Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bob katz Oh, really? Are you listening with your eyes? Clearly the stereo image, depth, transient response, distortion, and impact are reduced each decibel of RMS increase that you give to a recording, all other things being equal. Yes, the talents of a superior mastering engineer can maximize the sound quality a bit more than the average, but even he is limited by the laws of physics. The higher the RMS, the worse the sound quality, above a certain point. There's no visual display that I've met up with that can tell you these fine points. You might barely see some reduction in apparent width on one of those visual analysers, but what they don't show is the lack of depth. But when you listen on a good reproduction system, you notice that what should be a holographic presentation with foreground, middleground and background has been denigrated to a poorly-defined flat line.
BK |
Hmm... Thanks for your response! I'm not sure I used the right term when I was using RMS level, actually I never checked the RMS level, I used that term since it was about loudness and used my ears for the rest part, but maybe I'm dealing with some kind of psychoacoustic effect here in the way the frequencies are distributed so it seems louder than it is. It might also be just that the overall signal-noise is simply much better. Or it is about more optimal compression overall... I'm fully aware of what happens with softness/image/depth when the RMS is increased, but the CDs I'm talking about now are not THAT loud, not at all like a pop record of today. They are soft, clear and loud enough. Check out for instance "Sad Eyes" with Trisha Yearwood on her "Real Live Woman" album. This song is not very loud but you never think that it is not loud enough. Also check out "All Over Again" with Ronan Keating on his latest album "Bring You Home". That song is a little louder though, but shows a similar pump and stereo width.
I think the Stereo Analyzers that I'm using are very good for measuring dynamics, not that precise but gives a good relative picture of the dynamics. For instance I had earlier compressed the bass too much (simply by using a compressed bass sample preset) which I noticed when I compared my stereo image with the reference CD's stereo image ("Sad Eyes"). I also noticed that the kick drum was slightly too loud, by lowering the volume a bit I got a nice softness. So very helpful. It cleaned up the center really nicely!
I agree that foreground, middleground and background is depth as well. I'm not sure if this is possible to achieve without panning, EQ, reverbs and delays on individual tracks in a mix, but I'm more preferring to relative loudness/width/softness right now, not so much 3D, even though that's a key thing as well. Maybe I would simply get a better loudness/width/softness/pump ratio if I would try to improve the 3D depth of the mix...
Any thoughts or suggestions?