 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Compressor Attack/Release times? posted by chazola on March 26, 2002 at 16:59:36:
Unless you are recording an Eileeen Farrel or Luciane Pavarotti the only thing a compressor is going to do is %$^& up an otherwise dynamic audio signal. The peaks and valleys are now going to be flattened and its going to sound as bad as a ghetto blaster in the depths of Harlem on a blustery summer day. I can't believe one would want such a thing unless of course you like that type of sound. Compressors are responsible for more sonic grunge than any other thing you could possibly run an audio signal through. The best! James
Follow Ups:
Pavarotti is probably one place you wouldn't use a compressor. It is unusual to use compressors recording any classical works, however it does happen. As for other types of music, without the use of compressors, you wouldn't be able to get a useable musical balance, and on certain tracks highly desirable for the sound that the compressor imparts.Regards
Roland
hehe. thanks for your viewpoint James....true, they can flatten a great dynamic signal like a cheap pizza, but in many aspects of recording, live sound and broadcast they're extremely useful tools. Unfortunately not every medium can handle a signal with a huge dynamic range, and for what I'm working with compressors are a necessary evil.
Used correctly and in moderation a compressor can sound very natural.
I've been an audiophile since I was old enough to put a record on a turntable at the age of 4 and I'm now 52. I have enough records and CDs to fill a good size room. I'm also a film producer and have been into pro audio since I finished college. The average CD coming on the marker is S%$# audio quality wise. And its S%$# because of too many young turk guitar pickers who took the Johnny three chord guitar course and are now calling themselves "musicians" who think that they have to give the music the "right sound". They have to run it through countless devices all of which have op amps with too little open loop bandwidth; limiters, equalizers, compressors, de-essers, reverberation, overdubbing not once but two and three times and now digital where the signal is totally discected like a jigsaw puzzel and then resurrected. Out of all my CDs and LP the best sounding music was produced in a window of time between 1950 and 1967 on vacumn tube Ampex 300s, realtime, without any of the S%$# I just described. Go back and just listen to the Capital re-issues. My God, we've taken giant backward steps. James
Well I'm a current professional audio engineer, working in classical and jazz mainly. Of course there are three chord wonders out there, but there are many good professional players as well, I know because I work with them. Its easy to be dismissive of current music, and technology, and there is a lot of crap talked about valve gear. I've used good valve gear and good modern gear. Some modern kit is amazingly good, some not, but that was the same in the 50's and 60's. A lot of who you are calling so called three chord wonders, play vintage gear, so the argument that its their amps doesn't stand up. As to compression, it was the watchword of recordings done in the 50's and 60's and before. It was virtually impossible to record without the use of compressors at those times because of the noise factor from tape machines.I've recently been remastering some recordings of Hendrix from 67 and the record quality is far from wonderful, mainly due to the inherent technical limitations of the equipement used. There are some nice vintage mic amps, but there are many good modern ones, there are some nice vintage compressors, equally there are modern ones that are just as good. As for microphones, there are some great modern ones, and some classic vintage ones, most that are still being used today.
With the advent of surround sound in a usable format, sound recording is probably more exciting now than any time in the past since the early Abbey Road days. Musically I am inclined to agree, that maybe the average standard is lower, however there are always those that excel in any field, and I would respectively suggest that today we only remember the great acts of the past 40-50 years, so it is not really fair to compare this years output alongside all that have gone before, there are good acts out there, but you have to search them out, and appreciate them for what they do.
Regards
Roland
Roland, I've become a minamalist. I listen to all types of music from country to jazz and grand opera and classical. I also believe that there is no such thing as a "free lunch". Whatever you get you have to pay for it or swap something for it. Ray Dolby did one of the worst injustices to audio imaginable with his introduction of the noise reduction system. We once lived with tape hiss. We also had greater dynamics. You can't have both. When the noise is reduced the some of the dynamics goes with it. Now all these young turks would foam at the mouth and digress into delerium at the sound of a little tape hiss. Lets Dolbyize it! Let's californicate it! With less processing the dynamics of the music returns. I can live any day with a little tape hiss if I have the ultra-highs. The ultra-highs that are ERASED by a G-D noise reduction system. Have you ever listened to a Studer 24 track without the Dolby or AIC or the DBX. It's so noisy its unlistenable. So the medium progressed to the point that processing is unavoidable and its sad. These re-issues of LP in the sixties are so attenuated conpared to the original pressing becuase some young turk Johnny wonder engineer gets carries away with the processing. And don't retort that LESS IS A BORE! James
I don't understand the point you are making?Noise reduction, extends dynamic range. A modern day Studer machine, is a much quieter machine than its 60's counterparts, even without dolby. Tape formulations of the last 20 years were significantly better than those used in the 60's & 70's. If you want to hear a recording with true dynamics, (or as close to the original as possible) you need to listen to a modern classical recording on CD. Even classical records in the 50's through the 60's were routinely compressed on route to the tape machine. Read the post above from SSL as to how much improved the response of a studer was with the addition of Dolby SR. It is true that amongs "pop" records there is a tendency (particulary in mastering) to get the average level on a CD as "hot" as possible, but that is not always the case. For great sounding older records I would site some of the Verve jazz recordings of the 50's, but these were phenomenal artists, that would have sounded good recorded on practically anything, and the microphones used on those sessions are still being used on sessions today. As for modern recording technology, the new generation of digital recorders such as Otari Radar, have converted even the flat earth society amongst recording professionals. I personally record on fairly minamalistic kit, whenever the opportunity arrives. I do use very high quality modern mics, from Neuman, Sennheiser, B&K, Schoeps, and alike. As good as some of the vintage kit is, I would have great difficulty even getting close to the sound quality I can achieve with modern kit.
