[Zigo Zago]

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano and
strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with a
second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for the lute
and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego

[Geoff]

Zigo Zago wrote:
I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano
and strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with
a second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for
the lute and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not,
considering that I own only some software compressor and I've never
used it (I record only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego

Compression is an aenathema (sp ?) to classical music.

geoff

[[email protected]]

On Nov 26, 5:42 pm, "Geoff" wrote:


DiegoCompression is an aenathema (sp ?) to classical music.


even the purist are using it, the loudness wars rages even there.
"it doesnt play as loud in my ipod, so I turn it up and on the loud
passages it distorts"


Zigo
try parallel compression, done right it can bring the quieter passages
volume up.
if your daw has writable volume...

[William Sommerwerck]

Why, why, why, why, why?

WHY?

What stinking purpose would it serve?

Leave the sound ALONE.

[martin griffith]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:17:35 +0100, in rec.audio.pro "Zigo Zago"
wrote:

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano and
strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with a
second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for the lute
and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego



1min15 seconds sounded like 30 seconds......thxs


martin

[Carey Carlan]

"Zigo Zago" wrote in
:

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano
and strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with
a second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for
the lute and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not,
considering that I own only some software compressor and I've never
used it (I record only classical music, mainly in stereo)

There are two answers.

1) Classical music expression (especially opera) requires wide dynamics.
Leave it alone.

2) The people who will be listening won't be in environments where the full
dynamic range can be heard. Compress it. Hint: Taming the peaks of the
sopranos performance will probably get you into the range without further
peaks.

You get to pick one side or the other. Both choices are valid in context.

Just my opinion, but the whole mess is miked MUCH too closely. Sounds very
unnatural. Backing off 6-12 feet would give you most of the "compression"
you could look for.

[David Satz]

Diego wrote:

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Diego, that's a very nice sounding recording. Admittedly this is based
on only one hearing on my computer speakers, but I don't get the
impression that you need to change it in any way. Some of us here might
imagine that we would have done things a little differently, but then
we weren't the ones in the room at the time, were we? You were. I for
one would feel quite fortunate to have gotten such good results--and
I've been recording live classical music for 35 years now.

When this CD is available, could you come back and let us know where?
I'd buy one.

In general, compression is most effective when it can be used on
isolated tracks, as in some multi-track pop music recording when the
musicians aren't even present in the studio at the same time.

In live classical recording, generally the only way to use compression
is on the whole mix--and that tends to suck the life out of it. It
reduces the dynamic range so that everything becomes "mezzo-fortissimo"
as Schoenberg once called it. Unfortunately too many musicians play
that way nowadays--making no real pianissimo or fortissimo, for fear of
injuring their beautiful tone.

Please don't be tempted, unless you're trying to fix a very specific
problem (e.g. a single note exceeds the entire rest of the recording by
7 dB, and you want to reduce that to 3 dB, thus enabling you to bring
up the average levels by 4 dB--_then_ it's worth trying).

--best regards

[Mark]

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)



I agree with the others, the dynamics are nice as they are...

if you really really feel the need to make it louder, try this....

Bring up the overall gain by say 3 to 4 dB, then use your DAW and draw
in the volumne evelopes and cut the gain back 3 or 4 dB only during the
big peaks say like the one at 0:47 in the clip.

I tried this on your clip and it did make it play a bit smoother
overall, the peak at 0:47 did kind of stick out above everything
else...

But you don't need to use a compressor to do this... you can use a
DAW...

If you really really want to use a compressor, just set the threhold
way up so that it just pulls down those very infreqent peaks only...
the gain reduction meter should not move except during those
infrequenct peaks and then only a handfull of dB...

Nice recording

Mark

[Edi Zubovic]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 23:17:35 +0100, "Zigo Zago"
wrote:

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano and
strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with a
second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for the lute
and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego

-- I've listened the clip and I can agree with the others, I'd prefer
no compression whatsoever. If you happen to listen this piece on an FM
broadcast, you'll probably agree too. They _will_ compress it a bit at
least. I'm afraid, some broadcasters might smash it outright. It would
sound awfully tired then. This would be not _this_ music.

