sorry for speaking 'out of turn'You're right...It's a tragedy. Especially in light of the fact that it's not needed at all by real hi-fi systems nowadays.
Compression should occur not on the recordings, but rather at playback on systems not able to handle the dynamics.
Chris
The above is one of the most insightful & realistic comments I've ever read here at diyAudio !
I guess I should refine what I said >
Every single track of multitrack recording requires its own engineering and this can include compression & 'god knows what'.
I was referring to Final - 2trk - mix.
With 140 bB of dynamic range, let us NOT over-compress Stereo Recordings.
Every single track of multitrack recording requires its own engineering and this can include compression & 'god knows what'.
I was referring to Final - 2trk - mix.
With 140 bB of dynamic range, let us NOT over-compress Stereo Recordings.
A fantastic recording. Do you have any tip for a record that sounds this good ?A big part of "being a good drummer" is also know your set and how to get the right sounds out of it. My favorite drummer of all times, Tony Allen (Fela Kuti's drummer) was an absolute master in that. He could get very powerfull sounds out of his kit wth little movement, and on low level and balance himself so good you probally only need 3 mics to record him, a kickmic and two overheads. There are very few drummers where you can do that, they need to have an absolute control over their drumset. Art Blakey was also such a drummer.
This is Tony Allen in France (where he lived the last part of his life). Note how he plays with little movenent or force, but still got a powerfull and dynamic sound of it. He balances him with the acoustical instruments next to him (so he plays soft). I've seen him do that in Gent also, after a regular concert in a jam in a private house with some local jazz musicians. He did that sometimes, even if he is world famous.
First of all, a very good drummer. That is the key. The drummer knows how to sound good on his own, and in relation with the other musicians and the mics just need to register it. The mics and setup used are minimal, (overheads, snare and kick i think), and that is only possible with a good drummer. The sax plays into a condensor microphone, that would be overloaded with drum sound if the drummer can't play soft right. How the contrabas is miced i can't see in the video.
The processing is also minimal, but again, you need a good drummer for that. It's done in a radio studio, so the room is acousticly treated i guess.
But the first and most important is: a good drummer. And this is for the best i've seen, and with a margin. Here you see him also at the end of his life, in his late 70's, with probally more than 70 years of experience behind the drums. First in Nigeria (where he's from) with various bands including the band of Fela Kuti, but since the mid 80's in Europe (London & Paris). He died in 2020 from heart problems at age 79.
The processing is also minimal, but again, you need a good drummer for that. It's done in a radio studio, so the room is acousticly treated i guess.
But the first and most important is: a good drummer. And this is for the best i've seen, and with a margin. Here you see him also at the end of his life, in his late 70's, with probally more than 70 years of experience behind the drums. First in Nigeria (where he's from) with various bands including the band of Fela Kuti, but since the mid 80's in Europe (London & Paris). He died in 2020 from heart problems at age 79.
the recording provided has only some 22db of dynamics, please post a cymbal strike which has at least 80 db of dynamics so we can test it properly.
Which recording are you referring to? If its the one I posted, it has around 70dB of dynamic range as viewed in the time domain. It was recorded mainly to show some ultrasonic content, although the mic is only rated up to 35kHz.
Last edited:
Maybe it's just me, but I've always found that, in general, higher efficiency loudspeakers capture realism of a live recording better than low efficiency loudspeakers. I know that goes against current thinking, but it's my anecdotal opinion.I've always thought it was dynamic range... no recording nor loudspeaker can compare to the real thing. It's why live music is always immediately recognizable as such, even amplified live music.
Published recordings MUST use dynamic compression for many reasons. Perhaps the latest is popularity of mobile+headphones = hearing health protection.
Best DR is in classical music and some trad. jazz which are mostly listened with hifi loudspeakers in silent environment.
Good drumming eg. from Dave Weckl and lots of piano high notes on Ahmad Jamal's records. Santana first and Abraxas are great too.
Best DR is in classical music and some trad. jazz which are mostly listened with hifi loudspeakers in silent environment.
Good drumming eg. from Dave Weckl and lots of piano high notes on Ahmad Jamal's records. Santana first and Abraxas are great too.
This is the truly saddest part of all this subject.Published recordings MUST use dynamic compression for many reasons. Perhaps the latest is popularity of mobile+headphones = hearing health protection.
As a listener of popular music I dont't have the chance of listening to my favorite music styles using all the marvelous digital recording capabilities of 2025.
My dream was to be able to listen to pop music such as Steely Dan, Pat Metheny, brazilian MPB, Anita Baker, BrandNewHeavies, all the american Motown records and many others without compressors.
