Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>>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