John Hartog wrote:
> consider that different natural content will
> sound better at different levels - This makes
> it difficult to apply a standard approach based
> on numerical analysis. Subjective comparisons
> using your own (or others) ears will usually
> yield the best results.
Amen to that. Ears should be the final arbiter.
Important factors include the amount of ambience in your recording, your su=
bject to microphone distance (assuming you are targeting a particular subje=
ct), and the relationship between the average signal level and the peaks. A=
good level meter than shows both RMS and peak at the same time is a handy =
guide.
Ben wrote:
> The eternal balancing act in soundtrack production
> is creating something that will satisfy everyone -
> but if you're lucky enough to know that you have a
> homogeneous audience, you can tailor your approach
> to them. Also I'd ignore the second example
> audience just to avoid perpetuating people's
> declining expectations of what good sound is.
Yes, there are enough producers and mastering engineers catering to the low=
est common denominator of smallest possible dynamic range. I imagine most o=
f us on this list prefer to set a different example by retaining as much va=
riety in both spectral content and dynamics as is reasonable.
Even when I produce pop music (rare, but it happens!) I prefer to emphasise=
texture and dynamics, both of which convey important narrative and emotion=
al content.
-- robinparmar.com
|