I admit there's ocassionaly loud parts, the soprano actually clips a
bit during the first "ooh" in the middle, but this I can correct
uneventfully by "Clipped Peak Restoration" tool in Sound Forge. In
fact, that restoration tool adds a little compression. But this is
dynamics and it should be preserved in digital recordings by all
means. You are not actually recording classics for "IPods" aren't you?

All the best,


Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Peter Larsen]

Zigo Zago wrote:

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for
soprano and strings.

Aha, such recordings can be the greatest of joys to make.

It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording
with a second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other
spot for the lute and the doublebass.

Tracks are cheap nowadays, use a track for each mic or stick to using a
single pair. A major advantage of the multitrack approach is that you
only need to include what really works.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not,

What problem is it you want to solve by adding compression? - to me it
seems that the choice of whether to do it is about whether the result is
playable in an apartment without the neighbors adding pipes and walls. I
do not hear a problem to solve by compression on this.

considering that I own only some software compressor and I've
never used it

If you have some equipment, then play around with it in good time so
that you know it when you perhaps need it. Compressing classical music
is very different from compressing popular stuff, and it is frequently
done in a silly manner that results in a recording with only piano and
fortissimo, nothing in between. The recommendation you have already
gotten of using - or emulating - parallel compression would be mine as
well, it was recommended by Audio and Design back in the old days.

(I record only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3

With multitrack capability it could be tempting to have a focusing mic
on the vocalist, but the strings should imo have been a pair, the
overall string sound is massive instead of airy and it sounds as if the
bass is closer than the vocalist. Mp3 encoding does have a habit of
boosting peaks a wee bit on decoding, you are the one who knows whether
it is also clipped prior to encoding, if so it seems to be no more than
a quality unclipper could handle reasonably well.

I do have a compression preset that I call "soprano control" .... a
major difference between using compression in all close miked and
separated popular music and in classical music is that it can be much
better to apply overall compression at least, such as a "soprano
control" or "avantgarde gentle" preset than to apply it to single tracks
or microphones. This is the case because you record with much less
channel- and mic separation when you work with classical music.

A good single pair is a mighty tool.

Diego


Peter Larsen

[Bob Cain]

William Sommerwerck wrote:
Why, why, why, why, why?

WHY?

What stinking purpose would it serve?

Well, a curve that's 1:1 at the high end and expands as the levels go
down might allow me to hear all of "Firebird" without constantly
tweaking the level knob. :-)


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

[Daniel Fuchs]

wrote:


even the purist are using it, the loudness wars rages even there.

There exists something between purism and loudness wars... A slight
compression or cutting off of extreme peaks can't hurt an won't
necessarily kill the dynmic development of a piece. In baroque music, I
would say it's mostly not required, though.

Daniel

[Daniel Fuchs]

Zigo Zago wrote:

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

I think this particular recording does not require it.

Sounds nice. Who's the singer? How were the strngs arranged?
A bit more distance and ambience wouldn't hurt, otherwise the room sound
is nice in principle.


Daniel

[Carey Carlan]

Daniel Fuchs wrote in
:

wrote:

even the purist are using it, the loudness wars rages even there.

There exists something between purism and loudness wars... A slight
compression or cutting off of extreme peaks can't hurt an won't
necessarily kill the dynmic development of a piece. In baroque music, I
would say it's mostly not required, though.

I sometimes compress baroque when faced with an over-enthusiastic
timpanist. A single drum hit can peak 12 dB higher than the whole
orchestra.

[Zigo Zago]

Thanks for the answers!

Just some informations:

The singer was Gemma Bertagnolli.
The orchestra composition: 4 + 4 violins, 2 violas, 2 cellos, 1 doublebass,
2 oboi, bassoon, theorbo and harpsicord. In some instrumental music also two
horns. All baroque instruments (natural horns, baroque oboi and strings with
gut strings).
The church was a quite big church in the nort of Italy with a very long
reverb.

I used two shoeps MK21s for the Orchestra, with the reinforcement of the
lute (Schoeps MK2s ) and of the double bass (Neumann TL-103).
The voice was recorded with a couple of Neumann KM185.


