Compression....what a bummer

B

Bob's Mods

New member
Having fussed around with home recording for some years now, I have begun to realize I fell into the "compression" trap. Compress a track here, mastering compression there, multiband (thinking of which just gives me a headache), vintage, analog, etc. It seems when I get rid of all but a small amount of compression on the bass track only, the mix sounds best to my ears. I have tried a number of different software compressors using every imaginable combination of insertions and settings possible and it just don't seem to be happening. If you need to compress a track to give it punch then maybe it wasn't recorded right in the first place. If you compress a track to bring it out, then its not quite right with the other tracks in the mix any longer. It doesn't really fit right anymore.

Weapons of Mass Desctruction posted some of their stuff recently and their recordings sounded really good and they used no compression to speak of. For some kids in a basement, they did a great job of demonstrating just how good digital recording can be just by capturing some real room verb and using mic placement for eq.

As I strip out the track and/or main bus compressors on some of the stuff I've done my ears say yeh, thats natural. As I have modded my gear, those mods improve the dynamics, the transients jump! When i use the compressor, it works to soften the dynamics I've worked so hard to bring out. The natural sound of dynamics seem to sound best in my mixes.

There has been the on going newsgroup chatter about how hardware compressors may have an edge over software compressors. And of the hardware compressors, only those in the $1k and up range separate the men from the boys. Well I don't want to buy a $1k hardware compressor. Someone posted a mix where they used the UAD-1 compressors and I thought, "Great song but you sqwashed it too much". When I can hear the compression, then I know its too much.

My current software compressor is the Kjaerhus Audio Golden Compressor. Its very flexible and supposedly analog modeled but I'm still not hearing the magic that is supposed to be compression. I do understand compressors and know how to use one properly but that magic is just not there. My ears tell me a different story and that is that my mixes sound best with no compression (a token amount on bass only). The full dynamics sound real, almost like the listener is there in the room. I'm really beginning to think that although compression has been employed in a professional environment for years, it seems in a home studio digital world, it may be a little over done. Trying to sound pro at home using some software does not work as well as just sounding as natural as possible without it. When you apply compression you are changing the natural way that waveform was recorded, its a kind of distortion of the waveform.

I think the tracks I record sound great without it. Thats not to say some high end compressor couldn't tweak it better, they sound fine without it now though. The only touches I do require is a touch of EQ and a touch of digital reverb/echo for more space and thats it.

Turn up the volume on your monitoring and listen to your stuff with compression then turn off the compression and remix and listen again. The natural dynamics are really cool to hear! I can actually hear the sense of "room" and "live" that compression seems to reduce.

I'm beginning to believe that the benefits of compression, at least for a home studio, is over hyped and way too easy to go overboard with. Less is more I think. None seems to work just fine too.

Fools gold? Snake oil? or the goose that laid the golden egg? And what are your tales from the compression crypt fellow reader?

Bob
 
Last edited:
the only problem with compression is...............thats what makes stuff sound "professional" or "like somehting on the radio" to common people. Todyas music is overcompressed by 30 times, but that is what people expect in music. Uncompressed music, while it may sound better to people who actually understand sound, sounds "unprofessional" to the average consumer. Kinda sucks huh.....
 
First I have to say I haven't read your entire post yet, but did get enough of it to reply. You ought to hear Steve Albini. He thinks compression is a crutch, and if you start relying on it you have basically stopped being a good engineer. Really knowing your mics and placing them well can eliminate the need for compression in most cases. (Of course, having good source material to record helps, too!)
 
Very cool post Bob. The caveat would be us homerecorders that buy specific compressors to get conspicous, signature sounds. I love the snap and pop my dbx comps give...they are 'un-natural' sounds for sure, but are artistically pleasing for some. I dig the way my symetrix cl-100 or 501 spanks the bass guitar, and adds some cool fatness. Again, an 'un-natural' sound, but artistically pleasing. I track at 16bit, so it seems im either at 2 extremes...just some peak limiting with a hair of compression for some tracks that get tracked hot, or, a noticable, purposeful squash for others. Not really too much in the middle....maybe it's the middle that sucks in general?.. Too much compression to sound natural, yet not manipulated enough to sound like a purposeful/usefull change in the sound....just a thought...
 
I think it is especially easy to over-compress using plugins. Whenever I've tried it, it seems like I have to use much more extreme settings on a plugin than on hardware to get the same result. Of at least the same perceivable result. And then it is over-compressed, as you say.

Compression is one of the basics of mixing though. I personally much prefer hardware compression over plugins, no comparison really. You can use less and still get the character of the box, and maybe add something positive to the track. More than a few db's lighting up on the meters is probably too much compression though, unless you are going for an effect. If you can hear it compressing then you probably have gone too far.

