Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Data compression, twitch factors, knee jerks and God



>>All compression, analog or digital, represents a loss of information.
>>All professional recordings are compressed in several ways before the
>>final product reaches the consumer.  Despite this, music still finds its
>>way into the world.
>
>I don't actually care very much about this particular debate, but this
>sounded a little confused. I suspect you're not actually confused, but
>anyway:
>
>The kind of compression appearing in all those professional recordings is
>dynamic compression, normally inflicted by a box called a compressor.
>Usually rather useful.

You're right in that I'm not confused about the differences between 
computer-file type compression, lossy or otherwise, and analog 
compression, but I do mean that there is a loss of information either 
way.  

When you use an audio compressor, such as a dbx unit, you're discarding 
the dynamic information in the original signal to even out the overall 
level.  This is neither good nor bad, just desirable or undesirable 
depending on the situation.  You gain smoothness while losing touch 
dynamics.  Anyone who's recorded a singer, particularly a singer with 
poor mic technique has discovered that compression can be used to get rid 
of annoying level jumps as the singer's mouth moves closer or further 
from the mic.  Likewise, many a drummer has found the dynamics of their 
playing obliderated by zealous compression and gating of the kit in order 
to give a punchier, constant drum sound.

I also agree that the MD discussion is taking on the "digital vs. analog" 
overtones, but I also don't want to see a very useful technology maligned 
unnecessarily.  Most of the technology I use in looping is 8-10 years 
old.  I'm talking eight and twelve-bit sampling delays, eighties-era 
preamps, sequencing software that runs on a Mac Plus, etc.  I get plenty 
of work done with the old stuff, even with its sonic and design 
limitations, and sometimes because of those limitations, so to see 
someone dismiss MD with "Lossy compression?  I'll have none of it!" 
disturbs me.  

I found an old issue of Musician the other day, and there was an article 
about the advantages and disadvantages of mixing and mastering to DAT.  
Actually, it was more about how DAT was a completely unprofessional 
format which produced results which pained the engineers to discuss.  How 
times change.  Even though there is a movement back to (and some people 
never left) mixing to two-track analog, DAT is accepted as a professional 
option for mixdown.  Now, I'm not saying that MD is a professional mixing 
option, but it's quite definitely a valid tool for home recording, 
despite the compression scheme.

Peace, love, and lots of feedback,

Travis