Print

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

[wavdoctor]

smj wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 08:56

Volume automation would be the cleaner solution...though it might take a bit of time...but I think it would be a lot more transparent. Sean Meredith-Jones

I have on occasion used this method in mastering..bump the levels up overall and then go in with Auto. and lower the peaks back down to 0.5 or whatever level you like, Then normalize if you need more. CAREFUL NOW..it's not rap.

HB

[Tidewater]

wavdoctor wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 11:50

CAREFUL NOW..it's not rap. HB

Oh God, it's all funny..


M

[Augustine Leudar]

Curve Dominant wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 06:03

Quote: To compress or not to compress... Or do both... Recently I mixed a traditional jazz ensemble who's bandleader/arranger didn't like the sound of compression across his band's mix, but he still wanted "that sound" of a nicely compressed mix. So I told him, "We'll do both." I made one mix of the songs with no compression whatsoever. Then, compressed heavily a duplicate of the same mix, and mixed it ever-so-slightly with the uncompressed mix. Worked. Phat, but all the dynamics still there. That trick could work on a full classical orchestra mix, I bet.

Now THAT is an interesting idea. Hmmm.
Actually its for an electroacoustic piece I just said classical because thats the nearest thing in terms of dynamic range.
Thanks for all the replies havent had time to read all yet.

[bobkatz]

Curve Dominant wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 01:03

I made one mix of the songs with no compression whatsoever. Then, compressed heavily a duplicate of the same mix, and mixed it ever-so-slightly with the uncompressed mix. That trick could work on a full classical orchestra mix, I bet.

That's basically parallel or "upward" compression. In my opinion you could have done that with just the single uncompressed mix and a parallel compression technique.

BK

[Eric Rudd]

bobkatz wrote on Tue, 08 November 2005 00:04

Curve Dominant wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 01:03 I made one mix of the songs with no compression whatsoever. Then, compressed heavily a duplicate of the same mix, and mixed it ever-so-slightly with the uncompressed mix. That trick could work on a full classical orchestra mix, I bet. That's basically parallel or "upward" compression. In my opinion you could have done that with just the single uncompressed mix and a parallel compression technique. BK

Yeah....mult to a compressor...then bring up on two faders. Whoops...damn that latency.

I would venture a guess most classical recording engineers would puke if they knew the orchestra was compressed then blended in. They work on those dynamics for a reason. Jazz folks too.

Eric

[Curve Dominant]

Barry Hufker wrote on Mon, 07 November 2005 15:24

Curve, You reminded me that we used to do that for an orchestra -- mix compressed and uncompressed.  It's been so long I know I am going to get the details wrong but here's my very vague recollection. We used to have two faders with the entire piece uncompressed.  And we adjusted that until it peaked right to the level we wanted.  Then putting the same music on two other faders, we compressed the daylights out of the music -- in a way very similar to the type of compression one would get from Dolby A if it weren't decoded.  Then we mixed that in at -20. The idea was that when the music was loud, the peaks would be uncompressed and would sound natural.  And the music would be loud enough to hide the heavily compressed sound.  Then as the music moved to softer passages, the compressed sound would be loud enough to keep the soft passages up in level but would not know sound so heavily compressed. It was a decent way to do the job... Barry

Barry,

My jazz bandleader client was very pleased with the results of using this technique.

As Bob Katz pointed out a few posts back, it's commonly known as "parallel compression," and I've found it useful for all sorts of applications in many different genres of music.

Quote:

The idea was that when the music was loud, the peaks would be uncompressed and would sound natural.  And the music would be loud enough to hide the heavily compressed sound.  Then as the music moved to softer passages, the compressed sound would be loud enough to keep the soft passages up in level but would not know sound so heavily compressed.

Precisely. It works by using the source audio to add presence, in order to make dynamic elements more discernable, rather than adding volume to simply amplify everything (which = subtracting dynamics).

wavdoctor posted:

Quote:

CAREFUL NOW..it's not rap.

That's right. You don't use parallel compression in quite the same fashion with a classical orchestra mix as you would in a hip hop track, or a jazz ensemble, or a classic rock group, or a female R&B track, or...or...

Just like mic placement, or front end signal chain choices, parallel compression is a tool meant to be fashioned for individual requirements, and client's tastes...which carries over to the next post...

[Curve Dominant]

Eric Rudd wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 03:44

I would venture a guess most classical recording engineers would puke if they knew the orchestra was compressed then blended in. They work on those dynamics for a reason. Jazz folks too.

It's not something you do to please the recording engineer. It's something you do to please the musical director (bandleader, conductor, composer, exec. producer, et al) of the material. The recording engineer should not be "working those dynamics." That's the mix engineer's job, in collusion with the musical director. The recording engineer, IMHO, should be focussed soley on faithful sonic transfer of the source audio to recording media.

In the example with the jazz bandleader which I cited, I played him the uncompressed mix, then added the parallel compression to the mix, carefully explaining to him what it was, and giving him the option of using it, or not. He liked it, and so it got printed. Last time I spoke with him (last week) he told me his ensemble was getting a lot of good paying gigs from that recording. When my clients are making money, I'm happy, because they are happy.

The recording engineer's puking over the techniques we use to achieve our collective happiness is a digestive tract issue which said recording engineer is best advised to seek specialized medical treatment for. Curve Dominant does not specialize in medical treatments of that sort, but there are several excellent hospitals in close proximity to our facility which we can refer you to.

