An older mix unspoiled by compression.

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Haven't read the opinions of Steve Albini and Bruce Swedien but I wonder if they were referring to compression while tracking. That would be a different animal than using compression while mixing.

Both. They've both been around long enough where they learned how to make good-sounding productions without compression because back when they were learning their craft, there was no compression because most studios didn't have it. That was back when the term "fader jockey" actually had meaning.

There was a great piece in Mix magazine in the last month or so where one of the greats talked about that. Unfortunately I don't remember who it was off-hand or exactly which issue it was. I think someone even quoted it or linkedt to it in one of these threads just a couple of weeks ago, but I can't find it now. If anyone knows which article that is or where it's at, now would be a great time to share it with us, (please? )

G.

 

[mixsit]

I've been mixing a vocal today and I was comparing
back and forth, with and without compression,
and I made the observation that compresion
tends to really kill the room reverb.
I was only using mild compression on
the vox of 1.5:1 and it took out a lot
of the room sound. I wish I knew what
it is about compression that takes away the
room.

I'm guessing because your make-up gain raises the noise floor which may tend to bury the room sound. I'm not sure.

I'd go more along this direction. The background verb and noise floor -perhaps at different levels, are both along for the same ride.
My take on this is that for a given amount of compression, whether the background and the effect of the primary signal, is 'more forward' and present or more pulled back, depends on the release time. A fast release is more ambient and present (sometimes seems brighter overall as a result), where slow may hide more.

Wayne

 

[Brackish]

Haven't read the opinions of Steve Albini and Bruce Swedien

Well, I'm not real familiar with what they have
to say but I did see where Bruce Swedien was
on a forum and someone asked along the
lines "well, if we aren't supposed to use compression
how do we control the levels" and Bruce replied
"you ride the faders ... recording is hard work
so get used to it".

For myself, I have found that it is easier
and quicker to just set up a high compression and
let it go rather than to go through in post with a volume
envelope but it does sound better not using the
compression. My business partner recently saw me going through a piece using the volume envelope rather than setting up the compression and letting it process and said, surprisedly, "what are you doing?"
My work is more documentarian in nature.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

For myself, I have found that it is easier
and quicker to just set up a high compression and
let it go rather than to go through in post with a volume
envelope but it does sound better not using the
compression. My business partner recently saw me going through a piece using the volume envelope rather than setting up the compression and letting it process and said, surprisedly, "what are you doing?"
My work is more documentarian in nature.

To steal from a Comcast commercial:

You will go far.



G.

 

[masteringhouse]

I don't wholey disagree with this. That fact is though, that even if you don't "like" that "over compressed" sound, there are genre's that don't sound right unless you apply that kind of production technique. You would not be working long in the industry if you decided that Steely Dan production techniques are the end-all of audio production and will be applied to every death metal artist your engineer for.

So, while you sort of make a good point, in the end, what I originally said is very true. You serve the artist and/or producer. Yes, they may ask "What do you think", but the fact is that if you come in with Hank Williams Jr. production ideas for the Rancid production, you probably won't be lasting long on the Rancid production eh?

I think that you misunderstood my statement. I didn't say that one should force their opinions on the production, they need to work with the artist to achieve their goals, and likewise the artist has to work with the engineer to communicate the goals and get feedback. That's a healthty relationship. Dictating either way causes resentment and puts a damper on the session where neither party is going to be giving their best.

A good engineer takes all of the comments you made above into consideration before making comments. I'm sure that as producer Mutt Lange for example treats AC/DC way different than Shania or The Backstreet Boys.

 

[mshilarious]

I'm sure that . . . Mutt Lange for example treats AC/DC way different than Shania

I would certainly hope so!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'm sure that as producer Mutt Lange for example treats AC/DC way different than Shania.

Kinda makes you want to hear the Shania cover of "Hell's Bells", doesn't it? No?

And BTW, what's wrong with putting a Hank Williams spin on a Rancid production? It worked big time for Rick Rubin a couple of years ago when he had Johnny Cash do the NIN. Or check out the entire "Rhythm Country and Blues" CD. The best producers, engineers, session artists, and headline artists that Nashville and Detroit have to offer got together and made an entire 4-star album based on genre inter-breeding.

