On 7 Sep, 13:36, "Deputy Dumbya Dawg" wrote:
alright I'll bite, it's quiet here, you made me come back one more
time...
I suppose I could let a multiband compressor do it's stuff
on each
track and ***LOOK*** at how much it's doing to each band. That
could be
helpful.
- as in let a multiband compressor do it's stuff
and **LOOK** at how busy it is with each band, and use that to help
guide me.
And how is that thread on alt.masterpiece.pro you started on
how to get all those museum paintings to look the same
regardless of lighting and artistic difference.
err, poor analogy - there's a fixed range of paint brightnesses from
black to white. You don't get a painting that's too light or too dark
(unless it's faded over the years) when it's quite obviously trying to
portray a realistic bit of scenery (rather than something abstract).
TV and film though, that's a different story - more of you
professionals who think they know it all end up making programmes too
over-colourful, or unsaturated, lacking contrast etc. - even when it's
supposed to look a bit more natural.
And WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE is the key thing here. I know what live
music sounds like, and bands that play live do, on the whole I hope,
try to put out CDs that sound like a real performance - albeit within
the limitations of recording and replaying over domestic gear of any
quality. When I find a recording dull it's because I think "if I was
hearing this live it would be far clearer than this, that percussion
would be a lot louder in the top range than that" and I'd only hear it
live as bad as the record if I was standing in the crowd with hands
over my ears. Surely the goal is to give a good rendition of the music
as it's meant to be heard?! Like I said : as it was originally heard
at the desk in the studios.
But comparitively of course, compared to other recordings
)
etc.
Seeya.