recording with compression

[peteuk90]

hi,
was wondering, do you record with compression on first or do it after you have recorded the stuff dry?

[Alexbt]

Always record dry. Once something has been applied to a track you can't remove it later.

[andydeedpoll]

i think some people do record vocals with light compression.

i don't know why.



Andy

[dwillis45]

Some people record with compression when dealing with a difficult vocalist who has clipping problems. You might also use it during recording if you have a very basic setup and can't add it later when mixing. And some people print to tape because they know in advance the type of sound they are shooting for--they have recorded the same way so many times that it's a tempting shortcut. Of course, it's not an ideal practice and most people would prefer to record dry given the right equipment and conditions.

[Chris Shaeffer]

There are only a few reason's to record with compression:

1) Your hardware compressor kicks your software compressor's behind.
2) You're recording to tape and you want your signal to be *that* much louder than the noise floor.
3) You're recording to 16bit digital and you want to get all you can out of the somewhat limited resolution.
4) You know exactly how you want it to sound and theres no reason not to record it that way.

If you're tracking to a 24it digitial system, current convention seems to be to record dry so you have more flexibiliy when compressing it later.

Take care,
Chris

[guido #2]

I usually track vox with a smidge O' compression to
A- level it out a bit and
B- I want the most out of the signal I can get w/out going over (see A)

[Raw-Tracks]

I am not afraid to record with compression. If I have access to good hardware compression while recording, I will use it. Good hardware comrpessors will always kill software compressors. If I know I am going to compress later, what's the point of postponing it?

[FALKEN]

compressors can really fugg up your signal. this is a good reason to use them on the way in; the source signal coming off the mic pre will be better quality than the recorded one. so by compressing that signal instead of the recorded one you are getting a better end product. to each his own.

[Cloneboy Studio]

I'll record bass guitar with some hardware compression, but that's about it. Compression is too permanent and too important to leave up to the chance of printing it hard.

[peteuk90]

Thanks guys loads of information, very useful. Thanks again.

[Willybomb]

I won't so much compress as maybe a limiter set to *just* stop peaks by the lowest amount possible from going over digital zero on the way in on maybe snare or kick. If I'm recording a live gig I'll stick it on the vocals in the same way too.

[xstatic]

I record with bothe compression and EQ quite frequently. It's really a personal decision. The biggest arguement that I always hear is that compresison can not be undone. This is certainly true. However, it is also true that mic selection, mic placement, source signal and many other things can't be undone either. I also track with lots of options so it usually is not a big problem. I also don't use compressors for dynamic control. I use them to shape and mold tones. It is not that often in the recording industry that all of the source signals come out exactly how they want to be in the mix. I also use different compressors based on what I am recording, what mics and preamps I am using, and based on the musicians performance skills.

[Raw-Tracks]

Originally Posted by xstatic

The biggest arguement that I always hear is that compresison can not be undone. This is certainly true. However, it is also true that mic selection, mic placement, source signal and many other things can't be undone either.

That's a great point. If we keep up this mindset of don't commit anything to hard disc, leave all of your options open for the mix, we will soon see guitar amplifiers eliminated from the recording process. All guitars will be recorded direct, and then run throught Amplitube or AmpFarm at a later time. Why not, it leaves your options open. The problems is, you cannot get the same guitar tones with a plugin as you could with a real Marshall amp (or whatever amp tone you are going for). Sure you can get close, but is close good enough for you?

Same goes for compression, yes, you can apply it later with a plugin. I'll take a real 1176 on a vocal over the 1176 on my UAD-1 card any day. If I'm at a studio with real 1176's in the rack, I won't think twice about putting one in the vocal chain. I know I'm going to do it at some point, why wait until later and settle for the plugin version when I can have the real thing right now?

I do think it boils down to experience though. If you don't have the experience to properly apply compression at the tracking stage and need to wait until you have more time to experiment in the mix stage, then by all means wait.

[Ronan]

I record with compression, sometimes tons of it. I have been known to compress things over 20dB to tape/PT. But that being said I should note that I use very good compressors (a distressor and Manley Vari-mu are my main ones) and having made a lot of records I have a very good idea what works and what does'nt. I almost never use digital compression.

But I usually recomend that if people do not have great compressors and do not have tons of experience recording it is better to record without compression. bad compression really is a mess.

[JohnnyB]

I only compress going in if I absolutely have to. Some vocalists just require it to manage the dynamic extremes. To my ears, though, it robs the signal of clarity, and you always run the risk of pumping/breathing being evident.

And I NEVER expand/gate going in ........

[HangDawg]

Originally Posted by Cloneboy Studio

I'll record bass guitar with some hardware compression, but that's about it.

I've been tracking bass lately going into the inst input on a dbx 163x compressor with a judicious amount of reduction. That is a great little comp for bass.

[scarboro78]

Originally Posted by HangDawg

I've been tracking bass lately going into the inst input on a dbx 163x compressor with a judicious amount of reduction. That is a great little comp for bass.

I always compress on the way in... But the compressor on the Avalon is pretty transparent to me so it doesn't ever hurt the signal.. at least not to my ears.

[Todzilla]

There's a lot to be said for laying a track so that it requires little further processing.

Digital recording has enabled levels of laziness that make mixdown highly frustrating, IMHO.

[Joel Hamilton]

This is absolutely case specific. There is no blanket rule. I will sometimes mult something like a room mic on the drums, and print a completely explosive, roomy, killed, slightly distorted track and a clean one to tape or disk. It depends on if I am going to be the one that has to "deal with it " in the mix as well...

If someone else is mixing, i will usually mult and give the choice for later.
I almost always go with the explosive one.... (obviously this is assuming that this would be an appropriate drum sound for the given recording,...)

[xstatic]

Joel makes an excellent point here. Alot of what I do is based on who will be dealing with it later and what exactly I am recording. My only real rule of thumb is that I almost never heavily EQ something during tracking unless it is for a specific effect. Needing too much EQ is usually a sign that either the source signal, the mic, the placement, or even the preamp needs to change instead. Personally, having worked in my room so much with my equipment so much, I trust my judgement, and so do my clients. If I want to nail a track with some compression, then I do it. Rarely do I ever hit something too hard though unless there are other mics out simulataneously that would leave me some mixdown options. However, it is also important to not that 15 db of compression sounds very different coming from a Distressor or a DBX 165 than it does coming from a DBX 166, an RNC, or some presonus or behringer compressor. That is one of the reasons that people spend a lot of money on compression. You can generally use a lot more of it and hit it harder without losing the musicality of the tracks you are recording. Basically, they contribute to the sound you are after rather than just "treating" the sound.

[Joel Hamilton]

I always say that if people called "compressors" "dynamic enhancement devices" people would be much more willing to enjoy the benefits....

"compression" sounds like "less sound" to most people until they start to understand how a compressor can really make things jump right up and scream. It is hardly ever about simply "control" for me when tracking with compression, it is more about tonal character and level of perceived aggression in any given recording.