Jump to content

Let's talk dynamics!


Recommended Posts

  • Members

One very important element in a great sounding mix is dynamics. With much dynamics the song is dense with lots of expressions. Often this kind of sound in a beautiful song can make the listener feel touched and moved by the great sound! If you have ever compared 16 and 24 bit recordings you have noticed that it feels differently, more close to the natural analog sound. The perception of high dynamic sound is that it sounds beoynd the noise floor. It is natural, present, deep, defined and dense, it feels big but very clear. In order for being able to record with high dynamics you need to target the input reference level of the A/D converter and record with a maximized signal-noise ratio. A very important aspect of the A/D converter ship is it's dynamic range. Sometimes the difference can be pretty huge. For instance my RME Fireface 800 converter only has a dynamic range of 109dB while for instance the Lynx Aurora has a dynamic range of 117dB! 8dB of dynamic range in difference should be noticable in the feeling of the sound, a difference that is still there after a great dithering alogirthm (for instance the uv22hr) is applied during the mixdown process to 16 bit! (then it's probably most noticable too!) In professional studios they use equipment that minimizes the limit of the dynamic range. In combination with a great converter the difference in recording sound quality between a hobbyist's home recording studio and a professional's studio can become pretty big due to this when they then also start adding ultra high quality compressors for creating contrast in the dynamics. Another thing to pay attention to is the fact that much digital equipment out there is really not able to transmit the kind of dynamic range that the A/D converter is able to receive, resulting in limited dynamics on the recording. This is often the case with cheap keyboards/synths/samplers/effect units/amp simulation units that often operate in only 16-bit. That's why you sometimes might notice that things start sounding differently when you add analog instruments in the mix together with these digital units.

 

Compressors are great tools for improving the perception of the dynamics. If you are careful with the attack and release times and use the right compressors you can actually improve the dynamic range instead of limiting it. A lot of engineers are able to improve the dynamics this way.

 

What's your thoughts and tricks for recording with lots of dynamics?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by where02190

Tracks with minimal to no dynamics processing, mix the same way, and don't be concerned about how loud the mix is in mastering.


The loudness wars have killed dynamics.

 

I'm in a hurry, but wanted to reply... I both agree and disagree. I agree that you need to keep it rather clean with the dynamics, too much compression will simply kill too much dynamics. One thing I've noticed though is that some albums I hear I notice the sound has lots of dynamics even though much of the song is compressed and these are still pretty loud too. I think this dynamic range comes from good compressors and dithering with a really good limiter in the mastering phase. The mixing engineer chooses the right compressors for different tracks and the result is interesting! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There is a huge difference between recording digital keyboards, and recording acoustic sounds with a mic.

 

With most digital keyboard sounds, they are extremely compressed to start with. You might even consider using an expander (negative compression) to restore some dynamics. With midi sequences - if your playing is a bit sloppy the velocity dynamics might be all over the place. You can compress (or expand) the midi data to change the dynamics. Or reduce or increase the velocity sensitivity of the instrument. That's usually the first place to start, instead of trying to compress/expand the wildy varying audio.

 

When you record guitars and vocals, depending on the musician, you might find it a real challenge to get the dynamics in the ball park. That's where it's a temptation to use compressors excessively.

 

I think the very first tool for controling dynamics is the channel Fader - not a compressor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by TonyCrazyMan



I'm in a hurry, but wanted to reply... I both agree and disagree. I agree that you need to keep it rather clean with the dynamics, too much compression will simply kill too much dynamics. One thing I've noticed though is that some albums I hear I notice the sound has lots of dynamics even though much of the song is compressed and these are still pretty loud too. I think this dynamic range comes from good compressors and dithering with a really good limiter in the mastering phase. The mixing engineer chooses the right compressors for different tracks and the result is interesting!
:)

 

 

I agree. I'll have to say i'm going against the grain here, but a lot of the albums that I thought sounded "really good" were actually very very loud albums.

 

Some examples...

