View Single Post
Old 09-01-2010, 11:29 AM   #87
Arbiter
Human being with feelings
 
Arbiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 156
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudioWonderland View Post
A "sense" of dynamics? Why would you want a "sense" of dynamics when you can have the real thing?

Ask your self this "why did they start doing it in the first place?" and "What is really gained from it?" It was done originally because the labels thought it would make there songs stand out on the radio. Unfortunately they didn't know jack about how anything works. If they did they would know 1)that radio already compresses its signal and by removing the peaks/transients the broadcaster are trying to tame, the entire song gets lowered in volume. 2) People have a volume control and will listen at the volume they want to listen at. So basically nothing is gained from it and a lot of otherwise good recordings have been laid to waste by this nonsense.
I'm not really advocating killing dynamics, just presenting the possibility that limited dynamic range might not always be a bad thing.

For example, as MCV said, loud can be more engaging and exciting in some situations.

Another thing to consider is the dynamic range and noise floor of certain playback systems.



As you can see, the dynamic ranges of cars and ipods are only a little over 12 db, so if your average volume is around -6db and your quietest parts are 12db lower than that, parts of your song could be (theoretically) inaudible because of the noise floor.. and in many cases, if the listener were to simply "turn it up" so the quietest parts remain above the noise floor, the loudest parts may be at an uncomfortable or at least undesired volume.

Would you disagree with the idea that a more dynamically controlled mix that retains a sense of dynamics would be more desirable in these situations?
Arbiter is offline   Reply With Quote