Diego

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 17:42:52 -0500, Geoff wrote
(in article ):

Zigo Zago wrote:
I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano
and strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with
a second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for
the lute and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not,
considering that I own only some software compressor and I've never
used it (I record only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego

Compression is an aenathema (sp ?) to classical music.

geoff



That's why they invented the Aphex Compellor, compression with invisible
artifacts when used intelligently. Typically, the company gets calls from new
owners saying they think it isn't working right because they can't hear it.

I reviewed it years ago and had to prove it to myself. Classical music in
with Compellor. Classical music in without Compellor. Check the quiet and
loud parts for volume change. Wow! it really IS doing something.

Regards,

Ty Ford



-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:45:06 -0500, William Sommerwerck wrote
(in article ):

Why, why, why, why, why?

WHY?

What stinking purpose would it serve?

Leave the sound ALONE.



'cause when you're driving your mercedes and jack up the sound for the quiet
parts of the 1812 Overture, the doors fall off when the cannons go off.

Regards,

Ty Ford


-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com

[Scott Dorsey]

Zigo Zago wrote:
I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano and
strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with a
second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for the lute
and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Who is the audience?

If the balances are natural, and the audience is going to be listening in
a quiet room on high quality equipment (which is a reasonable assumption
to make for a baroque opera recording), then leave it alone.

If the audience is going to be listening to it in their car, or as background
music, a little compression to bring the quiet stuff up can help.

I am firmly in the anti-compression camp here, but some of my customers are
not.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan wrote:
Daniel Fuchs wrote in
:

wrote:

even the purist are using it, the loudness wars rages even there.

There exists something between purism and loudness wars... A slight
compression or cutting off of extreme peaks can't hurt an won't
necessarily kill the dynmic development of a piece. In baroque music, I
would say it's mostly not required, though.

I sometimes compress baroque when faced with an over-enthusiastic
timpanist. A single drum hit can peak 12 dB higher than the whole
orchestra.

Yeah, and this sort of thing results in CDs that are a _lot_ quieter than
people will like.

It sure sounds good uncompressed, though. I think I submitted a track
from Ondekoza to one of the r.a.p CD compilations which is kind of an
extreme example.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Fraser]

In live classical recording, generally the only way to use
compression
is on the whole mix--and that tends to suck the life out of it.

It can when overdone, but not all dynamic alteration is extreme
compression.

It reduces the dynamic range so that everything becomes
"mezzo-fortissimo"
as Schoenberg once called it.

Obviously that would constitute an extreme & very artless degree of
compression, but there's no reason to imagine there's nothing in
between full original dynamics & everything at an unvarying
"mezzo-fortissimo". I'm unconvinced that the dynamic range relevant to
a concert hall is absolutely critical or even appropriate to most
playback listening situations. Try as we might to accurately represent
objective reality in our recordings, we are deeply involved in an
artifice. We are in the business of creating illusions. An original
performance with a peak to average range of 25db will still 'appear'
fully dynamically accurate when peaks have been (carefully) attenuated
by 2 to 4 db, while conversely, I feel, a recording wherein low level
detail is lost is inherently NOT an appropriate representation of the
musical event.

Scott Fraser

[Arny Krueger]

"Zigo Zago" wrote in message

I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias
for soprano and strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero
recording with a second couple of microphons for the
voice and a two other spot for the lute and the
doublebass.
I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or
not, considering that I own only some software compressor
and I've never used it (I record only classical music,
mainly in stereo)
Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


I'd never compress this musical selection, but I might modulate some peaks.
It is quite clear that the entire selection could be 6 dB louder if it
wasn't for your vocalist's enthusiastic dynamics about 45 seconds in. If
you level this peak, then some of her artistry goes out the window, but you
end up with music that might be more satisfying to listen to in a noisy
environment such as a car. Since I produce a lot of music that is listened
to in cars, I manage situations like this.

My favorite methodolgy for modulating peaks is to apply an envelope that
smoothly goes from 0.0 to 6 dB attenuation and back to 0.0 dB. I highlight
the peak, apply the envelope, and then listen to the results. When I've
levelled as many peaks as I feel the need to modify, then I amplify the
entire selection as desired to bring up average levels.