Some the the freshest productions can come from such crossing of convention. There is no shortage of productons with over-compressed hard panned doubled distotion guitars combined with over-engineered, over-compressed drums in false extreme stereo behind them, and over-compressed bass and falsetto teen angst screaming coming down the middle like an arrow at a bullseye. Forty years after "Born To Be Wild", that cookie cutter recipe is getting a bit tired and warn, isn't it? What's wrong with shaking it up?

It's being done in the Blues genre with folks like Rick Holmstrom and Fruteland Jackson successfully reinventing the oldest of American genres yet again for the 21st century, why not some new metal alloys?

OTOH, all one has to do is mention Sarah Brightman's version of "Whiter Shade of Pale" to prove that it doesn't always work .

G.

 

[masteringhouse]

Kinda makes you want to hear the Shania cover of "Hell's Bells", doesn't it? No?

Or AC/DC doing "Man! I Feel Like a Woman!".

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Or AC/DC doing "Man! I Feel Like a Woman!".

Ok, get T Bone on the line, I think we're on to something here .

BTW, one of the bands I work live with does a full-up rock 'n rhythm version of "Oops I Did It Again" that's actually quite good. Take that song away from the Mousketeer and give it a grown-up rock treatment and it's actually a pretty cool tune. Later in the set they give the same kind of treatment to Four Non Blondes' "What's Up". Take away that awful falsetto voice of the original and give the rhythm a bit of a Wild Thing groove and again you have an actually pretty cool tune on your hands.

In the right hands, crossing genres can actually sometimes take something otherwise dubious and turn it into a real pearl.

And (just to keep it on-topic), no compression required!

G.

 

[bigtoe]

BTW, one of the bands I work live with does a full-up rock 'n rhythm version of "Oops I Did It Again" that's actually quite good. Take that song away from the Mousketeer and give it a grown-up rock treatment and it's actually a pretty cool tune.

Richard Thompson was on Fresh Air and he did that song. It sounded cool. Made me realize how much neat music i may tune out just because it's marketed to me like an airbrushed centerfold.

OK - I like Britney Spears' version of it too... but for entirely different reasons.

Mike

 

[xstatic]

A lot of this depends on where you are in the industry. If you are working at some studio where people just randomly come and go (i.e. no major label budget) than half of your work is doing what the artist wants, but then the other half of your clients will also need and/or appreciate your advice and technique as an engineer. If however you are an engineer who is HIRED to come do projects, than your inout and style is expected if not required. In the end, I don't care what Bruce Swedian or Steve Albini think about compression. They have their clients, they have their style, and they have their results. On here however I see names like this thrown around a lot. Truth be told, yes they may be excellent and well respected engineers. However, they are only two of a great many people doing incredible work. I think engineers like that tend to get their names dropped in circles like HR.com more often than many because their techniques "simplify" many peoples opinions of what they need to do. Honestly, when you ahve great preamps, great mics, good experience, good rooms, great clients etc... the cheap equipment can be integrated here and there with more success. Also, something like a "compressor" would not be nearly as vital. Then again, I am sure that everyone (except maybe one or two people here) has never sat in on a session with these guys, or not even met them. I think a lot of people might be pretty surprised to see just exactly how much compression and EQ does get used in some of those sessions were they to actually be there.....

 

[Robert D]

In the end, I don't care what Bruce Swedian or Steve Albini think about compression.
I think a lot of people might be pretty surprised to see just exactly how much compression and EQ does get used in some of those sessions were they to actually be there.....

It's not the name, or how much compression they actually do use, it's the end result. This thread started with an example of an excellent result. Being somewhat familiar with Becker and Fagan's philosophy regarding music production, and their deep involvement in the process, I'm pretty confident the processing was minimal. But I don't think the OP was implying that compression is evil, or that none was used on these examples. The point was that the dynamics in these songs were not spoiled by compression. That should be easy to agree with. Yes, different genre *require* different degrees of compression, but we're at a time right now where a lot of people have never even heard the kind of dynamics exemplified by these songs, and really don't know what they're missing.

