"Conveying" dynamics

[Greg Reierson]

I don't understand your question. If you want to preserve the original sound, put your processor in bypass. Processing is for when you want to change the sound.

If you want to trick yourself into believing that the output of "insert loudness processor here" sounds better than the input, convey might be the better word. Sort of like saying "it doesn't sound as good, but you'll hardly notice."

[JustMastering]

Originally Posted by Peaks

One poster made a really interesting post that said nothing is really being perserved at all, instead plugins "convey" a greater sense of dynamics. Big difference between preserve and convey. Believe Slate FG-X was also brought up.

Hi, I'm not familiar with that thread, but maybe the poster was referring to how many software processors employ "look ahead" technology which changes the way they respond to transients?

Also, some limiters such as Voxengo Elephant have modes that make use of psychoacoustics (eg Temporal Masking). I'm not going to pretend that I understand how that works , but I believe the intent is to make the limiter sound like it's preserving some of the original energy of the track (even though it really isn't - our ears/brains are just being tricked).

Computer/dsp-based limiting/compression definitely allows for some interesting options that pure audio hardware (e.g. a 100% analog limiter) cannot offer. That's not to say that software sounds better or worse than the analog hardware, it's just a different approach. The results will depend entirely on how it's used.

I agree completely with Greg Reierson's comment 'Sort of like saying "it doesn't sound as good, but you'll hardly notice."'. One of the common issues I find with transparent-sounding software limiters is that people tend to over use them without analysing what it has done to the sound of their mix.

Cheers!
Rob

[Andrew Kinsey]

Originally Posted by Greg Reierson

I don't understand your question. If you want to preserve the original sound, put your processor in bypass. Processing is for when you want to change the sound.

+1

I find that sometimes clipping is a better way of getting loudness while still preserving as much of the original dynamics.. Like all things it all depends on what tools you use, and how you use them.

[Peaks]

I think I may have found the topic in my bookmarks: KVR: Did Slate Ever Post That Info To Disprove Alex Bs Claims?, however that points to a deleted link so I can't be sure.

Nah, it was not about look ahead or such. I really wish I could find the post. It was detailed and such, but it's lost on the internet. I just thought it was insightful and was going to add it to my list of audio tipsso wondering if anybody else knew or saw it so I could find it again.

I think the poster talked about how "more transparent" limiters/compressors/etc aren't really that, but they convey a greater sense of the original dynamics. I think an example would be that a true loud transparent sound might be soft/uncolored/weak/clean, taking away the original punch, but a more "preservey" sound might be like an exaggeration of the original dynamics or very colored, tricking people into thinking it's cleaner or better because it doesn't sound like things were as removed. But that's not preserving, that's just "conveying".

[lucey]

Good topic.

The trick of mastering louder/better, is to still convey dynamics. This is about frequency balance and harmonic distortion balance. A louder track can seem to have more dynamic life because the musicality is emphasized by a better overall sound. When frequencies are piled in the areas that move the cone then a more dynamic track will not feel as good as a more limited one.