The difference between modulating peaks and applying overall compression is
that hopeflly manually modulating peaks engages a higher form of
intelligence. ;-) Most of the selection is artistically unchanged. It can
just be louder without peak clipping or other difficulties associated with
inconvenient amounts of dynamic range.

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Fraser wrote:

Obviously that would constitute an extreme & very artless degree of
compression, but there's no reason to imagine there's nothing in
between full original dynamics & everything at an unvarying
"mezzo-fortissimo". I'm unconvinced that the dynamic range relevant to
a concert hall is absolutely critical or even appropriate to most
playback listening situations. Try as we might to accurately represent
objective reality in our recordings, we are deeply involved in an
artifice. We are in the business of creating illusions. An original
performance with a peak to average range of 25db will still 'appear'
fully dynamically accurate when peaks have been (carefully) attenuated
by 2 to 4 db, while conversely, I feel, a recording wherein low level
detail is lost is inherently NOT an appropriate representation of the
musical event.

I disagree, because I think that our goal is the absolute recreation of
the original event, and for a large portion of the classical listeners,
reproducing the dynamic range relevant to a concert hall _is_ appropriate.

It's not appropriate for everyone, and for crossover recordings that are
expected to be treated like popular music, it's certainly not the case.
But I think the average classical listener is listening carefully to the
music, and wants as close as possible to the original experience. And if
that isn't really the average classical listener, it's still the listener
I am targetting most of the time.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Richard Crowley]

"Edi Zubovic" edi.zubovic[rem wrote ...
You are not actually recording classics for "IPods" aren't you?

Why should iPods be relegated to pop music only? Think of how
much more civilized the world would be if the masses on their morning
commute were listening to Vivaldi instead of that trash they are more
likely piping into their ears.

[Richard Crowley]

"Arny Krueger" wrote ...
I'd never compress this musical selection, but I might modulate some
peaks. It is quite clear that the entire selection could be 6 dB louder if
it wasn't for your vocalist's enthusiastic dynamics about 45 seconds in.
If you level this peak, then some of her artistry goes out the window, but
you end up with music that might be more satisfying to listen to in a
noisy environment such as a car. Since I produce a lot of music that is
listened to in cars, I manage situations like this.

This is exactly my philosophy/practice, also. Nothing significant is lost
by knocking down the outlying peaks, and the increase in overall levels
makes the recording much more "competitive" with other things people
are listening to.

I am not a great fan of operatic vocals, but the sound of the orchestra
was glorious and quite satisfying to my ear. Just the right balance between
direct/ambient IMHO. But I do tend to mix classical music to be more
appealing to people with ecclectic playlists.

[Edi Zubovic]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:53:30 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

"Edi Zubovic" edi.zubovic[rem wrote ...
You are not actually recording classics for "IPods" aren't you?

Why should iPods be relegated to pop music only? Think of how
much more civilized the world would be if the masses on their morning
commute were listening to Vivaldi instead of that trash they are more
likely piping into their ears.

-- Oh, I used the name as a kind of symbol of the culture -- or better
still, sub-culture -- of nowadays only. But yes, you hit the nailhead.

Cheers, Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Daniel Fuchs]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I disagree, because I think that our goal is the absolute recreation of
the original event

Have you found the ultimate definition of what *is* "the original
event"? The sound in the listener's position? What a complex mic setup
creates can hardly be "original" compared to that. At best, it can try
to recreate the impression. I also doubt that the sound that reaches a
listener in a position at some distance still has the same dynamics as
what hits the mics, which are usually far closer.

But I think the average classical listener is listening carefully to the
music, and wants as close as possible to the original experience.

Flattening some extreme peaks will usually not even be noticeable. IMHO
it does not take away any of the experience. No one (at leat not me) is
advocating totally evening out the difference between ppp and fff.


Daniel

[Scott Dorsey]

Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Scott Dorsey wrote:

I disagree, because I think that our goal is the absolute recreation of
the original event

Have you found the ultimate definition of what *is* "the original
event"? The sound in the listener's position?

Why, it's what I say it is. I decide what the best seat in the house
is, and I make it sound as much as possible as it does there. Making
that decision is what I get paid for.