 

[Ford Van]

Yes, different genre *require* different degrees of compression, but we're at a time right now where a lot of people have never even heard the kind of dynamics exemplified by these songs, and really don't know what they're missing.

Listen man, Jimmy Hendrix was supposed to be some kind of "genius". I can't stand listening to that hack, and tend to think his "genius" is just random noise coming out of his shit while he tried to track in a drug induced state.

I am in NO hurry to turn people on to that shit. Get it?

 

[Robert D]

Listen man, Jimmy Hendrix was supposed to be some kind of "genius". I can't stand listening to that hack, and tend to think his "genius" is just random noise coming out of his shit while he tried to track in a drug induced state.

I am in NO hurry to turn people on to that shit. Get it?

Here's a joke for you FV,
What do Jimi Hendrix and Steely Dan have in common?
Absolutely nothing. Get it? No?

Ok, what do random roise and your last post have in common?
Right.... everything!

 

[Brackish]

You will go far.



G.

Thanks for saying that, Glen.
That makes me feel good.
Working with audio is something that the
average person doesn't really have much
appreciation for the degree of
difficulty.
It seems the
only time audio is noticed is
if there's something wrong with it.

Anyways ... on my current project I'm working with 6 tracks of
audio. Using my "old ways", I would've had
medium-to-heavy compression on all six tracks
and had an average volume of -9dBFS. With my new
"system", I've totally removed the compression off 5 of
the 6 tracks. I have a hard limiter over the whole
project at -4dBFS but not many peaks are going
up there.
The result is my average volume has
dropped 3dB to -12dBFS, and the overall sound
is significantly improved.

 

[Yareek]

Would the whole idea of Steely Dan compression be to smooth things out JUST A HAIR but to let the instruments (and studio musicians) fade in and out naturally? As opposed to the modern compress it until it hits a certain level and jam it in the mix mentality?

That being said, Steely Dan is one of the most unique acts in history and not too similar to a lot of today's music...especially the stuttering use of on/off dynamics rather than playing dynamics.

 

[sweetnubs]

What does a lot of compression mean? High ratio, fast attack slow attack, low threshold level, etc.? I can set a super high ratio but the compression may be very transparent depending on how it's applied. There are no rules. My normal routine is to use nothing in terms of dynamics/effects but if it's called for I make no qualms. For example my children, I was mixing a band today and the guitarist has points in the rocking tune where he did sharp chord "jabs" with delay applied. He wanted the delay repeats to be more audible in the mix. (the effects were recorded during tracking so no re-tooling the delay at this point) Nubs simple solution: fast attack fast release very high compression ratio, high threshold with lots of make-up gain applied. The effect was the sharp jabs were reduced massively in volume and the compression was released when the quieter repeats appeared so they could take full advantage of the make up gain. This caused the delay repeats to now be much louder in volume relative to the chord chop-chops. The normal ear would perceives no compression applied, all you end up hearing is a chord jab choppy chop with a long delay with lots of repeats. You can do shit like this all the time and almost no one would perceive it as compression. Sometimes you want people to percieve the compression too. Depends on the type of music and what the client wants also. That's why mixing is an art and science. That is why people come to thee nubs and not to folks making silly statements. That is why I am high as a freakin' kite right now. Am I rambling? Gather your rosenubs while ye may. I must now board the porkchop express. Time to go, good night john-boy.

 

[Ford Van]

You probably are rambling! The compression police are patroling this thread, and the doughnuts and coffee are plentiful! So watch out.

On a side note, you are more or less just stating what I did earlier.

Another thing, there is generally MUCH more compression going on in analog recordings that many think! That is why this thread is cracking me up so much!!! Steely Dan has GOBS of compression going on. It just isn't always via a compressor.

 

[Farview]

I read that Steve Albini said that "vocals are the
only instrument you have to compress a
little bit".

Steve Albini says a lot of shit, have you listened to anything he's done? There is a lot more than just the vocals that are compressed.

 

[Farview]

I wish I knew what
it is about compression that takes away the
room.

Your release time is too slow. If you made it faster, the room would rush right up to the front. How far were you into the reduction?