Compressor/Limiter, Preamp, Normalizing??

[JonPaulP]

Newbie here. I'm a little confused. Is a Compressor/Limiter and preamp the same thing?

These devices make sure that everything is the same volume, right?

Is that something you do during recording or mixing (in the DAW)?

Also, what is normalizing? Is it the same thing or is it used when you try to get all the tracks of an album at a consistent volume level?

I'm about to get a dbx 166XL so just wanted to make sure I actually need it haha.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

Newbie here. I'm a little confused. Is a Compressor/Limiter and preamp the same thing?

Nope. A compressor and a limiter are related; the main difference is in how radical or severe one can push their settings, with a limiter winning that contest.

JP, I recommend you head over to www.independentrecording.net, scroll down to the bottom right of the front page and click on the "Compression Uncompressed" logo. This will pop up an introductory, yet extensive tutorial on compression, compressors, and limiters, along with how they work and their use(s) in all phases of the recording process.

The generic term "preamp" simply referrs to any device *or circuit within a device* that can control or boost signal level. For example, your dbx166 has a "output gain" knob with controls a preamp circuit for raising/lowering the volume of the output signal from the device. But that circuit is only one signal stage within the 166 and actually has nothing to do with it's compressing or gating capabilities.

Another more common usage of the term "preamp" around here is when it refrerrs specifically to a microphone preamp, which is a device or circuit specifically designed to bring the low output voltage from a microphone up to the higher voltages expected by and designed into the standard connections between boxes.

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

Also, what is normalizing? Is it the same thing or is it used when you try to get all the tracks of an album at a consistent volume level?

Standard normalization - actually more specifically called "peak normalization" - is nothing more than a volume control. What it does is take a look at your whole digital wavefrom in your DAW software, determines the volume of the loudest peak in the signal and then boosts the whole signal by the amount of digital decibels (dBFS) required to bring that peak to makimum volume. For example, if the highest peak in your song hits, say, -4dBFS (with 0dBFS being maximum), the normalizer will boost the entire signal level of your song by 4dB.

There is another type of normalization called "RMS normalization", but it is much rarer and more difficult to properly explain, so I'll skip it here because as a newb you probably won't encounter it much just yet, but if you find yourself bored and curious, you can try searching this forum for "RMS normalization" for more info on that.

There are not a whole lot of realistic uses for normalization, to be honest. Because of the nature of sound and the human ear, in real life such normalization rarely actually makes two signals sound as if they are the same volume. Just because their peak levels are made the same loudness doesn't mean that the remaining 99.999% of the levels will sound the same. Frankly, for a half-dozen different good reasons, you're best off understanding but just staying away from normalization in your endeavors.

HTH,

G.

P.S. A six year old newbie?

[Farview]

Follow this link and read the whole thing before you spend another dollar.

http://www.tweakheadz.com/guide.htm

[JonPaulP]

SouthSIDE Glen, wow thanks a lot for the detailed feedback!

I was getting a little confused when I kept reading definitions of those three terms, and they all sounded alike.

So a Compressor/Limiter is basically a type of preamp?

I'm getting the dbx166 so the vocals would be a consistent volume when I record. What's better or more generally used...an actual compressor or a software based one?

Haha, I registered on this site 6 years ago when I was doing a little high school project. I was editing music on a video editing software (haha) and didn't know what I was doing! Now, that I've decided to give recording another try, I went back to these forums without knowing that I already had an account here!

[Waffleness]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

So a Compressor/Limiter is basically a type of preamp?

Afraid not... a preamp is a device that will amplify a small signal (such as from a microphone) to a larger one, generally called line level. Mic level signals require a 'preamp' to get to line level.

A Compressor/Limiter is a peice of kit that will attenuate an audio signal when it gets loud. For example if you have a compressor set up, and scream into the microphone, the output will be about (depending on the settings) the same volume as if you speak normally.
A limiter follows the same principles as above, but is is sharper/more accurate/harsher in its ability to 'limit' the amplitude of the audio...

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

I'm getting the dbx166 so the vocals would be a consistent volume when I record. What's better or more generally used...an actual compressor or a software based one?

Entirely up to you. Some people use software based compressors, some use hardware based ones. Its personal preference, and depends how much cash you have, and whether its worth it compared to the rest of your studio.

Not meaning to be offensive - but if you dont know what a compressor does, apart from the fact it makes vocals a consistent volume, why do you want to spend all this money on one? Surely its better to learn to use software based ones and move up when you have the experience?

[JonPaulP]

Well, I want to get the vocal output perfect, so that's why I'm thinking of getting a compressor.

Right now, I'm putting the microphone through a mixer and I have to get close to the microphone during the soft parts and turn away during the loud parts. With the compressor, I can just stay at the same position and not have to worry about getting a low signal or a loud distorted signal.

