question about singing/being too loud

Discussion in 'Audio Help & Tips' started by RecordingNow..., Mar 2, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Apexx

    Apexx Engineer / Club Promoter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    604
    haha, no problem man. I ain't gonna argue with you lol. If you really wanted the answer, you'd put both pieces on a spectal analyzer and see for your self.
    test
  2. Arcane

    Arcane Alcoholic Roadie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,894
    just because i feel like proving you wrong:

    uncompressed:
    [​IMG]
    compressed:
    [​IMG]
    compressor + settings used:
    Waves C1
    threshold: -30
    ratio: 3:1
    attack + release: 25ms

    if you look at the orange frequency response curves (the average as opposed to the real time, which is yellow), they are practically identical as far as their shape, the only differences between them are:

    1) the screenshots were taken at different points (although the same sample is used for both charts)
    2) the compressor adds it's own 'flavour' to the freq. response of the audio

    The Audio:

    Compression Example

    download the audio yourself and send it through an analyser...

    any questions?
    test
  3. Apexx

    Apexx Engineer / Club Promoter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    604
    ^^The irony is overwhelming. So the same "flavor" you state that the compressor adds isn't the alteration of frequencies I just talked about? You looked at your own s.a. readouts and though they're quite different, you still convinced your self that they're the same? If what you were saying were true, the readouts wouldn't be, "slightly" different or "marginally" differnet. As a matter of fact, they wouldn't be different AT ALL. As a quick example, look at your range about 400-500hz on the uncompressed vs the same 400-500 compressed. And that's just the lows!! Look at the polarized difference at the 1KHz mark. Uncompressed, its' high. Compressed, it's low. Look at the difference in trace-out for the highs! Look at the timing and intensity of the events! WOW!! The same alteration I was saying would be present and you said dosen't happen at all, yet...now you call it "flavor" lol.

    Anyone who has a high enough resolution and/or a monitor big enough to see both of these images at once can see considerable differences from one to the next. From your original position, there should be no discernable differences at all. Reality is: there are many. If you're still convinced that there aren't any, or even "many" I'll be willing to waste the time to number each one individually so you can compare them your self. Better still, I'll simply take em both into Photoshop, make them both 50% transparent, then overlay one chart over the other and you can see the vast differences for your self - which, according to you, shouldn't even be there. Did you think I was guessing when I said this would happen?

    You're too concerned with "being right" to actually learn something. Why are you so defensive? People respect you more for being capable of admitting when you're wrong, rather than lying to everyone's face about the existance of something everyone can easily see.

    Life goes on.
    test
  4. Arcane

    Arcane Alcoholic Roadie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,894
    you are looking at the orange read out on both graphs, right, because the yellow is the real time, and is obviously quite different

    yeah, the compressor is going to change the sound, but it does not do what you're saying by rolling off the high end unless you're using sidechain or multiband compression targeting that frequency range

    obviously adding processing is going to change the sound somewhat but you were stating there is a drastic difference in the high end of a compressed signal compared to an uncompressed one, nothing is 100% transparent, as it's going through another set of electronics (in the case of analog gear) or through algorythms that emulate this

    saying that it's not going to change at all is like saying every microphone has the same tone, it just ain't going to happen. what you stated is that compression rolls off the high end, which it does not, as you can tell by the audio and screenshots i have posted. the two frequency response curves are relatively the same. expecting an exact duplicate is a pretty rediculous expectation, as they weren't even taken at the same point in the audio being played.

    basically what i'm saying is a compressor does not act like a filter, like you are trying to say, as a filter would show a heavily noticeable (not 1-2db like the above graphs show) change in ALL of the high end as opposed to specific frequencies that are altered by the compressors electronics.
    test
  5. Arcane

    Arcane Alcoholic Roadie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,894
    here's the composite of them both, the compressed signal is the frequency response curve that is lower, and like i said in my previous post, they are relatively the same. expecting an exact duplicate is completly retarded, as that would never happen when putting two peices of the same audio through different processing, even if the processing was switched to bypass mode, it'd still alter the signal slightly.

    [​IMG]

    the overall frequency reponse, as seen, is lower, as that's what compression does- it compresses. there is a slight dip in a few frequencies (like between 4k and 8k, where the volume is lower, although the relative shape of the response graph is the same), and minor discrepencies between the two in other places, but that is due to the compressor itself being a different peice of gear and imprinting it's own mark on the audio. the entire compressed graph has been lowered by around 3db compared to the uncompressed signal, not like you've stated where the signal gets lower and the highs are rolled off. compression will ALWAYS lower the signal level, that's what it's made for...hence the reason there's a meter on a compressor called gain reduction. It does not, however, act like a filter.
    test
  6. Apexx

    Apexx Engineer / Club Promoter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    604
    For starters, I never said compression acts (intentionally) as a filter. Cutting the highs are a by-product of compression, since the human ear hears higher frequencies 'louder' than it hears low ones at the identical dB, so of course the highs are going to get cut. The same 4k-8k range you yourself say there is a "slight" dip in would be considered "highs" to the normal human voice, as would the other 8khz of headway after that - which also was cut BTW. Anything over 16k is like...6th-8th octave type shit. These real-world highs are same highs you were saying would be unaffected. The same highs that you convinced your self that I said "roll off" when in fact I never said the highs get rolled. They get (and "got") CUT. And you use the term "relatively" quite heavily. Of course you know, the definition of "relatively" is quite..well...relative. I see vast differences. You see conveniently see "relative" differences.

