> While I agree nature tracks should generally be given more dynamic range =
than most other types of material, if you put a track on a CD peaking at -5=
0db and someone tries to play it they will find that it is excessively quie=
t [compared to every other CD they own]. Part of mastering is getting trac=
ks to play well together and in a way that you want in relation to other ma=
terial that people listen to. I try not to let [even quiet] tracks ride be=
low -40db. And there is a certain amount of dynamic range [ratio between l=
oudest and quietest levels] that would be too dynamic for most listeners. =
No one wants to raise the level on a quiet track only to have something muc=
h much louder come in and blast them out of their seats.
> There is definitely a use for compression and limiting in certain instanc=
es. In the real world our brains do it for us automatically.
I find mastering a nature album a challenge. At the beginning the user is g=
oing to set the volume for what they hear first. That means I want to put s=
ome kind of "average" level track first--and makes it unadvisable to start =
off with the quiet before a dawn chorus, even though that's what I would li=
ke to do artistically...
-Dan
|