When NOT to use Compression

Incanus

Incanus

Nerd-man
It seems to me that a lot of people use compression on a number of instruments as a matter of course while mixing. I'm guessing that most of the time, it is because the style of music being mixed is commonly done that way and is therefore part of that particular style.

I like to think that I mostly understand what a compressor does, but my question is: Should compression be used on a track that generally sounds how you want it and already has a dynamic performance that works well with the rest of the mix?

Right now I'm leaning towards answering with a no.

I will most certainly experiment and use my own ears to answer this question as I continue to learn more about my gear and the theory of mixing, but I was hoping for a few insights into this matter by some of the wise and wonderful folks here.
 
If it already sounds good to you like it is, why mess with it, especially if it is working with the rest of the mix? I am at a point now where I am attempting to track everything as good as I possibly can and then only add the barest minimum of fx in the mix. Comes out a lot cleaner in the end that way (IMHO)
 
I don't think a solo accoustic guitar should ever be compressed.

It's just a crime.


Every time I try, it's the same ... good track turns to crap.

And I'll say the same about piano. I don't think a compression type has been invented that can, in any way, compliment a well-played piano. Unless it's very obviously part of some weird audio effect you're going for.

And it's too bad, because sometimes you could use for an accoustic and/or piano track to be a little more "dynamically-tamed." I say resist the urge, and you'll be a happier man.

If you're doing it purposely for the weird audio effect, then all the power to you. Sometimes "bad" can sound kina' good in the proper context. I guess.
 
gtrman_66 said:
If it already sounds good to you like it is, why mess with it, especially if it is working with the rest of the mix? I am at a point now where I am attempting to track everything as good as I possibly can and then only add the barest minimum of fx in the mix. Comes out a lot cleaner in the end that way (IMHO)
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I'm approaching it at this time.
Mostly, I think I just need to experiment a little with already 'good' tracks to see if they become 'even better' tracks, or not.

Thanks for comments. Well stated.
 
chessrock said:
I don't think a solo accoustic guitar should ever be compressed.

It's just a crime.


Every time I try, it's the same ... good track turns to crap.

And I'll say the same about piano. I don't think a compression type has been invented that can, in any way, compliment a well-played piano. Unless it's very obviously part of some weird audio effect you're going for.

And it's too bad, because sometimes you could use for an accoustic and/or piano track to be a little more "dynamically-tamed." I say resist the urge, and you'll be a happier man.

If you're doing it purposely for the weird audio effect, then all the power to you. Sometimes "bad" can sound kina' good in the proper context. I guess.
Click to expand...

And this is exactly why I think that the type of music being mixed is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, ingredient in all this.

I may occasionally use it more like an effect, as you said.

Thanks chessrock.
 
In my, NOT COMPRESSING ENOUGH thread I was talking about rock music and it becoming apparent to me that almost everything needs to be compressed to sound right. A more sparse arrangement would need less or none, such as 1 accoustic 1 vocal type of song.
 
If it sounds good then it sounds good, but mild compression on certain tracks like distorted guitars can help a mix stand up at mastering. Mild compression to smooth some peaks so when compressing or limiting at mastering there can be less chance of pumping or a tremelo effect from loads of limiting.
 
Not always compressed enough. Yeah distortion compresses the guitars signal (or even limits it as distortion is a type of limiting). But some stray peaks might still get through. So i compress mildly about attack 20ms, release 60ms, ratio 3:1, threshold -10dB.
I could be totally wrong on this and not need extra compression so that my mixes can handle more limiting at mastering. But something I picked up from my own personal experience.
 
cellardweller said:
When one has no compressor :(
Click to expand...

LOL!
Well, we do have a compressor, and I love compression. But I want to use it appropriately.
I'm pretty new around here and don't know what kind of music you're playing, cellardweller. My first guess is that it is either metal or hard rock of some type. In which case a heavy dose of compression is appropriate and even expected.
Would you use compression on a jazz trio?
 