It will never happen, unfortunatelly.
That is because in general they have more headroom. Use low sensitive speakers with high maximum volume (+20dB over what you will use) and amps that can handle that, and you got the same effect. But it's easier with high sensitive speakers to do, that is true.Maybe it's just me, but I've always found that, in general, higher efficiency loudspeakers capture realism of a live recording better than low efficiency loudspeakers. I know that goes against current thinking, but it's my anecdotal opinion.
but even with all the limitations they still managed to make music that still stands out and that people listen to.My dream was to be able to listen to pop music such as Steely Dan, Pat Metheny, brazilian MPB, Anita Baker, BrandNewHeavies, all the american Motown records and many others without compressors.
Sure! I still keep listening to them due to the superior music and arrangement quality, not recording quality, cause they're targeted to vinyl/k7/FM which require compression.but even with all the limitations they still managed to make music that still stands out and that people listen to.
ok so you want to bitch about the recording quality, to me it's a testament of ability to have made these recordings despite the handicaps the technology of the day.
now we're completely off topic.
now we're completely off topic.
sorry to have parsed out that snippetlive recording
when i think of a "live" recording even the best of those that i've heard are a dead giveaway to the problems that dynamic range introduces to both recording and live sound at the same time!
I'm not complaining about the records, since I understand the context they were made. They made a really good job.ok so you want to bitch about the recording quality, to me it's a testament of ability to have made these recordings despite the handicaps the technology of the day.
What I meant to say is that I would like to listen to Steely Dan, for example, without the compressing process that was used at that time to fit the highly dynamic real instruments to the media available at that time such as vinyl, k7 and FM radio.
If I had access to their 24-channel orignal open reel tape for example, that would be a dream and I'd have a lot of fun.
Steely Dan has a great sound even in vinyl, but could be even better if recorded today without the limitations of the media in the 70's/80's and targeted to hi-fi systems, not popular streaming, smartphones or USB/blutooth boom boxes.
I had a similar experience, with a different outcome. I was bar hopping with some friends looking for live music. After passing a couple with obviously canned music one of my friends and I both agreed this was LIVE. Walked in to find a pair of B#se 901's set up on the stage. They didn't sound anyway near as good inside, but outside they sounded "live". I chocked this up to the reflected sound ratio closer to live music with the large amount of reflecting sound with the 901's. The 901's also had pretty good dynamics for a small speaker of the day.
no it wouldn't be the dream, because as good as tape was it was still limited to max 75 db dynamic range...but it would be a leg up i guess.If I had access to their 24-channel orignal open reel tape for example, that would be a dream and I'd have a lot of fun.
all the dolby processing to limit tape noise was worse than compression....
Steely Dan and so many other name acts from that era where masters of "studiocraft" but sucked live, multiple takes and overdubs where possible, heck look at Boston!
The worse compressed music will still sound good on a good system.
Many 'hifi' systems are just lies and they are so poor dynamics that only uncompressed music will sound half decent on them.
Pop compressed music is good enough for a lot of enjoyment. The better the system the better you will hear clearly what is behind that mess you hear on your ipods
Many 'hifi' systems are just lies and they are so poor dynamics that only uncompressed music will sound half decent on them.
Pop compressed music is good enough for a lot of enjoyment. The better the system the better you will hear clearly what is behind that mess you hear on your ipods
TBTL said the mechanically played real cymbals in the "dance organ" sounded real- they are not speakers.Are you saying that the speaker sounded like the real thing?
The entire "dance organ" drum trap kit is played mechanically.
Cymbal's direct sound output follows the same 6.02dB per distance inverse square law as any other source, but their high frequency sound radiates very differently than any point source or dipole speaker.And they do load the room evenly, so the power decay is nowhere as sharp with distance as a point source loudspeaker - which drops at a 6db rate I think? It drops with the cube of the distance?
Unlike any speaker polar pattern, the cymbal's chaotic radiation patterns varies with time.
It gives some insight into the reason a loudspeaker will never sound like a cymbal, but would be more visually apparent if one saw how the rotating modal patterns shift over time.@weltersys That write up at SoS is very good. Thanks.
In some respects, the rotating modal patterns of a cymbal are similar to the rotating horns in a Leslie speaker, though about five Leslies counter rotating at different speeds and angles would be required for a basic representation.
That said, just like a cymbal, there is no mistaking the sound of a rotating Leslie speaker and a fixed speaker (or stereo pair) reproducing the sound of a Leslie, even listening outside through an open door to the room it's played in.
Art
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- What makes cymbals sound real?