Quote:
... ... ... so let me get this right. What you are saying is that if for example I am 4 db over the threshold and I have a lower ratio (2:1) opposed to a higher one (4:1) the difference between the lowest dynamic of the signal (uncompressed) will be closer to the high point (compressed).
Lets do the math. 4db over threshold at 2:1 = 2 db, 4db over threshold at 4:1 = 1 db.
Why the lower ratio looks to you like it brings the lowest dynamic closer to the high point, its beyond me. Maybe I skipped audio 101...please explain
Aye aye aye. OK,
in order to achieve the same gain amount of gain reduction you need to raise the initial gain for the lower ratio. By raising the inital gain, you have just raised the floor of your uncompressed signal. We're talking about equal gain reduction here. Whether or not it's useful to use equal reduction is irrelevant. I've simply been trying to ilustrate a principal.
To tell you the truth, I've spent the day mixing and editing a 46 track tune of fuzak in the box. If there's two things I don't like, it would be
fuzak and
mixing in the box. I can't even think straight so I don't even know what I mean at this point. I didn't even remember saying "adjusting the threshold", and there it is! I said it!
Maybe I'm just confused. It happens, occasionally. Ten hours of fuzak will do that. I did misstate the ratio equation for sure though. My confusion must lie in thinking that the same amount of reduction at different ratios will produce the same over all output, which now that I think about it, maybe I'm on crack. Because increasing the input gain in order to get equal gain reduction would also increase the final output level, therefore the lows and highs move in a linear dynamic from a higher ratio. (I'm thinking out loud here. Just go with it.) OK, I get it. I
am on crack. Ignore everything I just said.
However, on my 33609b, and perhaps it is just the way the compressor reacts differently at that ratio, and not the math behind it, I perceive less dynamic at 1.5:1 than at 3:1, with equal reduction. Also, with my LA4 at 2:1, I perceive sustained decay of certain instuments at what appeard to be the same amount of reduction as higher ratios. Maybe my ears are lying to me. But regardless, my theoretical assumption for this perceived difference is flawed. I seem to have left out one important point: the final output level. Doh! My bad. That's what you get for paying attention to the acid casualty.
I'll do my best Emily Latella at this point.
BTW, I dusted off my John Woram book, and I had completely hallucinated the graph that I was basing my idea on. It looks nothing like how I remember it. I'll go eat some crow now.