Limiting and compression in Classical orchestral releases

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by Plush

Best from Chicago (home of the hugest sound)
PlushPhonic

Our producer grew up in Chicago and received her training with Larry Combs and John Yeh and I was trained in the chicago tradition myself so we know the meaning of loud.

[Windshore]

I love this post because it cuts to the core of what music is about.

I am a studio woodwind player, have studied classical music all my life, play it almost every day, as well as jazz and other styles.

I have NEVER heard a recording on any system that gives the same sense as sitting IN the orchestra. When I'm on stage, the softest pianissimo is rich and easy to hear.... When the orchestra blares, it's rare (unless you're right in front of the trumpets) for it to be so loud that I want to put in ear plugs. There is a huge spectrum that is easy to grasp and perceive.

My frustration is that I find very few chances to listen to classical music where I can really hear all of the nuances that happen on stage. Realistically even though I have good stereo and studio monitoring systems, I almost never have the quiet time to sit down, totally undistracted and crank Ravel, so that I can hear everything, and still not have my wife yell that it's too loud when it gets loud. (...even when I can, it's not the same.. )

I know this will sound sacrilegious, but I've been thinking for years, that it is probably time for classical recordings to at least experiment more with some kind of compression. (I disagree with another poster who suggests that the orchestra be encouraged to not "hit" so loud on loud passages... it's a totally different energy when players are holding back.)

The reality is that music doesn't mean a whole lot if it doesn't have an audience, and the audience for this type of music gets smaller every year. We have to be realistic about the acoustic environment the average listener is going to be in. Increasingly people listen to mp3's on iPods. I've pretty much given up on listening to anything very dynamic in a car... I don't have a volume control on my steering wheel, and I'd need to adjust it ALL the time.

I would probably listen to Ravel's "Alborada del gracioso" all of the time if it was remotely practical to listen to in the car or an iPod, but no-can-do. Thus the acceptance of this kind of music to a generation of listeners who mainly hear music in the car or through earbuds, continues to diminish.

Ideally, our car stereos would have compressors or there would be some other option, perhaps on DVDs to listen to the "Compressed version" or the "non-compressed version" depending on your listening environment.

My most important point is that we exclude considering these issues at our own, and great music's peril.

[klaukholm]

With the event of larger capacity release formats like DVD-A and possibly some kind of BluRay format, we are discussing the possibility of releasing dual versions of all tracks. One 44/16 version with quite limited dynamic range and one uncompressed 96/24. This would satisfy more listeners and we would feel better about the end product.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

With the event of larger capacity release formats like DVD-A and possibly some kind of BluRay format, we are discussing the possibility of releasing dual versions of all tracks. One version with quite limited dynamic range and one with full 24bit untreated dynamics.

Sure... Show me one CD release or recording which comes anywhere close to actually utilizing the theoretical 96 dB dynamic range of 16 bit audio.... Show me a recording with even 80 dB of actual musical dynamic range... One of my most dynamic recordings is that of a solo accordionist playing Cage and Satie, who reached 50 dB... Many amateur or semi-pro orchestras won't be able to compete with that...
And how will you get "full 24bit dynamics" (i.e. 144 dB) if today's best 24-bit converters hardly manage more than 120 dB of S/N ratio at the AD stage?

Apart from that, DVD-A is a thing of the past and almost dead, and not really a format of the future anymore.

Daniel

[klaukholm]

I prefer the sound of 96/24 or DSD to that of 44/16 and as such I would prefer to release the material in that format.
I guess a way to achieve this is to compress the pcm layer on SACD while leaving the DSD tracks untreated. I figure the audiophiles will have an SACD player.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

I prefer the sound of 96/24 or DSD to that of 44/16 and as such I would prefer to release the material in that format.

That's a different question, I was just referring to the "24-bit dynamics". No offense intended
I wish Chesky's (and possibly other labels') idea of a DVD-V as a medium for stereo linear 24/96 LPCM audio had taken off a bit more.... Doesn't require a dedicated DVD-A player and still beats 44/16.

[sonare]

Many people would get quite a surprise if there were a digital meter at the output of their "device" (your choice of CD, DVD-A, SACD, Blueray, etc). The discs I own with the most dynamic range (and this is not intended to be all-inclusive-- just what I happen to own) are D-G and Telarc.

I am curious what dynamic range Klaukholm sees from his orchestra before the taming process?

Rich

[klaukholm]

That is a good question and I can't believe I have not thought about this before.
It would be very interesting to have an SPL meter going during a session.
I will try to do this in January for the next film score if possible.

