same words but have different meanings associated with those words;) I just scrolled to the softest portion of the song and found that it was around -30db. But like you alluded to below, there could be a softer instrument. I could do a frequency analysis at that soft section and see what frequency is the softest, but I'm guessing that there wouldn't be much program material softer than -40db. And below that the noisefloor of their equipment. And I say that because 40db is a huge dynamic range, something that dance music doesn't normally take advantage of. But even then, using the classical track is even easier because the noisefloor (and dynamic range) is essentially defined by the hiss of the room, so there's no way that Orbital's dynamic range is going to be anything more than 40db, which is still well away from the SL1's noisefloor, which is where the bitrate comparison actually comes into play, even if I were to pull the volume down a whopping 12db (which yes, is excessive). Quote: Here's the issue with lowering gain on a 16-bit system by any significant amount: not only are you reducing the possible dynamic range by one bit for every 6dB, those bottom-most (least-significant) bits that are being dumped are be being replaced with noise and/or distortion (details depend on exactly how software and/or hardware is handling the gain-reduction/truncation/quantization/re-dithering process). Those artifacts, when amplified on a loud high-quality sound system, may well be audible. Ok, you say you're reducing the possible dynamic range. Of what exactly? You're not changing the dynamic range of the song unless your applying dynamics processing, which we're not. I agree that you're lowering the dynamic range of the playback device, with the downside of that being that you're bringing the noisefloor up. Like I said above, the noisefloor of the playback device is still well below the lowest volume levels being played back in the track, so you would never hear the difference. Even in the case of the classical track, you still have tons of db before you hit the SL1's noisefloor, and I reference the classical track because you'd never play a track at a dance club that uses that much dynamic range. Quote: Okay this is where you're going wrong and misinterpreting 'dynamic range'. I don't know how (or with how much time-granularity) you're making these measurements, but even if the very quietest points in the track are measuring -30dBFS, you would almost certainly be hearing program material that's well below -30dBFS at the same time. To hugely simplify what I just said: if you play a 200Hz tone at -30dBFS, and have (just for an example) a 2,500Hz tone playing at -60dBFS at the same time, you WILL hear the higher tone as well as the lower one. The first paragraph didn't really click until the second paragraph where you mentioned frequencies. By me just looking at the waveform's volume peaks or troughs, that pretty much was showing me the combined frequencies. So I brought Orbital into the spectrum analyzer for very different results! During the main portion of the track the 62hz freqs were peaking at 0db and the mids to highs were peaking at around -15dbs. Then, however at the soft portions of the track, the 62hz range was still pushing -10db, but the mids were hovering around -35db and the highs sloping off towards -80db at 16khz freqs, where during most of the song the 16hz freq range was seeing an average of -20hz. That means the highs were in-fact seeing a large dynamic range of 60db and getting close to the noisefloor of the SL1. Thank you DJMark, I stand corrected! I appreciate that you pointed that out because without looking at the track with the frequency analyzer, I would have never seen how large the dynamic range is for the various frequencies. So, I'm kinda back to square one which is a bit frustrating. I mean, turning the volume down a few db on all the tracks most likely isn't going to be noticeable, and also having a few clips isn't that noticeable either because they're usually happening on the transients. Ultimately so much depends on the program material, but having MP3Gain to give a bit of insight to avoid some clips is still helpful. Running tracks through Platinum Notes would probably also be helpful, but damn that's a lot of work, especially to try and do it on my existing library. That being said, 92db as a target volume still doesn't seem like a good number because it's pushing quite a few of my tracks into the clipping zone by a few db. I'm thinking I might settle on 90db or so, but I'll probably have to stare at my numbers towards the beginning of this thread. Lemme know you thoughts on this. Quote: Oh, and before someone calls me out on it, in my example with the AC noise in the background and the vocals on top, the vocals would only mask the frequencies of the noise in the background - obviously the frequencies have to be similar so it was a somewhat bad example. But that said, if you have similar frequencies that are louder than background frequencies, they'll mask the background noise and make it difficult to notice those background frequencies. BTW, I have tried using Orbital - Impact. If you upload the entire song once in 16Bit, and once in 12Bit - I am able to distinguish between those two. Not so easy, cause the 16Bit Original seems to have a bad noisefloor already. I must also admit that it is very difficult distinguishing both version on the loud parts - at least for my untrained ears. But - we're striving for best quality eh? We're already losing lots of quality from the recording to the computer, from the computer to the soundcard, then to the amp, speakers, alcoholized/drunk listeners;). 'Do as little harm as possible' is a always good practice.especially if you're in a situation where you can't always carefully monitor/measure what you're doing. As far as the on-screen gain settings.I don't worry about them much unless there's a *serious* level issue (some older DVD rips with average levels around -20dBFS, for example. I dealt with varying levels/EQ's for years in real time with vinyl records and CD's.I deal with Serato the same way. Even with almost NO use of the onscreen gain knobs it's still easier than before since the waveform can be seen *and* it gives good clues about frequency balance. Quote: I think you should use either SSL auto-gain or MP3Gain, but not both. I should have made myself a bit more clear - I've dumped Scratch Live's auto-gain and am now adjusting each track individually beforehand with MP3Gain and Audacity (to view the waveforms). Once in SSL, tracks that are a bit louder (or quieter) than the overall mix will be adjusted by the line faders. I keep the up-faders