Archived from groups: rec.audio.tech (
More info?)
"CAndersen (Kimba)" <kimbawlionATaolDOTcom@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news
5d3l0lcdr9f0ej1hjgqqdm1bp6hgnio11@4ax.com
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 21:18:17 GMT, "Carl Valle" <cwvalle@swbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The issue is possibly not equipment but rather that you want to
>> listen at very low levels. The problem is that on some recordings
>> the dynamic range is quite wide. What you need is a way to compress
>> the dynamic range into the range of sound pressure you want to hear.
>> The Technics receiver you mentioned has this feature for DVD movies
>> but alas not for CD. You could try adding a compressor to the
>> system. I suggest a Dbx 118 or 160. They allow 2:1 compression so
>> that in effect the level of the loud passages is reduced by 1/2
>> while the lower level passages are left unaltered.
Note that the DBX 118 is obsolete and out of production, as is the 160. The
current sequel to the 160 is called the 160SL nets for a paltry $3,200.
Hardly a practical recommendation!
> That's one of the settings. The other will boost low-level passages as
> well as lower loud ones. I find this latter option with a compression
> of about 1.5:1 produces a more satisfying sound than heavier
> compression of loud passages only.
Agreed that modest compression can be sonically effective, both improving
listenability when wide dynamic range is inconvenient, and yet producing a
pleasing result.
> I really can't understand why such functionality isn't commonplace today.
I think that the parts & development cost of doing a good job of compression
is still just a little too much to be a give-away. This is one of those
features that most people can't be easily sold on because it doesn't have
much gut-grabbing power. I've never seen it described so that it would be
widely perceived as being a spectacular feature. But when you need it, but
when it fits...
>CDs really demand it, because the real world doesn't have
> nearly the dynamic range a CD does.
I wouldn't say it that way, but I think I know what you mean. The real
world - being a live recording of a practical musical event, has maybe 55-65
dB worth of dynamic range. In a car, 65 dB dynamic range over a 65 dB noise
floor (a relatively quiet car at freeway speeds) is 130 dB. In a residence,
65 dB over a 35 dB (relatively quiet room in an urban home) is 100 dB.
Neither SPL is practical for anything but dedicated listening, which most
people don't have a lot of time for.
>In my house, music has to compete
> with air conditioners, fans, cats, neighbors, ice cream trucks, and
> so on. I have my dbx 118 in line all the time. And visitors usually
> remark on how good music sounds on my system.
The benefit would probably be that the music is loud enough so that sonic
detail is easier to hear in quiet passages, but the loud passages don't
blare.
> I'd think such a feature would be welcome by many, at the very least
> on portables and car audio.
Totally agreed. The cheapest stand-alone dynamics processor that I've used
with good results is Behringer's DSP 1424, which runs around $130. In
addition to standard dynamics processing (compression, limiting) it also has
some very-un-hi-fi features, but since it is a digital implementation, you
can turn them off and they are out of the signal path.