1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.

    Dismiss Notice

Dynamic range compression of classical music.

Discussion in 'Sound Science' started by xenophon, Nov 24, 2014.
1 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
  1. Strangelove424
    SonicTruth has been greasing the slope with vaseline for the last two pages. Any body still trying to make progress has patience in reserve, but I wonder how much it will help in this case.
  2. pinnahertz
    Let's put it this way: in the professional environment clipping shouldn't happen in the mix. There are far too many indicators and opportunities to avoid it. With 24 bits and 64 bit DAWs it's really inexcusable. That doesn't mean someone can't screw up, but making that error repeatedly would be cause for dismissal in my pro audio world. Deliberate clipping is applied in the final mix or more typically the mastering stage.
  3. bigshot
    Well, I always work with professional sound engineers. If they record clipping into a track I'm recording, I'll fire them and find another sound engineer. Maybe it's different for non professional projects.

    I've done a lot of recording of voice over and vocals. You flat out can't record a voice well without compression. The microphones, mic pres and signal processing that the studios I work with use cost more than a house and they do a fantastic job of sounding natural, clear and clean. The engineers know how to apply the tools properly. That's what they get paid for.
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2017
    gregorio likes this.
  4. castleofargh Contributor
    well we had cues of where this would go from how he came resurrecting this thread and 2 others on the same theme, the man has something to say about dynamic. the content of the post ends up giving an erroneous explanation of the DRmeter followed logically by erroneous assumptions. and of course the magnificent conclusion out of nowhere:

    the reply right after by @danadam said it all. someone didn't read the topic or what DRmeter does, **** happens, small misunderstanding. of course if we misunderstand what the tool we use is doing, making false assumption is easy.
    so let's admit to an honest mistake, go read about the DRmeter, and move on... is what I was expecting. but we didn't get so lucky.
  5. TheSonicTruth
    How is the DR snapshot "accurate for what they are trying to do" when the results it returns don't always correspond with what our ears tell us? I think people should use other DR meaurement software in posting to the DR Database, such as the Amplitude Statistics mentioned on here. Something that uses the *whole* waveform, not just the peaks or just the average or whatever.

    Last time I checked, mastering, remastering, or what passes for remastering of mass-produced albums for the 99percent, affects all of a song's waveform, not just part of it.
  6. pinnahertz
    It does correspond with what our ears tell is, just not about the aspect you're looking for. It corresponds quite well for short term crest factor effects, which is what loudness war processing influences.
    Study up on the loudness war. You can actually have a very wide dynamic range recording that has horrible loudness war processing as well. AS would not show that, the DR meter would.
    Not true. Dynamics processing has various thresholds and time related aspects that vary the effect with time and level.
  7. TheSonicTruth
    "Study up on the loudness war. You can
    actually have a very wide dynamic range
    recording that has horrible loudness war
    processing as well."

    Can't serve two masters(no puns intended!). Both aligned to full-scale(peak normalized), the more dynamic track will have a lower RMS, and average LUFS value than the less-dynamic, loudified version.

    Now on the arrangement/composition side, you could have a denser sounding track, which could increase perceived loudness, but that's in the creative, idea stage, not mixing or mastering a finished song.
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
  8. pinnahertz
    Generally, but since all dynamic processing involves a threshold about which dynamic changes begin, this is not strictly true because you can actually have two tracks with equal total dynamic range but one with loudness processing.
    Absolutely not true! Sure, on the arrangement level, those things can be changed. But, mixing has the capability to completely rearrange a piece, and mastering has the capability completely rearrange dynamics.
  9. TheSonicTruth
    I guess you guys, and I, are from different planets engineering-wise. Everyone knows that two different pop songs, with similar processing but different arrangements, instrumentation, even different vocals, can have different perceived loudnesses.

    Ave Maria... Bob Katz where are you when I need you?...
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
  10. bigshot
    And two different recordings that turn up the same rating by the dynamic range meter might have quite different degrees of perceived dynamic range. Different is different and dynamics depend on a whole bunch of factors. You can't measure perceived dynamics that simply. That's why we're suggesting that it's best to use your ears to judge relative dynamics in totally different recordings.
  11. pinnahertz
    I'm not disputing that, I'm explaining the different means of measurement.
  12. TheSonicTruth
    I already know everything I need to about the Loudness War. I got warnings and bans from other moderated audio forums for bringing the subject up on them. I got a stalker named "None" on Usenet newsgroup rec.audio.pro that unleashes a toilet-mouthed tirade every time I mention the words loudness or compression! He/It lives in or around Acton, MA, and now pops up crashing good threads I engage in on newsgroups having nothing to do with music or audio production.

    The engineers who frequent GearSlutz told me, paraphrasing, that "while they have the tools to totally flatten a track, the decision to do so comes from the client - the actual artist, their producer, or the record label." They added that it is those entities us anti-loudness music fans should take up our case against - "not those of us who are just doing our jobs to earn livings".
    Last edited: Oct 8, 2017
  13. bigshot
    It sounds to me like you're doing something to attract attention. You might want to reconsider how you present yourself if you are getting that much negative feedback. The whole world isn't out to get you and the whole world isn't stupid. If you get that impression, odds are you're the one that needs to change, not them. That is especially obvious when you follow usenet. That's a social construct that does a very efficient job of self-policing. You don't want to get on the wrong side of that.

    You can't argue with that. The people who own the recordings get to decide their own priorities for how it's mastered. The engineer has to understand what the client wants and give it to them the best they can.
    JaeYoon likes this.
  14. JaeYoon
    Exactly, if the engineers don't do what the client wants. They will just find someone else who will!
  15. pinnahertz
    The only things I've ever said "I already everything I need to..." about were things were ultimately repulsive, offensive, or could cause mental, spiritual, or physical harm.
    There are usually two sides to every story, especially when it comes to bannings.
    I sincerely hope that by quoting the above you were not implying that they are wrong. If so, that could imply that your first statement is also incorrect.
    JaeYoon likes this.
1 2 3 4
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Share This Page