Normal compression VS Parallel compression

I use parallel compression really sparsely. I will use it on the drums if they sound weak and I just want a little bit of "umph".
 
Garlic or Cumin?
Great examples, because it's easy to over-do both of those, just like compression.:)

"Standard" compression reduces the overall dynamic range of the signal, beefing up it's dynamic middle while tightening down it's overall range. Parallel compression is typically for those times when one wants to beef up the RMS energy but wants to keep the original overall dynamic range of the signal.

When to use either one? When your taste buds...er...ears...say you need 'em.

G.
 
What is it, this parallel compression of which you speak? :confused:
It where you take a copy of a signal, compress it, and then add a bit of that compressed signal to the original uncompressed one. That way you get both the benefits of the compressed signal while retaining the full dynamics of the original.

G.
 
It where you take a copy of a signal, compress it, and then add a bit of that compressed signal to the original uncompressed one. That way you get both the benefits of the compressed signal while retaining the full dynamics of the original.

G.

What's the point? Does it make the signal sound louder without sacrificing dynamic range?
 
What's the point? Does it make the signal sound louder without sacrificing dynamic range?
Yeah, but I wouldn't use the word "louder". It makes it "beefier" or fuller-sounding.

With certain types of EQ added and the proper finesse, using it on vocals is often referred to as "Motown compression", after a technique that Barry Gordy and his team pioneered. Similarly, a certain kind of use of it on drums is often referred to as "New York compression", after a technique pioneered at some of the NYC studios a few decades ago.

G.
 
Compression is not something that I've ever used a lot of. But in my listening experience, I like the sound of parrallel compression versus in line. I'm a huge fan of dynamics, so I prefer to leave them pretty untouched. This is just my opinion. And it's not based on a ton of experience.
 
Compression is not something that I've ever used a lot of. But in my listening experience, I like the sound of parrallel compression versus in line. I'm a huge fan of dynamics, so I prefer to leave them pretty untouched. This is just my opinion. And it's not based on a ton of experience.

likewise. Alot of people use a hell of alot of compression, mainly because it helps get everything louder, I mainly use it as an effect to either, beef up a part if its wearing a little thin in the mix, mainly by using vintage style compressors. Or if there are parts that are really fighting with others, which I feel need to be more in the background, I squash them down to make them a little less dominant yet still hold their presence musically.
 
Example of parrellel compression in a recording situation.

What sort of instruments?

Kick drums

Bass guitar?


or

is it best used on tuned instruments like solo sax? Lead Guitar solo's?
 
The best example I can give is with a snare drum I recently recorded. The top head was an Evans, Genera Dry, which is a coated head designed to reduce ring. Unfortunately, it also made the whole drum sound darker. I was struggling to get some life into the track. The raw track was too thin for EQ alone so, it definitely needed compression.

With straight compression, the snare seemed to lose all of its "crack" or "pop." (That is because there is a lot of mid and high frequency content within the initial transient peak of the waveform. Fast compression tends to reduce that transient which really changes the sound of the drum.) It ended up louder and fatter in the lows, but with far less life in the mids. It just wouldn't cut through the mix.

Parallel compression was a good work-around in that situation. I made a duplicate copy of the track and compressed only one of them. Then mixed them back together. The compressed part added fullness to the track. The uncompressed part still preserved the original voice of the head.
 
Last edited:
What sort of instruments?
This is where "rules" stop applying and personal need is what matters.

Don't think of it in terms of "type of instrument" or track. Think about what it does and what it's used for and when that effect is what you want. Whenever you have a situation where you have transients and dynamics that you want to keep while at the same time fattening up or "beefing up" the power of the main meat of the signal, parallel compression is a valid potential option.

BTW, for those that were interested elsewhere and earlier, this is also a good comparison to just one type of thing one can do with the Roger Nichols Dynamizer, without having to build and mix a parallel track. By setting up separate compression bands not by frequency, but rather by threshold "zones", one can set it up to leave the peaks alone - or even expand them further if you want - while compressing and boosting just the meat of the signal.

G.
 
I use parallel compression very often on vocals, expecially for not-so-good singers.
Parallel compression fills the holes in level while doesn't "kill" the sound
 
In general, I think parallel compression makes a track sound louder and more full, while regular compression makes a track sound louder and more aggressive.

I typically use regular compression on things like vocals and bass guitar that I want to maybe roughen up and distort a bit. Standard compression on kick drum seems common too, though I haven't used it myself yet. Reverse compression can be used to remove artifacts/distortion if desired, to simply go for a louder, but still clean, track.

I like to use parallel compression on things that are more delicate, like snare and acoustic guitar or clean electric guitar, where I want to preserve the sound of the "attack." Some bass guitar tones have an attack to them that needs to be preserved, and I would use parallel compression on those tracks too. And the motown technique Dave mentioned that is used on vocals is also very common, such as if you want to create "air" by parallel compressing the highs.
 
Last edited:
A little late here but this makes a good kicking off point..
What sort of instruments?

Kick drums

Bass guitar? or..?
...Or, look at it as what sort of response and where rather than just what sort of tracks.
In large part what mixing a parallel path opens up are options- going for emphasis whether to bring out the body or transient (just like you can with in-line'), eq it what have you- But it's also allowing you to be more aggressive and targeted' than you might with simple series compression/limiting/eq, plus giving you the independent control to blend that as you would an individual effect.
So from that angle, it's wide open as to where.
 
I've done the Motown thing a few times when I couldn't get a vocal to cut through BUT the collateral damage from the High Freq boost that goes in tandem with the squishing can be a bigger problem.
I was addicted to compression as a faux gain/boost & one day I realised there were easier, less damaging ways to imcrease volume (like riding the faders) & use comp VERY sparingly now.
 
parallel compression is good for retaining some of the dynamic range of the original recording, but you'll get a fader to blend a very compressed signal in with the dry signal.
 
I don't copy the track, I just send my drum sub/mix post fader to an Aux and put the Comp on the aux bus. Then I can adjust both faders to get what I need.
 
Back
Top