Yep lots of the time.
Usually threshold, but sometimes attack as well.
Doubt about automation.
- Thread starter CMolena
- Start date
Usually threshold, but sometimes attack as well.
Here's the gotchas' in that plan. Yes it can do that -set with very slow attack and release it can pull down on your verse, but being it is set so slow, not respond to the individual words or phrases. Then, slowly ramp back up in level during the quiet section.
(There's a name for it escaping me
The down sides; a) It's static' global settings- does not respond particularly well to the any number of variations the mix might actually need.
b) Your track is now spending 'half its time in fairly lager amounts of reduction.
Ok, not necessarily terrible, but now what? You do automation on the compressor for one to 'tailor it to better ride' with the mix's needs...?
Oops. Why not ride the fader for volume? It's cleaner', and easier. (and a damn sight easier than all that trial and error setup you'd have to do in that 'slap a compressor on it solution',
And.. you were likely going to end up with track fader automation on it anyway, which is exactly where you started; Moving the volume controls-- AKA Mixing!
Which leads to this
How you set a compressor depends on what you want it to do (big obvious', but hold on.
It also depends on how you want it to effect the sound of the track.
One gotcha' is it's pretty rare to find where one 'task' is the same setup as another 'task' - i.e. two simple ones like say 'ride peaks, and 'control overall average level in a mix.
The fact of the mater is is that volume automation is (can be) applied exactly where, how deep, how wide is needed, doesn't have to change the sound' -other than volume, at all-- I,e. not wave shaping' like compressors (typically) do.
To my mind automation is THE go to' when you want 'natural', or retain an un-effected' sound.
...But it can even zero way in and 'wave shape' in specific ways a compressor could never do.. right down to the phrase or word level.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
IF you had automation that could operate practically down to a sample by sample range of adjustments, it could do exactly the same as a compressor. However, in the real world you just can't work that way (and even if you good, you'd go crazy setting level changes for the first second much less doing a whole track. A compressor automates the whole thing to a set of pre-determined parameters.
However, it's the phrase "pre determined parameters" that's key here. You set a threshold where compression (i.e. limiting/turning down the volume) sets in, the amount of adjustment (the ratio) and possibly things like attack and decay times, look ahead times and so on. But from that point it's a "one size fits all" solution.
Using automation gives you a more generalised control but it also lets you use your ears to decide how much level change you want at any given time, both to make the individual track sound good but also to fit in with the rest of the mix.
...and that's why both techniques can co-exist happily. Both compression and automation will be used on most mixes.
However, it's the phrase "pre determined parameters" that's key here. You set a threshold where compression (i.e. limiting/turning down the volume) sets in, the amount of adjustment (the ratio) and possibly things like attack and decay times, look ahead times and so on. But from that point it's a "one size fits all" solution.
Using automation gives you a more generalised control but it also lets you use your ears to decide how much level change you want at any given time, both to make the individual track sound good but also to fit in with the rest of the mix.
...and that's why both techniques can co-exist happily. Both compression and automation will be used on most mixes.
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
A bit of a nit pick here, but actual compressors don't ever work at a sample-by-sample level. There is always an attack/release mechanism that averages the envelope over time so that the amount of reduction is never exactly tied to the sample that is currently being reduced. If the averaging time gets too short, it starts to sound like distortion, and if there is no averaging, it is not a compressor but a saturator or distorter. You can prove it to yourself with any digital compressor that lets you turn all of its time constants down to 0. Things get grungey quick. In fact, ReaComp is a pretty powerful little clipper/saturation/distortion engine that I have used for everything from mix-bus "warming" to full on guitar distortion.
OTOH, if you have control of RMS time and pre-comp, you almost don't need to use the attack/release controls, or rather they become a bit redundant. When I use ReaComp for "automatic automation", A and R get set to 0. Then, by setting RMS time to 500ms, the reduction happening RTFN is actually based on the average of the last half second of audio. By then setting pre-comp to 250ms, it feeds the envelope detector a quarter second before the audio actually gets to the reduction, so that the reduction is based on the average of the last quarter second AND the next quarter second. This way, the attack/release times are somewhat program dependent, and it's so transparent and natural that it feels like cheating.
Farview
Well-known member
I'm pretty sure he was saying that you would need that sort of resolution in the automation in order to create the same sort of envelope that a compressor would. In other words the attack slope that would be smooth with a compressor, would be stair-stepped with automation because the volume envelope controls are too course.
bouldersoundguy
Well-known member
With vocals I'll generally edit/automate the gain of the track, compress it and sometimes automate the volume. Automating the gain evens out the differences in level on a relatively long time scale, sections, lines or single words, which also keeps it driving the compressor evenly from part to part. The compressor also adjusts the gain but on a much shorter time scale that's tied to the signal itself. If the song is about the same intensity all the way through that might be it, but if it has loud and quiet parts I might use volume automation to make the vocal track follow those sections.