[sonare]

Actually, I meant the digital meter on your stereo bus before limiting or compression. I always have one up set to 60dB scale, and I am always seeing some room rumble around -50 or -60dBFS (and often hearing it as well).

Algorithmix noiseFREE is quite good for cleaning this up and once it is gone its absence is noticeable and very nice!

Rich

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

It would be very interesting to have an SPL meter going during a session.
I will try to do this in January for the next film score if possible.

Please try different positions also. I'm sure that the dynamic range will lose a bit halfway down the hall, not just the max. SPL.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by sonare

The discs I own with the most dynamic range are D-G and Telarc.

Do any of these rach or pass 60 dB of musical dynamic range? Haven't actually measured any (commercial) CDs from my collection yet...

[pkautzsch]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Look, decca tree or some blumlein stereo pair or something similar would usually be somewhere in the air at a fair distance from the orchestra - being in the position of the listeners with the best seats...

Well, a Decca Tree usually is right over the conductor's head. I've never been sitting there. Yet, the Tree is widely considered to give a very "natural" image and sound, but same goes for Blumlein, which is quite the opposite (Decca: pressure transducers, wide spacing - Blumlein: gradient transducers, coincident).

Originally Posted by The Listener

And it captures the real picture from that position.

Recording is not about the real picture, but about the picture we want. I like to have it similar to the real picture - that is, choir behind orchestra, soloists in front, violins left, etc. - but I'd never try to make a recording that is real. At the best, it will be credible. What spot mics do in recording for home stereo use is nothing else than what our eyes and brains do when attending a concert.

[d_fu]

Originally Posted by pkautzsch

What spot mics do in recording for home stereo use is nothing else than what our eyes and brains do when attending a concert.

Exactly... Very well said.

Daniel

[The Listener]

Well, the conductor is the person with the best "seat" / stand... :) And some meters in the air adds some distance too... (from the 1st violins :) ) So it is still not the same impact as close micing...

I agree about the spot mics, that's exactly what I said, but not so precisely... something like "only for a little more definition of some sections."

But... I also love the Waterlily Acoustic classical recordings... that are done mostly with one blumlein pair... and no additional processing... If I am correct...

Otherwise still the best sounding classical recordings for my taste are the Decca recordings from the 60's and 70' - I don't mind a little hiss and noise - sound is sooo "musical"..

[The Listener]

And speaking of the devil - a nice article:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue20/waterlily.htm

[Plush]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

Our producer grew up in Chicago and received her training with Larry Combs and John Yeh and I was trained in the chicago tradition myself so we know the meaning of loud.

Indeed!--all of those playas are making a great sound.
Yeh and Combs would give excellent training in playing the klar. Yeh in particular has a big sound.

Who's the lady?--i might know her.
Our 'bone playas have ten pound lead weights hanging from their balls.

[Plush]

Originally Posted by The Listener

And speaking of the devil - a nice article:

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue20/waterlily.htm

Pictured there is the outstanding Stellavox SM-8.
Given a good pick-up, this all discrete recorder produces an incredible magnetic recording. (520nWb/m with RMGI 900, for example)

For those seeking top excellence, you should check it out.
Used SP8 machines are available on Ebay and then you send it to Jean-Pierre Gurtner, Stellavox genius in CH, for conversion to SM8.

http://www.audioprojpg.com

[klaukholm]

Originally Posted by Plush

Indeed!--all of those playas are making a great sound.
Yeh and Combs would give excellent training in playing the klar. Yeh in particular has a big sound.

Who's the lady?--i might know her.

Her name is Carrie Budelman, she worked as the Eb player in a US orchestra before she moved to Copenhagen. She did her undergrad at DePaul before getting her masters and doctorate from Rice U. She has an amazing pair of ears.

As far as low brass is concerned, our tubaist is a Pokorny student and is doing his share to encrease the orchestras dynamic range. Absolutely fantastic player.

[Don S]

I'm very interested in what Silas mentioned about bottom end compression. Will only Solara and TC6000 do this? Do any of the waves plugs do this?
Although a different world, classical radio stations do this to keep the pianissimo sections from being lost. When done well, it is very effective. I've watched and listened to WQXR's signal and been fairly impressed how tastefully this is done.

[Plush]

Outstanding news!

No, I don't know the lady, but it sounds like you're very fortunate to have her.

Check out the Junger box. YOu'll do yourself a favor.

[fifthcircle]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Well, the conductor is the person with the best "seat" / stand... :) And some meters in the air adds some distance too... (from the 1st violins :) ) So it is still not the same impact as close micing...