I do like the smoothness a little compression puts on a mix though. I'm talking very light compression, but it does seem to get things under control in a pleasant way. Analog hardware compression, that is.

The compression you are objecting to is no doubt over-compression. It is possible to compress without killing the entire dynamic range.
 
Bob's Mods said:
Turn up the volume on your monitoring and listen to your stuff with compression then turn off the compression and remix and listen again. The natural dynamics are really cool to hear! I can actually hear the sense of "room" and "live" that compression seems to reduce.
Click to expand...


This is the problem with your theory, though. This only works if you're mixing for yourself. Most people listen in cars, on computers, in the shower or whatever. They don't have the luxury of good speakers and rarely have the mind to turn up their volume to compensate for an increased dynamic range - and if they do, ususally the poor quality of their systems make the loud sections or attack very harsh and hard on the ears.

If you're mixing for regular people, like most of us are, compression is pretty much a must.
Another thing: on electric music, compression tends to fill out the sound and make the depth of the mix smooth out over time. That is, it sounds really big 99% of the time rather than huge 5% of the time.
 
SonicAlbert said:
I think it is especially easy to over-compress using plugins. Whenever I've tried it, it seems like I have to use much more extreme settings on a plugin than on hardware to get the same result. Of at least the same perceivable result. And then it is over-compressed, as you say.
Click to expand...

SA, my experiences and what you say match up pretty good. I've never used a good pure analog compressor so I can't say as to the effect with respect to my software compressor. There is this affection for the UAD-1 compressors among pro guys on the software side. Maybe they are a little more tame in this repect and better model their analog counterparts. I'm not paying the entry fee just to try them out so I can sound commercialized. The natural uncompressed sound is a signature character unto itself.

Bob
 
The thing is, what bleyrad says is true. The issue is not necessarily the perfect recording as much trying cover all the bases where the music will be *listened* to. I listen to music in my car a lot (living in LA), and people listen to music while doing chores, working, eating in restaurants, in all sorts of noisy environments.

I tested an album in a restaurant once and it was very informative. The album was uncompressed and had a wide dynamic range. As soon as the music got soft it literally disappeared, like it wasn't there. When the music got loud you could hear it. Compression/limiting is really not right for that album in a purist sense, but in a practical sense it is absolutely necessary. What seems right uncompressed in your studio may be very problematic in a real world listening environment.
 
Properly utilized compression can actually add to the perceived dynamic range of recorded material. Soft passages that may have been lost to the listening environment are now prominent in the mix with the same delicate nuances of the softer performance.
 
Sonic and MFPro, I agree with what both of you say. It is the standard conventional wisdom with regard to reasonable compression use. And yes, its used on all commercial stuff so we are programmed to its signature. This probably explains why I have been trying in vain to simulate that polish, because its everywhere. But natural does sound pretty good to me now that my ears have tuned into it.

My take on compression is this: I can actually hear a softening of the mix when my software compressor is enabled but not compressing. I do not like that at all. Nothing below the threshold should be effected in anyway - but it is. This could be another reason why respectable hardware compressors are favored over the software ones. I find I more prefer doing some peak limiting in Cool Edit to bring up the levels abit rather than resort to a software compressor. Cool Edit does not change the texture of the mix, limiting aside.

You make a point about real world use for music and how compression helps out there. My view of this is that most modern type music is recorded close miced. The dynamic range hovers around 25 dB. Sonic, you mentioned how you only compress by few dB and this jives with an excellant interview I read of a respected mastering person who stated his compress average is around 1.5 dB. Now being that most modern day music is in the 25 dB range, I don't expect a 1 or 2 dB boost in the quite sections to be very significant and don't feel this is enough of a difference to turn the tide for either hearing or not hearing the softer tracks in the mix. The dynamic range of modern music without compression should be fine with proper mixing to bring out all elements. Again the range is narrow and tracks are close mic'd. Its hard for me to buy into the rational a meaningful boost is occurring in the modern music world.

Now, this is not true of classical music where a few mics record a large ensemble in a large hall. The dynamic range is much greater 60 dB? I have heard this problem you speak of with classical music where there was no compression and the softer parts got lost once they slipped below the ambient noise. In this case it is definitely required for real world application.

I also think alot of studios liked the color those vintage compressors added too. That has played a part in their use for commercial work. Unfortunately, that colorization is not happening in the world of software plugins on the same scale.

In conclusion, I suspect software plugins are doing something to all audio, both above and below the threshold. And that a good limiter to tame some of the peaks should be fine for close mic'd music.

Digital recording can sound awfully good with some decent gear, proper mic placement and some good ears for mixing. Huge sums of money does not have to spent on having every hardware and software toy. A few choice pieces of gear and you WILL sound good. Maybe not exactly like the polish of some of the great commercial recordings but very good none the less. Actually, there are alot of crappy commerical works too. By applying a minimalist approach, you should be able to easily put the low level of workmanship from some of the pro guys with more toys than you in your rear view mirror. There is a revolution going on now in recording and its getting back to the grass roots where good music begins.