I suppose getting the source material sounding the way it should be would be better than digitally processing it afterwards.

[NYMorningstar]

I think you have it backwards. You want to learn how to sing without the compressor using the techniques you described.

The idea is to keep your recording chain as short as possible because everything you add into it has noise although with technology today that is becoming less of an issue.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

Right now, I'm putting the microphone through a mixer and I have to get close to the microphone during the soft parts and turn away during the loud parts.

That's called good mic technique. An engineer will usually only use a compressor when a singer doesn't have any. So, you actually have the right idea and are one step ahead of the game.

Like Waffle said, I would suggest you keep using good mic technique and, for now, only use a soft-ware compressor AFTER you've recorded your vocals.

[RAMI]

Hehe....Me and NY posted at the same time and basically told you the same thing 2 different ways.

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

Well, I want to get the vocal output perfect, so that's why I'm thinking of getting a compressor.

Right now, I'm putting the microphone through a mixer and I have to get close to the microphone during the soft parts and turn away during the loud parts. With the compressor, I can just stay at the same position and not have to worry about getting a low signal or a loud distorted signal.

I suppose getting the source material sounding the way it should be would be better than digitally processing it afterwards.

If you were performing your material on stage, you would be doing exactly that . . . getting up close on soft, backing off on loud. It's a perfectly acceptable way of doing things, and I wouldn't be in too much of a hurry to depart from that.

However, a compressor is a useful to device to have in the signal path in that you can use it to tame some of the extremes. But I'm not keen on using it as if it were a form of automatic gain control . . . too much of that and you will mess up the natural dynamics of the song. And, for me, there is something disconcerting hearing a whispered phrases that's as load as a bellowed one.

I've heard a bit of your material in the MP3 clinic, and you have a good strong voice with a lot of control and character, and my inclination is to let that voice work for you, rather than straightjacket it with electronics.

Your last sentence sums it up, really. Work on getting the source material right rather than rely on processing after the event . . . it's far more satisfying that way.

[gecko zzed]

Originally Posted by RAMI

Hehe....Me and NY posted at the same time and basically told you the same thing 2 different ways.

and so did I!

There's a lesson in there for someone

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

I suppose getting the source material sounding the way it should be would be better than digitally processing it afterwards.

I just realized what you MIGHT have meant by that. Yes, getting the source material sounding as close to the "way it should", rather than processing it digitally afterwards, is the right idea.

But if you're trying to accomplish that with digital processing, rather than with good mic technique, you're defeating the purpose. In fact, it might be worse because, by digitally processing it on the way in, you're stuck with that processing and can't change it afterwards if you feel you need to.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by gecko zzed

and so did I!

There's a lesson in there for someone

Three out of three. Either "great minds think alike"...or we're Curly, Larry and Mo.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

So a Compressor/Limiter is basically a type of preamp?

No, not really. As I said, your compressor has a particular type of preamp *in* it as one of it's sub processes, but that is not it's main function, that has little to do with the actual compression itself.

JP, go ahead and read that that tutorial. It doesn't take that long. Any questions you may have after that you can come back here and ask, but a lot of the first- and second-level questions you have will already be answered in there.

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

I'm getting the dbx166 so the vocals would be a consistent volume when I record. What's better or more generally used...an actual compressor or a software based one?

I pretty much agree with Howard, Fine and Howard here.

You don't need a consistent volume when you record, you simply need to keep the vocal within range of the recording equipment capabilities. This simply means no so quiet that all you're hearing is room noise and electronic hiss, but not so loud that your distorting the mic or the circuitry somewhere along the line.

The former (quietness) is rarely a problem. The later (too loud) can be a problem, in which case the use of a hardware limiter might help reign in the overly loud parts. But in controlled studio (even home studio) situations, the use of a limiter should not really be necessary if the vocalist uses the proper mic technique and the engineer gives them the right direction as far as distance from mic and whatnot.

If you want to use a compressor during mixing in order to wind up with vocals that have a consistent, homogeneous volume, that's fine. At that point there are lots of good software compressors that will help with that, but I would wait to get that in mixing rather than force your hand in recording.

G.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

I pretty much agree with Howard, Fine and Howard here.

Man: Now, let me tell you a little about Sherry...
Moe: Oh, don't bother. I'll take scotch...
Larry: ...make mine rye...
Curly: ...I'll take gin smothered in bourbon. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk

[jmorris]

You have a compressor in mind I see. However, it seems you do not have much experience in using one. I would be bit careful. There have been many "discussions" here about where to use a compressor, before , after or both. Most people tend to say compress after source...just in case you have it setup wrong and screw up the worlds best take. Thats fine. If you have experience and know your compressor there is no problem compressing on the way in. For you, I would learn ( or your singer/client) proper mic. tech. Like dont be right up in the mic and scream, slightly turn away a bit for P's etc. Then in the DAW work with different compressors and see how they react. It will be very slight, you really have to listen...unless you go to extreme.I all the time use a UA-1 La2a compressor/limiter for vocals to make them stand out a bit better.