 

Casting Crowns (2003)

Foo Fighters - The Colour and The Shape (1997)

Radiohead - Kid A and Amnesiac (1999 and 2001)

Pearl Jam - No Code (1996)

 

 

all of these have some heavy "loudness" issues but were compressed properly, and the dynamics still remain. This is talented loudness, rather than sloppy loudness you hear on many albums these days.

 

I won't deface my natural ears' opinion with a statement like "if it's loud and looks crushed, it's bad", because I've been proven wrong by that statement many times. Usually our ears don't lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just because you like a song doesn't mean that it couldn't have sounded better if they hadn't smashed the snot out of it.

 

My Beatles CD's are still used as my references for good sound - and they look seriously under-recorded by todays standards.

 

When CD's were first launched, a big deal was made about the increased dynamic range compared to tape & vinyl. Classical music buffs appreciate dynamic range.

 

Dire Straits 'Brothers in Arms' is a great example of dynamics in a CD. "The Mans Too Strong" still blows me away. A grammy for Best Engineered Non Classical btw.

 

But big dynamic range doesn't translate to easy listening for a lot of people - requires an attention span.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I've noticed though is that some albums I hear I notice the sound has lots of dynamics even though much of the song is compressed and these are still pretty loud too.

 

I want you all to do yourselves a favor and go out and find a copy of the Jellyfish album, "Spilt Milk". This is, IMO, an amazing record all the way around, but for the purposes of this post, check out the song "Joining A Fan Club."

 

This song starts out with some pretty heavy guitars, bass and drums, but they stop suddenly and a piano vamp takes their place on the verse... it gets "big" again on the choruses. Notice how individual instruments get compressed pretty heavily, but not the whole mix. And while there are several instruments that are highly compressed, it's not all of them, and not the whole mix via the mastering. The song still retains loud and soft sections; areas where things rage and when they back off too, And there is enough leeway left in individual parts - and the way it was mixed (brilliantly I might add, courtesy of Jack Joseph Puig) that you can still hear when a player "digs in" or backs off a bit. And of course, having great arrangements on great songs makes doing the mixes dynamically all the easier.

 

JJP uses a ton of compression on that record at various times, but on the appropriate, individual tracks, and as much (or moreso) for tonal reasons as for dynamic control.

 

IMO, it's an excellent example of track compression "done right". :cool:

 

I think this dynamic range comes from good compressors and dithering with a really good limiter in the mastering phase.

 

Let's get on the same page here. :) What type of compression are we discusing here? There's tracking and mixing compression, and 2 bus compression (where you strap a compressor across the stereo bus so it processes the entire mix on the way to the mixdown deck), and then there's mastering compression. I personally don't use a ton of compression when I'm tracking. A little bit to tame things a tad (for players who are a little "loose" with their dynamic control / capabilities), or sometimes I'll slam things about a bit to get a particular tone, but for the most part, I prefer to "go easy" on compression when I track. You can alwasy compress as much as you want / need to when you mix, but once it's tracked, compression is forever, and you'll never get rid of it short of retracking.

 

For mixing, anything goes that gets me where I want to go. :) I might use a bit of 2 bus compression to help "glue" the mix together a bit, but again, I tend to go very easy on that. I prefer to leave the vast majority of any overall compression to the mastering engineer.

 

But is it the compression that "gives you good dynamics"? I don't know that I'd put it quite that way. Compression reduces dynamic range, reducing the loudest peaks (or even effecting the "body" of the track, depending on how you set them), as well as makes changes to the tone / attack and sustain of the sound. It doesn't GIVE you dynamics, it helps you TAME them, and manipulate them and control them. When done properly, and with taste, and in conjunction with a great mix overall, using compression doesn't mean you have to lose all dynamics... but the dynamics come from the players, not the compression.

