When is the excessive digital compression applied?

One of the problems with the dominator is the peak clipping circuit in the summing amp. Instead of catching "overs" it really chews into the audio. If removed, and used lightly, it's not that bad a sounding limiter. But, I'm sure most users like to see the display for limiting all lit up.

During the late 80s, early 90s, there was a popular processing box for radio stations that clipped the "composite" signal before it went to the transmitter (the composite is the matrixed L + R main channel, L - R difference channel which is modulated onto a subcarrier between 38 - 57kHz, plus, the 19kHz stereo pilot signal).

It was to designed to clip the occasional overshoot created by UHF radios used as studio to transmitter links, which would rob stations of modulation. (a whopping 0.5 - 1 db!). Enterprising radio engineers, looking for the loudest audio possible, realized if they cranked the input, and clipped constantly, their signal got a lot louder (and distorted).

The joke was, the red indicator labeled OL (which stood for overload) really meant "operating level".

 

Radio always does this. They have to.

Playing an already squashed recording on the radio will double-squash, but good radio compression will harm a natural-dynamic-range recording as little as possible.

---

MP3 doesn't add compression, but a natural-dynamic-range recording will survive MP3 compression better than an already-compressed recording.

Recordings from earlier eras, for example early '60s Abbey Road recordings, generally had fewer instruments than many of today's productions, where every instrument and voice is double or triple tracked (in-effect reducing its dynamic range), compressed, re-compressed, etc. Recordings from that era in many cases - to bat for the other team - often sounded better with the right use of a compressor on the mix (the oft worshipped Fairchild compressor was, after all, designed as a mastering compressor). We might not like or even recognize some of these recordings without their chosen use of dynamic control.

I just listened to Springsteen's Magic, after forgetting I had it on the shelf. I liked it, despite its modern limiting in the mastering. The songs still kept my interest and stayed with me. We can't let this limiting-bashing become a religion.

iPods and earbuds don't compress, and iPods have volume controls. No need to compress before the playback device. Dynamic range control devices for portable and home system devices won't damage the sound any more than how some major label releases have been hurt in mastering - this is where it belongs, in the hands of the consumer.

CDs have more theoretical dynamic range than previous media - LPs, cassettes, etc. - and now that we have this available, what do we do? Compress like we have less available dynamic range.

 

I think if you use literally non you might end up with a single loud point often so brief its only a few sample long bringing the volume down a few DB.

 

With all due respect, my dear Adolph, it is fairly easy to tell the difference between the analogue and digital compressor as your test proved to me (see here for Jamie's comparison thread).

This just further backs up my thory that digital is fine as applied to audio so long as it is simply used for recording and playback. It is digital signal processing that kills the original musicality of a recording (assuming it had any in the first place).

You can read long discussions about what I like to call the "golden rule" here:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?threadid=10004

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?t=10114

 

Hi ajuk,

If the goal is to preserve the dynamics of the performance as they occurred, I don't see why that would be a problem.

I was once asked by a client (who ultimately became a regular client) how much consideration I give to level when mastering. My answer was "none whatsoever".

Playback level is best determined by the playback volume control. Noise is no longer the issue it was many years ago so nothing is lost and true dynamics are gained.

Yes, I use (literally) none, in my recordings, in my mixes and in my mastering. It is a personal choice that may not be right for everyone but it has worked for me.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Mal,

Good to see a post from you - haven't seen one in a long time.

I don't know how many types of digital signal processors you've experimented with but I must say that nowadays, the cleanest processors I know of (e.g. EQ, gain adjustment, summing busses, etc.) are digital. They leave much less of a "fingerprint" on the signal than anything else I've heard.

Like anything else, they can be mis-used and create terrible results. But that is the fault of the workman, not the tool.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

This may be dirty pool but you originally chose the digital compressor as one of your favorites and thought one of the analog compressors as the digital. You later deleted the post.

This is really more of a philosophical point. Most guys use a combination of gear and there's no way to tell what instrument received analog treatment and what instrument received digital treatment. If it got to that point with me I'd stop listening to music all together.

The poll tells me there's no way to hear a difference between the two. Statistically speaking the results are guessing. They're evenly dispersed 13-13 and 13 (4+9). That's the very definition of guessing.

 

This could get messy with two threads running - I think it's best if I just refer to the answer I gave in the other thread to the same post you made there since that's the thread in which the poll you refer to is:

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showthread.php?p=3553225#post3553225

 

Hi Barry

I've not been able to spend as much time around here lately as I'd like to for a number of reasons I won't bore everyone here with.....

I take your points about improvements to DSP tools. Ultimately, I just prefer pure analogue before going to the DAC given the choice.

A general point to all readers, I'm not going to get caught up in being tested by endless clips to prove my claims that I can tell if DSP has been used or not on an audio file - firstly, I just don't have time these days, more importantly it simply doesn't really matter!

I considered not even mentioning my thoughts on this whole business but figured I'd just bring up my age old argument against DSP as it seemed pertinent to the current threads. Maybe that was a mistake, I don't know.

All I know is what I like and will leave it there for now

 

Hear, hear. Digital signal processing -- which broadly defined includes everything from digital 'tape splicing' to elaborate effect synthesis chains -- is no more inherently destructive of musicality than analog processing. (If anything it's less inherently destructive, because no distortion need be added, except what is intended.) It's a tool -- a variety of tools. To condemn them all because they're *digital* is unwarranted.

