Compressors during recording

[hubb_99]

I know that when I've gone to studios before they use compressors to get cleaner recordings. I am more of a midi, keyoard, pod, solo recorder so my environment is a lot more controlled. I am going to record some tracks for my band. So I will have drums recording as well as vocals. We plan on recording everything individual not live so it's not a huge nightmare. But every time I have tried using a compressor I have had little success and don't really know what I'm doing. I have a delta 1010, cakewalk sonar. I use my mackie 1604 direct outs for preamps. I have 2 behringer stereo compressors (autocom i think?). So basically I got 4 compressors I can use at anytime. I am kinda unsure how to use these compressors in the recording chain. Should I put them first them send it to the mackie then the delta? Or should I go mackie then compressor then delta? Any ideas tips or settings that I should use? If anyone knows a good guide online that would explain some of this that'd be great.

 

[pipelineaudio]

compress it later, in the mix, so that it can be undone.

Distorting and making your recordings noisier without a specific purpose during the tracking process just leaves you with no place to go

 

[hubb_99]

that's what i'd like to do. but what about using it as a noise gate for guitar noise, kick drum and vocal noises?

 

[RAMI]

You can do that after, too. I can't understand why some people just don't WANT to believe that they don't HAVE to compress, EQ, gate, or whatever else they read about, on the way in. I'm not addressing that to you, hubb. I'm just talking generally...No matter what you tell some people, they'll still say "Yeah, but I read somewhere that compressing on the way in will help (fill in the blank here)."

The cleaner your chain, the cleaner the recording.

 

[hubb_99]

alright well i like simplicity...so i guess i'll move the compressors over to my pa setup and use it where it'll do some good.

 

[pezking]

I've been taught to do things like compress, eq etc, on the way in. It'll save time in the long run which may well be important on a professional session.

However if you're recording for yourself, then it's probably a better idea to leave the compression until mixdown, that way you can definitely undo any mistakes as has already been suggested.

If you do wanna use compression on the way in, use it as an insert on the desk channels.

 

[pipelineaudio]

that's what i'd like to do. but what about using it as a noise gate for guitar noise, kick drum and vocal noises?

This is a unique case of something that is inarguably better in the nonlinear software world than the hardware one.

People will debate till the cows come home regarding analog vs digital compression, but a software gate's ability to see into the future trumps any analog gate, anytime

 

[pipelineaudio]

I've been taught to do things like compress, eq etc, on the way in. It'll save time in the long run which may well be important on a professional session.

It could just as easily be placed in the same or less time in the monitoring chain of the recording system

Which will take longer: re-recording a part incorrectly compressed? or changing some settings on a compressor at mixdown?

 

[xstatic]

First, I would doubt that people use compression to acheive a "cleaner" recording. Most often when compression is used at a big studio during tracking it is to acheive a tone, and not to acheive less dynamics or contain peaks. It is also important to consider that in these scenarios they have a lot of experience, and are using amazing comps like Distressor's, 1176's, manley's etc... These types of compressors are far less likely to "ruin" a take than something like a cheap DBX or Behringer, especially with the skill level of the person setting them. It is also common to use nice outboard comps during tracking when you know that your selection of them is limited and therefore not a reality to just apply them during mixdown.

The basic rule of thumb that I tell people when they are asking about compression, is not to do it. My reasoning there is that if you have to ask, then you aren't ready to take that chance. When your ability reaches the right point you will know when you need to use something like a comp during tracking. If not, go ahead and use the software on the post side so you can figure things out safely. And defrinately don't use one to achieve louder tracking levels or contain clips unless it is going to be a live and unattended session (like maybe a live show that you are two tracking). Use proper gain structure and divide tracks properly and you will never have a problem with clipping.

 

[Alden_Sloe]

So, I'm picking up an old Roland MMP-2 preamp this weekend. One of the gadgets built in is a compressor. Since my son and I are total newbies to all this part of the reason for getting this toy is to learn about all this stuff.

I have a bit of a hard time rationalizing why a compressor, especially without a matching de-compression algorithm on the back side would be good. The best explaination I could come up with in my own little mind was this. Rule of thumb (idiots guide to recording) is you turn the gain up on your preamp just to the point that it is peaking on the loudest passages. Right? I guess there are several reasons for doing this but one of them would be so that it lets you pick up the softest passages in the music. I think this is called dynamic range? Now if you have a few really loud sections you might be faced with losing some of the softer parts or pegging the meter on the load passages. However, with a compressor you can still have the low level signals but prevent distortion of the peaks. Am I totally out in left field?

 

[urobolusmusic]

I'm just a newb, but I thought I'd interject this to see if someone could elaborate on it, or possibly explain the science more.

