Frank Stearns wrote:
lid (Adrian Tuddenham) writes:
[...]
This is one of the reasons why ProTools is no use for archival work, it
can change the gain without the user realising it. I have occasionally
put short inserts (for artistic work) through PT and found they came
back at a different level even though the controls were set to zero
gain.
To do this, PT must have interpoated some of the samples, and to get
them back to the correct level would involve further interpolation,
which makes it an absolute non-starter for objective work.
Hmm. This is interesting... How much level deviation were you seeing?
I'd first suspect the A/D-D/A links rather than PT itself (assuming unity gain
and no plug-ins).
The difference was several dB and this was in an imported file which was
already in digital form. No plug-ins were used.
Basically, I needed to add music & effects to a short section of a
talking book. The original narration had been recorded:
Mic Preamp DAT SPDIF ProTools card AIFF file PeakLE
The required section was Cut from the Peak narration file and Pasted
into a new mono document. That document was imported into a ProTools
session along with stereo music and effects. The gain on the speech
track at the beginning and end of the section was left at 0dB (although
it was varied over the mixing part of the performance).
When I Bounced the track back to AIFF and then Pasted it back into the
Peak narration file, I had to juggle the level to get the speech to
match up with the original. ProToools had changed the level without
warning me.
Part of my cal procedure for stemming out for an analog sum takes that into
account, and I've not seen anything odd. This is 7.3; it's surely possible
earlier versions were doing odd things. Apparently 7.x PT fixed a number of
sins, but as a new user I have no experience with earlier versions.
There is nothing in the instruction manual to warn the user that this is
likely to happen or the circumstances under which it could occur. For
archival transfers, which form the majority of my current work, things
like this must not be allowed to happen under any circumstances. There
is only one way to avoid it for certain - use a different program.
...samplitude comes with some pretty good
sounding eq, compressors, etc right out of the box.
Funny thing... I've never used a compressor either. (I must be the only
person on this group who can claim that)
[...]
This recent mix used quite a few comps on the channels split from the
PA company. Lots of gain riding too as performers were moving on an off mic.
I'd rather gain ride than compress in that scenario; the comp here again
was to "un-exaggerate" the dynamics of a trained voice close-up
on a so-so PA mic.
If the original changes were made by hand, the only sensible way to
correct them is by hand too. At least in a digital system, you can do
that at leisure until you get exactly the result you want.
A while ago someone on this group enquired about uncompressed commercial
recordings and there was some difficulty finding any. I have an
uncompressed recording due for release soon (when we can sort out the
final tuning problems and do another take of it) which really shows the
full dynamic range which some instruments can give:
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/sounds/NewWorld.mp3
It is uncompressed because the organ buffs like to hear it 'as it really
is'. The variations in background level which sound like gain changes
are actually caused by the swell shades opening and closing.
Hard to comment on this, as I don't really know the original intent of
the composer. Odd sounding organ, almost more like a hurdy-gurdy;
very dry room as well... But this might be dead-on accurate.
The organ is an Aeolian 'Residence Organ' (No.1458)
http://www.paulmorrismusic.co.uk
It is as accurate as I can make it. The acoustics of the room were
boomy with hard parallel surfaces, a short reverberation time and a lot
of external noise. Close-micing was the only way to do it, but that
suffered from an unexpected problem: the sound followed a zig-zag path
between the swell shades when they were partly-open and there were
horrible phasing effects between direct and double-reflected sound at
most of the conventional mic positions.
Eventually I discoved a position to one side which still gave reasonable
clarity and stereo effect but avoided the phasiness.
http://www.poppyrecords.co.uk/other/images/IMG_0615.JPG
A Residence Organ is intended for acoustics with shorter reverberation
times - but I would love to hear what this particular one would sound
like in a cathedral.
The 'player' was a Duo-Art paper roll, which is actually capable of
astonishingly realistic results. A lot of what you describe as "hurdy
gurdy" is caused by the mis-tuning of some of the reed pipe sections,
which the owner hopes to put right soon. (By the way, a hurdy-gurdy is a
stringed instrument with string drones; you were probably thinking of a
street organ)
Part of the potential problem with "full" dynamic recordings has to do with
the practical limits of the home listening environment v. the actual venue.
Based on a large number of factors, many musical, some technical, *some*
dynamic control can be useful and actually enhance the music,
if properly used.
But that's getting into an entirely different discussion.
I agree, there are few listening environments in which you can get the
full benefit of the dynamics of a recording like that, but to destroy
them in this particular case would be to nullify part of the reason for
making the recording in the first place. Many of the purchasers of this
CD want to know what it would be like to have one of these (extremely
rare) organs in their own house - provided their loudspeakers can handle
it!
I may have to include a Technical Note in the inlay card to warn against
possible damage to playback equipment and/or neighbourhood relations.
--
~ Adrian Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk