Arnold, Thank you. Those examples really helped me "get it". I now understand why it's not such a horrible thing. Bearcat > Am Freitag, 13. April 2007 schrieb Bearcat M. Sandor: >> Is it really about selling more music? I'm still not convinced that it > > Its not always about selling music but about getting (wider) audience. > Unless you do your music only to torture your relatives on family > reunion... ;-) > >> sounds better on average consumer level electronics though. If the >> complaint is about some passages being too quiet because there is too >> much >> dynamic range, well that's not the kind of music it's done on anyway is >> it? If the idea is to make the whole thing subjectivly louder why not >> just leave it to the listener to turn up the volume? > > Ever seen a worker in the factory change the volume on his radio with > every > song? > A song that is less loud than the others means 3:30 mins of silence for > them, > which the radio-station wouldn't allow to happen since they loose > listeners > and thus ad-money everytime that song is played. > So: If you want your song to be played on the radio it has to be loud. > Moreover if your song stands out over the other songs in (subjective) > loudness > it will be recognized. And that is what you want. So you try to make your > song louder than the others. Only problem is that every other producer > tries > the same thing and that is where song are compressed to much and get > screwed > by producers that force their technicians to use much higher compression > than > most of them want to use... > >> Some of the things i >> have that are compressed aren't even played on the radio. I can only >> really speak to that in the States though so i'd admit i was wrong >> quickly >> on that one. > > While radio is the primary broadcast if you want your songs to be heard, > the > same rule above also applies to CDs. At least to some degree. (But most > bands > produce CDs that could be broadcasted directly without asking the band for > a > special broadcast-version.) > > Yes, you can do recordings completely without compression. Even good old > instruments/classic can be recorded that way. But what do your > wife/kids/neighbors say if you turn up your amp to get the full >80dB > dynamic-range between the silent flute-solo and the big tutti finale? (*) > > Think of compression as a tool the same as equalizers. Learn to use them > and > use what sounds best. Not every channel needs EQ and compression by > default. > > But be aware that good compression takes more experience than EQ. And the > characteristics of the EQ change if you put the EQ before the compressor, > which can be desired or unwanted... > > Arnold > > (*) I do have a recording of Haydn's creation where the passage "And there > was > light" has almost that dynamic-range. I can only really listen to that and > enjoy the range on big PA's during soundcheck or on my headphones. (Or > when > my wife is on holiday/work...) > -- > visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/ > --- > Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and > send me > to all your contacts. > After a month or so log in as root and do a rm / -rf. Or ask your > administrator to do so... > _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
