Another query on "overcompression"

[Doc]

Thinking about the other thread where I asked about compression, given the
contemporary close mic'd nature of most pop vocals, isn't it necessary to
highly compress/limit the tracks? Seems that it wouldn't work if you let all
the dynamics come through. You'd be blowing people's speakers/ears out. Or
is there something I'm not getting?

The first CD I ever bought was a Doc Severinsen release by Telarc, and they
make a big point that no processing of any sort was used - no eq,
compression etc. Mics > board > master, period. However, this is with a
distantly mic'd soloist and orchestra.

[Bontempi]

Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
on a rock record.

Patrick

[Scott Dorsey]

Bontempi > wrote:
>Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
>is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
>on a rock record.

If you do this, it takes an awful lot of manual gain riding to make everything
fit together. There's nothing wrong with that, other than that it takes some
amount of skill and too many of the new kids coming into recording don't want
to bother learning it.

I honestly had a PA guy tell me that he would not take the 3630s out of the
sound path for me because then he'd have to be moving faders all night to
keep levels even. Well, isn't that what he's PAID FOR?
--scott


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

[Bontempi]

> If you do this, it takes an awful lot of manual gain riding to make
everything
> fit together. There's nothing wrong with that, other than that it takes
some
> amount of skill and too many of the new kids coming into recording don't
want
> to bother learning it.

I'm a "kid" and i've never thought of this option in a music context
although i know it's often used for recording sound on a movie set. It's a
good idea and i wonder why steve does not do it this way ...

Patrick

[Mike Rivers]

In article > writes:

> I honestly had a PA guy tell me that he would not take the 3630s out of the
> sound path for me because then he'd have to be moving faders all night to
> keep levels even. Well, isn't that what he's PAID FOR?

Sounds like he thinks he's being paid to know where to plug in the
patch cables so he can relax.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

[Mike Caffrey]

"Bontempi" > wrote in message >...
> Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
> is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
> on a rock record.
>
> Patrick


He uses compression on other things. I remeber reading somehting where
he said compression is the cruthc of a hack engineer, or something to
that effect. I interpreted that to mean that he didn't use any. I
recently saw a video of some speech he gave and it was clear that he
used compression. Maybe not as much as everytone else, but defintiely
for more than just vocals.

[Mike Caffrey]

"Bontempi" > wrote in message >...
> Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
> is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
> on a rock record.
>
> Patrick


He uses compression on other things. I remeber reading somehting where
he said compression is the cruthc of a hack engineer, or something to
that effect. I interpreted that to mean that he didn't use any. I
recently saw a video of some speech he gave and it was clear that he
used compression. Maybe not as much as everytone else, but defintiely
for more than just vocals.

[Mike]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> Bontempi > wrote:
> >Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
> >is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
> >on a rock record.
>
> If you do this, it takes an awful lot of manual gain riding to make everything
> fit together. There's nothing wrong with that, other than that it takes some
> amount of skill and too many of the new kids coming into recording don't want
> to bother learning it.
>
> I honestly had a PA guy tell me that he would not take the 3630s out of the
> sound path for me because then he'd have to be moving faders all night to
> keep levels even. Well, isn't that what he's PAID FOR?
> --scott

In most live situations, from my observation, once the basis sound is
setup, if the soundman doesn't know the tunes, it's pretty much better
if he/she leaves the faders alone. Nothing I hate more than sound men
jacking the levels up and down 5 seconds after they should be moved.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Mike]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote in message >...
> Bontempi > wrote:
> >Makes me think that Steve Albini said the only thing he used compression on
> >is the voice. Not much though but dynamic range is too high to be bearable
> >on a rock record.
>
> If you do this, it takes an awful lot of manual gain riding to make everything
> fit together. There's nothing wrong with that, other than that it takes some
> amount of skill and too many of the new kids coming into recording don't want
> to bother learning it.
>
> I honestly had a PA guy tell me that he would not take the 3630s out of the
> sound path for me because then he'd have to be moving faders all night to
> keep levels even. Well, isn't that what he's PAID FOR?
> --scott

In most live situations, from my observation, once the basis sound is
setup, if the soundman doesn't know the tunes, it's pretty much better
if he/she leaves the faders alone. Nothing I hate more than sound men
jacking the levels up and down 5 seconds after they should be moved.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

[Peter Larsen]

Doc wrote:

> Thinking about the other thread where I asked about compression,
> given the contemporary close mic'd nature of most pop vocals,
> isn't it necessary to highly compress/limit the tracks?