What a complex mic setup
creates can hardly be "original" compared to that. At best, it can try
to recreate the impression. I also doubt that the sound that reaches a
listener in a position at some distance still has the same dynamics as
what hits the mics, which are usually far closer.

I wouldn't go that far. I often have the mike array up in the balcony
or in some other location far from the orchestra. If I am forced to spotmike,
then indeed the dynamics of the spots will be very different than those of
the main pair and some dynamic intervention might be needed. But for the
most part that ought to be done by hand by somethng who is reading the score
and can tell what is supposed to be happening.

But I think the average classical listener is listening carefully to the
music, and wants as close as possible to the original experience.

Flattening some extreme peaks will usually not even be noticeable. IMHO
it does not take away any of the experience. No one (at leat not me) is
advocating totally evening out the difference between ppp and fff.

It won't be noticeable at all until you do an exact A/B test, and even
then it can sometimes be hard to hear. But just because it's a minimal
difference doesn't mean it's not worth keeping... that's what traditional
audiophile recording work is all about.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Carey Carlan]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:ekf3k5$hom$1
@panix2.panix.com:

I sometimes compress baroque when faced with an over-enthusiastic
timpanist. A single drum hit can peak 12 dB higher than the whole
orchestra.

Yeah, and this sort of thing results in CDs that are a _lot_ quieter than
people will like.

It sure sounds good uncompressed, though. I think I submitted a track
from Ondekoza to one of the r.a.p CD compilations which is kind of an
extreme example.

That was the one of the Japanese drum group that my system wouldn't
reproduce?

[Scott Dorsey]

Carey Carlan wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote in news:ekf3k5$hom$1
:

I sometimes compress baroque when faced with an over-enthusiastic
timpanist. A single drum hit can peak 12 dB higher than the whole
orchestra.

Yeah, and this sort of thing results in CDs that are a _lot_ quieter than
people will like.

It sure sounds good uncompressed, though. I think I submitted a track
from Ondekoza to one of the r.a.p CD compilations which is kind of an
extreme example.

That was the one of the Japanese drum group that my system wouldn't
reproduce?

Right.

Someday I want to put that on an LP.... just to show off...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[-zero]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
That was the one of the Japanese drum group that my system wouldn't
reproduce?

Right.

Someday I want to put that on an LP.... just to show off...
--scott


Would that happen to be the one I was playing for the VERY FIRST
TIME while driving with the windows down one day,
(and of course with the overbearing wind noise I kept turning
the volume WAY up to hear the soft passages)...... then
in the blink of an eye I was literally elevated off my seat believing
(yes, really believing) that the pick up truck frame broke in half due to
some kind of explosion? That one?

After I recovered to my normal heart beat,,, man I belly laughed for days!

-zero

[William Sommerwerck]

I sometimes compress baroque when faced with an
over-enthusiastic timpanist. A single drum hit can peak
12 dB higher than the whole orchestra.

Even if that's true, the listener is likely to hear a "gagging" effect on
the tympanum. Is that what you want, just to correct for the drum being too
loud?

If you listen closely to classic recordings of the '50s and early '60s, you
can hear subtle adjustments being made in the overall level, presumably to
keep the loudest passages below tape saturation and (more likely) the
quieter passages above tape noise.

[William Sommerwerck]

I'd never compress this musical selection, but I might modulate some
peaks. It is quite clear that the entire selection could be 6 dB louder if
it
wasn't for your vocalist's enthusiastic dynamics about 45 seconds in.
If you level this peak, then some of her artistry goes out the window,
but you end up with music that might be more satisfying to listen to
in a noisy environment such as a car. Since I produce a lot of music
that is listened to in cars, I manage situations like this.

No offense, Arny, but it's this kind of "plausible compromise" that, as it's
extended farther and farther, produces truly wretched recordings.

One of the reasons for the introduction of digital playback was that it
allowed a wide dynamic range without compression. Ditto for dbx LPs, which
can be startling in their dynamics (qv, "Last Sleep of the Virgin").

[Peter Larsen]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

[quoting Arny Krueger]

I'd never compress this musical selection, but I might modulate
some peaks. It is quite clear that the entire selection could
be 6 dB louder if it wasn't for your vocalist's enthusiastic
dynamics about 45 seconds in.