 

Ever tried moving the faders up on a drum loop to make it seem like the loop is being played harder / louder? IMO, that doesn't work, because without the timbral differences that come with actually playing harder, the volume differences alone do not fool the ear into thinking that the part is being played louder. :) IOW, fader moves alone can't give you something that isn't on the track to begin with. You have to have something printed, some of those dynamics, which you can then make even more impactful with some judicious fader manipulation. For me, compression and fader moves alone can never make up for a lack of played dynamics. You've got to play it if you want to have it. :)

 

But does mastering compression "add in" dynamics? IMO, absolutely not. You can manipulate the dynamics in mastering, but you've got to have them already on tape / disk to begin with - mastering compression isn't going to give that to you if it's not already there. And the OVERUSE of mastering compression in a misguided effort to have a "loud CeeDee dood" :rolleyes: is, IMO, one of the reasons for the decline of the music industry. Seriously.

 

The mixing engineer chooses the right compressors for different tracks and the result is interesting!

 

Here I definitely agree - I tend to use different compressors / plug-ins for different things, and I recommend using whatever is musically and sonically appropriate and pleasing to your ears. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS As far as mastering, I don't care HOW loud the ME makes the CD... just as long as s/he doesn't kill the musical dynamics or clip the top of everything so much that I can hear it distorting. IMO, Weezer's "Maladroit" is a good example of that. Great songs, great performances and recording, but IMO, the mix and mastering compression is just way too over the top. I hear a lot of distortion on the top end that isn't from the guitar tracks. IMO, it could have been a great record, but the overcompression killed that for me. :(

 

Another example - Train's "Meet Virginia". Cool song, but while the verses sound pretty good, the choruses are just SLAMMED - way too much compression for my tastes. And yes, I can hear it distorting on the choruses. :( Open it in a DAW or two track editor and look at the peaks (or lack thereof) on the chorus sections sometime. :eek: And really - would the song have sounded worse if the verses were a bit quieter? IMO, nope - the choruses would have hit even harder that way; with even more dynamic impact.

 

Make it as hot as you want - just don't "hurt it" please. If it has to be a bit quieter than Joe Blow's album to still sound undistorted and musical, then that's what volume controls on stereos are for. ;)

 

At least, that's my take on the subject. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Ever tried moving the faders up on a drum loop to make it seem like the loop is being played harder / louder? IMO, that doesn't work, because without the timbral differences that come with actually playing harder, the volume differences alone do not fool the ear into thinking that the part is being played louder. IOW, fader moves alone can't give you something that isn't on the track to begin with. You have to have something printed, some of those dynamics, which you can then make even more impactful with some judicious fader manipulation. For me, compression and fader moves alone can never make up for a lack of played dynamics. You've got to play it if you want to have it.

 

 

I think this is a very interesting comment that made me thinking... Keyboards have velocity controls (for instance the multisamples switch at some point), guitars tend to change the tone quite much depending on how hard you pick the strings, depending on how much pressure the vocalist has on his/her chest the sound is different. So it's not only amplitude change, but tone change too. So in this way the compressor is rather artificial because it doesn't process the velocity according to the added amplitude. This might really be the challenge with choosing and using compressors. You don't want it unnatural sounding. I guess some instruments are more sensitive to this phenomen than others. For instance the guitar (at least when played clean) holds pretty much color information in the velocity, putting too much compression on a clean guitar signal could make it sound very cold and unnatural. Something that comes natural in this context is something called layering. You want to keep the natural velocity in there somewhere but add some compression to make it more punchy and balanced on the mix. For instance the kick and snare drums only tend to ge a little more edgy when velocity increases, which can be controlled by overdoing the higher frequencies on the compressed layered track. When I tried the New York compression trick yesterday I realised it sounds better when you layer something that is compressed. I think this might have something to do with the fact that some of the natural velocity is still present! So the combination of a dry track and a compressed track makes it possible to control the velocity - compression ratio, by using the fader control on the compressed track. I have read that a lot of engineers use the compressors this way and often they control the EQ in some special way on the compressed track. It's a way of emphasizing the color of a certain compressor and preserve some of the natural velocity on the instrument.

 

I have to add that on a lead guitar much compression might actually make it really cool sounding, because often there are really beautiful tones on some places on the guitar when you pick softly, which come to live when it's compressed. So partly it's a matter of taste too, sometimes you actually don't want the natural velocity of the instrument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For instance the guitar (at least when played clean) holds pretty much color information in the velocity,

 

Absolutely! Play a clean guitar harder and it gets a little sharper on the note attacks (pitch wise) as well as gets brighter and snappier sounding. Timbre definitely changes with playing dynamics.