I don't like that wording, but there is a valid concern here.

> Seems that it wouldn't work if you let all the dynamics
> come through.

Yes, from a crest factor viewpoint you are somewhat right.

> You'd be blowing people's speakers/ears out.

No, both of those are about absolute levels, this is about scaling, also
no because compressing/limiting can - by increasing the long term
average enerby - actually increase the risk to ears as well as to
loudspeakers, assuming that peak value concerns regarding immediate
mechanical destruction do not apply.

> Or is there something I'm not getting?

You are more like kinda "over getting" it.

> The first CD I ever bought was a Doc Severinsen release
> by Telarc, and they make a big point that no processing
> of any sort was used - no eq,

Strictly speaking the first implement of EQ is the mic selected, but
minimizing the number of stages of processing - be it physical or
digital - is a valid contribution to a quest for maximum quality.

> compression etc. Mics > board > master, period.

The shorter the better, indeed. That said it is likely to be an
advantage to use some eq of some kind in post-processing of the recorded
audio, including everything down to 10 Hz is not always the best
strategy and the bass response of the mics may not be optimum in the
location that is best for overall imaging.

> However, this is with a distantly mic'd soloist and orchestra.

Bingo.

The distant miking allows for the room contribution to "fill up the
sound" and thus reduces the crest factor to the 20 to 30 dB range that
is likely to apply for natural recordings, the exception being that
church organs with a full bass range deployed may have a crest factor
around 15 Hz, just as "naturally occuring" rock music, largely depending
on the amount of bass that is actually present.

With close miking you get crest factors up in the 30 to 35 dB range, and
it sounds unnatural and is fatiguing to listen to.

This is the primary reason why adding reverb to close miked vocals is
well neigh "de rigeur", adding reverb "fills up the sound" just as
natural reverb does and easily getts the crest factor back to the 27 dB
range of naturally occurring music in small to medium rooms or below.

Compression-limiting, whatever is preferred and suitable in the context,
also easily gets the crest factor back to the range that is perceived as
natural. Seen from a crest factor viewpoint the max gain reduction (x)
to aim for should be in the 10 to 15dB range, from that viewpoint only
more than that would sound flat, unnatural and booooring.

It is crucial to understand that adding reverb and deployind automated
gain reduction both are tools that reduce the crest factor to a range
that is perceived as natural or probable and that they interact and
combine differently depending on which contraption that is deployed
first in the chain. For slight crest factor reduction ranges one of them
can mimic the effect of the other .... this because compression always
increases the decay-time of the processed sound and because adding
reberb always increases the minimum perceived loudness, thus also
reduces dynamic range (it never gets quite as silent as without added
reverb).

(x) note the wording, these contraptions are dynamic, and "max" implies
that the gain reduction indicated on the contraptions metering should
not exceed that value and frequently be lower; again by this crest
factor viewing angle only.

Generally speaking, if some audio has a crest factor that is improbably
low for the genre of music in question then it is overcompressed and/or
has an unnaturally boosted bass range.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Peter Larsen]

Doc wrote:

> Thinking about the other thread where I asked about compression,
> given the contemporary close mic'd nature of most pop vocals,
> isn't it necessary to highly compress/limit the tracks?

I don't like that wording, but there is a valid concern here.

> Seems that it wouldn't work if you let all the dynamics
> come through.

Yes, from a crest factor viewpoint you are somewhat right.

> You'd be blowing people's speakers/ears out.

No, both of those are about absolute levels, this is about scaling, also
no because compressing/limiting can - by increasing the long term
average enerby - actually increase the risk to ears as well as to
loudspeakers, assuming that peak value concerns regarding immediate
mechanical destruction do not apply.

> Or is there something I'm not getting?

You are more like kinda "over getting" it.