Too short a sample to really estimate that, and the vocalists dynamics
are moderate rather than excessive, based on this example only.

If you level this peak, then some of her artistry goes out
the window,

She might be doing what the composer intended to be done, one has to
thread with caution and respect in case it gets relevant to scale the
dynamics of a performance to a smaller room.

but you end up with music that might be more satisfying
to listen to in a noisy environment such as a car. Since
I produce a lot of music that is listened to in cars, I
manage situations like this [by manually imposing adynamic
envelope]

Scotts R.A.P. contribution is an excellent example of something that is
problematic to play back under most circumstances. In my opinion however
the key concept is to scale to a smaller room, and I consider it worse
to just impose local envelopes rather than finding a compression
function that does the job of scaling fairly.

No offense, Arny, but it's this kind of "plausible compromise"
that, as it's extended farther and farther, produces truly
wretched recordings.

I don't like to get that tensed up about it, but car radios as well as
some home playback systems do start to have a gain reduction
functionality, and imo that is how to address as well nighttime
listening and in car reproduction. In car reproduction is special
because the room is smaller by another magnitude, and realistic dynamics
does mean smaller dynamics when the room is smaller.

One of the reasons for the introduction of digital playback
was that it allowed a wide dynamic range without compression.

Yes, the initial lore was that the uppermost 6 dB were for headroom and
occasional peaks, those digital dynamics, but the real world result has
been that digital releases have less dynamic range than vinyl instead of
more.

Ditto for dbx LPs, which can be startling in their dynamics
(qv, "Last Sleep of the Virgin").

I can not comment on that specific record, but the digital age has not
only brought more dynamic range, it has also brought more affordable
compression and ingenious marketing thereof. I can recall seeing
advertisements in Studio Sound for - presumeably multiband - compressors
sold as a means of avoiding dreaded digital granularity and low level
distortion.

Something else is also at play here, the dynamics of spoken word has
changed drastically over the last 40 years, no doubt because of radio
and tv speech sound compression, and consequently the listener sees
dynamic range and the use of dynamics to "layer" the content of spoken
word as well as played music as ""an error"". If you doubt it, then try
making transfers of some old naturally recorded speech recordings, it is
an entire world of dynamics used for nuance that is disappearing into
monotonicity.

Radio and TV has given us flatness, and now everybody expects it. 78 rpm
records have more dynamics than modern sound ... it could be easy to end
up as luddite and say that the art of sound recording peaked in the
1960'ties. Perhaps we should try to get the software developers to
implement a logaritmic vertical scale so that real world dynamics get a
more fair visual representation on the computer screen!


Peter Larsen

[Paul Stamler]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
It won't be noticeable at all until you do an exact A/B test, and even
then it can sometimes be hard to hear. But just because it's a minimal
difference doesn't mean it's not worth keeping... that's what traditional
audiophile recording work is all about.

Yeah, but. That's possible with a chamber music recording, but the SPLs
produced by a symphony orchestra, even back in the audience, can't be
reproduced by 90+% of the audiophile systems out there. Willy-nilly, they
have to listen at reduced maximum volume, and with an uncompressed
recording, that puts the very quiet sounds, hall ambience, etc., too low,
possibly below the room noise level. So some very judicious use of dynamic
range reduction can be appropriate.

Peace,
Paul

[Peter Larsen]

Paul Stamler wrote:

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...

It won't be noticeable at all until you do an exact A/B test,
and even then it can sometimes be hard to hear. But just
because it's a minimal difference doesn't mean it's not worth
keeping... that's what traditional audiophile recording work
is all about.

Yeah, but. That's possible with a chamber music recording,

That is not how it is, it is the chamber music that has the largest
dynamic range, simply because it takes place at lower overall SPL but
has very large peak SPL capability - record a quality violin if in
doubt, it will peak louder than a full size concert grand.

but the SPLs produced by a symphony orchestra, even back in
the audience, can't be reproduced by 90+% of the audiophile
systems out there.

Yes, they can go louder, but they are more noisy when they are silent
because there are more people on the stage, also the audience is larger
and thus more noisy.

