What are "dynamics" ?

grimtraveller

grimtraveller

If only for a moment.....
At the risk of sounding totally clueless, what exactly are "dynamics" as you understand them ? The word comes up here in relation to compression, mixing, mastering, tracking/performances, the loudness wars etc, and it seems to me that different people mean different things when using the word, which simply confuses the issue.
Looking it up online , far from clarifying things, seems to bring more fudge.
What do you understand by it ?
 
Dynamic range is the range between the quiestest and loudest points in a song.
A recording with 'no dynamics' has a small dynamic range, usually because it has been heavily limited/compressed.

Bowie's Bewlay Brothers comes to mind as an example of large dynamic range. That song just keeps getting louder and louder!

In sheet music the dynamics are the markings which tell you how loud to play. p, pp, mf, f, ff etc.
 
grimtraveller said:
The word comes up here in relation to compression, mixing, mastering, tracking/performances, the loudness wars etc, and it seems to me that different people mean different things when using the word, which simply confuses the issue.
Click to expand...

In all those situations...."dynamics" means pretty much the same thing...how the audio "moves" from softer to louder.
If anyone is using it to mean something different....that's their mistake.
 
A non-dynamic song/mix is one that has no variation in overall volume. Looking at the song's wave-form, it has the typical 'sausage' or 'brick' appearance.
 
miroslav said:
In all those situations...."dynamics" means pretty much the same thing...how the audio "moves" from softer to louder.
If anyone is using it to mean something different....that's their mistake.
Click to expand...

It's just that simple.

Drums tend to be extremely dynamic. Electric guitar with overdrive/distortion tends to be one of the least dynamic sounds. Dynamics in a signal are generally expressed as peak to average ratio (a.k.a. crest factor).
 
mjbphotos said:
A non-dynamic song/mix is one that has no variation in overall volume. Looking at the song's wave-form, it has the typical 'sausage' or 'brick' appearance.
Click to expand...
Does this mean that both the quiet parts and loud parts of the song come out at the same volume even though it's obvious which the quiet or loud part is ?
 
miroslav said:
In all those situations...."dynamics" means pretty much the same thing...how the audio "moves" from softer to louder.
Click to expand...
Does that then mean that every song that has loud and soft parts has dynamics regardless of how it's mixed/mastered ?
 
grimtraveller said:
Does this mean that both the quiet parts and loud parts of the song come out at the same volume even though it's obvious which the quiet or loud part is ?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily the same exact volume but less difference in volume. If you have a song with big differences in volume from verse to chorus (or whatever) and you ride the master fader to turn the louder parts down relative to the quieter parts (or the quieter parts up relative to the louder parts) you have reduced the dynamics. The difference between the average level and the peak level has been reduced.
 
grimtraveller said:
Does this mean that both the quiet parts and loud parts of the song come out at the same volume even though it's obvious which the quiet or loud part is ?
Click to expand...

If the quiet and loud parts come out at the same volume how can it be obvious which are the quiet and loud parts? :confused:
 
If you have a song with big differences in volume from verse to chorus (or whatever) and you ride the master fader to turn the louder parts down relative to the quieter parts (or the quieter parts up relative to the louder parts) you have reduced the dynamics. The difference between the average level and the peak level has been reduced.
Click to expand...
Gotcha !
Thanks.
 
bongoboy said:
If the quiet and loud parts come out at the same volume how can it be obvious which are the quiet and loud parts? :confused:
Click to expand...
Well, say you start off with a light piano part that gradually adds voices and other instruments and climaxes as some bombastic epic over 4 minutes or so. If the dynamic range was reduced, it's still pretty obvious which is the quiet part and the loud bombastic part.
Or do I have that wrong ?
 
grimtraveller said:
Well, say you start off with a light piano part that gradually adds voices and other instruments and climaxes as some bombastic epic over 4 minutes or so. If the dynamic range was reduced, it's still pretty obvious which is the quiet part and the loud bombastic part.
Or do I have that wrong ?
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter how many instruments are added through the course of a piece of music, if the volume doesn't change, there's no change in dynamics. Our brains may be wired to perceive a cumulative addition of sonic content as an increase in relative volume, but that's a psycho- acoustic phenomenon and not a true measurement of physical acoustic dynamics.
 
grimtraveller said:
Does that then mean that every song that has loud and soft parts has dynamics regardless of how it's mixed/mastered ?
Click to expand...

No...if you mix/master so that it's all compressed to a flatline....there's no dynamics any more.
You may still tell the difference between the sections, but it's not because of dynamics.....like someone said, a whisper at -10dBFS and a scream at -10dBFS set side-by-side have no dynamic difference, but still sound different, same as guitar and a piano could sound different, yet when played, there could be no difference in their dynamics.
 
Well...

There are macro dynamics - like the soft verse, loud chorus or crescendo thing.

Then there's micro dynamics which is the actual envelope of the individual instruments - the difference between the attack and sustain of a given note or hit on a given track.
 
bongoboy said:
It really doesn't matter how many instruments are added through the course of a piece of music, if the volume doesn't change, there's no change in dynamics. Our brains may be wired to perceive a cumulative
Click to expand...
That's what I said. But you can still easily differentiate the "quiet" part from the "loud" one - if there are those contrasts.
 
listen to "No Quarter" off of the Led Zeppelin 'houses of the holy' album.

or "Time", off of pink floyd's DSOTM

there are hundreds of classic rock albums, that have stood the test of time, that illustrate the power of 'headroom' and 'crest factor' and 'vibe' and strength of arrangements.

long before the stupid war of loudness began, folks actually mixed albums with a more natural feel.

now, it's a monotonous wall of distorted tone.
why?

the only common good examples of modern mixes that use dynamics, only do it thru arrangements, and not actual dynamics.
 
GONZO-X said:
listen to "No Quarter" off of the Led Zeppelin 'houses of the holy' album.

or "Time", off of pink floyd's DSOTM

there are hundreds of classic rock albums, that have stood the test of time, that illustrate the power of 'headroom' and 'crest factor' and 'vibe' and strength of arrangements.

long before the stupid war of loudness began, folks actually mixed albums with a more natural feel.

now, it's a monotonous wall of distorted tone.
why?

the only common good examples of modern mixes that use dynamics, only do it thru arrangements, and not actual dynamics.
Click to expand...


Careful....you're going to get a bunch of guys showing up saying that slammed to the max and the louder the better is the way to go, and all those great albums would suck by today's standards, and it's just the old guys who like them like that. :)

I'm finishing up a song right now that has quite a huge swing from soft to loud to soft to loud, and parts where the playing is mellow and then it goes to loud/intense, then back to soft again.
I'm going to try and get the overall level up there, but without ruining that wide dynamic feel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top