Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!csd4.csd.uwm.edu!info-high-audio-request From: bellutta@irst.it (Paolo Bellutta) Newsgroups: rec.audio.high-end Subject: Why they are killing the dynamic range? Message-ID: <5834@uwm.edu> Date: 21 Aug 90 12:59:34 GMT Sender: news@uwm.edu Lines: 35 Approved: tjk@csd4.csd.uwm.edu I've seen some messages from people working in recording studios and in TV/Radio stations. This message is mainly for them. I always wondered why compressors and limiters are so widely used during the recording. I can understand that the dynamic range of certain instruments must be compressed to fit into a TV speaker dynamic range. Recording Studios: But if the source tape must be mixed to sound good on poor quality reproduction systems, why should I pay $15 to $20 (that's the price here...) for a CD with a dynamic range that has been killed to a few dBs? Some CDs has been recorded "direct from microphone" but only classical or jazz music (I know that rock music is considered "low level" but there are people that like that!). I can understand that voice for example sounds better when a limiter is used, but why *everything* must be limited and/or compressed? TV/Radio Stations: When a record is transmitted I can understand that the microphone *must* be compressed *and* limited so that the transmitted signal fits the FCC specifications, but why compress and limit the music also? Is that for the fact that different records have different recording levels? If that is the reason, are the level controls on the mixers used just to collect dust? All this may sound a bit rude but I think that what high-end people are really missing is the dynamic range of the original sound. Since the people I'm asking this question *work* with audio I'd like to know what is the *real* reason. Paolo Bellutta I.R.S.T. vox: +39 461 814417 loc. Pante' di Povo fax: +39 461 810851 38050 POVO (TN) e-mail: bellutta@irst.uucp ITALY bellutta%irst@uunet.uu.net