Willy-nilly, they have to listen at reduced maximum volume,

Yes, home audio generally runs out of steam around 105 dB peak, with a
symphonic event with a 27 dB crest factor that allows an average
playback SPL of some 83 dB, assuming a residence where neighbor concern
is not an issue, otherwise subtract 10 dB. They have to listen at
reduced volume because their amps will clip if they try to "get
natural".

and with an uncompressed recording, that puts the very quiet
sounds, hall ambience, etc., too low, possibly below the room
noise level.

Yes, but the problem is larger for the chamber music performance. I
should of course check this, but it is only in a very reverberant room
the crest factor ends up at the same 27 dB that applies for the full
symphony orchestra, generally I would expect something like 32 dB.

Ah well you say, chamber music can at least be played back at the
original SPL, sorry, not with average home audio equipment, absolute
peaks probably still exceed 120 dB, if not from anything else, then from
the applause and quite probably also from the instruments.

So some very judicious use of dynamic range reduction can be appropriate.

You have to consider the market for the recording, do you want to sell
to house owners only or do you also want to have peoples in apartments
as customers, and a fair scaling can be the least bad choice, but
whatever processing you do has a cost in terms of loss of quality,
perspective and microdetail.

Sometimes just sending something through a digital do-hickey not doing
anything comes at a quality cost, there is no free lunch and one has to
weigh the quality of the buffet versus the cost. A grand buffet can be
nice, but so can something organic with minimalistic cooking, if any, it
should not all be jam with crushed berries because the children ask
questions about those strange lumps if they are not crushed ....

Paul


Peter Larsen

[Edi Zubovic]

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 05:35:54 +0100, Peter Larsen
wrote:

------------------------8-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radio and TV has given us flatness, and now everybody expects it. 78 rpm
records have more dynamics than modern sound ... it could be easy to end
up as luddite and say that the art of sound recording peaked in the
1960'ties. Perhaps we should try to get the software developers to
implement a logaritmic vertical scale so that real world dynamics get a
more fair visual representation on the computer screen!


Peter Larsen

-- I agree! A few years ago, I have made a double CD containing,
among other music, many of hits of late 50's and 60's which my friend
composed wrote then. Especially the festival ones were long-rembered
and people (albeit seniors now) do remember them. I had an idea to
make this music to be possibly appealing to todays listeners, too so I
did some enhancements, moderate compression and the result was indeed
a sucess (albeit I think I would, today, make a different sounding
results). But here it is, the CD has ben stamped, released and
although there are records and tapes of these hits in archives of
every major broadcast here, when I hear from time to time these hits,
they are from that CD. So far so good. The composer is happy too with
all that BUT once he said to me, "Well Ivo Robic's voice is so clean
and good, but yet it isn't _that_ Ivo Robic I know". Now, this should
sound frightening to me. I did my best to bring old singer's voices
back to today and eventually I suceeded. What I failed is that I
haven't brought the _sound_ of the fifties and sixties back.

Now, I pay a double attention to restore that aspect too. Mainly, I
take care od careful re-equalization. And If I compress, I rather
lower the outlier peaks by hand for say -3 dB than to use any
compander stuff.

And if I find some interesting music on some old forgotten tape, I
usually do make a "restored sound" but when I send it to one of the
national archives, I am sending the original, very carefully played
back, 24-bit recording, completely untouched too.

Edi Zubovic, Crikvenica, Croatia

[Anahata]

Paul Stamler wrote:
Yeah, but. That's possible with a chamber music recording, but the SPLs
produced by a symphony orchestra, even back in the audience, can't be
reproduced by 90+% of the audiophile systems out there. Willy-nilly, they
have to listen at reduced maximum volume, and with an uncompressed
recording, that puts the very quiet sounds, hall ambience, etc., too low,
possibly below the room noise level.

That reminds me so much of a magazine article that I read in the
60's.... ah, here it is, by the magic of Google:

http://sound.westhost.com/dynamic-range.htm

How we laughed (back then) at the idea of an amplifier rated in kW.
BTW the notes say April 1974 or thereabouts but I know for a fact that
it was several years earlier - more like 1969. It was definitely an
April issue :-)

"George Izzard O'Veering" later turned out to be John Linsley Hood, who
had published so many audio designs in what was then still called
Wireless World.