4
4tracker
Guest
Have you tried vocal rider plugins? Do these work for the automation?
On the other hand, I was messing around previously with the idea -'zero attack/zero release might equal no pumping artifacts was the initial thought, which has the flaw in logic you pointed out here.. I did stumble on a very cool successful application. It happened to be on the old 'Cake 'Sonitus comp, but likely many others could be used; But zero x zero' works fantastic as a drum kit/over head or bus smasher! As I recall I could go anywhere from 0' to a few MS release with different effect.
Ok, that.. is a totally new one for me.
Very Cool Thank you
Ah 'Recomp is Reaper! Hadn't gone there much yet..
ashcat_lt
Well-known member
Yeah, I got what he meant, and didn't really mean to imply that his point was invalid. Just kind of expanding the point or drilling down to details or making sure nobody else misunderstood it.
To your point here, though - don't get confused by the time resolution of the actual control points on the envelope and the resolution of the actual control element of the automation engine. Sure, you can only put those points so close together, but the DAW will interpret between those two points to find a point on the line between them on a sample-by-sample basis. Yes, it kind of has to be "stair stepped" because it's digital, but in a 32-bit (let alone 64-bit) floating point mix engine, those steps can be very small. In fact, a digital compressor's attack/release envelopes must do this also.
0 A/R (and RMS) is exactly full-band distortion. As you make those numbers bigger, you sort of limit the frequencies which actually get distorted almost exactly like splitting the signal into a lowpass and highpass part, distorting the low, and then mixing them back together. IDK off the top of my head how to tell you the cutoff frequency from the time constants. With three different variables, it's got to be kind of complex, and is probably best just dialed in by ear.
There are other compressors out there which offer RMS and lookahead parameters, but I only ever use ReaComp nowadays. I suppose I should say that I almost never have the threshold set to actually do anything on its own, I set it right above the top of whatever is happening and then turn the knee parameter up until it digs in where I want it. This way, things are curvier.
That's how I understand it should be -or is. What's interesting is it sounds (in my example) very much like the decent sound of compressors you've heard doing the 'smashed drums effect...0 A/R (and RMS) is exactly full-band distortion. As you make those numbers bigger, you sort of limit the frequencies which actually get distorted almost exactly like splitting the signal into a lowpass and highpass part, distorting the low, and then mixing them back together. IDK off the top of my head how to tell you the cutoff frequency from the time constants. With three different variables, it's got to be kind of complex, and is probably best just dialed in by ear.
There are other compressors out there which offer RMS and lookahead parameters, but I only ever use ReaComp nowadays. I suppose I should say that I almost never have the threshold set to actually do anything on its own, I set it right above the top of whatever is happening and then turn the knee parameter up until it digs in where I want it. This way, things are curvier.
Farview
Well-known member
Yes it will interpret in between those points, but the compressor will have a complex curve that you don't have enough points to draw correctly. That was more my point.
The sampling stair steps don't exist. The idea that digital audio is somehow stair-stepped is the product of an oversimplified graphic that misrepresented the way sampling works.
I'm pretty sure we are just talking past each other, misinterpreting each others analogies...
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
Yeah, I knew where you were coming from and of course you're correct. I was just trying to use a few words rather than a few paragraphs!
My over-riding point was simply that it's not practical--in terms of operator time if not the technicalities--to use automation to do the rapid "on the fly" changes that compression can do. On the other hand, compression, no matter how well set up, is no match for the human ear in deciding what to do. That's why both techniques work well together.
thehitman2375
New member
i haven’t read every post on this thread, but have read through several.
there’s a lot a technical terms and comparisons made that get too specific to a particular situation.
let’s firstly break it down to basics. Automation is/are (ANY) programmed parameter changes that affect controls in real time during playback. Compression is specifically dynamics processing. so, in other words, 2 completely different things.
