KVR Audio

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:39 pm

jens wrote:no, you're right - it's actually wonderful as well...

there's something in the air
and you don't know what it is
you see someone through a window
who you've just learned to miss
and the road leads on to glory but
you've used up your last wish
your last wish
and you want her to come home

I'll have to get that album in the CD player now...

McLilith

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:42 pm

mine is already spinning...

madkeys · Post by **madkeys** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:58 pm

remember that those old recordings were done on tape and had tape compression !

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:02 pm

madkeys wrote:remember that those old recordings were done on tape and had tape compression !

this has already been brought up about 37,5 times in this thread!

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:08 pm

madkeys wrote:remember that those old recordings were done on tape and had tape compression !

Remember?

How could we forget?

You're possibly the tenth person to remind us of that fact, in this very thread alone.

Still, it isn't too important to me, since I think what most of us were really talking about was a form of compression that is more drastic than your typical tape compression. I don't think it's compression per se that some of us don't like, but the over-use of, or over-dependence on, compression. The effects of tape compression are fairly marginal, in comparison to the sort of compression I have in mind.

take care,
McLilith

CC4 · Post by **CC4** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:10 pm

by the way, you can use "Amused To Death" to let you know if your speakers are out of phase.

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:27 pm

McLilith wrote: Live rock band... large dynamic range?

I didn't think those two usually went together.

Sure they do! No drummer in the world can play every kick drum at exactly the same volume.. but the CD version is usually squashed well beyond that point.

The most exciting live drummer I ever saw was Gilson Lavis, playing with Jools Holland (OK, not really a rock band) but it was the inner dynamics of his kick drum sound in particular that really impressed me: he could play a ghost note and produce a soft warm woomph, and then slam the downbeat right into your chest..

Even Napalm Death managed it, by having short sub-30 second songs..

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:32 pm

CC4 wrote:by the way, you can use "Amused To Death" to let you know if your speakers are out of phase.

Qsound!

(there are even Qsound plugins b.t.w. (dx-only if I recall correctly) - not cheap though)

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:35 pm

platinumears wrote:
McLilith wrote: Live rock band... large dynamic range?

I didn't think those two usually went together.
Sure they do! No drummer in the world can play every kick drum at exactly the same volume.. but the CD version is usually squashed well beyond that point.

The most exciting live drummer I ever saw was Gilson Lavis, playing with Jools Holland (OK, not really a rock band) but it was the inner dynamics of his kick drum sound in particular that really impressed me: he could play a ghost note and produce a soft warm woomph, and then slam the downbeat right into your chest..

Even Napalm Death managed it, by having short sub-30 second songs..

micro-dynamic...

macro-dynamic is a bit of another thing though - you usually need a good man at the mixing desk who knows all the songs from the inside out!

IIRs · Post by **IIRs** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:40 pm

jens wrote: macro-dynamic is a bit of another thing though - you usually need a good man at the mixing desk who knows all the songs from the inside out!

Better if that comes from the band IMO.. if the band is "perfect" I won't need to touch the desk after setting a basic balance, except to turn off the vocal effects between tracks.. of course, it never happens in practise, but i think it is something every good live band should aspire to!

jens · Post by **jens** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:48 pm

totally agree - but I know the pain of not getting it right

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:08 pm

I think that I must be mistaking something:
I thought that the word we are all throwing around, "dynamics", (which by the way doesn't actually mean anything as a description on it's own - sound has several kinds of dynamic) meant that there was movement within the individual sounds, and/or bewtween parts that happen concurently; I am confused, because it seems to be getting described as the difference between the 'loud part' and the 'quiet part'. That doesn't seem right somehow. Like the example that was given from Pink Floyd; the quiet muttering, then the music comes in louder... that's not really an example of what I understood to be "dynamic" when referring to audio production, and even less so when referring to compression.
Am I wrong?

birrbits · Post by **birrbits** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:20 pm

jens wrote:
CC4 wrote:by the way, you can use "Amused To Death" to let you know if your speakers are out of phase.
Qsound!

(there are even Qsound plugins b.t.w. (dx-only if I recall correctly) - not cheap though)

holy hell QSound, I remember having that on my "high-end version" AWE32 (laugh away), was fun to move stuff around with though. Also had that speech chip, oh what fun times

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:21 pm

spoonboiler wrote:I think that I must be mistaking something:
I thought that the word we are all throwing around, "dynamics", (which by the way doesn't actually mean anything as a description on it's own - sound has several kinds of dynamic) meant that there was movement within the individual sounds, and/or bewtween parts that happen concurently; I am confused, because it seems to be getting described as the difference between the 'loud part' and the 'quiet part'. That doesn't seem right somehow. Like the example that was given from Pink Floyd; the quiet muttering, then the music comes in louder... that's not really an example of what I understood to be "dynamic" when referring to audio production, and even less so when referring to compression.
Am I wrong?

This page: Dynamics in Music would seem to support my use of the term "dynamics" to refer to the loud and soft sections of a Floyd recording. More precisely, instead of simply saying "dynamics", I could have used a phrase something like "actual utilization of potential musical dynamic range, as pertaining to humanly-perceived amplitude", but "dynamics" is much quicker to type.

I thought that most people would understand that my use of "dynamics" is a short form of that longer expression.

I would really like to hear more about what you thought the term meant. I'm not sure I understood you the first time.

take care,
McLilith

McLilith · Post by **McLilith** » Fri Apr 22, 2005 10:30 pm

spoonboiler wrote:that's not really an example of what I understood to be "dynamic" when referring to audio production, and even less so when referring to compression.
Am I wrong?

If you run the intro of "The Wall" through heavy compression, those soft mutterings followed by the enourmously loud crescendo, would be much closer in volume to each other. The dynamic range of the recording would be much reduced by the compressor. The dramatic emotional impact of the huge crescendo following the very soft voices will be totally lost.

I would say this is a good example of a recording that wasn't ran through heavy compression, at least not the "let's compress the crap out of the whole recording" style of compression.

EDIT: I've been using the word "crescendo" inappropriately here. Sorry, about that. Crescendos are gradual increases in volume, not rapid and dramatic increases, such as you hear on the intro of The Wall. The rest of my comments are still "sound", I believe.

take care,
McLilith

Alan Parsons on compression - from the man himself...