your thought on compression and normalizing

[mike harper]

[*-)] i just ordered the performance set (I can't wait)! i was wondering what some of the VSL users thoughts are regarding compression - i would think in a orchestral situation one might avoid it- any thoughts on the effects you are using the mixing and mastering process?

thanks

[Dietz]

Here comes the answer you didn't want to read - it depends! ;-]

***

In the early days of recording, the signal chain during recording was far from being linear - frequency-wise as well as regading dynamics; fast transients could'nt be captured by the microphone, levels above a certain range weren't possible on the recording media available ... in a word: compression and limiting occured everywhere, and everybody thought this to be completely normal.

The microphones and pre-amps became better, and when digital audio was commercially available, suddenly fast transients and high dynamic ranges were possible to be recorded - with the result that most people described the listening experience as "small" or "poor", although in fact the chain was dynamically more transparent and "real" then ever before (... I know, I know, there are many caveats, but I don't want to start an "analogue vs. digital"-debate here).

What I'm actually trying to tell you with this long-winding explaination is that it's completely up to you what you want to hear: On many occasions, especially when it comes to AV-music production (film, spots, etc.) I highly appreciate the possibilty to compress the single instruments or -groups without sacrificing the overall sound - something which a very discerning factor from VSL-productions and conventional recordings where this is much more difficult to achieve. - OTOH, in a more "artsy" context, I would be happy to use the 90 (and with the appearence of the 24-bit ProEdition even more) dB of dynamic our library is able to deliver ... without noise, hiss or any alteration of the natural, signal-inherent loudness envelope.

Of course ... other people may have different points of view :-]

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[thomas2]

I think the more dynamic in music the more it seems to breath.
That´s important for me if it´s (classic,filmscore and similar styles) in a classical context. I´m very careful about such compression-levels because
the composition could lose Crescendo, Decrescendo (with the natural dynamic) and such things - and I find that´s also important to bring emotions and life into the music.
But I think it depends on the music style and kind of composition you are working - if it´s for example in a modern-style or even in a commercial-pop-song there´ll be more compression in the orchestral-part.
Maybe theres one rule: The engineer should never use compression without the permission of the composer - or don´t you think Dietz? [:)]

Thomas

[Dietz]

@thomas24 said:

[...]
Maybe theres one rule: The engineer should never use compression without the permission of the composer - or don´t you think Dietz? [:)]

Thomas

I thought it was: the composer should never compose without the permission of the engineer ... oh, I think I mixed up something [6]

/d

[Iwan Roth]

[:D] Hmm, who is compressing composers over here...... [*-)]:
Salvador Dali....,compressed painter

[Bruce Richardson]

Funny, Iwan, and true...(Dali)

There is no good and bad rule for compression. If a track has too much dynamic range and moves in and out of the mix, for God's sake, compress it!!

Just use your ears in every case, and you will be fine. Compression doesn't have much to do with overall dynamic range, unless you are compressing an entire mix. Most compression in a multitrack scenario should be taking place on individual files.

Compression can in fact widen dynamic range!! So, don't pay too much attention to any sort of blanket statements about compression or any engineering tool. They're all good, unless they're misused. Then, they're still good, but the engineer is bad, haha. [:P]