    BTW, I was looking at the same yellow line you are. Volume wasn't considered in the curvature since that would be assinine. Looking at the general curve is evidence that there are numerous differences, which from your original statement wouldn't happen. The reality is there are whole slabs of frequencies that are cut down even lower than your noise floor <---a function a "filter" is usually responsble for.

    These charts aren't even at the same baseline dB after compression or else you'd see that one is humongously different from the other since the lows are turned up and the highs are turned down, just like I said they would be. I've been saying to turn the dB's BACK to the same level once compression is done, which makes your point about the differences a moot one. The lows are turned way up (obviously, since lows are sounds that the ear hears least) and the highs are cut down (since high frequenceis are heard by the human ear the best) so....exactly how is this different from what I said the first time? Your argument is saying wht I've been saying the entire time, just you aim it in a differnet way so that you come out looking "right".

    I understand you consider your self a reputable person here and would hate to look wrong after you put your self out to the extent you did, but it's a dead issue. Your own spectral analysis show that it does exactly what you argued it dosen't. Which is turning the lows up, turning the highs down. The only point that your two traceouts meet back up is at about the 15k mark, where the vocalist in the sample is evidently no where near.


    So once again, if using compression after your vocal take, especially if it's a new setting for your preset - retune your highs.

    How is this even an argument? What's the sense in even going on about this? Oh wait...there isn't one.

    [sponge] <----yay
    test
  7. Arcane

    Arcane Alcoholic Roadie

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Messages:
    6,894
    everything gets 'cut' so to speak, as the overall level of EVERYTHING goes down, not just the highs, which was your previous statement

    first of all, orange line, as that is the average frequency analysis of the waveform, as opposed to the real time. different words were being spoken at each of the screen shots, so the yellow lines are obviously going to be different. my initial statement was that compression does not cut highs, which it doesn't, it compresses the signal. when you say 'it cuts highs' that implies that some form of filter is used, which it isn't. compressors (and i'm talking straight compressors, nothing with sidechain or multiband processing) do not have any sort of filter section in them. if you've ever taken one apart and analyzed the internal modules, you'd know this. electronics (and in this case digital algorythms emulating hardware), however, will always have some imprint on the signals sonic characteristics. Even running a 1k tone through a single capacitor will alter the frequency response graph that is generated by a PURE TONE.
    i didn't put myself 'out', i simply showed the results of this experiment. compression DOES NOT cut highs in the manner which you've described. YES, there are minor discrepencies in the two frequency analysis charts, and like i said in my previous post, this is due to the compressors imprint on the audio, not a direct result of the compression itself. i could run it through a different compressor and get an entirely different frequency response. the Rcomp, C1, C4, and every other compressor in the world all sound different, they're made that way for a reason.
    my anaysis shows exactly what i said it would show...that compression doesn't 'cut the highs' but instead reduces the volume of the entire waveform. I also showed that compressors imprint their own signature 'sound' onto audio.

    here's an easy example of compression:

    take a peice of paper (your origional audio)
    squish it into a ball (your now compressed audio)

    it's still the same thing with all the same properties it origionally had, it is now just smaller, that's what compression does. graphically, it makes audio smaller, sonically this is reflected as a drop in level. this drop is consistant across the entire audio spectrum unless something like a sidechain or frequency specific compressor is used, in which case it will only effect the specific frequency range that is selected using a series of filter modules. again, like i said previously, no gear has a 100% flat frequency response, and will therefore alter the sound no matter what. yes, some compressors will show dips in the top end, but this is not true of every single compressor on the market. i know for a fact that behringer compressors have a very exaggerated high end, much like most of their gear does, that's one of the main reasons i dislike their products (there are many more, no worries :): haha). the c1 does happen to have a slight dip between 4k and 8k, but is otherwise relatively transparent, like all of the waves plugins (the straight waves bundles...not the renissance or additional plugins that come in some of the packages) and that's why i chose to use that as opposed to one that would exaggerate something else. would you like me to post up 14 more frequency response graphs using each different compressor i own? i gaurentee every single one will be different because of what i just said. even the two sides of my dbx compressor have slightly different sounds, because it's not only based upon the components used, but also how much wear they have on them as well. shit, a slightly less charged capacitor will change somethings tone slightly (not usually noticable though, it will show up on a frequency response graph).
    test
  8. Apexx

    Apexx Engineer / Club Promoter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    604
    You got it, big man! [​IMG]
    test
  9. kalamity781

    kalamity781 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    32
    **Munches on some sugar babies and Mike and Ikes**

    Yeaa, the battle of the As, lets see who the real is and who's goin home. BTW you guys confuse the shit out of me sometimes. I need to know the answer to a question that nobody asks and that is, WHATS THE BEST EQUIPMENT FOR ME TO BUY FOR RECORDING HOT •••••???

    Nah yo, Im jping but...you guys are goin at it..almost to the point that i forget what you guys are arguing about. I knoe both yall hea to help out but damn come to some terms u can agree upon cuz my eyes r really starting to die readin all this ha.
    test
  10. Apexx

    Apexx Engineer / Club Promoter

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2006
    Messages:
    604

    Know what man, you're aboslutely right. There's no reason we shouldn't be workin together instead of against each other. My bad Arc we took this shit way too far and off the actual point of the thread.

    Yo Kalam, best compressor? hard to say man, hard to lose since so many programs do it well. Audacity is the only app that I heard that was eehhh. To me it got washy like...imagine a 36000hz-sounding compressed mixdown on a 441000hz. Everyhing else I've heard compress GB1/2 PT, CEP, and of course Logic were great to immaculate.

    You do your EQing via software or hardware? Like, do you have an interface and a program currently, or do you have a soundcard and a mixing board?
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)