 

putting too much compression on a clean guitar signal could make it sound very cold and unnatural.

 

True... or it can give you a lot of cool sounds, depending on how you apply it (especially the attack and release times) and the musical context it's being used in. Again, refering to Train's "Meet Virginia", the opening guitar riff is played on a clean electric, and there's quite a bit of compression on it - but IMO, it sounds quite cool the way the compression makes the notes "pop out" of the mix. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

With most digital keyboard sounds, they are extremely compressed to start with. You might even consider using an expander (negative compression) to restore some dynamics. With midi sequences - if your playing is a bit sloppy the velocity dynamics might be all over the place. You can compress (or expand) the midi data to change the dynamics. Or reduce or increase the velocity sensitivity of the instrument. That's usually the first place to start, instead of trying to compress/expand the wildy varying audio.

 

 

This is a good point. I think there are two main areas to focus on:

 

1) Midi note velocity control

2) Compression + reverb automation

 

I recently heard an album where they used velocity as a tool of creating a certaing depth and feeling on the song. It was very obvious that they used some hi-hat/percussion hits to make the rhythm section more interesting. This added much dynamics to the mix even though many tracks where heavily compressed.

 

I recently heard an Anastacia album where they had used compression + reverb automation on the vocal tracks when the chorus started. This "added" something that makes you go: "God, I love the dynamics in this song!" So the trick was really to create a contrast when a new section starts. I think this trick can be expanded so that you use similar tricks when instruments join the mix. It's generally good if the listener is attached to some points of the song. This can be done with controlling the dynamics like in the Anastacia song where you could hear background vocals that was so smooth because of the compression + fader settings, but when reverb and maybe also stereo was added it was a very dynamic and powerful effect that wasn't making anything too loud or too muddy or too compressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One thing that I think is very important on a mix is something called dynamic balance. Imagine a mix where everybody play loud and soft everywhere on the song. Imagine sitting at the desk and try to control the balance with fader controls. It's not gonna work. Compressors can and should be used to create dynamic balance. Just like you need localization ability and use panpot, you also need localization ability when it comes to the dynamics. By decreasing the dynamic range of instruments and then control the amplitude by using the volume faders you are able to set every instrument in the mix at a certain level. This creates a contrast between instruments on the mix which has the perception effect of high dynamics. The brain gets used to where in the dynamic scope the instrument can be find, hence together with other instruments creates a dynamic picture of the song. So you use compressors to increase the dynamic localization ability to create a better perception of the dynamics. (dynamic contrast) This might be one reason why compressing very dynamic intruments like vocals, kick and snare drums really has a positive effect on the dynamics, even though the dynamics of these tracks are being limited. I would say it's better for the dynamics to compress a track and then set a certain volume level on that track that is unique, instead of not compressing and letting the track have a non-unique amplitude level. By then varying with the amount of compression you set on different tracks you can also add dynamic elements that further makes the dynamics higher. These elements can be for instance the kick drum and the hi-hat. You compress them but only so much that you are still able to vary the velocity between hits enough to create added dynamic feel. So there seems to be four areas to focus on:

 

1) Velocity control (not eliminating tone colors and create bad sound)

2) Amplitude control (create dynamic contrast)

3) Compression ratio (create velocity room and add dynamic control)

4) Automation (you create more dynamics by transforming the dynamic picture on different parts/elements of the song)

 

These together create dynamic balance in the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I am sitting here with a cup of coffee thinking about an interesting trick that mixing engineer David Pensado (Christina Aguilera, Brandy, Jessica Simpson) uses a lot with effects:

 

"A lot of times what I'll do is put the effects only on the compressed sound. In other words, an effect I use a lot would be "Locker Room" or "Tile Room" on a PCM70 and I'll add that effect only to the compressed sound. As a result, the reverb actually has a snap and aggressiveness to it. Every once in a while I'll make it stereo where I'll take two 160s and I'll set them up identically, but on the insert of one I'll put like anywhere from a 9 to 15 ms delay so the tight compressed sound is out on the edges of my stereo spectrum, but the original sound is in the center. That creates an incredibly nice image. That setup works great for snares, kicks and hi-hat. Every once in awhile it'll make a guitar come alive too. So what you are doing is you're controlling the dynamics but you're actually increasing the dynamics. It's the strangest thing because psychoacoustically, it's not getting louder but your mind is thinking it is. On the radio it just jumps out of the speakers."