at 3/4ths of the way up so I have some extra room to raise it a bit for quieter tracks. All loudness-related issues will be dealt with via the faders (and in very rare occasions, the EQ knobs). I also confirmed that my adjustments are only -1.5 dB (never any lower), which is just enough to give myself a tiny bit of wiggle-room in case of using some effects. Quote: I should have made myself a bit more clear - I've dumped Scratch Live's auto-gain and am now adjusting each track individually beforehand with MP3Gain and Audacity (to view the waveforms). I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but you shouldn't be adjusting *each* track individually, you should be highlighting all of your tracks, doing a track analysis/gain on the whole bunch. What that will do is make the apparent volume of *all* the tracks identical - just turning all of the clipping tracks down some amount might stop the clipping but kinda defeats the purpose of using MP3Gain, or SSL's auto-gain for that matter - what they're trying to do is get the apparent volume to be the same among all the tracks. Quote: Once in SSL, tracks that are a bit louder (or quieter) than the overall mix will be adjusted by the line faders. I keep the up-faders at 3/4ths of the way up so I have some extra room to raise it a bit for quieter tracks. All loudness-related issues will be dealt with via the faders (and in very rare occasions, the EQ knobs). You're not really solving the problem by using the faders to adjust channel volumes, you're just moving the problem somewhere else and really creating more of a headache for yourself than you need to. Keeping the faders at 3/4 is one of the hardest ways to mix - my friend was doing the same thing and he was riding the faders and chasing the meters all day. Making for a *very* inconsistent output level. You're just increasing workload by a large amount when you really don't need to. Here's the deal, if you're in the mix and want to cut the volume on a channel really quickly with the fader, you have to bring the fader back *exactly* where you just had it before. If you happen to knock into the fader by accident, then you have to bring it back up or down to the exact point it was before (really bad if you knock it up!). Don't make your life so difficult! Push the channel faders all the way up, use the channel gains to adjust your volumes, and make sure your master levels are good and you're essentially doing the exact thing but you'll be making your life SOOOOOO much easier. You'll notice that most experienced DJs do this (especially scratch DJs and many other DJs as well) as it makes it *really* easy to slam the fader up and down without losing your channel volume settings - I would venture to guess that most DJ mixers are designed with this type of mixing style in mind and this is especially helpful if you use your channel faders to cross-fade because you can focus more on the mix instead of worrying about what the levels are doing and more about the actual mix. Also, if you use SSL auto-gain or MP3Gain, then you'll barely be touching gain settings at all - the key is trying to find the best setting, hence the topic of this thread;). Quote: Oh, and before someone calls me out on it, in my example with the AC noise in the background and the vocals on top, the vocals would only mask the frequencies of the noise in the background. I still had my blinders on - I should have actually payed attention to what I wrote! I think because I was just looking at the waveform instead of the spectral analysis I was forgetting something that DJMark clued me in on. I can have a clipping 20hz frequency and I'll still very clearly hear the -60db sound at 1k;) I was thinking narrow instead of wide - yeah. Quote: 'Do as little harm as possible' is a always good practice.especially if you're in a situation where you can't always carefully monitor/measure what you're doing. As far as the on-screen gain settings.I don't worry about them much unless there's a *serious* level issue (some older DVD rips with average levels around -20dBFS, for example. Actually, it seems one of the most problematic type of tracks are the ones that are very quiet and then have a loud spike - artists such as Mouse on Mars or other weird and experimental tracks - the auto-gain programs have a hard time dealing with those in that they jack the volume up and it clips horribly. And I honestly don't change my gains very much, but in bringing things into MP3Gain, I realized that lot of my tracks were clipping pretty strongly at the 92db SSL auto-gain setting which spurred this thread. Quote: I dealt with varying levels/EQ's for years in real time with vinyl records and CD's.I deal with Serato the same way. Even with almost NO use of the onscreen gain knobs it's still easier than before since the waveform can be seen *and* it gives good clues about frequency balance. Actually interesting that you mention that because you can't really use the waveform with SSL's auto-gain because it's just showing you the original wave-form size, not the actual waveform amplitude that's being played. This is another area where MP3Gain comes in really handy in that SSL will now show you the actual waveform amplitude. Quote: But - we're striving for best quality eh? We're already losing lots of quality from the recording to the computer, from the computer to the soundcard, then to the amp, speakers, alcoholized/drunk listeners;) That's the thing - I'm pushing hard on this because I do ultimately want the best quality and I want to make sure that every choice I make has *very* sound advice behind it because the problem we're running into is that we're making very wide-sweeping changes that will have very long-term effects. A while back (5 years?) when I started using SSL, I settled on 192kbps Fraunhofer-encoded MP3s for my entire library because my drive wasn't huge and I needed to save space. Then I recently got into a discussion with a sound-engineer friend about whether there's a noticeable difference between 192 and lossless, and now the whole clipping thing, and because I'm so OCD about all this stuff, I'm seriously considering going through my library and redoing a bunch of stuff. But if people really can't hear the difference, then I'll make minor tweaks here and there, but the goal here is to have the best quality and make good decisions now that will be good for the long-term. So, at this point I've learned that minor clipping is ok - it's too bad that MP3Gain doesn't tell you by how much a track is clipping, but you can figure that out relatively easily by changing the target value up and down to see when tracks fall off of the clipping list. Also, turning the volume down