Re: [LAU] Questions from an audiophile to some engineers

Arnold,

Thank you. Those examples really helped me "get it". I now understand why
it's not such a horrible thing.

Bearcat

> Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 schrieb Bearcat M. Sandor:
>> Is it really about selling more music? I'm still not convinced that it
>
> Its not always about selling music but about getting (wider) audience.
> Unless you do your music only to torture your relatives on family
> reunion... ;-)
>
>> sounds better on average consumer level electronics though. If the
>> complaint is about some passages being too quiet because there is too
>> much
>> dynamic range, well that's not the kind of music it's done on anyway is
>> it? If the idea is to make the whole thing subjectivly louder why not
>> just leave it to the listener to turn up the volume?
>
> Ever seen a worker in the factory change the volume on his radio with
> every
> song?
> A song that is less loud than the others means 3:30 mins of silence for
> them,
> which the radio-station wouldn't allow to happen since they loose
> listeners
> and thus ad-money everytime that song is played.
> So: If you want your song to be played on the radio it has to be loud.
> Moreover if your song stands out over the other songs in (subjective)
> loudness
> it will be recognized. And that is what you want. So you try to make your
> song louder than the others. Only problem is that every other producer
> tries
> the same thing and that is where song are compressed to much and get
> screwed
> by producers that force their technicians to use much higher compression
> than
> most of them want to use...
>
>> Some of the things i
>> have that are compressed aren't even played on the radio. I can only
>> really speak to that in the States though so i'd admit i was wrong
>> quickly
>> on that one.
>
> While radio is the primary broadcast if you want your songs to be heard,
> the
> same rule above also applies to CDs. At least to some degree. (But most
> bands
> produce CDs that could be broadcasted directly without asking the band for
> a
> special broadcast-version.)
>
> Yes, you can do recordings completely without compression. Even good old
> instruments/classic can be recorded that way. But what do your
> wife/kids/neighbors say if you turn up your amp to get the full >80dB
> dynamic-range between the silent flute-solo and the big tutti finale? (*)
>
> Think of compression as a tool the same as equalizers. Learn to use them
> and
> use what sounds best. Not every channel needs EQ and compression by
> default.
>
> But be aware that good compression takes more experience than EQ. And the
> characteristics of the EQ change if you put the EQ before the compressor,
> which can be desired or unwanted...
>
> Arnold
>
> (*) I do have a recording of Haydn's creation where the passage "And there
> was
> light" has almost that dynamic-range. I can only really listen to that and
> enjoy the range on big PA's during soundcheck or on my headphones. (Or
> when
> my wife is on holiday/work...)
> --
> visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
> ---
> Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and
> send me
> to all your contacts.
> After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your
> administrator to do so...
>

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Apr 14 00:15:05 2007