Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[lucey]

bobkatz wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 10:35

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 11:07 dcollins wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 01:02   Compression can be very tricky to compare. Ever noticed how the few compressors that make it easy to compare seem to rapidly get a bad reputation? Another fantastic bon mot from the mouth of Bob Olhsson, philosopher-extraordinaire.

no offense fellas but that's just silly

there are many, many compressors that have no problem in that category.  too many to mention

the real challenge is in the operators ability to level match by ear and be fair in the following assesment

[bobkatz]

lucey wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 13:33

no offense fellas but that's just silly there are many, many compressors that have no problem in that category.  too many to mention the real challenge is in the operators ability to level match by ear and be fair in the following assesment

You are so right, nearly every compressor has a makeup gain that is bypassed in bypass. I just thought Bob O's wisdom is so paramount and your point was his implied point, that people get fooled initially by the "louder" sound. Education, education, education...  


BK

[bblackwood]

bobkatz wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 21:53

lucey wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 13:33 no offense fellas but that's just silly there are many, many compressors that have no problem in that category.  too many to mention the real challenge is in the operators ability to level match by ear and be fair in the following assesment You are so right, nearly every compressor has a makeup gain that is bypassed in bypass. I just thought Bob O's wisdom is so paramount and your point was his implied point, that people get fooled initially by the "louder" sound. Education, education, education...

Ahh, but it's not that easy, now, is it?

Because a compressor is changing the dynamic range, if you are removing, say, 1dB of peak response, you cannot simply add 1 dB of gain as now your RMS level is higher. There's no easy solution.

It takes a good ear to actually be able to set makeup gain on a compressor where it doesn't fool you either in or out. Once again I agree with Bob O.'s wisdom here as I still haven't found a good buss compressor that is easy to A/B at 'matched' levels...

[Bob Olhsson]

That's the Neumann AM131 lathe in the cutting room at Motown that we used to cut some of the hottest-level 45s in history. I've even been asked by George Martin "HOW did you get that much bass on those records?"

I've been dealing with the loudness war since 1965!

[lucey]

bblackwood wrote on Fri, 16 July 2004 21:43

Once again I agree with Bob O.'s wisdom here as I still haven't found a good buss compressor that is easy to A/B at 'matched' levels...

Bob is clearly wise ... yet lets not get too romantic here.  He said:

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 10:07

Ever noticed how the few compressors that make it easy to compare seem to rapidly get a bad reputation?

This is saying there are a "few" that are easy, and they fall out of favor ... while you're saying none are easy.   DC says "it's tricky"  and of course this is true.  It's tricky, but it can be done.



Love ya Bob, but I have a hard time allowing this sentance to go in the "wisdom" pile.  Seems more cynical and untrue than wise  ... I mean what's a compressor that's easy to compare that was ever made?

I can't imagine that any copmressor was ever easy to compare fairly, just on physics ... it takes an ear does it not?

[dcollins]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 08:07

dcollins wrote on Thu, 15 July 2004 01:02   Compression can be very tricky to compare. Ever noticed how the few compressors that make it easy to compare seem to rapidly get a bad reputation?

(!)  If you have an SSL, hit the "external S/C" button.  It leaves the make-up gain but stops the gain reduction.  Hey, sometimes it sounds better "in"  


DC

[Bob Olhsson]

lucey wrote on Sun, 18 July 2004 00:12

I can't imagine that any copmressor was ever easy to compare fairly, just on physics ... it takes an ear does it not?

It takes an ear and the patience to make sure the ear isn't being fooled into preferring obvious signal degradation because of a level change.

[bobkatz]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 17 July 2004 23:09

That's the Neumann AM131 lathe in the catting room at Motown that we used to cut some of the hottest-level 45s in history. I've even been asked by George Martin "HOW did you get that much bass on those records?" I've been dealing with the loudness war since 1965!

But except for distorted 45's, I'd have to say the biggest salvo in the loudness war began with digital recording and digital peak limiters. Analog tape and VU meters and knowledgeable engineers tended to preserve our peak to average ratios at "Rolling Stones level" until about 1990, when project and studio mixing engineers started mixing in the box with L1's and mastering engineers started to add their own "salt and pepper" on top of it.

[bobkatz]

lucey wrote on Sun, 18 July 2004 01:12

I can't imagine that any copmressor was ever easy to compare fairly, just on physics ... it takes an ear does it not?

Yup. And we all realize that it takes a TRAINED ear. And even a TRAINED ear needs to be reminded now and then that even a tiny loudness difference can fool you. I get into that trouble every couple of weeks, and it's very humbling to realize that the MIX sounds better than the MASTER. But when I do, I REALLY, REALLY try to start all over again, I don't know how many other mastering engineers have that lofty a goal--master MUST sound better than the mix, or it doesn't leave here.

So, if BO's wrong and/or BB is right or DC is right or BK is right or Lucey is right... it all wipes out unless the engineer doing the comparing has a trained ear and knows not to be fooled by the loudness, ENOUGH to make an extra effort to compare In to Out at equal apparent loudness. And BB is right, it's a very tough thing to do!

[davidc]

bobkatz wrote on Sun, 18 July 2004 17:13

So, if BO's wrong and/or BB is right or DC is right or BK is right or Lucey is right... it all wipes out unless the engineer doing the comparing has a trained ear and knows not to be fooled by the loudness, ENOUGH to make an extra effort to compare In to Out at equal apparent loudness. And BB is right, it's a very tough thing to do!

Ive read this 5 times and I still don't understand it

Best Regards

David C

[bobkatz]

davidc wrote on Sun, 18 July 2004 12:36

Ive read this 5 times and I still don't understand it David C

Don't worry, it wasn't worth understanding! It was basically an affirmation of the difficulty of comparing compressed and uncompressed material at equal loudness.

[Level]

Bob, the real PITA...all compressors also change the EQ curves on average as well. Makes for more varables.

[Gold]

Bob Olhsson wrote on Sat, 17 July 2004 23:09

That's the Neumann AM131 lathe in the catting room at Motown that we used to cut some of the hottest-level 45s in history. I've even been asked by George Martin "HOW did you get that much bass on those records?" I've been dealing with the loudness war since 1965!

So is that the model with the levers for changing the pitch or was the pitch continuously variable?

I wish I could have seen my face when I asked Albert Grundy if he knew who imported the first Neumann lathe to the US and he said 'I did'.

[Bob Olhsson]

Gold wrote on Mon, 19 July 2004 14:27

So is that the model with the levers for changing the pitch or was the pitch continuously variable?

It used gear trains. Each one did several pitchs.

[ted nightshade]

For a recent tour-de-force in dynamics from Bob Ludwig, try Kronos Quartet "Nuevo". Everything from louder than hell to extreme dynamics, really varied material and a master plan that takes in a whole album.