Compressor Questions

D

davecg321

New member
1. Obviously when compression takes place the peaks of our tracks are reduced. However, when we compensate the gain reduction by boosting the output are we not essentially bringing back those peaks to the same level they were before, be it a more consistent level overall between softest and loudest parts?



2. Should we adjust the track fader after applying compression?

:drunk:
 
1. No, because the limiting is happening only to the peaks; when you boost the gain to compensate, everything is brought up, in effect limiting the dynamic range of your sound since the peaks are closer to the quiet bits.

2. Depends on how you have things set up--depending on your arrangement, the fader can be either before or after the compressor with the corresponding different in how the fader affects things. On most compressors (hardware or software) you'll have an option called "make up gain" which is usually the best place to trim the final level. The other option (and one I often use) if you're mixing "in the box" is to simply normalise your track to the exact level you need after the compression is applied.
 
Bobbsy said:
1. No, because the limiting is happening only to the peaks; when you boost the gain to compensate, everything is brought up, in effect limiting the dynamic range of your sound since the peaks are closer to the quiet bits.

2. Depends on how you have things set up--depending on your arrangement, the fader can be either before or after the compressor with the corresponding different in how the fader affects things. On most compressors (hardware or software) you'll have an option called "make up gain" which is usually the best place to trim the final level. The other option (and one I often use) if you're mixing "in the box" is to simply normalise your track to the exact level you need after the compression is applied.
Click to expand...


but adjusting the fader before/after compression has no affect on how much the signal is compressed right?
 
If the fader provides gain before the signal is sent to the compressor, it will result in more of the signal being above your selected threshold. This will have the effect of making your signal more heavily compressed.

With the fader after the compressor though, you will just be, in effect, providing make up gain after the compressor.
 
davecg321 said:
1. Obviously when compression takes place the peaks of our tracks are reduced. However, when we compensate the gain reduction by boosting the output are we not essentially bringing back those peaks to the same level they were before, be it a more consistent level overall between softest and loudest parts?



2. Should we adjust the track fader after applying compression?
Click to expand...

1. If the attack is not fast then some or all peaks might not be affected. It's entirely possible to increase the difference between the peak and average levels while decreasing the change in average level over time. If you use make up gain to bring the average average level back up you could end up with peaks higher than they were to begin with.

2. Sure, why not? On vocals I often edit/automate the clip gain first, then compress it, then automate the fader.
 
davecg321 said:
2. Should we adjust the track fader after applying compression? ..
Click to expand...

Another way to see the question is- moderate amounts of compression, operating mostly on the peaks, there may be little difference to the perceived loudness of the track. Often I never bother with makeup on the compressor, just continue mixing.
One exception- where it might want a more critical eye' would be for the purpose of evaluating the effect of the compression vs the uncompressed, or the qualities of different comps.
 
Last edited:
Massive Master said:
95% of your dynamics control should be with fader automation before you even reach for compressors.
Click to expand...

That's a matter of personal preference, the nature of the track in question and what's appropriate for the mix. I use gain automation to reduce unwanted dynamics on the >1 second scale, compression to control dynamics on the <1 second scale and volume automation to add desired dynamics on the >1 second scale. Often, on less dynamic rock songs for example, I don't need that third layer of control. Sometimes the gain automation isn't needed. I almost never leave a vocal un-compressed.
 
If I turn the fader up with the compressor on the insert of that track would I then essentially be applying more compression?

The reason I ask is because even when my fader is turned all the way down I can still see the compressor working (GAIN reduction etc)




Would the following be a good starting point for mixing tracks with compression?

1. Adjust track levels

2. Apply compression to desired track/s

3. Fine tune the fader level for the compressed track

Tah
 
The insert of a track is almost always pre fader. So the fader will.have no affect on how the compressor is reacting.

However, if you send a track to a bus and insert the compressor on the bus, the channel fader will affect how much signal is getting to that compressor.

The order that you spelled out is a good way to do it.

For the most part, I compress for the sound of the compression, not really to control the dynamics. So I add the compression first, then place it in the mix.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
That's a matter of personal preference, the nature of the track in question and what's appropriate for the mix. I use gain automation to reduce unwanted dynamics on the >1 second scale, compression to control dynamics on the <1 second scale and volume automation to add desired dynamics on the >1 second scale. Often, on less dynamic rock songs for example, I don't need that third layer of control. Sometimes the gain automation isn't needed. I almost never leave a vocal un-compressed.
Click to expand...

That's a good way to go about it and what I usually do, too.
What I don't like about compression is it makes things like sibilance more noticeable. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I certainly haven't mastered compression. But that's what I find. It also gets kind of harsh pretty quickly so I only like to use a little. I'm just not a huge fan of compression as an effect and prefer it for fine tuning volume.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
1. If the attack is not fast then some or all peaks might not be affected. It's entirely possible to increase the difference between the peak and average levels while decreasing the change in average level over time. If you use make up gain to bring the average average level back up you could end up with peaks higher than they were to begin with.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
And why mastering the art of compression is so important before even using it. I think beginners are better off with no compression. Just use volume automation instead until you can hear the compression and also understand what the attack and release are doing.
 
Nola said:
That's a good way to go about it and what I usually do, too.
What I don't like about compression is it makes things like sibilance more noticeable. Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I certainly haven't mastered compression. But that's what I find. It also gets kind of harsh pretty quickly so I only like to use a little. I'm just not a huge fan of compression as an effect and prefer it for fine tuning volume.
Click to expand...

It sort of depends on the source and what sort of compressor you are using. Certainly, if you have a sibilant source and you try to clamp down on it (especially with a slow-ish attack) it will make it worse. But if sibilance is a problem, a de-esser before the compressor would (sometimes) fix the problem.

Of course it's always better to fix sibilance at the source. Mic choice can do wonders, as well as slapping the singer every time they over-pronounce an S.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top