Regards
Roland
I don't understand the point you are making?Noise reduction, extends dynamic range. A modern day Studer machine, is a much quieter machine than its 60's counterparts, even without dolby. Tape formulations of the last 20 years were significantly better than those used in the 60's & 70's. If you want to hear a recording with true dynamics, (or as close to the original as possible) you need to listen to a modern classical recording on CD. Even classical records in the 50's through the 60's were routinely compressed on route to the tape machine. Read the post above from SSL as to how much improved the response of a studer was with the addition of Dolby SR. It is true that amongs "pop" records there is a tendency (particulary in mastering) to get the average level on a CD as "hot" as possible, but that is not always the case. For great sounding older records I would site some of the Verve jazz recordings of the 50's, but these were phenomenal artists, that would have sounded good recorded on practically anything, and the microphones used on those sessions are still being used on sessions today. As for modern recording technology, the new generation of digital recorders such as Otari Radar, have converted even the flat earth society amongst recording professionals. I personally record on fairly minamalistic kit, whenever the opportunity arrives, and there is rarely a valve in sight! Although I do use very high quality modern mics, from Neuman, Sennheiser, B&K, Schoeps, and alike. As good as some of the vintage kit is, I would have great difficulty even getting close to the sound quality I can achieve with modern kit.
Regards
Roland
The point I'm trying to make is underlined in my statement: the best sounding recordings on my system are recordings made in a window of time between 1950 and 1967 on electron tube Ampex 300s and a few 35mm full coat 3 track masters. The second point I'm trying to make is that the average CD coming on the market from the major labels is OVERPROCESSED. It is processed for the ghetto blaster crowd not the serious audiophile. What we basically have is re-mixed mono if all the instruments are picked up by a single microphone and recorded on a single track and then re-mixed, re-equalized, de-essed, reverberated, limited, compressed and overdubbed ad nauseum. To have natural ambient 3D field it would have to be picked up by two microphones or a Blunleim pair and those two signals whould have to remain untouched and separate throughout the mixing process. The average audio engineer is a mindless blevit who has to have a mixer in front of him that has 64 channels and lites up like a christmas tree. This THING is the most offending device in the whole chain full of op-amps that some right brain empirical engineer is impressing on the rest of us. It is interesting to note that the op-amp was originally designed as a dc amplifier and its universal application to audio is a another sad backward step. This mindless blevit in front of this mixer is impressing his idea of what the music should sound like on the rest of us. He is an uneducated GATEKEPPER that is following the edicts of his boss or his company or his wild hair at the time They are selling something. And in most instances its a BIG LIE. There a few good engineers and many mediocre engineers and a few bad engineers. You know, the bell curve. The engineers I respect are Armin Steiner, Robert Fine, Kenneth G. Wilkinson. Most of the rest judging from the sonic product they are putting out are mediocre WAGS. Cordially, James
And how many of the records that you are talking about were genuine stereo? Single mono mic's on instruments was the norm, with the exception of Classical records. As for the 35mm film recorders as used for the "living prescence" recordings, listen to those now. They are all available on CD. Good as they are, especially considering their age, they don't come close to the best modern classical recordings. If I was to submit tapes of that standard to my clients I wouldn't work! The Ampex 300's were good machines of their time, but again dreadful in comparison with more modern analogue machines, and digital recorders. You mention 3 engineers over something like a 20 year period. I could recommend easily 20 great modern engineers. The classical record market is probably the best on which to judge advances in recording technology as it is (on the whole) fairly purist in approach. Listen to Decca's recording of the Planets with the Montreal Symphony Orchestra. Decca used similar equipement in the 60's with the exception of those recordings were made to analogue recorders, and there has been an appreciable improvement in sound quality over the years. Another common misconception is that of how much valve equipment was being used in those days. In an interview with one of the major trade journals the chief engineer for the Motown label said far from that lovely warm sound being aquired using valves, most of the kit that they were using in those days was transistor, and the valve kit was mainly used to "prop open the door".I partialy blame the hi-fi magazines, they have a lot to answer for when it comes to the garbage that they print. The pre-requisite for being a hi-fi journalist is the ability to write, knowledge of audio is the secondary requirement. It never ceases to amaze me how much I read proporting to be fact that is missleading at least, and more often downright inaccurate. I would respectfully suggest that your opinion is also coloured by your taste in music. However good a recording is or isn't if you don't like the material, you probably are not listening to those recordings. I would be most interested to know what gear you are using to listen to your music, perhaps you would be kind enough to let us know.
