Classically Speaking-We don't Need No Stinkin Compression

[thebes]

I was mulling over thoughts of Ben's thread on the trend towards

compression and loud mixing as I hopped into a cab and headed

downtown.

The cabby, Mustafa, sees my furrowed brow, and since this is DC,

assumes I'm thinking "BIG THOUGHTS" probably related to international

peace, the budget and that hot new receptionist everybody's talking

about who just started working for Senator Foghorn.

Traffic's jammed, as usual, so we get to talking and he gingerly

approaches the reason for my serious mein. "Compression", I say,

"music is getting louder and sometimes it works well but for the life

of me I can't possibly imagine it improving a classical music

recording. There's too many intrruments, they all have a natural range

of volume, and there too many allegroes and picantes and other hot

sauces for it to make any sense."

"Couldn't agree with you more", Mustafa says, "sure a lot of middle

eastern music, take Faruz for example, is played within a rather narrow

range and wouldn't be hurt by compression. But you know, when you

get into truely classical compositions, say Ravel's Bolero, if you

mixed it hot it wouldn't make any sense at all".

Well we talk some more, traffic eases up and instead of doing my meet

and greet at the Department of Internal Scrutiny, I tell him to drop me

off at Senator Foghorn's office, hey got to see what all the buzz is

about.

Later that night we're at my place. Tiffany's her name and we're

getting into a little foreplay, but somethings not right. I can't

settle into the evening because it's working on my mind. I dump her off

my lap, head over to the changer and toss on Bolero. Tiffany's PO'd ,

rubs her rump, bounces a high-heel of my skull and huffily departs (I

did pay attention long enough to catch the quite interesting one

heelled walk as she headed out the door)

Now as classical goes, Bolero's pretty simple it starts off with the

rat-a-tat of a snare drum and a flute and the same notes are basically

played over and over with each stage getting louder and louder in

volume and as more instruments chime in. Think of it as walking

up a staricase. Well eventually it climbs to an incredible

crescendo with some wonderful bass notes from some really, really big

drum, and that's it.

Sure I'm thinking a Hedrix like qutar solo at some point would have

really made the number groove, but that's besides the point. Fact if

they had comrpessed that piece when it was made nobody would listen to

it.

So thanks, Mustafa.

Come to think of it, as far as classical goes, could this even be a

point of debate. Could a label even issue a compressed classical

piece without a riot from the faithfull.

So what other classical pieces do you think illustrates my point?

[Mallette]

Stoetzel, Palestrina, Gabrieli, (Giovanni and Andrea), Bach and all his children, Schutz, Hindemith, Cage, Partch, Satie, Tallis, Billings, Britten, Byrd, Durufle, Langlais, de Pres, Hovhaness, Scarlatti, Victoria, Nelhybel, Meyerbeer, Raff, Kabalevsky, Joplin, Holmes, Abelard, Boyce, Croft...all and thousands more cry out "Do not play God with my dynamics."

Thanks, Thebes, for bringing it up. One can no more compress great music than water, IMHO.

Dave

[ben.]

Marty, you truly are a loon! Good stuff.

Dave, if you compress water enough you get steam, which is a pretty neat trick, unless of course you just want water. I like water and steam. I get you, though.

[maxg]

Well - I almost agree - that is - I would like to agree but there is an element of practicality here. At home - no compression thank you - or fairly minimal if you can manage it, but then there is the car.

CD - Deutche Grammaphon. Classical pieces Beethoven's 3rd, 5th, 6th symphonies, Dvorak's New World, Tchaikovski's 5th. I have choices:

1. Listen at moderate volume and lose all the quiet stuff.

2. Listen at high volume - get it all - but feel beaten up at times of crescendo.

3. Constantly adjust the volume to take into account where we are in each piece.

None of these options are particularly appealing. In contrast - listening to the classical radio station gives me none of these problems - but there is a dive in quality - and not just because of the compressed range.

My feeling is that there is an optimal level for compression that does not leave you feeling that a piccolo is an electric and amplified instrument whilst a Church Organ is something Casio sells for $150. I am sure the optimum level of compression varies greatly with how and where you are listening to the music - but I would guess there is a compromise level at which listening at home is satisfactory and listening in the car is, at least possible

What that level is I am not qualified to tell - I would guess anything between 12 and 15 dB would be a good range - but that is a guess and would be largely dependent on the music being played. Those DG recordings I mentioned are certainly larger than that - great for home - lousy for the car.

