Difference between compresson and volume maximizer?

Horsing around with Wave Hammer in Soundforge, I find you can achieve
a flat topped wave form using just the volume maximizer with the
compression secion turned off.

It seems the goal of the volume maximizer and the compression section
is essentially the same - maintaining consistent, limited volume
level. But there must be a difference. How would you define what the
difference is in their functions?

On May 24, 5:33 am, Doc > wrote:
> Horsing around with Wave Hammer in Soundforge, I find you can achieve
> a flat topped wave form using just the volume maximizer with the
> compression secion turned off.
>
> It seems the goal of the volume maximizer and the compression section
> is essentially the same - maintaining consistent, limited volume
> level. But there must be a difference. How would you define what the
> difference is in their functions?

You're the one listening. How would YOU define the difference in their
SOUND?

The difference between them may be in the response time or how the
level that's being controlled is determined. The two things that you
want to accomplish in order to make something sound louder are first
to boost the maximum level up to the highest possible level that the
system can handle. The other thing is to raise the level of things
that are quieter than the peaks so that there's less difference
between the average below-peak level and the peak level.

Boosting the overall level is rarely enough, so compression is applied
to reduce the difference between the loudest and quietest sounds
occurring within a short time period.

Doc,

> How would you define what the difference is in their functions?

See my Peak Slammer review for an explanation of how these devices work:

http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html

The key is that a "volume maximizer" does not have time constants like
compressor / limiter. Instead, it operates on individual cycles and lowers
the volume for just those parts above and below the zero line.

--Ethan

In article >,
ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...
>
>Doc,
>
>> How would you define what the difference is in their functions?
>
>See my Peak Slammer review for an explanation of how these devices work:
>
>http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html
>

Watch out, this article is peppered with ridiculous errors like:

"The usual way to make tracks loud is with compression, either standard or
multi-band. But over-compression reduces the dynamic range to zero and adds
nasty artifacts. "

a program with a dynamic range of 'zero' could be nothing other than white
noise.

In article <vvr5i.56608$V75.50614@edtnps89>, says...
>
>In article >,
>ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...
>>
>>Doc,
>>
>>> How would you define what the difference is in their functions?
>>
>>See my Peak Slammer review for an explanation of how these devices work:
>>
>>http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html
>>
>
>Watch out, this article is peppered with ridiculous errors like:
>
>"The usual way to make tracks loud is with compression, either standard or
>multi-band. But over-compression reduces the dynamic range to zero and adds
>nasty artifacts. "
>
>a program with a dynamic range of 'zero' could be nothing other than white
>noise.
>

And especially amusing is that your method of using Peak Slammer causes a
reduction of dynamic range that sacrifices the low bits of the signal, which
limiting doesn't. You say to set Peak Limiter to -10db if your program's peak
is -6db, then you normalize the -10db file. What do you think happens to your
low bits when you do that? They disappear. While the low bits are the least
significant bits of your signal, they are part of the signal's resolution,
unlike the empty bits representing your headroom. If you were producing final
products at 16bit you could ensure that your low bits are as insignificant as
possible by recording at 24bit, but then you'd have to record as hot as
possible, negating the usual benefit of 24bit recording, that being the ability
to have large headroom by not recording hot levels.

"Chevdo" > wrote in message
news:vvr5i.56608$V75.50614@edtnps89
> In article
> >,
> ethanwatethanwinerdotcom says...
>>
>> Doc,
>>
>>> How would you define what the difference is in their
>>> functions?
>>
>> See my Peak Slammer review for an explanation of how
>> these devices work:
>>
>> http://www.ethanwiner.com/peakslammer.html
>>
>
> Watch out, this article is peppered with ridiculous
> errors like:
>
> "The usual way to make tracks loud is with compression,
> either standard or multi-band. But over-compression
> reduces the dynamic range to zero and adds nasty
> artifacts. "

Looks pretty much like conventional wisdom to me. OK, a little hyperbole,
but in context, nothing wrong with that.

> a program with a dynamic range of 'zero' could be nothing
> other than white noise.

Absolutely wrong.

Counter examples of program material with zero dynamic range that Chevado
obviouisly knows nothing about:

(1) A simple sine wave of any frequency
(2) A multitone composed of several sine waves of other frequencies.
(3) Other forms of noise - pink, brown, etc.

Three strikes and you're out of the game again, Chevvie-baby!

> Watch out, this article is peppered with ridiculous errors like:
>
> a program with a dynamic range of 'zero' could be nothing other than white
> noise.

Good point. That statement is ridiculous.

> And especially amusing is that your method of using Peak Slammer causes a
> reduction of dynamic range that sacrifices the low bits of the signal,
> which limiting doesn't.

First, it's not "my" method - I simply describe how the plug-in works. But
let's analyze your statement that limiting doesn't sacrifice bits. Peak
Slammer and limiters both reduce the volume of selected parts of the signal.
But when it's done with a limiter having time constants, versus Peak Slammer
that operates on individual cycles, in that case you believe the level is
magically lowered without also reducing the bits? :->)

--Ethan