Go out, be fruitful and multiply, cast your music to the four corners of the earth. The mighty are shaking. Digital is awakening and taking the power back to the people. The profit motive of the controlling corporate powers is being dislodged! Record all ye basement dwellers and spare bedroom artist! You can sound good!

Gee, I went off on a tangent, errr....sorry....this was supposed to be about compression.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm not like "normal people." I rarely listen to music in my car. I will never own an MP3 player. And I NEVER, EVER put on music as "background music." That's practically a sin, as far as I'm concerned. When I listen to music I LISTEN TO IT, on my good system, usually with the lights turned down, and often with my eyes closed. Personally, I'd much rather listen to music that is mixed the way that Bob is doing it NOW, than when he was making much heavier use of compression. I can't stand most of the overcompressed stuff that passes for popular music today. I've noticed that modern, popular music also exaggerates both ends of the frequency spectrum quite a bit. In other words, I also hear a built-in "smiley face curve" permanently eq'd into the recordings that just doesn't sound "natural" or "right" to me. This is just as offensive as the excessive amounts of compression that are also there.

I think there is a market for music that is recorded with a more "natural" and less processed presentation. I would even be a potential member of that market. That kind of music might not have a potential market of millions of people but, really, who cares? How many of us believe that millions of people are going to buy the recordings that we make in our home studios? I can pretty much guarantee that nothing that I record at my house will compete against the latest Jessica Simpson track on iTunes. But it doesn't matter. When everybody who is serious about music can afford their own recording studio (and they CAN, these days) and when there are ways to distribute this music cheaply and directly to people (such as through the internet), then there is the potential for all of these ultra-small "niche markets" to have access to the kinds of music that they each like.

By the way, as a bass player, I'd have to add that I'm personally very fond of compressors. However, my ears seem to be unusually sensitive to compression. I can usually tell when something has been compressed on a recording, even if there are no obvious "artifacts" such as pumping and breathing. Furthermore, what I consider to be a "reasonable" amount of compression seems to be "very light compression" to most people. Although I don't believe I've ever tracked a bass part without SOME compression, the compression ratios that I use always seem to fall into the 1.2-1 to 1.6-1 range. Anything more than this just sounds artificial to me. I also like compression on certain other instruments as well (certain ac. guitar parts, for example) but, again, I lean towards very minimalistic compression settings, and only on SOME instruments. Once you start throwing compressors on everything, you lose what you are trying to gain by using compressors in the first place! (Live gigs are a different story. There, you compress the hell out of EVERYTHING. But in that situation, you're basically going for the same effect that people use for commercial pop recordings - you have to get everything above a certain noise floor. And in a concert setting, that noise floor is really quite high.)

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that compressors are great -- as long as you use them with taste and moderation, and understand WHY you are using them. Anyway, that's what I think.

Brad
 
Bassman Brad said:
Furthermore, what I consider to be a "reasonable" amount of compression seems to be "very light compression" to most people. Although I don't believe I've ever tracked a bass part without SOME compression, the compression ratios that I use always seem to fall into the 1.2-1 to 1.6-1 range. Anything more than this just sounds artificial to me. I also like compression on certain other instruments as well (certain ac. guitar parts, for example) but, again, I lean towards very minimalistic compression settings, and only on SOME instruments. Once you start throwing compressors on everything, you lose what you are trying to gain by using compressors in the first place!

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that compressors are great -- as long as you use them with taste and moderation, and understand WHY you are using them. Anyway, that's what I think.
Click to expand...

Well stated Bassman... I couldn't agree more...

I think it's a subconscience need for people to want to hear the effect of the processor they're inserting. The problem is once you hear it...it's generally too much... Set it up...back off a bit... then back off some more.

It seems as though when your tweeking away, fine tuning the parameters, your ears adjust to the adjustments... call it fatigue, whatever... I can't tell you how many times I thought I'd dialed in the perfect sound...only to listen to it with fresh ears the next day... and wonder how the hell that could have happened!!

You're absolutely right about limiting the number of tracks you compress... I try to only compress the featured tracks; vocals, drums, and bass (you want to keep these fairly loud and upfront) but maintain the dynamic range with backing or secondary tracks, leave these alone...

And finally... with the perfect performer, and the perfect performance... no compression is nessesary all... a nice parametric EQ places all the tracks properly
 
Its not that compression is bad, is using compression wrong is bad. And whats wrong with a ton of it if it adds the effect your looking for.

I use compression on just about everything so i have control over the dynamics. Usually its very light, like a 3 ratio and average -3db gain reduction. With the right attacks and releases you can bring out character without destroying the dynamic.

