[ARSCLIST] Compression (was Re: [ARSCLIST] A fundamental Flaw ...)

[Mike Richter <mrichter@xxxxxxx>]

At 08:34 AM 1/21/2005 -0600, Karl Miller wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Don Cox wrote:
>
> > I think compression is a bad solution.
>
> I agree, however, with the dynamic range of an orchestra being over 100db,
> would not one need to be willing to listen at that level to get a fully
> balanced sound?...I am reminded of this as per a discussion I had with
> John Eargle, assuming I understood what he was saying, who suggested 80db
> max for any commerical recording.

I admit to having stopped following this thread - after a while, it becomes
so tenuous that I'm afraid it will snap under the weight of too many
hangers-on. However, this one caught my eye.

IIRC, 16 bits provides a dyamic range of about 96 db; hence, the full range
of a symphony orchestra may not be amenable to capture on CD. Needless to
say, it is surely not within the capability of conventional analogue tape
or disc.

More than that, the real world of commercial release dictates compression.
Ambient sound in a quiet environment is about 30-40 dbm (I am again going
by memory, not having references at hand). Then 100 db dynamic range would
bring peaks over the threshold of pain and far into the region where
sustained levels would cause permanent hearing loss.

The compression used in practice is visible in one of the areas of
distortion discussed at my alternate WWW site at
  http://www.mindspring.com/~mrichter/
Why EMI would choose so to distort a classical reissue is beyond my
understanding, but they did and do.

A wide dynamic range is appropriate (assuming that it is in the source) for
listening under favorable conditions: a quiet environment, quality
reproducing equipment, a knowledgable and concerned listener. If the market
includes listeners in cars, with Discman or similar players, or even those
running boomboxes, it must be compressed. That is commercial reality, not
acoustic theory.


Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/