Extreme Mixing wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 16:37 |
innesireinar wrote on Fri, 25 February 2005 07:08 | ...instead of lowering the level for some occasional and insignificant peaks...
ranieri senni
|
Besides, if you can't hear the "insignificant peaks" at the top of the dynamic range, what makes you think you'll hear sttuff 100, or more, db down?
Steve
|
For istance, during a vocal session, you can get 1 P or 1 S only once in a 2 minutes take. This is what I mean "insignificant peak".
During the night I've done a search about this thread and I've found a gm point of view
"Erik wrote on Thu, 05 August 2004 11:32
guitarbth wrote on Thu, 05 August 2004 00:12
In my humble studio, the only compressor i have is a dbx 160 (original) [...]
How are you recording? To digital?
If so, then just reduce the gain on the mic pre. There's no reason to use a compressor on a vocal to prevent clipping in a digital system... there's just too much clean, noise-free recording medium available.[...]
Erik,
Given what i assume to be substantial dynamic range from the vocalist, I respectfully disagree with this. Yes, I'm a big fan of getting the range right onto hard disk (which used to mean riding a vocal more and more effectively as you rehearse and then do takes) but with surprise dynamics and the most important criteria which is to capture the first take onward as faithfully as possible you really need a very good analog compressor before the converter. After the converter, for every 6dB you drop your input - presumably to be raised later by a compressor in the digital path - you lose another bit of resolution. Doing 24dB of compression digitally? That pseudo-24 bit converter (really 21bits if you're lucky) is now a 17 bit converter.
Oh, and I like 160's better than anything else mentioned here so far. They're one of only a handful of true RMS converters.
Your mileage may vary.
George".[/I][/I]
I'm going to be confused. However, what I've understood from your answers the soft limit isn't a good tool for tracking.