I think that the style of compressing everything started in New York as a way of making a very agressive, controlable mix. Take the dynamics out of everything and replace them very specifically with the channel faders- or automation. It really works well for dense mixs where subtle things like controlling attack times can help different instruments gell or seperate in the mix, but its also a lot of work to then get a sense of dynamics back into the song. You have to know what you're doing and why.

A lot of home recordings just aren't that dense, so using a compressor that way can lead to a dead sounding mix if you're not careful. Not only are you taking the dynamics out of the performance, you're more often then not squashing the high frequencies. Between constant loud tracks and the high end being squished (making the mids more noticeable) you're setting the stage for listener fatigue. That means you've got to get out your EQs and start carving out room for things... yet more room for mistakes and poor quailty effects to degrade your carefully recorded tracks.

While you might think that metal and hard rock have a lot of compression in the mix, that's not always the case. Distorted guitars are naturally compressed by both the distortion and the speakers- compression on them is often an attempt to change the attack characteristics or even out sloppy playing. Well played distorted guitars don't generally need compression unless that's part of the sound you're going for. Watch out for noise and concider using a noise gate. If it sounds good without.... why the hell would you use it?! :)

Bass is frequently compressed. Its just such a dynamic instrument and subtle changing in how its played can make big changes in volume- from a low boom to punchy higher notes. Since its so important in most pop styles, a little compression goes a long way to stablizing the bass in the mix. Generally its given a fairly generous attack time to keep it punchy, and low ratios (3:1 - 6:1) so that it keeps its high end clarity. Low notes produce a lot more high overtone and the percussiveness of the bass is in the higher freqs, as well. Sometimes, though, this all happens at the bass amp... no need for it in the mix unless...well, unless its needed in the mix.

Take care,
Chris
 
Thanks to everyone for your replies.

I am interested in knowing all things compression at this time. Right now my biggest problem is with drums, and I'm a bit of a jack-ass for not mentioning that earlier. :o


What I think I need to understand is the way in which Gain Reduction is applied to a given sound by compression. Example: for the sake of theory, lets say we have a sound that is perfectly flat, the exact same amount of db at every frequency all the way across. At what frequency or frequencies would the GR be applied? The high end? The low end? If then there were a peak in a given frequency in this otherwise 'flat' sound, would it be applied there first? Or elsewhere? Or (and this is perfectly plausible) am I just a complete brick for wondering about this?

What about a snare? Chris S. said that the Reduction happens to the high end, but the last snare I compressed seemed to loose some lows. :confused:

I'm getting a bit baffled by all this.

Thanks for the help, folks.
Great info here.
 
I choose not to use it when..

A. Ive tracked a loud tube amp, with plenty of saturation. (those things compress themselves).

B. When a drummer has tons of great dynamic feel.

C. Generally when the track has very complimentary dynamics for the song.

No need to squash the feel out of something great.

-Finster
 
xfinsterx said:
I choose not to use it when..

A. Ive tracked a loud tube amp, with plenty of saturation. (those things compress themselves).

B. When a drummer has tons of great dynamic feel.

C. Generally when the track has very complimentary dynamics for the song.

No need to squash the feel out of something great.

-Finster
Click to expand...

Yes. This is more or less where I'm coming from. We play all of our dynamics into the song from the get-go.

I really like the sound of the recordings that I've heard of yours, Finster. Anything you have to say is helpful.

Thanks.
 
Pretty good thread. I think it was all touched upon here. Use it if it can enhance the sound of something, and don't if it makes it sound terrible. No cut and dry rules, but many people have tried different things, and some results are almost always the same. Good acoustic guitar, or piano almost always ends up sounding really bad with compression. My voice, sounds bad with compression, but you should hear it without... :eek: Experiment with sounds, and see what fits best with the idea of the song.
Ed
 
Thanks, Dogman!

I am determining that we need compression a little less than many, overall.

And I hear you. My voice is just not that great, so what the hell would compressing it do? Garbage in, garbage out. Oh well.

The question I posed in my previous post (or was it two ago?) should probably just be a new thread in the Rack forum. . .
 
I think compression can make a bad voice sound better, but I guess it depends on the style of music and what you're going for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top