[JJkizak]

Mathmatics says: No compression = No vinyl records = No tape

JJK

[Mallette]

Having spent a considerable part of my career engineering audio in the days of tape and vinyl (and mag film, too), you are correct. In the latter tape era, 2:1 DBX professional noise reduction eliminated audible (I am sure SOME golden ears could hear it, but I could not) compression of tape material. And DBX companders in the right hands could (and can) work magic on vinyl. Granted, that is processing and there are those who consider it worse than the evil it is designed to reduce, but I've been using a DBX compander for vinyl since 1976 (several upgrades, but my original 117 is still on duty at a friends vaction home) and there are only a handful of records I prefer without it. It was quite popular during the cassette era for audiophiles to use these in reverse to make tapes for the road with decreased dynamic range for the reasons mentioned by maxg earlier. Made a few of these myself but never much cared for the result. Compressed Pink Floyd is far more tolerable than tinkering with the dynamics of Freiburg Cathedral.

But none of the above is relevant in the digital age with the exception of listening in noisy environments. If the recording is of all-electronic origin then the "dynamic range" is whatever the engineer/producer says it is and so, IMHO, compression is mainly an issue only with recordings of acoustic music.

In my own practice, I would never compress, or use ANY process not required to get the sound preserved. That includes mixers, EQ, or anything beyond preamps and AD conversion.

Dave

[stan krajewski]

Compression makes available all the great music to an unlimited audience.

I would rathar listen to compressed Mahler than the uncompressed garbage that passes for music these days.

[LarryC]

Speaking of Mahler, the first movement of his first symphony starts extremely quietly, has great crescendos as it goes along.

Compressed recordings are important for listening to classical in a car, otherwise even moderately soft passages can't be heard and one is always jockeying the volume control.

[Mallette]

Car listening for music freaks is not a "right" or "wrong" thing. In my case my response is to listen to talk radio, rocknroll, or news in the car. I suspect that, confronted with auto background noise levels, Herr Mahler and most composers would cancel the concert rather than mess with their music. In my case, correct dynamics are critical to my enjoyment.

Of course, others have their own preferences.

Dave

[DrWho]

In my own practice, I would never compress, or

use ANY process not required to get the sound preserved. That

includes mixers, EQ, or anything beyond preamps and AD

conversion.

But such a practice limits you to only live acoustical sounds. I can

think of many paintings that are more pleasant to look at and yet have

no resemblence whatsoever on anything in nature. Likewise there are

also natural paintings that look great too. But even with the most

simplest of setups, you are still engaging in the act of "creating

something new" because you still have to make choices; the process of

which is its own form of "EQ" (for example things like mic type,

configuration, and placement)...and thus you have moved away from

capturing the true sonic event (it comes close, but it's nowhere near

actually being at the concert). In fact the very concept of recording

and playing back an acoustical event is very much flawed, no matter

what configuration the mics and speakers are in (and assuming perfect

gear).

Btw, I'm not trying to bash your methodology as some of the best

recordings are achieved that way. But the novelty of the brushes with

which you paint are not the ideal, nor are they any better than any of

the other brushes available.

The misuse of compression has given it a very bad name, but when used

correctly can dramtically liven up the music. Loudness wars is one

thing, but correct implementation of the tool is another. Theory is

great and all, but in the end it comes down to the final product...I'll

have to bust out some demos of the same sound: natural, correctly

compressed, and incorrectly compressed. And if I do, I'll probably be

real sneaky about it too []

[DrWho]

I just wanted to add an edit, but figured it better if I made it another post....

I didn't want to come across as bashing the simplistic approach to audio. I was more trying to defend the tools available that so often get a bad name because the engineers using them don't know what they're doing. It's the people making the music that are at fault....not their methodology or their equipment (yes, i believe great sounding music can come from crappy equipment...just look at all the rock in the 70's) []

The simplistic approach is also a skill I've yet to master (yes, lame pun intended) [] but I have heard it done right on many occasions and I very much appreciate the spatial cues it provides. And when the skill is achieved, it's amazing how you no longer have to rely on your own skill to get a very good recording - so sure you're limited to the sounds you can make, but for the right stuff you can get a much better sound.

so sorry if I came off strong in the previous post (btw, nobody brought anything to my attention - I was tired when I wrote it and wanted to edit some things, but was falling asleep on the keyboard)

[Mallette]

I certainly saw absolutely nothing in your post to shiver my timbers. In fact, when I write of my own practices and preferences I am constantly concerned that somehow I may be percieved as suggesting my approach is the One True Way and all other routes lead to hell. Not at all true. I'd certainly confess a bias toward the acoustic when soothing my soul and making my brain soar is the issue...but when it's party time I'm ready to break out the Hendrix albums and PARTY.

Takes all kinds, Doc, and I am just one kind. Further, I would confess that I am clueless at how electrically-originated music is mixed, compressed, and whatever it is that is done to make it do its thing. I am certainly glad there are folks out there to do that for me...I appreciate it.

OTOH, I can walk into a hall, clap my hands, and say "I want two mikes, and I want them HERE." That's the reason for the heading of this thread: CLASSICALLY speaking...

Dave