Can using a compressor while tracking w/mic enhance unwanted noises?

bluesfordan

Member
here I am worrying about using mic shields because of my untreated room. I've recently have become a believer in using compression before hitting the audio interface when I go direct. The improvement of my recorded sound has been significant. However, I have these beautiful sounding amps that I really would like to capture. Yes, I know about devices like the Waza Tube Amp Expander but that's a pretty penny I'm not able to drop at this time.

I want to try to mic my amps, untreated room be damned. If I use a shield, a moving blanket or stuffed chair et al, will compressing the mic signal also enhance the stuff I don't want i.e. room noise? I sort of suspect it would
 
The way a compressor works is to smooth the tops of the loudest sounds and elevate the quieter sounds, so yes, you will get more unwanted room sounds along with the quieter parts.
 
I've always recorded totally dry, and if I want effects or compression I add it to the channel strip, not the input channel - just in case I need to change it when it hits the mix. Sonically, I cannot tell the difference in Cubase between processing on the input, or processing on a channel.
 
I agree with rob....but then I thought......well maybe he uses comp in direct because he has a favorite external that he really likes and can’t seem to duplicate it with one in the box.
 
I've always recorded totally dry, and if I want effects or compression I add it to the channel strip, not the input channel - just in case I need to change it when it hits the mix. Sonically, I cannot tell the difference in Cubase between processing on the input, or processing on a channel.

you don't hear the difference because the processing on input, is still happening AFTER the conversion.

the point of using external compression,
and assuming you know what you are doing,
is to not only drive the gain while dialing in the peaks,
but to impart a certain COLOR and PERSONALITY on a track.

you can do this with certain interfaces that have software that allows you to place FX before conversion,
such as with the UA apollo twin, that uses UA effects in dsp with zero latency before the conversion, it can do that because it has it's own processors.

yes, you can always apply compression after you have already tracked,
but it will not sound the same as it does being PART of the sound you are capturing.
 
I'm quite aware of what external compression is, but I'm afraid you're lumbered with a person who has NEVER been convinced that esoteric outboard processing's the panacea it's claimed to be and my ears have never been convinced of the benefits. Sure - I'll happily say I can hear differences, but I don't attach the emotions many do to them. For every warm and immersing comment, I hear dull and artificial. I know many people are sold on it, but unless you have superb acoustics, and a totally silent room, turning many of the controls produces no apparent change till you get to extremes. Convert from analogue to digital and do everything in a non-destructive way, with more options, and in many cases, better s/n. I don't want to work in analogue any longer. Some people do, and it's a choice - but it is not automatically better. In real terms, processing of this kind introduces distortion. Perhaps 'nice' distortion but in our quest for greater sample rates and bit depths, to distort the capture surely must be detrimental to the integrity of the recording. Colour and personality? To me that's a timbre change and one that's noticeable and perhaps unique. I don't think that's for me.
 
you can do this with certain interfaces that have software that allows you to place FX before conversion,
such as with the UA apollo twin, that uses UA effects in dsp with zero latency before the conversion, it can do that because it has it's own processors.

The UA devices apply processing after conversion. It might be the case that they operate on the oversampled signal before it gets downsampled as that would likely minimize latency. It would make sense since many plugins upsample/process/downsample, but I couldn't say for certain.

Not that this matters to the OP's question. If an outboard compressor makes a low volume sound more noticeable, an ITB compressor will do the same.
 
The UA devices apply processing after conversion. It might be the case that they operate on the oversampled signal before it gets downsampled as that would likely minimize latency. It would make sense since many plugins upsample/process/downsample, but I couldn't say for certain.

Not that this matters to the OP's question. If an outboard compressor makes a low volume sound more noticeable, an ITB compressor will do the same.

that's why they make gates!
 
I'm quite aware of what external compression is, but I'm afraid you're lumbered with a person who has NEVER been convinced that esoteric outboard processing's the panacea it's claimed to be and my ears have never been convinced of the benefits. Sure - I'll happily say I can hear differences, but I don't attach the emotions many do to them. For every warm and immersing comment, I hear dull and artificial. I know many people are sold on it, but unless you have superb acoustics, and a totally silent room, turning many of the controls produces no apparent change till you get to extremes. Convert from analogue to digital and do everything in a non-destructive way, with more options, and in many cases, better s/n. I don't want to work in analogue any longer. Some people do, and it's a choice - but it is not automatically better. In real terms, processing of this kind introduces distortion. Perhaps 'nice' distortion but in our quest for greater sample rates and bit depths, to distort the capture surely must be detrimental to the integrity of the recording. Colour and personality? To me that's a timbre change and one that's noticeable and perhaps unique. I don't think that's for me.


Funny this thread popped up just as I'm about to try compression on my vocal going in for the first time. I'm with you on not wanting to work in analogue any longer. Especially in regard to mic'ing amps. However, for vocal, for the first time I am going to give it a try.

I thought I would try it mainly for the purpose of smoothing out the transients at peaks with just gentle compression. Then once it's in my DAW, from my understanding, that signal will be a little more even for it to hit the DAW compressor(s) with hopefully nicer results than I've had without going in with compression. Just an experiment.
 
here I am worrying about using mic shields because of my untreated room. I've recently have become a believer in using compression before hitting the audio interface when I go direct. The improvement of my recorded sound has been significant. However, I have these beautiful sounding amps that I really would like to capture. Yes, I know about devices like the Waza Tube Amp Expander but that's a pretty penny I'm not able to drop at this time.

I want to try to mic my amps, untreated room be damned. If I use a shield, a moving blanket or stuffed chair et al, will compressing the mic signal also enhance the stuff I don't want i.e. room noise? I sort of suspect it would
Back to the general questions.. -'on the way in or after in the mix, given equal amounts of compression and setups, the increase in lower level content good or unwanted, theoretically would be what it is -about the same.