 

It's just an opinion - nothing "unwarranted" about that. If you haven't already done so, feel free to read the old threads I linked to in post #79 if you want to find out more about what my opinion is based upon. For one thing you will see that I am talking about destructive DSP not simple editing and minor global level change etc..

I'm not planning to get into a long argument about this - everything I believe to be the case relating to this debate is mentioned in those threads - I just thought I'd link to them in case anyone was interested.

 

The Bowers & Wilkins / Real World studios music club is providing a great case study as they have just posted some comments from Real World Studio on how the first music club recording was produced.

The details of this discussion are in another thread here.

The points relevant to this thread are that: “The Little Axe album was delivered to the Music Club direct from the mixing console. There was no post-mixing treatment of the record.”

In the music club thread I am saying that I think the Little Axe recording is over-compressed.

Adrian Sherwood who mixed the record says “the compression was minimal” with Real World saying “The artist, in this case Little Axe, chose for the compression to happen in the mix to produce the sound they and the producer wanted.”

It is natural for them to defend their work, but I wish they were like Barry and our host - defending quality rather than current industry practice.

 

Hi Michael,

If it is what they want, it is what they want.
One persons "minimal" is another's "gross".

As a great musician once said "Music is in the ear of the behearer."

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

I downloaded it but have not played it, but fellow member Guy R did and said it sounded pretty crappy for all the hyperbole.

 

I might do a poll asking if the members he think brick walling actually helps a CD sell.

 

Barry,

How do you handle vocals without compression/limiting? I always thought the human voice had too much dynamic range if left alone.

 

The more talented the vocalist imho, has good studio technique to back off on the mic as they get louder, and closer for softer passages. The human compressor.

 

Hi Barry,

It is I who are sorry, as you are right.

My intention in writing "...So lets all agree that some compression has always been appropriate.." was not to say that some compression should always be applied (because I admire your decision to not use any), but to move the discussion back to the EXCESS compression of the loudness wars.

What I should have written was: "So lets all agree that it can be a valid decision to use some compression when creating a good recording" (or something along those lines).

Cheers,
Michael

 

Do it! I think the results will be interesting.

 

This is all just too tragic to be true.

Please someone tell me that Barry was only joking, and that of course most studios have excellent monitors and properly designed mixing rooms.

Unfortunately what Barry says does explain a lot.

 

Hi again Barry,

There is another saying "the customer is always right".

In this case a customer is jumping up and down.

On the B&W forum I replied to the Real World comments with:

The Little Axe recording has minimal compression compared to many recent CDs. And some compression is, and has always been, part of good mixing.

The “controversial” part is whether or not Little Axe has too much compression to be considered “outstanding sound quality”.

The question I ask B&W is whether or not the Little Axe CD would make a good demonstration disc for auditioning any of your top-end speakers?

I have some CDs of world music recorded in the field that could be used to show the qualities of a good speaker. But, to me, Little Axe just sounds like a recording.

That the music industry overall does not understand what I am saying is very sad. If no-one at a prestigious speaker company agrees with me then I think all hope is lost.​

I'm hoping that as I am commenting to a prestigious speaker company they might see the light. As I said in my post to them, if they don't, then all hope is lost.

(PS I wrote my B&W comment before reading your post that no compression is also valid.)

 

Barry,

I would love to hear one of your recordings with no compression.

I'm sure that the information is available somewhere here, but have no idea how to effectively search for it, so please forgive me for asking.

Can you recommend any such recordings which are fairly easily available?

Cheers,
Michael

 

Hi Michael,

First, I don't put the mic on the vocalist's uvula. I never have it closer than about two feet from the singer's mouth. That's for starters.

I don't compress any other instrument either.

As to "too much dynamic range if left alone", I guess that's a personal call. I've never been in the presence of a vocalist or instrumentalist and felt they had "too much dynamic range". I have always felt most recordings of vocalists and instrumentalists have too little dynamic range.

To my ears, dynamics contain the nuance and the Life. I feel their absence is the weakest link in most recordings I've heard.

Like I said, I guess it is a personal call. Mine is to leave dynamics intact, whether I'm recording, mixing or mastering.

How to do this? Practice. It is definitely more difficult than using compression to "even things out". Sometimes much more difficult. But Life isn't "even" and neither is the emotional message contained within well performed music, whether instrumental or vocal.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi ajuk,

Perhaps another question is "How many records have you purchased because they were loud?"

I've asked this of folks many times over the years in discussions about level on records. It seems the suits at record companies (and now many producers, engineers and artists) think some folks buy records because they are loud. Then they wonder why sales have tanked.

Most folks I know, including myself, buy the record because they like the music.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com

 

Hi Michael,

Two examples for you:

1. The first release on my own label, Soundkeeper Recordings, Work of Art's "Lift". Recorded, as I always do, with only two mics, no console, no overdubs, no mix, no processing.
You can hear eMPty3 samples here or non-data-reduced samples of one song here.

Or you can order a copy, if you like. ;-}

2. I've recently (temporarily) put up a listening test that contains a soundcheck for what may be the next Soundkeeper release. This time, a small jazz ensemble. If you have the means to play back 24/96 AIF files, you can access the samples from the link in this thread.

Best regards,
Barry
www.soundkeeperrecordings.com
www.barrydiamentaudio.com