 

What do you think about this technique? Have any of you guys tried anything similar? Do you think it works? I think it makes good sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

2 quick points.

 

1.

 

Just a thought...perhaps part of the "loudness" issue has come from modern popular musical tatse. For example, listen to you local "MIX" channel and you'll notice most of the music isn't written with any regard to dynamics. It's full on from the first note to the end. When the artist has no dynamic sense and just wants it in your face (or in your chest with R&B/Rap), why would the engineer on a session even worry about it, the artist will complain until it gets slammed either in mixing or in mastering.

 

2.

 

 

So there seems to be four areas to focus on:


1) Velocity control (not eliminating tone colors and create bad sound)

2) Amplitude control (create dynamic contrast)

3) Compression ratio (create velocity room and add dynamic control)

4) Automation (you create more dynamics by transforming the dynamic picture on different parts/elements of the song)


These together create dynamic balance in the song.


 

 

If you look at programing MIDI clinically, you are correct. However if you really want a dynamic and realistic sound, try to focus on the performance. You can use MIDI to capture an expressive performance and it will sound 100 times better than lamenting over the placement and velocity of a MIDI track note by note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

"Dynamics" obviously has different meanings to different people, and can be used to describe different aspects of recorded sound.

 

An interesting concept (well, I think it's interesting ...) is the idea that the human ear is WAY more sensitive to changes in timbre, than to changes in volume. Think about that ...

 

When programming midi drum beats - I find that simply changing the volume via velocity is hardly effective at all. Especially if it's followed by audio compression. I find that modulating a filter via velocity, and leaving the volume set, is FAR more effective - and will survive compression. Dance music uses filters a lot - basically to achieve the illusion of dynamics.

 

In keeping with my belief that recorded music is really an illusion - a fantasy world - I believe that what we really want isn't always 'dynamics' in the engineering sense of the word, but an 'illusion' of dynamics.

 

Earlier I mentioned "The Mans Too Big" as a great example of dynamics. The way those synth cresecendo's lash out at you is quite eeire, and really works for the song. But it's not really a radio friendly hit song.

 

Bohemian Rhapdsody is my example of a great use of the illusion of dynamics. The songs goes from soft and intimate to head-banging and back down again. But the VU meter stays pegged at zero throughout. It's all done in the arrangement and the mixing. That's what I hope to achieve. As much as I like real dynamics - i'm more interested in the illusion, which I think is more powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Kiwiburger

Just because you like a song doesn't mean that it couldn't have sounded better if they hadn't smashed the snot out of it.

 

 

I understand your reply, but what I was implying was that maybe there's some significance there that ties all of those loud albums together, being some of the best i've heard.

 

They just seem to have more impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Kiwiburger



Bohemian Rhapdsody is my example of a great use of the illusion of dynamics. The songs goes from soft and intimate to head-banging and back down again. But the VU meter stays pegged at zero throughout. It's all done in the arrangement and the mixing. That's what I hope to achieve. As much as I like real dynamics - i'm more interested in the illusion, which I think is more powerful.

 

 

 

One honest question (that anybody can jump in and answer, i don't care who),

 

If the soft parts are pegged at zero, aren't the loud parts attempting to reach a level louder than 0dB but still remaining at 0 (since it is technically the highest point there is) therefore making the whole mix lose dynamics as now the soft parts are just as loud as the loud parts, because the loud parts are choking on the 0dB spot trying to get louder but just can't?

