| bobkatz wrote on Sat, 16 April 2005 18:26 |
| Ronny wrote on Sat, 16 April 2005 14:49 |
While you hit the nail on the head with the acoustic advantage, I think that you've missed the boat on why this phenomenon is so. It's not just acoustic instruments
|
We're talking about two different things, Ronny. I was talking about WHY a harpsichord, or a string quartet, or a solo vocalist, or a pennywhistle sound VERY loud when played at the same SPL (or RMS, if you wish) as a symphony, or a Rock and Roll band. The reason being that the ear considers something as loud compared to the natural SPL that the instrument or instruments put out.
I love to hear Pink Floyd at a high SPL. But Joan Baez sounds too loud at the same SPL. Which explains why if you put my pennywhistle record in the CD changer along with ACDC... it'll blast it out to smithereens. Nora Jones did not have to be made as "loud" as she was... there as no reason to raise the bar compared to her first record, which was "loud enough".
Anyway, Ronny, we're talking about two different things. If I read you right, you're talking about why a simpler, less "congested" recording can often tolerate more compression, limiting or processing.
Different concepts, different discussions.
BK
|
Ok, I understand what you are saying and I agree about SPL relative to genre.
I recorded a disco band back in the 70's that used a slide whistle on one of their tunes, maybe what some people call a penny whistle, little plastic whistle with a trombone type slide that changed the pitch when moving it in and out, it was pretty loud on its own and rather irritating tone, IMHO, but they got a kick out of using it. I could see how it could blast some AC-DC if it was solo'd and played back at the same level.
