Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (
More info?)
On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 22:26:23 GMT, Carey Carlan <gulfjoe@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I have never had to succumb to the "commercial equals loud" philosophy.
>One of the few advantages that classical recordings have in their favor is
>that they are the only format to still embrace full dynamics.
>
>The few rock recordings I have done have all been properly squashed. <snip>
"Commercial equals loud" ruins any good serious recording of serious
music, IMO. Part of the genre is the use of wide dynamic range, the
exact antithesis of pop music, where a highly compressed drone is
required to muddle the minds of its intended consumers. The classical
listener pines for such range, one big reason they embraced CD-A in
the '80s after initial resistance. However, a quartet of recorders
playing Buxtehude recorded at full bore seems to be a bit of overkill,
as does close micing of such instruments
>
>> Then there's the issue of the noise floor in churches and similar
>> venues. Recording a harpsichord in a very ambient church in the
>> middle of town does present its problems. Have you ever used
>> expansion? <snip>
I've recorded pipe organs in some really horrid background situations.
Back in the tube Ampex days, you didn't worry about that too much; a
lot of the traffic noise got buried in the hiss of Scotch 211, which,
on an organ recording, easily fakes for wind noise. Now? Different
proposition entirely. This actually started showing up when Ampex 456
and other low noise/high fluxivity oxides became the norm; as the
noise floor dropped and the MOL rose, traffic "whoosh" and "sizzle"
became obtrusive, making middle-of-the-night sessions an imperative,
especially in venues in a downtown area, in which most large
instruments are located. Worst noise invader of 'em all: traffic
"sizzle" from wet streets. More than one such recording session would
be "rained out" simply because of that, even in early AM sessions.
There was simply no getting rid of it.
Depending on the composition at hand and the registration
eccentricities of the performer, some compression was going to happen
anyway, due to the huge dynamic range of a large more-or-less romantic
voiced organ in a reverberant church or hall. No matter how hard you
tried, those 32' pedal flues would cause your Westons to peg at the
most inopportune times, no matter how many times you did level checks
with different registrations. Thus, some limiting would be used as a
precautionary measure, but I never relied on compression per se,
except for brief excursions into saturation.
>I don't use expansion because I have such excellent noise reduction. Adobe
>Audition, when properly used, can reduce noise levels significantly. With
>a really good noise sample and very consistent background roar, I can
>reduce noise as much as 20 dB and not impact the recording. The usual
>victim of heavy NR (and downward expansion) is ambient reflection, which
>can be simulated with a bit of judicious reverb. <snip>
I've heard some recent digital classical recordings that seem to
feature some kinds of expansion, and the ambient in the building seems
to "pump" wildly if it's overdone, similar to a malfunctioning dbx
box. "Mi no habla digital," so I'm at a loss to explain it away any
more than that.
dB
/www.ITRstudio.com/
Facebook
Twitter