[JonPaulP]

Thanks for the replies, everybody. I guess I'm not going to buy that compressor afterall. I thought it was something that was used for most recordings.

I was concerned that by moving away from the microphone during the loud parts, the sound wouldn't be as clear and using a compressor would be like having "invisible hands" controlling the levels. Good to know that what I'm currently doing is the norm for recording!

[gecko zzed]

As it happens, a compressor is used for most recordings.

Don't let us sway you from getting one.

The only thing you need to do is not let the technology become a substitute for naturalness. It (like all technology) is a means to an end, not an an end in itself.

Do what you can with what you've got until you reach the limits of what you have yet still can hear areas of improvement. Then it is time to explore the possibilities.

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by JonPaulP

Thanks for the replies, everybody. I guess I'm not going to buy that compressor afterall. I thought it was something that was used for most recordings.

I was concerned that by moving away from the microphone during the loud parts, the sound wouldn't be as clear and using a compressor would be like having "invisible hands" controlling the levels. Good to know that what I'm currently doing is the norm for recording!

Well, I would say that for home recording, most people will not compress on the way in. As I have said, it is an area here of much discussion. I myself DO compress on the way in at times. I have lots of experience however as do some others here. In most pro studios, if you read mags like "MIX", "EQ" ELEC MUSICIANS" they all compress vocals on the way in, some use 2 compressors. Now, remember they have perfect rooms and much experience. I would as I said, hold on the compressor and use the compressors in your DAW until you get to know their fuctions very well, then go for the purchase. There is no reason at all not to compress on the way in IF you know what your are doing. I love my UAD compressors but if I could not use them I would then prefer my hardware compressors.

[RAMI]

Originally Posted by jmorris

Well, I would say that for home recording, most people will not compress on the way in. As I have said, it is an area here of much discussion. I myself DO compress on the way in at times.

Jmorris is right. It is a point of discussion, and it's not so cut and dried, as in "Never compress on the way in". I also will compress on the way in, very subtley. But it's not absolutely imperative to do, and it shouldn't be done to make your vocal track "completely even".

I still suggest continuing to apply good mic technique instead of going out and buying a compressor. Experiment with a software compressor after recording dry, and eventually you'll learn what effect a compressor has on your voice, and you'll be able to decide whether you really need to go out and buy one or not.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by RAMI

Jmorris is right. It is a point of discussion, and it's not so cut and dried, as in "Never compress on the way in".

I absolutely agree that it's not a "never" situation; seasoned engineers compress the tracking as part or all of achieving the final desired sound of the vocals on the way in all the time.

But I do believe that it's a very black-and-white threshold as to whether one should or not:

If you have to ask the question, the answer is probably "No".

G.

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

I absolutely agree that it's not a "never" situation; seasoned engineers compress the tracking as part or all of achieving the final desired sound of the vocals on the way in all the time.

But I do believe that it's a very black-and-white threshold as to whether one should or not:

If you have to ask the question, the answer is probably "No".

G.

"Threshold" ?ha! no pun intended Glen? Oh man ,you missed that chance!!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by jmorris

"Threshold" ?ha! no pun intended Glen? Oh man ,you missed that chance!!

Heh, yeah, I didn't catch it until I thought about it after I already left the computer. Hey, give an old man a break; I'm having a hard enough time saving my energy for having to go out after lunch to chip the ice off the car with a broken ice scraper .



G.

[jmorris]

Originally Posted by SouthSIDE Glen

Heh, yeah, I didn't catch it until I thought about it after I already left the computer. Hey, give an old man a break; I'm having a hard enough time saving my energy for having to go out after lunch to chip the ice off the car with a broken ice scraper .



G.

Ha!!!! yeah, we got wollapped( hum spelling?) with a big snow storm up here in upstate new york, I feel your pain. Hum? Illinois? I wonder who's Gov. is worse? Patterson or your's Babbacheksvech...or what ever his name is!

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Originally Posted by jmorris

Ha!!!! yeah, we got wollapped( hum spelling?) with a big snow storm up here in upstate new york, I feel your pain. Hum? Illinois? I wonder who's Gov. is worse? Patterson or your's Babbacheksvech...or what ever his name is!

I admit I don't know a whole lot about Patterson other than knowing he's a blind guy who always needs a shave, a couple of news interview sound bites, and that Fred Armistan did a hilarious take off of him on SNL last week. But unless Patterson is a certifiably delusional sociopath with a Napoleon complex who's heroes are Richard Nixon and Elvis Presley, he's got nothing on Blago. The difference between standard Illinois gubernatorial corruption and Blogo is the difference between run-of-the-mill political greed and textbook mental illness.

G.