If it sounds better when you take it off bass stuff it probably means your using it wrong on the bass. I think the bass is the hardest thing to compress, because thats where the real dynamic of the song is. Slower attacks and faster releases work better on bass instruments i think. If im using a multiband compressor to balance out the mix, i try to compress just the highs but leave alot of the lows to have full dynamic range, or at least controlled.

Relying on it is definately a no no. Thinking that when you add compression its giong to fix all your problems. If the track already has problems with sounding bad a compressor can often make it worse.

I wonder at times how much compression professional mixes really use just for the plain fact of making it louder. Most engineers i know that use compression dont do it for more volume but to give the effect. heavy sqashing on a 1176 real or plugin sounds pretty sweet. it has a flavor. Thats probably why it costs so much money. If its dynamic control your looking for then its probably not for you.

And then, how do you know that they are using that much compression in the first place. when your using a mesa boogie triple rectifier its going to be pretty squashed before it gets to tape. And thats the sound that the rectifiers are known for and that everyone wants one for. Not everyone, but if you do want a rectifier thats what your going for. I find with vocalists its more amazing the amount of dynamic control the vocalist has in the first place. When you get amazing singers up there you dont need compression for that reason, it purely for color or effect. I know this because i have heard real professionals get up on stage with nothing more than a small PA and sound absolutely stunning with their dynamic control. Its very obvious when im doing live sound which singers have real control and which ones dont, because i dont have to mess with their faders and EQ.

And another reason why the pros probably use alot of Compression? Because they can. they can use it in away that blows all of us away. Why we dont like compression, is because we cant figure out how to use it in the same way they do it. Im am blown away with Ryan Greenes acoustic recordings. he normally does punk and stuff, but his acoustic stuff is stunning. It is definately squashed, little dynamics, but its in a way that sounds absolutely amazing.

But yes, abusing the compressor is a bad thing. Some things its perfectly alright to do so though. Its an easy thing to turn to when you want something to sound a little better. But as soon as you start hearing the differences then you know when and how it sounds better.

The end.

Danny
 
I think it's kind of in fashion these days to poo-poo on overuse of compression.

If suddenly every mixing and mastering engineer stopped over-compressing things, then the audio guys would just move on and find something else to bitch about.

:D
 
Many excellant and valid points have been made here.

For a home studio guy who doesn't have an 1176 handy or other fancy gear, trying to sound high end studio with plugins is doomed to failure. A decent software plugin to tame the bass should be all thats needed along with some mixing ears and you should be makin great mixes.

If you do your own mixes with the volume low, its hard to hear the impact of over compression. With higer volumes, the dynamics stand out better so its easier to compare the before and after.

The main point I'm trying to make is a small amount of compression to round out the mix and control the bass seems to work great in a bedroom studio enviroment. The ears do take some time getting used to hearing a less processed mix when everything we hear is so highly processed.

Bob
 
chessrock said:
I think it's kind of in fashion these days to poo-poo on overuse of compression.

If suddenly every mixing and mastering engineer stopped over-compressing things, then the audio guys would just move on and find something else to bitch about.

:D
Click to expand...


Yea, they'll complain that there is not enough compression in our recordings :)

Really though, it just depends on the song/part and what you are trying to convey from an artistic point of view(mixing is that as well). If it calls for it then do it. Simple as that. If you don't know how to use one, well then practice at it. Play around lots, take a break and come back to it with a clear judgment.
 
My personal bitch is that there isn't nearly enough compression or leveling on most television or movies. This kinda' stuff is story driven, so the most important thing is legibility of dialog at all times. I mean, yea, cool ... loud explosion ... neat. Thanks for waking up the rest of the house. Where's the remote, I need to hear what they're saying. Woops -- another loud explosion.

Shit. Better turn that down again.
 
chessrock, I totally agree with that. it pisses me off when I have to hit rewind to hear low volume dialogue........or maybe my ears are damaged from really loud guitar playing?

I myself am just beginning this whole recording thing. I am considering wether or not to drop the cash for a hardware compressor. Maybe I will run without one for awhile and see how things go. Maybe going without compression will improve my performances if I'm forced to keep my dynamics under control during my performance.

I really do see music going back to its roots, or maybe, I'm just getting wiser to what good music really is. I myself prefer natural, earthy sounds over anything I'm hearing on the radio. Lately, I would much rather hear just an acoustic guitar and vocal with flaws and all over a full blown, polished production.
 
Last edited:
Im not an expert by any stretch of the imagination. But I have played around with compressers and limiters. It seems to me that limiting smooths out the peaks of a track, without the artifacts of using a compresser....and it dosen't sound as "overprocessed and squashed" as it does when I use a compresser.

I used to think that a compresser and limiter were then same thing, but they seem to have different sounds. The only thing I notice when limiting is that the low end of the track seems to get a boost and I adjust it back to where it was with EQ>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top