I agree about the spot mics, that's exactly what I said, but not so precisely... something like "only for a little more definition of some sections."

But... I also love the Waterlily Acoustic classical recordings... that are done mostly with one blumlein pair... and no additional processing... If I am correct...

Otherwise still the best sounding classical recordings for my taste are the Decca recordings from the 60's and 70' - I don't mind a little hiss and noise - sound is sooo "musical"..

Just remember that that all this talk about the best seat and most accurate place for the mic being where the conductor may be is moot because our ears do not work the same way as a microphone. Our ears are much more sensitive to direct sound and filtering out ambient information than any mic. A mic just presents to use as an electrical signal what is entering it. Omnis, cardiods, etc... are not ears and you shouldn't limit yourself to dogma like that.

Recording is not about the real picture, but about the picture we want. I like to have it similar to the real picture - that is, choir behind orchestra, soloists in front, violins left, etc. - but I'd never try to make a recording that is real. At the best, it will be credible. What spot mics do in recording for home stereo use is nothing else than what our eyes and brains do when attending a concert.

This is one of the most intelligent things I've seen written here in a long time. Very well said.

--Ben

[The Listener]

Originally Posted by fifthcircle

JOmnis, cardiods, etc... are not ears and you shouldn't limit yourself to dogma like that.

--Ben

I don't, don't worry. I don't have top of the top stellar equipment and I have to compensate for that in the mix. I don't record classical ensembles, but I would certainly like to. I mix mainly acoustic and jazz artists. And compress and eq a lot. But I always try to incorporate stereo ambience mics, even when there is amplification involved.

But waterlily acoustic achieve much with just a coincident pair... There is a beauty in spatial, dynamic music. I agree of using anything you can... But spoiling the image so it fits in a lesser frame is not the way.

...making an image that we want, yes, but not an image of a great sound made average for the purpose of being played on boom boxes.

If we would now sit togeter and listen to the assortiment of recordings, I almost bet that we could easily agree which ones are very good and wich ones are average or bad... I doubt that you would call "purist" recordings by Waterlily acoustics bad...

I think we past the arguing - I think there is some consensus in this thread - use top equipment, preserve dynamics, limit, eq and compress to taste - just so you don't loose "ppp" parts and preserve energy of the loud parts... I think it's quite simple. The only thing not to do is comparing pop loudness with classical - it just will never go...

[David Spearritt]

Originally Posted by Plush

Our 'bone playas have ten pound lead weights hanging from their balls.

What wimps. http://www.gapsn.org/project2/press/...2001-03-17.htm

[Plush]

Originally Posted by David Spearritt

What wimps. http://www.gapsn.org/project2/press/...2001-03-17.htm

OH MY ROOT!!!!

[desotoslo]

Originally Posted by klaukholm

We left the material uncompressed as usual with the peak at -3 dB.
The composer remarked that the cd volume was overall very low.

I am a composer and one thing I absolutely will not stand is compression*. It absolutely ruins the intent of the composition.

If you did a fine job engineering and the balance was in tact as it should have been, then perhaps you should have told the composer to write the music more to his/her own liking.


*nods to Plush's experience with _gentle_ limiting.

[andy_simpson]

Originally Posted by The Listener

Compare your recording to Decca, Deutche Grammophone, classical stuff on ECM, etc.

As Plush mentioned, these labels have been compressing their digital recordings for years. I spoke to the ex-chief engineer of many years at DG at last years AES and (in a nutshell) he said that they always compressed.

You can hear it.

Comparing to these recordings of the same material, if you don't compress/limit you will not be as loud (but you will sound better).

A subtle parallel compression comes to mind. And if the picture is blurry - masterful useage of EQ - which is not "pop treatment" when done as a sort of artful sound sculpturing with bringing the life sound picture alive in mind... If the microphones, preamps and positioning didn't do the trick already.

The majority of classical musicians I've spoken to, who listen to classical music for pleasure, use headphones not the boombox in their kitchen.

Headphones are capable of reproducing the uncompressed dynamics of an orchestra, isolating headphones being quite effective without excessive SPL.

Listening to a long piece of music on headphones can go two ways: it can be relaxing & pleasant if the recording is uncompressed, or it can be fatiguing if the recording is compressed.

IPod?

Andy

PS, even if I run my (inefficient) DT100s directly from the headphone output of an energy saving laptop, the volume & sound quality of playback with a totally uncompressed recording is quite good (if environmental noise is relatively low).