Are compressors overrated?

5

5150 Musician

New member
I believe that compression is overused in studios now a days; everyone's competing to have the loudest and most "ready for airplay" mixes. Even with the most advanced transparent compressors, the act of compression will morph the dynamics of a recorded song, something that I want little to do with. If my base recording is a very good recording, I would want to keep it as untouched as I can. I dont like to use too much compression when mixing down because it takes away from the soul of the music. Why is the loudness of it so important? All the these modern cd's coming out are crap, complete crap. I can't even beleive that bands will pay this much to record for this. Especially local bands, they'll do anything for that loud, punchy, bonecrushing, souless mixdowns. The sad thing is that alot of these studios dont have top dollar compressors so they squash the hell out of the mix and raise it through the roof with these bang-for-your-buck compressors and it sounds so horrible, but the flailing mosh freaks my age love it. Overprocessing is another thing, but I won't get into that now. There's a little thing called "listening fatigue" that comes into play with recordings that have too much compression. The ear doesnt want to constantly hear those obscure, lifeless sound waves coming through their stereo. Unless your brain dead and tone def, then who cares.. thats where these bands get their sales from anyways.
 
The music I like...

is very dynamic. But even there, you'll find compression. I use it, but you're right, especially on drums and vocals, it is over-used.
 
different strokes for different folks. what i think IS overdone is the mindless bashing of folks who happen to like a fair bit of punchiness to their rock music over the "soul" of dynamics as you call it.
it's also very much a practical thing. most young people listen to music in their cars, where compression is very warranted - you can't hear any amount of detail in a mix unless you compress it, and nobody wants to turn up a crappy midrangey car speaker system so loud that the loud sections hurt like hell to listen to. what's wrong with catering to that?

if i'm doing mixes for a jazz band, obviously i'll cater to the intended listener differently - far less compression.
if you truly think that dynamics are more enjoyable in rock music, then go ahead and release a unique-sounding, very dynamic rock album. i have a feeling it won't sell very well, but you never know. leave the decision up to the listeners, because like it or not, they're always right. they're the ones deciding whether to buy it or not :)

The ear doesnt want to constantly hear those obscure, lifeless sound waves coming through their stereo.
Click to expand...

the ear happens to be connected to the brain, and does not in itself have preferences. the listener decides what he wants to hear.

off-topic: i like your signature BTW. i've been trying to speak out against the 'emporer's new clothes' syndrome that seems to be plaguing audio forums these days.
 
Yup, I think your rant went over the edge. While it can easily be overused, it is an essential part of my recordings. Nothing gets squashed, just keeps an eye on the "overs"
 
one aspect of compression can be used to actually increase the dynamics of an instrument, such as a bass guitar to give it more punch. A slow attack time to let the initial transient pass, and then the signal is calmed down a tad, actually resulting in a more dynamic sounding track.

Also, with separate instruments or tracks (including vocals), compressed, mixes are sometimes better achieved by allowing the separate tracks to NOT step on the toes of other tracks. Not a squashing effect, but a "making room" kinda effect. It can also allow certain tracks to retain a relative loudness, while allowing quieter tracks to not get drowned out but still be present.

Is compression overated or overused??... I'd say a BIG NO with those above examples for reasons.

Squashing entire mixes....probably so, and most likely your train of thought in asking your question. But, louder is better...eh?? :p
 
mixmkr said:
Also, with separate instruments or tracks (including vocals), compressed, mixes are sometimes better achieved by allowing the separate tracks to NOT step on the toes of other tracks. Not a squashing effect, but a "making room" kinda effect. It can also allow certain tracks to retain a relative loudness, while allowing quieter tracks to not get drowned out but still be present.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.
For example, a rock mix that's full of guitars sounds wrong to me unless some technique is used for compressing the drum overheads to crap. Otherwise you only hear the very initial stick-hit of a crash cymbal. Compression allows the cymbal's decay to ring on and be heard in the mix, adding and overall magic high-end gloss to choruses and such.

I say "some technique" because I usually combine the dry, uncompressed overhead track with a buss that has been severely compressed, so you get the best of both worlds.
 
Overcompressed drum and bass tracks make me physically ill, especially if played strictly to a click. It interferes badly with naturally varying heartbeats, which makes me nauseous. I can't listen to a lot of modern R&B for this reason.
 