too much isn't going to be advantageous because of noise-floor issues so it's really going to have to be a compromise between the two and depends highly on the program material. I just didn't want to accept the SSL auto-gain default of 92db because it was easy without having some justification as to why I was using that value. This thread has been extremely educational and I thank everyone for their patience!! Quote: I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, but you shouldn't be adjusting *each* track individually, you should be highlighting all of your tracks, doing a track analysis/gain on the whole bunch. What that will do is make the apparent volume of *all* the tracks identical - just turning all of the clipping tracks down some amount might stop the clipping but kinda defeats the purpose of using MP3Gain, or SSL's auto-gain for that matter - what they're trying to do is get the apparent volume to be the same among all the tracks. I know the idea behind both MP3Gain & Scratch Live's 'auto gain' is to make all tracks have the same relative loudness, but it was causing problems on certain songs. The theory is solid on a macro-level, but fails on a micro one. No matter what level I set either program at, some tracks will be too hot and others too quiet. One size does not fit all. Plus, my ears are better than the programs at measuring perceived 'loudness'. Quote: You're not really solving the problem by using the faders to adjust channel volumes, you're just moving the problem somewhere else and really creating more of a headache for yourself than you need to. Keeping the faders at 3/4 is one of the hardest ways to mix - my friend was doing the same thing and he was riding the faders and chasing the meters all day. Making for a *very* inconsistent output level. You're just increasing workload by a large amount when you really don't need to. It's not that hard for me - I've been doing it since 1992. It's second-nature for me to mix like that. It's how I learned. Also, I still mix vinyl records with my digital tracks (somewhere around 40% on vinyl), so the technique would still be used regardless. Quote: Here's the deal, if you're in the mix and want to cut the volume on a channel really quickly with the fader, you have to bring the fader back *exactly* where you just had it before. If you happen to knock into the fader by accident, then you have to bring it back up or down to the exact point it was before (really bad if you knock it up!). Don't make your life so difficult! Push the channel faders all the way up, use the channel gains to adjust your volumes, and make sure your master levels are good and you're essentially doing the exact thing but you'll be making your life SOOOOOO much easier. You'll notice that most experienced DJs do this (especially scratch DJs and many other DJs as well) as it makes it *really* easy to slam the fader up and down without losing your channel volume settings - I would venture to guess that most DJ mixers are designed with this type of mixing style in mind and this is especially helpful if you use your channel faders to cross-fade because you can focus more on the mix instead of worrying about what the levels are doing and more about the actual mix. Also, if you use SSL auto-gain or MP3Gain, then you'll barely be touching gain settings at all - the key is trying to find the best setting, hence the topic of this thread;) I sometimes enjoy doing micro-cut/pauses of the audio, but I don't use the line faders for that. On my Hak 360, I use the dedicated transformer switches. I wanted to buy, but never never did, a Rane Rotary Empath. On that mixer, there aren't any transformer switches - only a phono/line switch. That won't work with SSL as the audio of the control vinyl would be audible during cuts. In that case, I'd just use the crossfader to do the same thing. For me, the line faders are just for bringing in to, and taking out, the songs with the overall mix. Quote: I know the idea behind both MP3Gain & Scratch Live's 'auto gain' is to make all tracks have the same relative loudness, but it was causing problems on certain songs. The theory is solid on a macro-level, but fails on a micro one. No matter what level I set either program at, some tracks will be too hot and others too quiet. One size does not fit all. Plus, my ears are better than the programs at measuring perceived 'loudness'. I guess I was just saying that I would make those micro adjustments to the gain in SSL - it sounded like you were making those changes in MP3Gain and that's not the most efficient place to make those changes. Plus, if you ever decide to make global changes in MP3Gain and you've made micro changes in SSL, those changes in MP3Gain won't have an effect on your micro adjustments, which is ideal. Quote: It's not that hard for me - I've been doing it since 1992. It's second-nature for me to mix like that. It's how I learned. Also, I still mix vinyl records with my digital tracks (somewhere around 40% on vinyl), so the technique would still be used regardless. Just because you learned that way doesn't mean it's the most efficient;) The beauty of using the faders at full-up is that you'll find yourself making very few adjustments to the channel gains on mixer. Yeah, you can do it the way you learned, but you might find that doing it the other way will make you a lot faster on the mixer with less time adjusting volume levels. If you've got the SSL gains dialed in, you'll very rarely be making any gain adjustments with your faders full up. However, if you use 3/4 fader, you'll always be making adjustments. The other reason the faders are not a good place to make minute adjustments is because lots of times the fader curves aren't linear as many times they mimic the curves available on the cross-fader. Not always, just just something to remember. As for vinyl, CD, SSL. Doesn't make much of a difference - you still have to adjust gain levels regardless. However, if you always have your faders up top, you'll find that you'll be making much fewer adjustments as the method you're using just isn't nearly as precise. Vegetable VS Zombies 2 is a tower defense elements and shooting motion elements together Arcade games, funny story, modern celebrities joined and animation style of the game screen. Game with a 'traitor' strategy, and the use of super good original play, but the player is easy to master. Players will face 90 unique tasks, and need to protect the garden and innocent young seedlings, so that they are protected from a wave of angry zombies and the destruction of the famous super old. To accomplish this mission, the player must choose the most experienced fighters into the camp, so that they