Regards
Roland
Roland I don't read any of the Hi-Fi periodicals. I was once a member of the Audio Engineering Society and read their journals. I did once subscribe to STUDIO SOUND an English publication. And MIX comes to my mailbox everymonth. Most of my opinion was developed by simply listening to CDs and LPs. I have two systems, a Phillips/Magnavox CD-DVD player, A Marshall Leach Discreet wide bandwidth solid state preamplifier, three LUXMAN MB-3045 power amps designed by Tim de Paravacini operating in Triode Class A mode and three Gillum G-3 (high efficiency horn) speakers arranged a three-some right, left, and derived center. The other system is another Magnavox CD player, A AUdio Research SP-6 preamp, Dyna MK111 power amps and two Thiel speakers. I have a 16" Fairchild 750 turntable with four tone arms: A Gray Viscous damped, a B&O with a SP12 cartridge, a Grado tone arm with a Grado Gold czartidge and a Shure SME with a Ortofon MC30 moving coil.
The best sounding CD I own is a Capital reissue of Kay Starr "UP A LAZY RIVER". The absolutely worse sounding recording is reissue of Henry Mancini's "COMBO" . They really did a hatchet job on this one.
Your gear should be quite good, however I would strongly advise that you do away with the centre speaker in your three speaker system. If you are using a centre derived signal, you will be getting serious phase cancelation. Horns are not normally good from a phase aspect generally, and response for horns is usually far from flat. I haven't heard the Theiles, but I do know they have a good reputation. Bearing in mind your equipement I am not totally suprised at your opinion. It is not unlike the Linn Dem's I heard 20 years ago. With a turntable the Isobariks sounded great, and when a cd player was attached the sound was subjectively worse, much worse. Unfortunately the demo was loaded, and what was happening was that the CD player was showing up the shortcommings of the system (particulary the Isobariks). My advice to you, is if you enjoy listening to your records on your system, I wouldn't change a thing, just be aware that what you may find lacking on modern records may not all be down to the recordings.Regards
Roland
Neither my Webster dictionary nor Holts Audio Glossary has "blevit" in it. I kinda like the word so was wondering exactly what it means.
Also in a Blumlein pair should the top mic be upside down in order to have the least possible distance between the capsules?
I first heard "blivet" used when I was in a college fraternity. It loosely means someone who is an indoctrinated puppet who quotes the company line and never doubts anything. A Voltair's Candide who thinks this is the best of all possibly worlds.It really depends on the type of mic you're using. Figure 8 ribbons mounted one directly over the other but splayed at 90 degree right angles works very well in large rooms with their out of phase sides away from the performers. In small rooms, two cardiod or hyper=cardiod spaced in a 90 degree criss cross works very well.
While co-incident figure 8's can image impressively, I've never liked the low end response. The same goes for X-Y cardioids and ORTF. The cancellation in the pattern really screws up the bottom end. I have found A-B omnis to offer the best balance, with a 3 mic Decca tree not far behind.As to compressors, I think you're generally correct about their overuse, especially in Pop and Rock recordings(look at Bob Katz's web site about the ever narrowing dynamic range in recordings. www.digido.com). That being said, I still find that I may have to use a TINY bit of frequency dependant compression to compensate for instrument placement, mic distance, room effects, etc.(most of my recordings are live events). I'm a purist and audiophile, but sometimes it balances out the recording.
Mike
Thanks for your comments, Mike. I have on occasion had omnis work for me but looking back that was when the acoustics in the room were almost perfectly flat. Using omnis, I always picked up too much of the room and not enough of the performance. Chair skreeches, throat clearing, feet shuffling, paper turnings, the ventilator shaft all are there with an omni. If you back off the mics then the performers sound like they are in the next county. No, I'll stick to my cardiods, and my figure eights. I won't buy certain CDs from certain companies because I know they are recorded with omni mics. I like a nice mix of room tone but mostly I'm interested in the performance.I have two RCA BK11A bi-direc ribbons and two BK-5B cardiod ribbons. The bi are used on the double basses and the BK=5s on the brass. I also use the AKG C461 condensors for strings. Jerry Bruck of Posthorn Recording has experimented extensively with arrays calling it tetrahedral ambiphony. The best! James
But if the mic's are cardiods its near coincidence not Blumlein any more. Problem is that outside apparrently totally correct phase response, these techniques in the real world don't work particulary well. I started using near coincidence and blumlein techniques in my early days recording, but found out fairly quickly that there were other better stereo techniques, subjectively. Near coincidence systems are fine but tend not to really have a decent soundstage. It's pretty good at high frequencies, but drops off rapidly, and the ambient field is usually poorly represented due to poor off axis response. This is even more interesting as one get's into the field of 5.1 surround. We have just recently ordered a new console purely with the view to producing more of our output in surround, particulary that which is heading for DVD.Regards
Roland
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]