View Single Post
Old 11th September 2019
  #32
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stradivariusz View Post
Hmmm... does it mean combining expander and compressor could be the goal?
Comressor for louder sounds and expander for softer?
I'm trying it out now, playing with treshhold and have to say that the results are promissing.
Piano pasages don't get as much reverb as fortes, what makes it more natural. Still a long way to get it right but it's very interesting!
Some things to consider on a theoretical level, so they might guide you in finding a practical solution to them. Maybe these following 2 factors work in collaboration together, maybe they are in opposition ?

When you listen to a musical event at an 'optimal distance' ( ie not too close) the sound has passed through the air to do so. The distance/air acts to shave off some HF, and also absorbs some of the transients and dynamics....so it's like a sponge or pillow or Spring for the original dynamics (compared with a close mic, which tends to retain these characteristics)

Secondly, a listener may also be so far back from the singer/ensemble/orchestra that they are hearing as much diffuse, reflected sound energy from the space (walls, ceiling, floor) as they do directly from the source...or even more in fact !

There you have 2 competing factors at the listening position: one tending to absorb detail, HF and dynamics (ie air absorption)....the other amplifies and perpetuates the original sound projection, via reflections.

To remove these as factors, you'd have to be listening to the event up close...in an anechoic chamber (or outdoors)

How do these 2 properties combine for the listener, and more importantly how should the recording engineer utilise this information to make the best recording ?

Depending on where the mic(s) are placed, they will respond differentially to these properties, which bear upon the typical audience listening experience. These 2 factors might inform your approach to compression and expansion ?