shot the enemy bullets. ![]() Features: ✔ Dynamic Game: master the rapid reaction Arcade shooter, at the same time with the strategic thinking of tower defense game ✔ Let the 7 action novice grow into a super hero, and there are also 3 super power support units ✔ More than 12 enemies and 5 super monsters with different abilities, they will challenge you on the battlefield. ✔ 4 different task types, as well as the reward task before the Arcade bonus points ✔ Style and the original story of the original story, so that players laugh ✔ In addition to the standard defense mission, the player must also rescue the captured allies, organized prison break, get bonus items, in order to defeat the five evil genius. ✔ Add More Wonderful Background Music. Sep 14, 2013. Zombies 2 is an award winning strategy game where you grow plants to protect your house from zombies. And this time, it gets bigger. Download Plants vs. Zombies 2 for PC. The APK file can be downloaded from Baidu via the link given below. You can also get the app from Google Play, now. Nov 21, 2017 “Visually striking and with adrenaline-pumping Star Wars™ music, Galaxy of Heroes is a must-play for fans for the franchise.” – USA Today. UpdateStar is compatible with Windows platforms. UpdateStar has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, 2008, and Windows XP, 32 bit and 64 bit editions. Simply double-click the downloaded file to install it. UpdateStar Free and UpdateStar Premium come with the same installer. UpdateStar includes such as English, German, French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian and. You can choose your language settings from within the program. UpdateStar is compatible with Windows platforms. UpdateStar has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with Windows 10, 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2003, 2008, and Windows XP, 32 bit and 64 bit editions. Simply double-click the downloaded file to install it. UpdateStar Free and UpdateStar Premium come with the same installer. UpdateStar includes such as English, German, French, Italian, Hungarian, Russian and. You can choose your language settings from within the program. Download k-lite codec pack for win 7 64 bit download lagu pepali ki ageng selo mai tere liye duniya chod di hai mp3 download meatloaf to hell and back movie download rp cola too much lean download the fourth kind download avi green garden pop yui download superstar chefs full game free. Download the free trial version below to get started. Double-click the downloaded file to install the software. Superstar Chefs Keygen Cs6 Update. Star is compatible with Windows platforms. Star has been tested to meet all of the technical requirements to be compatible with. 1, Windows 8, Windows 7, Windows Vista, Windows Server 2. Simply double click the downloaded file. ![]() Superstar Chefs 2.0 can be downloaded from our software library for free. The Superstar Chefs installer is commonly called Launch.exe, r_lnch.exe, Superstar Chefs-AM.exe, Superstar Chefs.exe or SuperstarChefs.exe etc. The current installation package available for download requires 1.6 MB of hard disk space. This download was checked by our antivirus and was rated as clean. This software was originally produced by Arcade Lab. You can execute this PC program on Windows XP/7/8 32-bit. The following versions: 2.0, 1.3 and 1.2 are the most frequently downloaded ones by the program users. Superstar Chefs lies within Games, more precisely Arcade. Help the Superstar Chefs find the stolen recipes or they will get in big trouble! This game features 64 levels of varied scenery, try to beat them all alone or together with a friend. Or compete against your friend in a special duel mode where the best of 7 levels wins. You may want to check out more software, such as Chef Client, EDM Chef or Chef Development Kit, which might be to Superstar Chefs. This new edition provides a broad overview of neurosurgery to house officers in the clinical neurosciences. The chapters cover all core areas within neurosurgery and the coverage is comprehensive without being encyclopedic. Numerous colour illustrations including tables, algorithms, photographs and flow charts elucidate the text. ![]() • Covers pre- and post- operative patient care neuroradiology pediatric neurosurgery neurovascular surgery trauma surgery spine surgery oncology pituitary adenomas cranial base neurosurgery image-guided neurosurgery treatment of pain epilepsy surgery and much more. • Delivers over 1,220 outstanding illustrations―610 in full color―including many superb clinical and operative photographs, surgical line drawings, and at-a-glance tables. • Describes all of the latest neuroimaging techniques. Neurosurgical Operative Atlas Volume 1 - Free ebook download as PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read book online for free. United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Neurosurgical operative atlas / AANS Publications Committee; editors, Setti S. Rengachary, Robert H. Principles of Neurosurgery Edited by Setti S. Rengachary and Robert H. Approximately 575 pp., illustrated. London, Wolfe, 1994. ISBN: 1-56375-022-8. Principles of Neurosurgery fills a unique niche in the world of neurosurgery textbooks. Already the authors of an extensive multivolume. • Presents the newest developments in minimally invasive surgery. • Provides sweeping updates in its coverage of epilepsy surgery. • Delivers greatly expanded coverage of pediatric neurosurgery. • Offers a thoroughly revised artwork program, including more than 350 brand-new full-color surgical line drawings. 'synopsis' may belong to another edition of this title. DOI: 10.4103/0028-3886.44808 How to cite this article: Manjila S. A Eulogy for Dr. Rengachary, 1937-2008. Neurol India 2008;56:501-2 How to cite this URL: Manjila S. A Eulogy for Dr. Rengachary, 1937-2008. Neurol India [serial online] 2008 [cited 2017 Dec 20];56:501-2. Available from: The fraternity of Indian-American neurosurgeons is deeply grieved by the death of Dr. Rengachary, M.D. Who reached significant milestones as an academic neurosurgeon and as an expert in complex adult spine neurosurgery. He is remembered particularly for his neurosurgical textbooks, Neurosurgery and Principles of Neurosurgery, which are used for reference throughout the world. He specialized in spinal reconstruction and the treatment of spinal trauma; he also practiced general neurosurgery and always found time to read and publish scientific articles, a passion he nurtured over the years. Setti Rengachary was born on October 4, 1937 to Setti Subiyer and Lakshmi Ammal. After spending the first four years of his life in Palam Cottah, he moved when