> The first CD I ever bought was a Doc Severinsen release
> by Telarc, and they make a big point that no processing
> of any sort was used - no eq,

Strictly speaking the first implement of EQ is the mic selected, but
minimizing the number of stages of processing - be it physical or
digital - is a valid contribution to a quest for maximum quality.

> compression etc. Mics > board > master, period.

The shorter the better, indeed. That said it is likely to be an
advantage to use some eq of some kind in post-processing of the recorded
audio, including everything down to 10 Hz is not always the best
strategy and the bass response of the mics may not be optimum in the
location that is best for overall imaging.

> However, this is with a distantly mic'd soloist and orchestra.

Bingo.

The distant miking allows for the room contribution to "fill up the
sound" and thus reduces the crest factor to the 20 to 30 dB range that
is likely to apply for natural recordings, the exception being that
church organs with a full bass range deployed may have a crest factor
around 15 Hz, just as "naturally occuring" rock music, largely depending
on the amount of bass that is actually present.

With close miking you get crest factors up in the 30 to 35 dB range, and
it sounds unnatural and is fatiguing to listen to.

This is the primary reason why adding reverb to close miked vocals is
well neigh "de rigeur", adding reverb "fills up the sound" just as
natural reverb does and easily getts the crest factor back to the 27 dB
range of naturally occurring music in small to medium rooms or below.

Compression-limiting, whatever is preferred and suitable in the context,
also easily gets the crest factor back to the range that is perceived as
natural. Seen from a crest factor viewpoint the max gain reduction (x)
to aim for should be in the 10 to 15dB range, from that viewpoint only
more than that would sound flat, unnatural and booooring.

It is crucial to understand that adding reverb and deployind automated
gain reduction both are tools that reduce the crest factor to a range
that is perceived as natural or probable and that they interact and
combine differently depending on which contraption that is deployed
first in the chain. For slight crest factor reduction ranges one of them
can mimic the effect of the other .... this because compression always
increases the decay-time of the processed sound and because adding
reberb always increases the minimum perceived loudness, thus also
reduces dynamic range (it never gets quite as silent as without added
reverb).

(x) note the wording, these contraptions are dynamic, and "max" implies
that the gain reduction indicated on the contraptions metering should
not exceed that value and frequently be lower; again by this crest
factor viewing angle only.

Generally speaking, if some audio has a crest factor that is improbably
low for the genre of music in question then it is overcompressed and/or
has an unnaturally boosted bass range.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

--
*******************************************
* My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk *
*******************************************

[Geoff Wood]

"Doc" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Thinking about the other thread where I asked about compression, given the
> contemporary close mic'd nature of most pop vocals, isn't it necessary to
> highly compress/limit the tracks? Seems that it wouldn't work if you let
> all
> the dynamics come through. You'd be blowing people's speakers/ears out. Or
> is there something I'm not getting?

No. In mixing relative levels are adjusted. Over-comperssion has liitle to
do with close-miking. Hell, things have been regualrly close-miked for
decades.


> The first CD I ever bought was a Doc Severinsen release by Telarc, and
> they
> make a big point that no processing of any sort was used - no eq,
> compression etc. Mics > board > master, period. However, this is with a
> distantly mic'd soloist and orchestra.


Sill little to do with distance. That is more about 'pure' signal chains
and preserving the original signal as pristine as possibl. That's a little
more thatn "avoiding compression".

geoff

[Geoff Wood]

"Doc" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Thinking about the other thread where I asked about compression, given the
> contemporary close mic'd nature of most pop vocals, isn't it necessary to
> highly compress/limit the tracks? Seems that it wouldn't work if you let
> all
> the dynamics come through. You'd be blowing people's speakers/ears out. Or
> is there something I'm not getting?

No. In mixing relative levels are adjusted. Over-comperssion has liitle to
do with close-miking. Hell, things have been regualrly close-miked for
decades.


> The first CD I ever bought was a Doc Severinsen release by Telarc, and
> they
> make a big point that no processing of any sort was used - no eq,
> compression etc. Mics > board > master, period. However, this is with a
> distantly mic'd soloist and orchestra.


Sill little to do with distance. That is more about 'pure' signal chains
and preserving the original signal as pristine as possibl. That's a little
more thatn "avoiding compression".

geoff