Anahata

[[email protected]]

On Nov 27, 12:17 pm, (Scott Dorsey) wrote

I think that our goal is the absolute recreation of
the original event, and for a large portion of the classical listeners,
reproducing the dynamic range relevant to a concert hall _is_ appropriate.


I think that most if not all music system can not recreate "the
absolute"
a 120 piece ensemble in my listening room would never sound good!

it is the "illusion" that we are creating within the limits of the
technology.
many systems would be destroying the speakers if we pushed the
transcients encountered
in recording the original performance.

[Mike Rivers]

Peter Larsen wrote:

Yes, home audio generally runs out of steam around 105 dB peak, with a
symphonic event with a 27 dB crest factor that allows an average
playback SPL of some 83 dB, assuming a residence where neighbor concern
is not an issue, otherwise subtract 10 dB. They have to listen at
reduced volume because their amps will clip if they try to "get
natural".

A few years back I tried calibrating my monitors to 85 dBSPL listening
level based for a given source level on an article by Bob Katz (this
had to do with his K-System of metering where you meter for a target
dynamic range). I didn't have any problems with clipping, but it was
just uncomfortably loud. I sort of expected it on contemporary "loud
processed" pop music CDs (after all, loud is the goal) but orchestral
music was too loud, and even my own unprocessed recordings were too
loud. I just turned it down.

I suspect, however, that more typical listeners might be pretty happy
with that SPL.

and with an uncompressed recording, that puts the very quiet
sounds, hall ambience, etc., too low, possibly below the room
noise level.

Most people who like it loud aren't really listening for hall ambience
and very quiet sounds. Those who want a concert hall environment in
their living room need to work on it from their end. Most concert halls
don't have traffic noise or someone running a leaf blower or lawn mower
right outside a window.

Ah well you say, chamber music can at least be played back at the
original SPL, sorry, not with average home audio equipment, absolute
peaks probably still exceed 120 dB, if not from anything else, then from
the applause and quite probably also from the instruments.

So how do we listen to it in concert? Or is your point that our ears
treat a 120 dB peak differently than an amplifier? Our ears compress as
necessary (or cue us with pain) whereas an amplifier that can't handle
it and let our ears do their job just craps out and sends our ears a
distorted sound before they get into the compression mode?

You have to consider the market for the recording, do you want to sell
to house owners only or do you also want to have peoples in apartments
as customers, and a fair scaling can be the least bad choice, but
whatever processing you do has a cost in terms of loss of quality,
perspective and microdetail.

LIke any other recording about which you ask that question - how many
people, once they buy the recording, will ask for a refund, or will not
buy another recording from the same organization BECAUSE OF THE SOUND?
How do you think so many mediocre amateur recordings get circulated? Do
classical records with "too wide" dynamic range get comments about this
in reviews? Are they positive or negative?

Personally, dynamic range isn't something that I think of when making a
recording. If I find that I'm missing too many quiet parts, I'll turn
it up. If it's painfully loud, I'll turn it down. I might wonder if the
conductor was doing his job if I find that I have to miss too much.

Is compression our replacement for the conductor not recognizing that
nobody listening to the recording will be 50 to 200 feet back in a
concert hall? Or does he just expect the engineer to take care of that
- much in the same way that we compress a bass because the bass or the
player doesn't play all the notes with even volume, or the singer gets
quiet while the band is playing a crescendo?

[Peter Kendell]

That's nice, but a bit too close for these (English) ears.

"Zigo Zago" wrote in message
. ..
I've recently recorded a cd with some baroque opera arias for soprano and
strings.
It's not a multitrack recording, but basically a stero recording with a
second couple of microphons for the voice and a two other spot for the
lute and the doublebass.

I'm now wonderig if I have to add a bit of compression or not, considering
that I own only some software compressor and I've never used it (I record
only classical music, mainly in stereo)

Here's an excrept (2.4 MB):

www.diegocantalupi.it/mp3/untitled.mp3


Thanks,

Diego