his father started a saree business in Madurai. Rengachary was the only one of his siblings who chose medicine as a career and it was an uphill struggle for him to reach his goal especially after his father's business failed. He often remembered the academic struggle he had as a sixth-grade student when he had serious difficulty learning certain subjects. However, with dedicated hard work and discipline, he improved in school eventually reaching the head of the class; he also tutored students younger and older than himself! He studied at St. Mary's High School in Madurai, where he was regarded as a bright and humble student. He subsequently went to Madurai College and Medical College for his MBBS. He emerged as the top student of the graduating class of 1960. He then completed a straight surgical internship at the State University of New York in Syracuse, New York and followed this with a fellowship at Harvard Medical School and a residency in neurosurgery at the University of Kansas Medical Center. He also graduated with a degree in anatomy from the University of Kansas in 1969 and was a member of the Cajal Club and American Association of Anatomists, a testimony to his unflinching interest in neuroanatomy. After finishing his neurosurgical residency, he worked at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Kansas City, Missouri as Chief of Neurosurgery from 1971 to 1989 and was also a member of the academic division of the Department of Neurosurgery at the University of Kansas Medical Center. He was certified by the American Board of Neurological Surgery in 1973 and was licensed to practice medicine in five states in the U.S.: Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, and Virginia. Rengachary was also a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada. He subsequently served as a professor of neurosurgery at the Universities of Kansas, Missouri, Minnesota, and Wayne State University. While serving as the Associate Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at Wayne State, he also maintained clinical commitments with Detroit Receiving Hospital, Harper University Hospital, Sinai-Grace Hospital, Huron Valley-Sinai Hospital, and Children's Hospital of Michigan, all in Detroit, Michigan, as well as the POH Medical Center in Pontiac, Michigan and St. Mary Mercy Hospital in Livonia, Michigan. His penchant for teaching grew over the decades, culminating in 1999 as the recipient of the Excellence in Teaching Award for the School of Medicine at Wayne State. His name was included in the biographical listings of Personalities of America, Men of Achievement, International Book of Honor, Who's Who in the Midwest, Two Thousand Notable Americans, and Community Leaders in America. Also, The Advanced Technology and Marketing Group selected Dr. Rengachary as its Physician of the Year in 2002. His major research interest was the biomechanics of the spine. To this effect, Dr. Rengachary was an Adjunct Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Technological University in Houghton, Michigan. Another area of research was trauma, where he worked on National Institute of Health projects on early hemicraniectomy in severe, traumatic brain injury and also a HeADDFIRST study on hemicraniectomy and durotomy upon deterioration from infraction. He also engaged in corporate-based research involving systems for anterior cervical locking plates and lumbar peritoneal shunts. Rengachary was a member of many societies including the American Medical Association, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Neurological Surgeons, the American Association of Advancement of Science, the Neuroscience Society, the North American Spine Society, the Michigan Association of Neurological Surgeons, the Michigan State Medical Society, the Wayne County Medical Society, and the American Association of Anatomists. He was a Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, stationed at the 410th Evacuation Hospital in Topeka, Kansas. He was called upon for active duty to serve as a neurosurgeon in the 89th Arcom, 410th Evacuation Hospital during Operation Desert Storm where he was stationed at Hafar-al-Batin, Saudi Arabia, approximately 30 km away from the Iraqi border. He always enjoyed working at the Veterans Affairs' hospitals, and he taught an annual spinal course at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Maryland from 1999 until his retirement in 2007. Rengachary's daughter Usha recollects that he was always interested in reading the history of science, which explains his activity in the American Association of Neurological Surgeons in the history of neurosurgery serving as secretary, treasurer, and chairman at different times. I had the unique privilege of co-authoring several peer-reviewed articles on the history of neurosurgery, which were published in reputed journals such as Neurosurgical FOCUS, Neurosurgery, Surgical Neurology, and The Journal of Neurosurgery with our final collaboration documenting the influence Elihu Yale's philanthropy had on the development of neurosurgery in both India and the U.S. Rengachary's method of procuring and perusing each and every possible reference and his fastidious preparation of the manuscripts was a true testament to his love of research and the exploration of medical history. He would spend long hours in his office reading and writing about various neurosurgical topics, always patient and willing to explain topics to me or any other interested individual. I will hold these cherished memories close to my heart. Rengachary was always close to his family; he relished an Indian meal anytime and spoke in chaste Tamil whenever he could. His wife Dhana was an obstetrician/gynecologist and they had two children together: a daughter Usha who was born in 1968 and a son Dave who was born in 1974. After being diagnosed with metastatic carcinoma requiring chemotherapy, Dr. Rengachary finally succumbed to complications from cancer on December 12, 2008 leaving his family, friends, co-workers, and collaborators in deep sorrow. When he retired from Wayne State in 2007 because of these health concerns, I asked him for a message to the Indian neurosurgical community and he told me: 'Indian neurosurgeons must take an active interest in basic neurosciences, nurture teaching, and learning as a combinatorial process and keep up with the emerging technology.' A great teacher and visionary, Dr. Rengachary authored close to 100 peer-reviewed journal articles and over 75 book chapters, in addition to numerous invited editorial comments, book reviews, and his own textbooks. In a handwritten letter dated November 20, 2008, he wrote to me: 'It may sound simple and elementary, but