Analogy: automation is the control over the actions during cooking (stirring, chopping, blending, heating, cooling, etc.) to give the food a certain taste, compression is one of the ingredients (seasonings) used during cooking to give it a certain taste.
what you are trying to compare is VOLUME automation vs. dynamics processing. similar things happen with both, (change in gain) but the reasons to do one or the other might be very different. there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Analogy: i want to travel to a specific point in NYC, times square. the train goes directly to the station, but not to the exact final destination. the train has a set schedule and is driven by someone else and therefore travels at speeds that are not controlled by me. i can’t make any stops and i can’t turn around once the trip starts. however, the price is cheap and i’m not required to do anything during the trip, so it’s easier. the other option being i could drive myself there. in that scenerio i control where i go, when i go, and how fast i’ll go. i can also go directly to the end destination which is time’s square. additionally i’ll have the option to make stops along the way and i’ll be free to turn around if i want. but, it costs me more money in gas and tolls, and i have to do all the work myself. (more involved) now, ask yourself, which is better? neither. they both have different advantages and disadvantages. you would want to choose the better way to travel for that specific situation.
the “i’ll compress it so i don’t have to ride the fader” method is an option you can choose. i won’t tell you it’s right or wrong or better or worse. the end result would just be that the dynamic range is changed making the overall volume sound a certain way. riding the fader to adjust the volume is not about changing the overall volume, it’s about where and how much the volume changes. once again, we are talking about two different things. i’ve had situations where compression made it consistent enough to not have to ride the fader as much or at all. i’ve had situations where compression made me have ride the fader a lot more than without it. the way sounds blend, and the movement of the music is not a static thing. you can be creative with both volume automation and compression. there is no “correct” rule.
everything that a compressor can do, volume automation can replicate if enough time is spent making the same exact adjustments. everything volume automation can do cannot be replicated by a compressor without automation. for example: you can’t create a fade at the end of a song with a compressor unless u automate the controls.
the best way to learn the differences is to experiment with both. but don’t mistake the term automation with the term volume automation. it’s a specific kind of automation. also, don’t look at one as the better answer until you take into account the situation and what u want to accomplish.
i hope this is helpful.
there’s a lot a technical terms and comparisons made that get too specific to a particular situation.
let’s firstly break it down to basics. Automation is/are (ANY) programmed parameter changes that affect controls in real time during playback. Compression is specifically dynamics processing. so, in other words, 2 completely different things.
Analogy: automation is the control over the actions during cooking (stirring, chopping, blending, heating, cooling, etc.) to give the food a certain taste, compression is one of the ingredients (seasonings) used during cooking to give it a certain taste.
what you are trying to compare is VOLUME automation vs. dynamics processing. similar things happen with both, (change in gain) but the reasons to do one or the other might be very different. there are advantages and disadvantages to both.
Analogy: i want to travel to a specific point in NYC, times square. the train goes directly to the station, but not to the exact final destination. the train has a set schedule and is driven by someone else and therefore travels at speeds that are not controlled by me. i can’t make any stops and i can’t turn around once the trip starts. however, the price is cheap and i’m not required to do anything during the trip, so it’s easier. the other option being i could drive myself there. in that scenerio i control where i go, when i go, and how fast i’ll go. i can also go directly to the end destination which is time’s square. additionally i’ll have the option to make stops along the way and i’ll be free to turn around if i want. but, it costs me more money in gas and tolls, and i have to do all the work myself. (more involved) now, ask yourself, which is better? neither. they both have different advantages and disadvantages. you would want to choose the better way to travel for that specific situation.
the “i’ll compress it so i don’t have to ride the fader” method is an option you can choose. i won’t tell you it’s right or wrong or better or worse. the end result would just be that the dynamic range is changed making the overall volume sound a certain way. riding the fader to adjust the volume is not about changing the overall volume, it’s about where and how much the volume changes. once again, we are talking about two different things. i’ve had situations where compression made it consistent enough to not have to ride the fader as much or at all. i’ve had situations where compression made me have ride the fader a lot more than without it. the way sounds blend, and the movement of the music is not a static thing. you can be creative with both volume automation and compression. there is no “correct” rule.
everything that a compressor can do, volume automation can replicate if enough time is spent making the same exact adjustments. everything volume automation can do cannot be replicated by a compressor without automation. for example: you can’t create a fade at the end of a song with a compressor unless u automate the controls.
the best way to learn the differences is to experiment with both. but don’t mistake the term automation with the term volume automation. it’s a specific kind of automation. also, don’t look at one as the better answer until you take into account the situation and what u want to accomplish.
i hope this is helpful.
Bobbsy
Boring Old Git
The best part of the above is the Times Square Train analogy.
Use the "compression train" to get somewhere near Times Square then use mixing (which tends to be via some form of automation when you're "in the box") to get to exactly where you want to be.
...and that's a hugely common method of mixing a song.
Use the "compression train" to get somewhere near Times Square then use mixing (which tends to be via some form of automation when you're "in the box") to get to exactly where you want to be.
...and that's a hugely common method of mixing a song.
thehitman2375
New member
exactly!