[Bear]

Is is possible to succesfully increase the dynamic range of a CD's music content by ripping it and then using a software program to compand(uncompress) the tracks?  Anyone have experience with this?  What software did you use and how did it sound?


https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/filters/Nonlinear_Filter_Example_Dynamic.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compander

[mitch stl]

Is is possible to succesfully increase the dynamic range of a CD's music content by ripping it and then using a software program to compand(uncompress) the tracks?  Anyone have experience with this?  What software did you use and how did it sound?

I've remixed material for compilation albums that I've put together and this will often require level adjustment between tracks from different sources.

I use Adobe Audition for that type of work and it has a "clip restoration" feature in the "Noise Reduction" group of effects. While you can't really unmix a scrambled egg, I found this type of processing can offer some improvement for some of the more horridly processed CD tracks.

I'm sure some of the other audio software programs probably offer a similar feature so it is worth checking into. It won't completely fix a victim of the loudness wars, but sometimes a bit of improvement is possible.

[pippin]

You can't create in software what isn't there.
You can add artifacts but that's about it and it will actually distort your signal.

[Niteshade]

It's true that you can't add to something that doesn't exist in the first place. The only way to obtain better dynamic range is to make an original on a better medium.

[mitch stl]

You can't create in software what isn't there.
You can add artifacts but that's about it and it will actually distort your signal.

I'm not too sure why anyone would worry much about "distorting" an already horridly distorted signal.

As noted in my original comment, software processing will not unmix an already scrambled egg. However, I have seen situations where the reprocessed song is a more listenable improvement over the original.

Does it even remotely approach what I would have wanted had I been in the mixing studio at the beginning? No.  Can it be a bit more listenable? Yes. Below is a track from a Morningwood album. The left (top) channel is in its original state. The bottom channel, which was very similar, was reprocessed to reduce the amount of clipping. It didn't add sounds (artifacts) that were not present before, it just readjusted the dynamic range based on the software's algorithm. Guess which one sounds a bit better? Not perfect, just a bit better.

[doug s.]

while i have not used any of this processing software, mitch is correct, that this can be effective in making poor recordings more tolerable.  which is why i have a dbx 3bx in my tape loop - it really does improve poorly recorded software and overly compressed commercial fm broadcasts.

doug s.

[pippin]

OK, I agree that this can actually make a recording sound better. But this has nothing to o with actually "increasing" the dynamic range. What you are doing is reducing the loudness and probably stretching out dynamic levels at high volumes while compressing low volumes.
Again, I agree this can make stuff sound better, especially if it has been running through the opposite process (compressing high volumes) as happens especially with Radio broadcasts or "re-mastered" stuff, but you won't make up for the lost detail.

[Bear]

Thank you all for your responses, very informative.  I may have to experiment with this in the future.