there is no substitute for constant reading and learning.' As an astute clinician, avid reader, and affable surgeon, Dr. Setti Rengachary has left indelible personal impressions on numerous residents and countless neurosurgical colleagues. On behalf of the neurosurgical community of India, I extend my heartfelt sympathies to his wife Dhana, his children Usha and Dave, and the rest of his family. Personally, this is an irreplaceable loss. I will miss him tremendously, as I have lost a great teacher and guide. May his soul rest in peace. Next article||||| Online since 20 th March '04 Published by Wolters Kluwer. In economics, physical capital or just capital is a factor of production (or input into the process of production), consisting of machinery, buildings, computers, and the like. The production function takes the general form Y=f(K, L), where Y is the amount of output produced, K is the amount of capital stock used and L is the amount of labor used. In economic theory, physical capital is one of the three primary factors of production, also known as inputs in the production function. The others are natural resources (including land), and labor — the stock of competences embodied in the labor force. 'Physical' is used to distinguish physical capital from human capital (a result of investment in the human agent)), circulating capital, and financial capital.[1][2] 'Physical capital' is fixed capital, any kind of real physical asset that is not used up in the production of a product. Usually the value of land is not included in physical capital as it is not a reproducible product of human activity. Recital Fees, Procedures & Program Templates. Recital Fee Schedule. Revised October 2015 (Effective January 1, 2016). Degree Recital Standard: $90.00 or $135.00 with video. For a one hour recital: one stage hand for 2 hours at $15.00/hour and a recording tech for 4 hours at $15.00 per hour. The recording is. Apr 15, 2008. Since this is a busy time of year for so many music teachers, I thought it might be helpful to post a few of the recital programs I have used in the past. They are done in Microsoft Word, and all you need to do is type your information in over the sample text. Indian classical music is one of the oldest forms of music in the world. It has its roots in diverse areas such as the ancient religious vedic hymns, tribal chants, devotional temple music, and folk music. ![]() Indian music is melodic in nature, as opposed to Western music which is harmonic. The most important point to note is that movements in Indian classical music are on a one-note-at-a-time basis. This progression of sound patterns along time is the most significant contributor to the tune and rhythm of the presentation, and hence to the melody. Although Indian music is now divided into the two major classes of Hindusthani (Northern Indian) and Karnatak or Carnatic (Southern Indian), the origins and fundamental concepts of both thes types of music are the same. The form of presentation may however vary between the two systems, as well as from one gharana (family) to another in the former system. Tags: Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone Full Mp3 Song Download, Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone Wapking Djmaza Pagalworld Mr-Jatt gana com Mp3 Song Download, Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone Full Song Download, Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone Song Download, Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone itunes Rip Full. ![]() For your search query Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Music Ringtone MP3 we have found 1000000 songs matching your query but showing only top 10 results. Now we recommend you to Download first result Raman Ishita Happiness Ringtone MP3 which is uploaded by Shaik Samiulla of size 1.14 MB, duration 52 seconds and bitrate is 192 Kbps. Please Note: Before downloading you can preview any song by mouse over the PLAY button and click Play or Click to DOWNLOAD button to download hd quality mp3 files. First search results is from YouTube which will be first converted, afterwards the file can be downloaded but search results from other sources can be downloaded right away as an MP3 file without any conversion or forwarding.There is Other Mp3 Songs You can Download Like Ye Hai Mohabbatein Ringtone Or Ye Hai Mohabbatein TV Serial Ringtone Song Raman And Ishita. You can Download Latest Hindi Hit Song,Tamil Songs,Telugu Songs,MAlayalam Songs etc from Here without anycost.We hope you found Yeh Hai Mohabbatein Music Ringtone Related Mp3 and Video. This is the Subaru VIN decoder. Every Subaru car has a unique identifier code called a VIN. This number contains vital information about the car, such as its manufacturer, year of production, the plant it was produced in, type of engine, model and more. For instance, if someone wants to buy a car, it is possible to check the VIN number one the online database to ensure that the car was not stolen, damaged or illegally modified. The VIN number has a specific format that is globally recognized. This format was implemented by the ISO institute. Every car manufacturer is obliged to mark all its vehicles in this special format. This online service allows a user to check the validity of the car and get detailed information on almost any VIN number, search for Subaru car parts and check the car's history. The VIN also allows a user to check the market value of a new or used Subaru. Engines and Lawn Mower Parts of all Kinds. Your number one source for Engines. Subaru Forester 1998-05. Engine Identification. The engine model number is stamped at the front side on the top edge of the cylinder block. The engine number indicates engine type, displacement, fuel system. Click image to see an enlarged view. Engine serial number location on the engine block. Ariens places their model numbers and serial numbers on easy-to-find tags on their lawn equipment. Unless your equipment is very old, your model number should always. What's a VIN Number and why is it important? Use your VIN number for a detailed VIN check on any car. CARFAX provides a comprehensive VIN search on a car's history. ![]() Please check Subaru car parts catalog for additional information if you're looking for parts to repair your vehicle. You can search Subaru parts. It is possible to get market price of new or used Subaru by VIN number. Every buyer must check Subaru car history before getting a car loan or credit. Buying a used car? Do not forget to read about. Find all the latest facts, figures and based on year, make and model. Subaru vehicle history report may contain the following information: title problems, prior