I've found with reasonably close amp mcing and some gobo absorption around the mic area can give decent sig to noise (room.
Not a fan of the curved shields idea. Most of their attenuation being behind the mic -where it's typically least sensitive! You want to address the back sure, but also the sides -from behind the mic extending forward to the source.
When that 'source is five or six feet tall consider that next close reflection -overhead- :>)

add... I was lucky here, I guess. .There's a commercial 'industrial supply where they sell the 2, 3, 4" med density board (one side covered or not..) Grab a box, they're easy to cover.. and sooo handy for this sort of thing :>)
 
This is one of my reasons for not doing it, because my room is not perfect, and to be honest, I don't like what compressors do to the sound of a singer. I find it difficult to predict how it will appear in a mix I've not started. I've two issues. First is the increase in breathing noises compressors produce. I know I can cure most with eq, but I'd rather have eq choice for the voice not reducing what I consider as errors. In my room, compressors also reveal background noise. Not just continuous noise, but foot noise are sometime keyboard sounds as I do quite a bit simultaneously with pressing buttons or foot switches etc. What I want is the cleanest sound I can sort out later. I want best capture. Best, as in sonically the highest quality. I have to treat any form of in the machine or external processing as an effect, and while I understand other people's need to do this, I don't subscribe to it at all. I have never found a case for accepting compromise, and pre-record processing is a compromise I cannot do. I have archive stuff of my work going back to 1976 and it's paid the bills but the difference between the earliest recording I have and the latest is noise. Tape and equipment hiss in my case. I'd love to have the original individual tracks in a hiss free recording. I don't think I even had a compressor until the mid 80s, and teaching in college in the 90s dictated students using them, and a huge number could not hear them working. Going from the highest to the lowe ratio on a track left many clueless. I'm not sure if the few who were positive they could hear the difference between twenty degrees on the knob could hear it or just thought they could.
 
a good engineer should know how to use a compressor properly.

I agree, but sometimes that means pressing the bypass button. I like to get the final compression on vocals while checking them in the mix. On things I'm really familiar with I'll hit them a little on the way in. For performers I'm not so familiar with I prefer not to compress during tracking.
 
I simply fail to understand how I can set a compressor accurately, before I've recorded other tracks, and as I usually do double tracking on many projects, I cannot predict how much compression the prominent tracks need to have till I have the recipe. To me, this is like adding seasoning in a recipe, before I've been to the shops and seen what food is on the shelves. That, I think is how good engineers work - making the mix and blend as good as you can and never being in the position of wishing I'd recorded it differently.
 
I often add salt and spices to what I'm cooking at an early phase of preparing the meal. But it's generally because I've prepared meals like that before and I know what will be needed. That said, I'll probably be sure not to overdo the flavorings it so I can fine tune it toward the end.

When compressing on the way in I'll use a high-ish threshold and a moderate ratio. The band I record regularly uses the studio for rehearsals, so I get lots of practice setting compressors. That's just a fundamentally different situation from recording a band I don't know well. That's when I bypass compressors and eq.

I'm pretty sure a lot of engineers process things while tracking.
 
here I am worrying about using mic shields because of my untreated room. I've recently have become a believer in using compression before hitting the audio interface when I go direct. The improvement of my recorded sound has been significant. However, I have these beautiful sounding amps that I really would like to capture. Yes, I know about devices like the Waza Tube Amp Expander but that's a pretty penny I'm not able to drop at this time.

I want to try to mic my amps, untreated room be damned. If I use a shield, a moving blanket or stuffed chair et al, will compressing the mic signal also enhance the stuff I don't want i.e. room noise? I sort of suspect it would

Absolutely YES! :)
 
Judging by what I've read of pro engineers....some compress going in....and some don't. And there's shades of grey in between the two.

In other words...try it for yourself and then decide what you wanna do.
 
The word "compressor" kinda says it all when looked at in context.

Use of one when tracking a source is always going to be a matter of choice with any engineer. Part of the beauty of doing so is to have several different flavors of compressor to choose from.

Each type of compression delivers a different footprint even though in theory, the function is the same. The architecture in the design has a lot to do with how the compression is applied to the signal and what it's effect will be on it when hitting the DAW/Tape/etc....

I do understand the desire to capture an 'unaffected' signal. It does leave your options open to future interpretations and maybe for some, this is a good thing.

One thing I have found in compressors is sonic fidelity can vary a lot and unfortunately, this is one of those hardware things that doesn't seem to allow for cheap builds having the same fidelity as the more expensive ones. That's not to say there aren't GREAT budget comps out there, you just have to understand what a unit is capable of and use it according to it's abilities. I do find that a lot of the budget hardware comps are simply less capable of a wide range of application on different sources and therefore are more of the 'one-trick-pony' syndrome. Not that it's a bad thing..........Having a hardware comp that you know without a doubt anytime you strap it up in a signal chain it's going to add to the palette without fail, is something to keep.

In my business, I always comp vocals going in....ESPECIALLY on clients I have little or no experience recording or they have no experience working a mic. In that way I will have a an even level playing field for the next step in the process. I do not always comp a guitar amp going in unless the player has poor picking technique. In which case, again, the comp is a tool more than a sonic choice for a vibe.

Having a variety of different comps is the secret to finding the right tool. And also there's a reason why some of the circuits developed in the 40's 50's and 60's are still the go-to choices for recording to day. Either hardware or digital emulations. Even with a good sized library like I have, I find that nothing really sounds better than 1176, LA2A, Manley Vari-Mu, DBX, SSL G, Fairchild.........
 
Back
Top