 

i.e. - if the soft parts are pegged at zero, and the loud parts are pegged at zero (technically being the highest set level; yet trying to reach a level louder than 0 therefore presenting the problem of audible clipping and distortion). So wouldn't this make the mix lose all dynamics (which in my definition is the difference between soft and loud) and instead letting the mix breathe, being quieter and louder, it pegs the mix at the same level all the way through?

 

~Jared

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I used Bohemian Rhapsody as an example that everyone will know. And being a popular radio song, most of will have heard this on FM radio with all the 'dynamics' smashed out of it. And yet the average listener will easily tell you that this song goes from 'soft' to 'loud' and back to soft again. It achieves this without actually varying much in actual dynamics. That's what I consider good production. Maybe i'm alone in that view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I used Bohemian Rhapsody as an example that everyone will know. And being a popular radio song, most of will have heard this on FM radio with all the 'dynamics' smashed out of it. And yet the average listener will easily tell you that this song goes from 'soft' to 'loud' and back to soft again. It achieves this without actually varying much in actual dynamics. That's what I consider good production. Maybe i'm alone in that view.

 

 

I agree, I think that's what you want to be good at.

 

As far as I know based on what I've read they make a radio version that is even more compressed. They do it so that it fits the medium and is commercially loud enough. I don't think that's a problem either because often I listen to radio in some small cheap speaker system that is not able to present a very dynamic sound anyways, then it sounds better with lots of compression, but of course for those that sit with a really good stereo system might think it's a little too much compressed...

 

 

If the soft parts are pegged at zero, aren't the loud parts attempting to reach a level louder than 0dB but still remaining at 0 (since it is technically the highest point there is) therefore making the whole mix lose dynamics as now the soft parts are just as loud as the loud parts, because the loud parts are choking on the 0dB spot trying to get louder but just can't?

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand exactly what you mean, but I'll try to define your statement. I'll define it as two separate meanings:

 

1) Two different elements, a soft and a loud, of the song are pegged at zero at the same time

 

2) Two different parts, a soft and a loud, of the song are pegged at zero

 

So the first is focused on velocity between different elements and the second is focused on amplitude changes between different parts of the song. The first I think only creates a certain color of the sound but I guess your ears might believe the element with higher velocity actually has a higher amplitude in this context(because of the frequency response on the attack with often increased mids and highs) which then would create perceived dynamics even though it is theoretically not possible. Kiwiburger mentioned that he notices much more dynamics in controlling velocity of filters rather than velocity of the actual sound and I agree. I've noticed the same effect! Velocity control on the sound only becomes amplitude control so when you add a compressor on that it will have no effect. But when you play with filters you are able to increase the dynamic range simply by maximizing the contrast of bass and high frequencies on the velocity through filters. If this is true, you can draw some general conclusions for how to maximize the dynamics in a recording:

 

- Record instruments in a way that makes you able to control the velocity in the best possible way. So for example if you play a keyboard, play with hammered weighted keys. If you record vocals you try to not overcompress in the early stage, but rather leave a lot of dynamic range to work with. The guitarist should play with high velocity control and so on...

 

- Set up sounds in a way that there are much high frequencies added during the maximum attack to maximize the frequency contrast. This can be for instance with filters on a keyboard/synth. Another way, even though it's not completely the same, is to do the New York compression trick, where the EQ settings of the compressed track actually has a similar role. I guess another technique would be playing with mic distance. Right now I don't have the knowledge of building on that theory, but maybe you would get a nice effect by using two mics on the same instruments with different distances and increase the higher frequencies on the mic that is closer to the source and then compress only the mic that is more far away and then set a nice level ratio between the tracks. This theory would be based on that the velocity is split in two by using mic distance and then you enhance one to play the role for high attack and the other for slow attack.