damages, unsafe salvage rebuilds, odometer mileage, theft, past sales. Make sure to check VIN number before buying a used car. Please search the VIN number to obtain a Subaru vehicle history report. Features: Free Subaru VIN Number Decoder - Subaru Vehicle History with recalls and complaints - Cost effective Carfax Alternative • What is VDS? VDS is a Vehicle Descriptor Section. VDS is used to specify a type of vehicle and may include information about the model, platform, engine and transmission. • What is VIN? VIN is a Vehicle Identification Number • What is VIS? VIS is a Vehicle Identifier Section • What is WMI? WMI is a World Manufacturer Identifier. The first three symbols identify the manufacturer of the car. Contents • • • • • • • • • Subaru VIN code [ ] The following sample is the sequence and meaning of each character in the Subaru VIN: Position Sample Description 1 J 2 F 3 1 4 C 5 X 6 8 7 6 8 5 9 9 10 T 11 H 12 1 Sequential production number 13 0 14 0 15 2 16 1 17 6 The above serial number describes the following vehicle built in Japan by Fuji Heavy Industries: 1996 Subaru Alcyone SVX, 3.3L EG33 engine, AWD 4EAT transmission, manual seat belts with driver / passenger airbags. The 216th vehicle produced during the 1996 model year. Description: An unofficial set of quick-playing skirmish rules intended for use with the 4th Edition of Games Workshop's 'Warhammer 40K'. Please note this. Please note this file does not include army lists - you can either use the official army lists or download my unofficial Codex rules (which are balanced for skirmish play). Oct 26, 2016. Download and Read Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Mini Rulebook Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Mini Rulebook Title Type warhammer 40k 6th edition mini rulebook PDF Aug 23, 2016 Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Mini Rulebook. Read Online Warhammer 40k 6th Edition Mini Rulebook PDF, Free Download. Although studying is considered a legitimate scientific nowadays, it is still a very young one. In the early 1970s, a psychologist named J. Guilford was one of the first academic researchers who dared to conduct a study of creativity. One of Guilford’s most famous studies was the nine-dot puzzle. He challenged research subjects to connect all nine dots using just four straight lines without lifting their pencils from the page. Today many people are familiar with this puzzle and its solution. In the 1970s, however, very few were even aware of its existence, even though it had been around for almost a century. If you have tried solving this puzzle, you can confirm that your first attempts usually involve sketching lines inside the imaginary square. The correct solution, however, requires you to draw lines that extend beyond the area defined by the dots. At the first stages, all the participants in Guilford’s original study censored their own thinking by limiting the possible solutions to those within the imaginary square (even those who eventually solved the puzzle). Even though they weren’t instructed to restrain themselves from considering such a solution, they were unable to “see” the white space beyond the square’s boundaries. Only 20 percent managed to break out of the illusory confinement and continue their lines in the white space surrounding the dots. The symmetry, the beautiful simplicity of the solution, and the fact that 80 percent of the participants were effectively blinded by the boundaries of the square led Guilford and the readers of his books to leap to the sweeping conclusion that creativity requires you to go outside the box. The idea went viral (via 1970s-era media and word of mouth, of course). Overnight, it seemed that creativity gurus everywhere were teaching managers how to think outside the box. Consultants in the 1970s and 1980s even used this puzzle when making sales pitches to prospective clients. Because the solution is, in hindsight, deceptively simple, clients tended to admit they should have thought of it themselves. Because they hadn’t, they were obviously not as creative or smart as they had previously thought, and needed to call in creative experts. Or so their consultants would have them believe. The nine-dot puzzle and the phrase “thinking outside the box” became metaphors for creativity and spread like wildfire in, management, psychology, the creative arts, engineering, and personal improvement circles. There seemed to be no end to the insights that could be offered under the banner of thinking outside the box. Speakers, trainers, training program developers, organizational consultants, and university professors all had much to say about the vast benefits of outside-the-box thinking. It was an appealing and apparently convincing message. Indeed, the concept enjoyed such strong popularity and intuitive appeal that no one bothered to check the facts. No one, that is, before two different research —Clarke Burnham with Kenneth Davis, and Joseph Alba with Robert Weisberg—ran another experiment using the same puzzle but a different research procedure. Both teams followed the same protocol of dividing participants into two groups. The first group was given the same instructions as the participants in Guilford’s experiment. The second group was told that the solution required the lines to be drawn outside the imaginary box bordering the dot array. In other words, the “trick” was revealed in advance. Would you like to guess the percentage of the participants in the second group who solved the puzzle correctly? Most people assume that 60 percent to 90 percent of the group given the clue would solve the puzzle easily. In fact, only a meager 25 percent did. What’s more, in statistical terms, this 5 percent improvement over the subjects of Guilford’s original study is insignificant. In other words, the difference could easily be due to what statisticians call sampling error. Let’s look a little more closely at these surprising results. Solving this problem requires people to literally think outside the box. Yet participants’ performance was not improved even when they were given specific instructions to do so. That is, direct and explicit instructions to think outside the box did not help. That this advice is useless when actually trying to solve a problem involving a real box should effectively have killed off the much widely disseminated—and therefore, much more dangerous—metaphor that out-of-the-box thinking spurs creativity. After all, with one simple yet brilliant experiment, researchers had proven that the conceptual link between thinking outside the box and creativity was a myth. Of course, in real life you won’t find boxes. But you will find numerous situations