I read an article not too long ago that suggested it was a good idea to have some compression before AD conversion to ensure the most efficient use of bits (sorry, I'm probably explaining this badly, I'm trying to recall it from memory) because of some dB/bit relationship during the AD conversion process.

From what I gather, if you're not a musician that can play consistently, it would be a good idea to slightly compress so that the signal translates over to digital more accuratly.

I'll try to find the damn article; itss better than me trying to explain it.

 

[pipelineaudio]

I read an article not too long ago that suggested it was a good idea to have some compression before AD conversion to ensure the most efficient use of bits (sorry, I'm probably explaining this badly, I'm trying to recall it from memory) because of some dB/bit relationship during the AD conversion process.

there was a time when we "only" had 16 bit recording when this was relevant. In order to get the signal level high enough to avoid quantization distortion you MIGHT run into the danger of some overs with widely dynamic signals.

Today, with 24 bits? Forget it

 

[urobolusmusic]

there was a time when we "only" had 16 bit recording when this was relevant. In order to get the signal level high enough to avoid quantization distortion you MIGHT run into the danger of some overs with widely dynamic signals.

Today, with 24 bits? Forget it

Hell, if that is the case, then I'm just going to spend the money I was going to spend on comps to get some different preamps, DI's, and better converters.

I'm a REAPER user too, and thats what I've mostly been wanting to do is keep the processing in the digital realm, so this is good news to me.

Thanks!

 

[TimN]

Rami and xstatic are right: Don't do it! So true about compression . . . my God, if you're going to possibly wreck something, do it at a point where you can un-wreck it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

My reasoning there is that if you have to ask, then you aren't ready to take that chance.

BINGO! Yeah, the Big Boys will often stick compression into the recoring path, because they have done it 10,000 times already in every which way but loose, and already know what they want and need blindfolded. And JUST AS important, IMHO, they are doing this as part of a well-planned and well laid-out tracking plan where their mic selection and placement has just as much experience behind it to the point where they know exactly what is going to be coming out of that preamp and into the compressor.

But until one gets to that point (a point I only personally feel confident with in a relatively small number of very familiar sitations myself, the rest of the time I assume nothing), it's best as a general rule to just track clean so you can play with and learn the compression in post to your heart's desire without compressing yourself into a corner from which you can't escape.

G.

 

[jmorris]

compression does not give a cleaner sound, it adds distortion in reality, a good distortion. Its purpose is to control level, not to 'clean" the sound.

 

[xstatic]

compression does not give a cleaner sound, it adds distortion in reality, a good distortion. Its purpose is to control level, not to 'clean" the sound.

I am not sure that compressors are actually used that often to "control level" by the big boys. A change in level is certainly an artifact of compression, but the change in tone, attack, sustain, release etc... is why all the engineers I talk to use compression, at least in the tracking stage. During mixdown they are often used for minor dynamic control, but automation and fader riding is typically used for tracks that require more than gentle dynamic containment.

 

[Tim Gillett]

I can think of an instance when compressing on the way in was not only an option but a necessity, for a good production. That's when you had not the time or the money for post production!

Dont laugh. For many years, many talking books for the blind were recorded in this way. The mono masters were assembled live, "on the fly" (correcting mistakes as you went) onto tape and then copies were mass duplicated on a high speed machine.

In this situation you compressed for two reasons:

1. The voice dynamics were often well above the capacity of the tracking tape medium.

2. Even if the tracking medium could have handled the dynamics, you didnt have the luxury of post. You had to do a guestimate right at the time of recording as to what would sound good to the average listener of the final product.

That was it. You were making the final product, live. Seat of the pants stuff.

Those two constraints coincided and so you made the one stage of compression serve both needs. But it had to be appropriate compression. With occasional careful gain riding ahead of the compressor as needed, this system gave good, listenable results, on an otherwise weak recording medium.
For the same reasons, EQ and de essing decisions had to be also "locked in" at the time of tracking.
So, up to 30db of compression, shelving of extreme high and low freq's, de essing, and all before it hit tape. In a way, an extremely "lo fi" approach but the end result actually had far better real fidelity than a flat, purist approach.

But I agree with what's been said above. Most of the time, with good modern gear, and the luxury of post, there shouldnt be the need to go through the "on the fly" live production gymnastics some of us had to go through back then.

OTOH having to do such a live production on the run might be a good training exercise.



Cheers Tim

 

[jmorris]

In very interview I have ever read ( moslt in mix mag.) all of thje top engineers compress on the way in, sometimes using 2 compressors together. They have all the good gear and in many cases big budgets.

 

[pipelineaudio]

In very interview I have ever read ( moslt in mix mag.) all of thje top engineers compress on the way in, sometimes using 2 compressors together. They have all the good gear and in many cases big budgets.

George Massenburg usually doesn't