[J.J. Blair]

Just my 2

[vernier]

He said "electroacoustic", whatever that is. But with a traditional orchestra, most records I've heard get so low in the quiet sections, you can bearly hear the solo instrument. In that case, I bet the signal path consisted of a mic, a pre, and recorder.

[Augustine Leudar]

vernier wrote on Thu, 10 November 2005 10:49

He said "electroacoustic", whatever that is.

Exactly. Which is why I said classical music because hardly anyone has heard of Electroacoustic music but it is perhaps similar to the dynamics of classical in that it can have very quiet bits followed by thunderously loud bits. In case anyones interested wikipedia has this to say about electroacoustic music :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-acoustic

[Curve Dominant]

I've composed and produced quite a bit of this "electro-acoustic" type music, but mostly for theater applications where the quiet parts cannot be TOO quiet lest the performers can't hear them and miss their cues.

Let's all try to bear in mind that not all of us are always doing the same thing for the same application, and so sometimes "unorthodoxed" methods are called for.

[Dave Peck]

I was fortunate to have worked with Keith Johnson for a few years and I have always been a great admirer of his classical recordings for the Reference Recordings label. The power and depth in these recordings is really just amazing. Of course he's using great gear (custom-built mics through custom electronics & converted through Pacific Microsonics Model Two processors at 24bit/192k)  but it's clear that there is more to it than that to achieve such stunning results, and I have asked him lots of questions about how he does it.

According to Keith, a lot of it involves spending a great deal of time working with the orchestra and rehearsing along with them, really getting to know not just the piece in general, but exactly what the piece will sound like played by this particular orchestra in this particular hall using this specific recording setup.

Fader moves are well rehearsed, and the setup is rather simple, so it can be precisely controlled by the engineer live when/if fader moves are needed. No compressors.

Of course, that's just one way to do it. I recommend you check out some of his work for examples of what this technique can sound like and see if that's what you're trying to achieve.

[Augustine Leudar]

Well thank you all for your replies. Learn a few new tricks here eh
Just going to ecperiment with that parallel compression right now.

[bobkatz]

Eric Rudd wrote on Wed, 09 November 2005 22:44

That's basically parallel or "upward" compression. In my opinion you could have done that with just the single uncompressed mix and a parallel compression technique. BK

Yeah....mult to a compressor...then bring up on two faders. Whoops...damn that latency.

Eric [/quote]

Yes, if it's a digital compressor. The trick there is either to use a DAW with latency compensation (SADiE's can perform parallel compression with their built-in compressor with perfect latency compensation). OR, feed the "dry" signal through a compressor that (ideally) is bit-transparent when not working (there are few that are bit-transparent), turn the threshold all the way up and ratio to 1:1 and also through the identifal compressor set for severe compression, and you will automatically have your latency compensated in a DAW that does not have latency compensation.

BK

[gar-p]

Always the same problem ... just a remark  ... what are you using to listen to classical music ? Digital hi end modern sytem ? Audiophile analog ?
Do you prefer modern ddd recordings or old good vinyls ?
I personnaly prefer vinyls ... they simply deliver you music not analytic flow of bits ... vinyls have necessary been compressed but all artefacts usually associated with compressors are surprisingly unhearable or so musical (following the natural compression curve of our ears ) that nothing disturbs you during the listenning process ...
when it commes to "density" or physical impact , digital uncompressed recordings always seemed to "forget" something during process and deliver something clean and precise but loosing the "glue" that makes an orchestra sounding like a bunch of musicians delivering music and swet, not individual sections playing their scores  dramatically "cuted" from the rest ...
Ok you can say "coloured" or harmonic distortion or reduced transcients or dynamic or whatever ! I always founded digital "coloured" , ok, in a very different way than analog but i remember back in the beginning 80's when every good engeneer could recognise at the first sight that a cassette was copied from a CD source or from a vinyl just because of their sharp and very bright colour compared to analog sources ...
Back in our days when someone comes to me talking about transparency it just gives me ideas for my girlfriend's wardrobe, and let me think that the gear he's talking about has just ... no balls ! Classical music NEEDS compression , exactly in the same way than your ears are compressing the signal comming from a big orchestra playing in front of you ... Modern pre's are way too clean have way too much headroom to be pleasent to my ears ... i prefer iron and discrete electronics
... it follows bandwidth more gently than the straight modern designs .... what about capacitors in this case ? And op amps ? and surface mounted components ... pfffffff !
My first meeting with the SOUND was on my uncle's pair of Tannoys driven by KT88's QUAD amps with tangential REVOX playing Sgt Peppers at loud volume ... i was 8 ... i will never forget it ... and every time i switch my studio on and listen to this system ( now my main monitoring system ,here, at Colourbox ) with a fellow ... i can see on his face probably same expression that i must have at 8 ! Magic stills operate ! When it comes to recording i use both methods : a gentle tube limiting and a gentle fader following with the score under the eyes , if i consider the gentle compression of my analog recorder (telefunken m36) pushed very hard and with a (fantastic !) modern tape , the noise floor stays enough quiet to justify the musicality this system gives you ... ok , every time i'm recording classical musicians , it is for a pop production or a film score not a classical CD release,  but i think that no conductor is unsensible to musicality ! sorry for my crap english ... i'm french !
(I'm the proud owner of a huge bunch of tube mics and pre's from RADIO FRANCE 60's used at their time to record classical music ... coloured it is ! But try every modern pre with a string section in front of those monsters (100lbs of iron and 5 tubes for one single channel !) and you'll understand why i'm so proud !)