where a creative breakthrough is staring you in the face. They are much more common than you probably think. *From Copyright 2014 Drew Boyd. There are many theories of creativity. What the latest experiment proves is not that creativity lacks any association to thinking outside-the-box, but that such is not conditioned by acquired knowledge, i.e., environmental concerns. For example, there have been some theories such as those of Schopenhauer (see his remarks about Genius) and Freud (see his remarks about Sublimation) that propose creativity is something more like a capacity provided by nature rather than one acquired or learned from the environment. Rather than disproving the myth, in other words, the experiment might instead offer evidence that creativity is an ability that one is born with, or born lacking, hence why information from the environment didn't impact the results at all. It's an interesting experiment, but the author's conclusion cannot possibly follow from the results of it. I conduct soft skills training and outbound training for Corporates and individuals. To enhance creativity we motivate the participants to approach the problems from variety of vantage points. Even repeatedly checking the boundary conditions we are able to come up with variety of ways of solving the problem. This is akin to checking the walls of the box. Looking inside the box for additional information, additional resources also helps. Looking at the box from bird's eye view triggers some different creative solutions. Let us not get tied down to the mechanics but free ourselves to find the solution. I will give an example. You are playing football with family and friends at a distant ground and someone gets bruised badly. No first aid kit is available. Your priority is to get the person to a hospital ( at a distance of 2 hours ). The wound is bleeding and needs to be kept clean and bacteria free till the person reaches the hospital. What will you do? Think of a solution. It is quite close to you. With all due respect, Professor Boyd, your argument is not at all compelling. It seems that you are taking the 'thinking outside the box' (TOTB) metaphor much more literally than it is intended (or, at least, as I and may others infer). Let me point out a few false and/or negligent statements that you make: 1. To refer to TOTB as 'dangerous' is naive, at best. I, personally, have seen the positive, tranformative effects of not only the 9-dots exercise, but also the occasional use of the term to remind individuals after-the-fact about the value of thinking differently. The experiment you refer to doesn't even come close to proving what you suggest that it does. To use the term 'proving' in an argument like this is laughable. In real life, you absolutely WILL find boxes.that is, if you understand what the term 'box' refers to. Here, the term is not literal; rather, it refers to a mindset, a perspective, a belief, or an assumption. It is precisely how the human mind works. We all think in boxes all the time. The 'sin,' if you will, is not in thinking inside of a box.but the neglect to readily switch from one box to another, nimbly (see Alan Iny's new book, 'Thinking in New Boxes'). A different -- and very healthy, positive, and productive -- way to think about TOTB is to understand that it merely represents an insight that can remind an individual to consciously become aware of limiting assumptions. And, upon such awareness, to open ones mind and imagination to actively explore new possibilities beyond the obvious or initial answer. If you don't regard this as valid contribution to creativity, then I suggest you consider spending a bit more time outside of that 'box' that you've presented here. I couldn't have said it any better. TOTB is a beautiful skill to have. We are born into multiple boxes that are created upon social agreements (e.g. Illustrated by the hermeneutic circle) but the ones who dare to think outside of what is considered as social or scientific correct (all the boxes together) are the minds whom are absolute free and open towards new moralities, paradigms, innovations and creativity in general. Saying that TOTB is a negative thing is a very conservative statement and someone who has such a belief is scared of change, scared of diversity and scared of anything that is abstract and out of order. I'm all about TOTB and the best way to TOTB is to fully understand the box in the first place and why some people are scared of TOTB hence also lacking the ability to do so. Fold the paper so all the dots ovelap. Use four lines to connect four dots. Hold the folded paper up to the light.all dots connected; Thinking outside The Box. For that matter, you could fold the paper until all the dots overlapped and you would not need to waste any pencil lead; Thinking outside The Box. Use a very wide pencil lead or charcoal block for that matter, connect all the dots in one fell swoop; Thinking outside The Box. Forego a pencil altogether and use a bucket of paint to create a huge blot over all the dots; Thinking outside The Box. Question the dots and why they need to be connected in the first place; Thinking outside The Box. Erase the dots; they are a distraction to Thinking outside The Box. Create your own dots and lines in any fashion you desire; Thinking outside The Box. People that say, it's a misguided idea,, do not know how to think outside the box, I can look /listen/ at anything an tell you how to fix it. I play chess with my pc, an beat it all the time, and the reasoning is I do not think logically, like the pc does. It has a set of rules that it was programed with an you were in college, I do not play by the rules, I can play without the queen.Also when you go the a school that teaches how to think about something, that is all you know how to do.I have had engineers come to my deck, hand me a set of blueprints, because that was the way they were taught. They are never taught to look at it, in there mind to see it working. What I do is show them how wrong they are, an ask them what tool in the world can cut a square hole inside the middle of two long tubes. They can not think outside the box, that they were taught to do. If was going to tell you about an airplane the TR-3B, it travels a little bit under light speed, an it uses nuclear fusion, which turns into plasma an powers the craft, that was built outside the box. An if you do not believe me type it into your search engine, you can also look it up at the library of congress under new patients. You my brother, do not have the inkling of understanding to think outside the box. That's why you are a psychologist an nothing more. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |