Doubt about automation.

CMolena

Active member
Hey, everyone.

Well, I see a lot of people talking about automation all the time and I have a simple doubt.

Is the function of automation the same of a compressor? If so, why dont people simply use compression?

I'm sorry if this looks too dumb or obvious, but I still struggle whenever someone mentions it, haha.

Thanks a lot in advance.
 
No, it's actually a pretty good question.

Using automation to control your levels is pretty similar to a manual (if that's not a contradiction in terms) form of compression. However, in many ways it can be superior to compression because the "threshold" and "ratio" are continuously variable and controlled by your ears, not some pre set starting point.

However, trying to automate the sheer number of adjustments that a compressor can do on the fly would be so time consuming as to be virtually impossible in the real world so, in that same real world, it's pretty common to use a mix of the two. I'll use fairly subtle compression to even out the peaks and dips of individual tracks a bit...then use those processed tracks as a starting point to mix by ear. However, that's just my way of working and there's no right or wrong on this.
 
Is the function of automation the same of a compressor?

Automation can refer to automating (or automatically changing) any setting or parameter, not just settings related to a compressor. For example, you can use automation to change the panning of a track, or the volume of a track, or the cutoff frequency of a low pass filter, or the amount of pitch bend applied to a track, or the amount of modulation, etc.-- basically, any setting or parameter that you can change manually during a track can be automated. The changes you make to the settings are recorded in an automation lane, and you can edit them if you need to, or you can "draw" the changes in the automation lane instead of using the other controls (knobs, sliders, etc.) to change the settings. Note that the types of things that are available for automation will depend on the type of track-- i.e., audio tracks will have more limited options for automation, whereas MIDI tracks and virtual instrument tracks will have a lot more things that can be automated, although it can also depend on the type of virtual instrument since some have more controllable parameters than others.
 
I never said they were. I'm well aware of that as I absolutely hate overly compressed music.

I often use both, on vocals in particular - even out the peaks to make up for my less than stellar mic technique using automation, then give it a slight squash with a compressor if I need to to fit it in... it sort of depends upon what it is I'm trying to fit it in to - in particular how busy the arrangement.
 
In the context to what you are asking (compression verses volume control), automation is fader riding so you can reduce the use of the compressor or have the compressor limited in its affect on the track/mix.

As stated before, the analog world the peaks and valleys of a song were controlled three ways, tracking technique, fared riding (during mix or record it to another track) or compressor. Now we have digital and we just another option if we want to reduce compression (which has an affect on dynamics).
 
It's academic in terms of home recording (unless a Saudi Sheikh sets up a home studio) but fader automation did/does exist in the world of analogue consoles, typically controlled by time code. However, mixers that could do that tended to be bigger than my house and probably more expensive.

They were used extensively in audio post for film and high-end TV but did find their way into a few recording studios as well.
 
Okay, you guys made it very clear in a dozen of examples about the difference between them, and I thank you all for that, haha.

Here comes a second question...compression are widely used to reduce the dynamic range of a sound in order to bring balance to a mix. Automation is a manual volume control and its used for the same purpose. How come there be a huge difference between them?

For an example, lets say you have a quiet vocal part in a verse and a loud one in the chorus. If you want to make the verse louder, isnt it simpler to use compression instead of automating parts one by one?

Agai, I'm sorry if this is dumb, but I'm trying to completely clear my mind about this okay?
 
I don't know if it's simpler because most compressors add other stuff (I think it introduces low-level distortion, raises the low level noise, some can pump, etc). Maybe to lower the vocal the amount you need would require too much compression, so just turning the fader down is better in that case.

But you are on to the right idea when you say compression will reduce dynamic range. I think of compression as a tool to squash dynamics, not a tool to lower volume (same dynamics but at a lower volume). I think of a fader as a tool to lower volume and not as a tool to squash. There's a really good poster here (Fairview) who said he only uses compressors for the sound of compression, not volume. I think that sums it up well.
 
Compression doesn't only change the volume, it also changes the envelope. If the compressor is set fast enough, it will clamp down on the initial transient and bring up the tail. That isn't something you would do with automation, you would simply raise the volume on the whole word/phrase. With fader automation, the difference in volume between the transient and the tail would remain the same, with compression, it would be changed.

As 4tracker said, I almost never use compressors to control volume, I use them to shape the envelope of the sound.

And, as I'm sure has been pointed out, 'automation' is more than just volume. Most of my automation is turning on and off aux sends and adjusting effects.
 
You could also automate your compressor!

1431114654163272.gif
 
So, automation would be a more delicate and precise tool for changing volume? (I know it does other stuff, but I'll try to focus on volume control in here).

One thing I've noticed is that, when I automate tracks, like a vocal, I dont like the results. Now, this could be me (and probably is), but I think compressor adds something more to a vocal (not overcompressed, though). Thats just my opinion...not important to the point of this thread.
 
Yea, you can automate so much in the DAW. Like a Wha-wha peddle if you are using an amp sim with peddles. You can automate the compressor settings as well. Volume automation can either one, make the compressor more subtle or remove it. But to your point, a compressor is also used to "flavor" the sound.
 
Right. Using the compressor changes the dynamic range of the performance, which generally makes it more up front and present. Automation just turns the performance up or down without changing the dynamic range. So it will sound thinner or weaker in comparison. (Or not as up front)
 
Compression has much more to it than just volume reduction --- namely the attack and release times. They can make a huge difference in the sound compared to just riding the faders.
 
Imagine you've sung "Peter pecker...", and you want to stick some compression on there to fill it out a bit, maybe control the pop of the initial p's, and just kind of polish it up. So, you were kind if excited when you sang "Peter", and then kind of backed away from the mic or something for "pecker". If you set the compressor to hit the P in "Peter" at about 3db reduction, you might find that "pecker" doesn't get touched at all. If you set it for "pecker", then "Peter" gets completely slammed and sounds like ass. The best option might be to just re-track and be more careful, but if everything else in the performance is fine, you might just go ahead and use volume automation to get Peter and pecker in the same ballpark so that the compressor then would act more consistently from word to word.

Me, I very often end up cheating by (ab)using ReaComp with a long RMS time and a pre-comp time in the middle of that window. This acts a whole lot more like "automatic volume automation" and is very transparent for general leveling when you don't want to sit and ride faders or draw in envelopes.
 
Though they are sometimes used for the same purpose, they are not always used for the same purpose.

A volume envelope can be used for artistic reasons . . . . increasing and decreasing a swell of strings, for example, or for making a distant voice fade in and out. It's not always used for fixing problems.

As for quiet verses and louder choruses, sometimes I use compression to even it out, smoetimes I create an envelope. And sometimes a bit of both. Actually, most often a bit of both.
 
Back
Top