 

As far as pegging soft and loud parts at 0 is concerned I think you might actually want to control this through volume faders by leaving some dB left for the louder parts after the compression. This is why you don't want to add much compression on the stereo mix bus, because then you will lose important dynamic changes between the soft and the loud parts. In a compressed world you might want to leave more dB than you think between the soft and the loud parts in the early stages of the recording process due to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Kiwiburger

I used Bohemian Rhapsody as an example that everyone will know. And being a popular radio song, most of will have heard this on FM radio with all the 'dynamics' smashed out of it. And yet the average listener will easily tell you that this song goes from 'soft' to 'loud' and back to soft again. It achieves this without actually varying much in actual dynamics. That's what I consider good production. Maybe i'm alone in that view.

 

 

I totally agree, that song is a great example of the illusion of dynamics. But it is quite obvious to the trained ear that an acapella section of a song really shouldn't be as loud as the entire band playing.

 

Two artists that come to mind which really employ dynamics in both song structure and recording are Jeff Buckley and Ian Moore. Jeff Buckley's Grace (granted its 10 years old) has songs which really go from soft to loud. Almost too much so (crank the volume for the soft part then get blown away by the loud section), but when the louder section comes it just has so much impact. Ian Moore's And All The Colors is another good one. A song might start with an acoustic, vocals, and some ambient effects. When the electric guitars hit, it is clearly louder than the previous section and generates far more emotional impact. This album is a great listen by the way as it is a highly produced album crossing several genres using all the studio tricks in tasteful ways (real doubling of vocals to bring out sections, false stereo chorus doubling, Hass panning, hard panning, double tracking guitars, compression as an effect, reverse tracks, sampling, etc.).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I see Bohemian Rhapsody more of a musical issue rather than a production issue, as far as the soft to loud goes.

 

It's a brilliant song, but I think the band had probably more to do with that in their song writing.

 

 

 

edit : after re-reading some of the posts, I think I understand but correct me if i'm wrong...

 

by using filters and other methods besides pure amplitude, you create the illusion of varying dynamics (soft to loud) while still keeping the meter at 0, therefore giving the illusion of wide-varied dynamics yet still achieving a volume level that is consistant and keeps you entertained.

 

And since the human ear is more perceptible to changes in timbre than amplitude (I read this somewhere before, as in kiwi's post as well), this is why they use filters instead of pure amplitude,

 

based on the fact that is purely more effective.

 

 

correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Originally posted by Kiwiburger

I used Bohemian Rhapsody as an example that everyone will know. And being a popular radio song, most of will have heard this on FM radio with all the 'dynamics' smashed out of it. And yet the average listener will easily tell you that this song goes from 'soft' to 'loud' and back to soft again. It achieves this without actually varying much in actual dynamics. That's what I consider good production. Maybe i'm alone in that view.

 

 

As to Bohemian Rhapsody: Are you listening to a 're-mastered' CD where they re-mastered the dynamic range out of the original vinyl? Just a thought.

 

As for broadcast, the signal from the DJ booth to the transmitter is compressed. As an example, the local college station here plays Cannonball Adderly's "Mercy, Mercy, Mercy" and listening in my car (with road noise, squawking child, etc.) I can hear all the soft piano parts no problem. If I play the CD in my car (with the same road noise, etc.) either the soft piano parts are almost inaudible, or the horn sections are deafening.

 

Loudness wars: I have a copy of Avril Lavigne's Under my Skin (received for free fortunately) which in my opinion is unlistenable

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the term "radio ready" is redundant. They mash anything and everything into the same consistency. If anything, if you want to sound good on the radio, don't compress and make sure you are quieter than the competition. The compressors will punch it up to the same level, and it won't sound as damaged as theirs.

 

I really don't understand this current trend of ramming all CD content into the last 6dB of the available 16 bits. It's fairly well known that the distortion levels in consumer D/A converters are quite bad in that last 6dB range. I can understand wanting a strong steady signal, so people aren't reaching for the volume control during the album. That's why i'm interested in the illusion of dynamics, rather than actual dynamics in a classical sense.

 

I guess one thing that mitigates this a little (or makes it worse) is the proliferation of digital audio level controls. Any software level control (and Windows has far too many!). So at least the D/A converters probably aren't actually operating in that crap range - but the downside is that all those bits are being thrown away!

 

Bring back sensible mastering and analog volume controls ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...