Labels that use/don't use dynamic compression

[Brian]

where's a "we are not worthy" smiley when you want one

[aukhawk]

Filed for future reference.

Stokowski - didn't he premiere the 11th?  That's not always a guarantee of a great reading of course, but I think in this case it's hard to ignore.

And, to drag us back on topic - Petrenko's Shostakovich 11 on Naxos is a good example of a recording that has too much dynamic range for me, if the climaxes are right then 4/5ths of it is down near the noise floor of my listening room.   A bit of compression intelligently applied at the mastering stage would have been very welcome.  However I can see that people with ultra-quiet listening environments might beg to differ.

[Scarpia]

Filed for future reference.

Stokowski - didn't he premiere the 11th?  That's not always a guarantee of a great reading of course, but I think in this case it's hard to ignore.

And, to drag us back on topic - Petrenko's Shostakovich 11 on Naxos is a good example of a recording that has too much dynamic range for me, if the climaxes are right then 4/5ths of it is down near the noise floor of my listening room.   A bit of compression intelligently applied at the mastering stage would have been very welcome.  However I can see that people with ultra-quiet listening environments might beg to differ.

I don't agree with use of compression to change the basic volume level of some passages with respect to others.  You can do that kind of compression with your volume control anyway.  What I object to is the use of limiters, which reduce dynamics within a passage.  Basically, within a loud passage the limiter will detect brief pulses of sound (the attack of a trumpet, a mallet impact on the timpani, a fluctuation in volume from a singer who is 8 inches from the microphone) and suppress it, preventing the signal from saturating.  This sort of compression (which is very common in pop recordings, google "loudness wars") can't be restored, and makes the music sound dead.   This (I suspect) is the reason an audiophile style recording like one from Telarc, BIS or Telefunken sounds more "alive" than an overproduced EMI recording.

Sometimes I wish that conductors would not insist on maximizing the dynamics of loud passages vs soft passages.  I enjoy dynamics within a passage (musical lines containing dynamic contrasts within a phrase, or a dynamically varying balance).  Loud passages vs soft passages is not a source of thrill for me.

[aukhawk]

I don't believe any self-respecting recording engineer working in the field of acoustic music would use a limiter in that way, to 'tame' an over-dynamic voice or instrument.  There's simply no need - recording to 24-bit you can record all the dynamics there are, even with close mics, without any risk of overload.  Later in the production process you would normally compress and maybe limit (in a small way) to make the end result palatable on real-world repro systems.

Broadcast, or in a 'live' situation - that's another matter, and you can't really avoid having limiters somewhere in the chain, and if you're dealing with multi-miked music then you'd have multiple limiters in use.  Just because they're in circuit doesn't mean you have to light them up, of course - quite the opposite - but they will get a tickle now and then.

[Scarpia]

I don't believe any self-respecting recording engineer working in the field of acoustic music would use a limiter in that way, to 'tame' an over-dynamic voice or instrument.  There's simply no need - recording to 24-bit you can record all the dynamics there are, even with close mics, without any risk of overload.  Later in the production process you would normally compress and maybe limit (in a small way) to make the end result palatable on real-world repro systems.

Broadcast, or in a 'live' situation - that's another matter, and you can't really avoid having limiters somewhere in the chain, and if you're dealing with multi-miked music then you'd have multiple limiters in use.  Just because they're in circuit doesn't mean you have to light them up, of course - quite the opposite - but they will get a tickle now and then.

Maybe they use a 24 bit recorded and apply the limiter later.  It is hard to know what they are doing.  But there is something that makes a Telarc recording sound different than an EMI recording, and they are typically using the same microphone, amplifier and recorder technology.

[71 dB]

Maybe they use a 24 bit recorded and apply the limiter later.  It is hard to know what they are doing.  But there is something that makes a Telarc recording sound different than an EMI recording, and they are typically using the same microphone, amplifier and recorder technology.

It matters a lot HOW you use given microphones, (pre)amplifiers and recorder technology. Telarc engineers probably have a different opinion about good sound compared to EMI engineers.

If you prefer Telarc then you do. Buy and listen to Telarc.

[Scarpia]

It matters a lot HOW you use given microphones, (pre)amplifiers and recorder technology. Telarc engineers probably have a different opinion about good sound compared to EMI engineers.

If you prefer Telarc then you do. Buy and listen to Telarc.

Duh!

[Scarpia]

Here's an example of too much dynamic range.

[asin]B0000042D5[/asin]

I had been listening to the symphony Op 21 and I had the volume set so the loud passages are quite loud.  Then I then played the Op 1, passacaglia.  For fully 40 seconds, I heard absolutely nothing.  At the 40 second mark, I heard some faint flutes.  What's this, I thought?   Restarted it and put my ear right up against the speaker.  With my ear 1 inch from the speaker, I could clearly hear the Johnson noise in my amplifier's output transistors, but no sound.  Finally, ear still up against the speaker grill, I detected some barely detectible pizzicato notes, although I could not discern the pitch.   

Absurd!