Oh, I dunno. While I certainly agree with you that much of the music today is way overprocessed in general, and over compressed in particular, I can still point to modern recordings that sound great and have enormous dynamic range. (Peter Gabriel comes to mind right away.) And you just KNOW that there are compressors and limiters being used all over those recordings. So, it's all in how the tools are used. Fortunately for me, on most of those recordings that are processed and compressed to death, the music itself is such crap, as far as I'm concerned, that it really doesn't bother me if it's also recorded poorly. If today's teenagers want to listen to their Brittney Spears and their hip hop and whatever in those obnoxious boom box cars, let them have at it! Doesn't bother me. Heck, man, I used to listen to Kiss before I knew better, so who am I to pass judgement on what passes for "music" to the kids of today? :eek:

Besides, for any issue, you can choose to look at the glass as being half empty or half full. It just depends on how you want to look at it. Rather than bemoan the way that most recorded music sounds today, I prefer to say that I'm constantly being surprised at the quality of some of the jazz and classical music that was recorded in the 50's and 60's. That was the STONE AGES of recording technology (well, the bronze age, anyway - they did have magnetic tape), and yet some of those recordings sound absolutely incredible! The better recordings from that era certainly hold their own quite well compared to the best of what's being recorded today. So, to turn your question around backward before answering it, I'd have to say that, yeah, it's pretty amazing what careful mic placement and a pristine signal path (with NO processing) will get you!

Just remember that, today, you've really got the best of both worlds. There's certainly nothing stopping you from recording direct to tape with two or three good quality mics. Or, you can use a full bore pro tools system. Or, you can sync your DAW to your analog tape recorder! So, except for the difficulty of finding the money to do all of this, what is there to complain about, exactly?

Brad
 
Compressors are not overrated, it's one of the most (if not THE most) important tool in the studio. Compressing is overused though, because so many people don't know what the hell they're doing.
 
Compresser _ a device to contol the dynamic range of a musical piece. (seems just as important as Eq :p)

Compressing is one of the most important parts of recording. You would go deaf if there wasn't any especially after you throw that explosion with no compression in there I'm sure thats way over 140 Db :D
 
5150 Musician said:
I believe that compression is overused in studios now a days; everyone's competing to have the loudest and most "ready for airplay" mixes. Even with the most advanced transparent compressors, the act of compression will morph the dynamics of a recorded song, something that I want little to do with. If my base recording is a very good recording, I would want to keep it as untouched as I can. I dont like to use too much compression when mixing down because it takes away from the soul of the music. Why is the loudness of it so important? All the these modern cd's coming out are crap, complete crap. I can't even beleive that bands will pay this much to record for this. Especially local bands, they'll do anything for that loud, punchy, bonecrushing, souless mixdowns. The sad thing is that alot of these studios dont have top dollar compressors so they squash the hell out of the mix and raise it through the roof with these bang-for-your-buck compressors and it sounds so horrible, but the flailing mosh freaks my age love it. Overprocessing is another thing, but I won't get into that now. There's a little thing called "listening fatigue" that comes into play with recordings that have too much compression. The ear doesnt want to constantly hear those obscure, lifeless sound waves coming through their stereo. Unless your brain dead and tone def, then who cares.. thats where these bands get their sales from anyways.
Click to expand...

All that compression is done at the mastering stage by request of the record companies. The original recordings have the right amount of compression applied at the mixing stage. Someday the original recordings will probably be re-released when this mastering "loudness" battle is done and gone.
 
bigwillz24 said:
Compresser _ a device to contol the dynamic range of a musical piece. (seems just as important as Eq :p)

Compressing is one of the most important parts of recording. You would go deaf if there wasn't any especially after you throw that explosion with no compression in there I'm sure thats way over 140 Db :D
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean, and all I use a compressor for is for keeping any one instrument from overpowering the mix at an unnessesary time, to get rid of that "explosion" if you will. Other than that, I like to keep each instrument separetly flexible in the mix. Of course, compression on each instrument is rather nessesary, but overdoing it will just kill the dynamics causing characteristics that the instrument is unable to aquire by itself.
 
Last edited:
Bassman Brad said:
Just remember that, today, you've really got the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Right on the dot there. That's exactly why I intergrade analog with digital in my home studio. It really does give me the "best of both worlds". You get the incolored signal path of a quality digital component, with the marvelous coloring and warmth of a nice analog circuit (with tubes ;) ). The possibilities nowadays is just endless. My home studio is more of a -how should I put this- pumped up 1969 Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath recording but with the help of techniques and equipment of modern day recordings.
 
Compression is definitely abused in modern pop music, but most of that music is disposable anyways, so I'm sure that it will pass in time.
 
It used to be said that if you had your compressor set correctly, you couldn't hear it working.

but.....I think that was back in the 80's or sumpin!! :p


:D :D :D
 
I use compressors on every track except for sampled drums.. I got sucked into the loudness wars and can't get out.. a mix is not finished for me until I slam the piss out of it with the L2.. that's how most commercial cd's sound anway, and if that's what I'm after, bada bing bada boom!
 
5150 Musician said:
My home studio is more of a -how should I put this- pumped up 1969 Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath recording but with the help of techniques and equipment of modern day recordings.
Click to expand...

Yeah! That's pretty much the philosophy that I'm going to be shooting for, too, but since I'm doing mellower stuff these days, maybe those particular bands wouldn't be the ones I would choose to emulate. But, a lot of the other 70's era rock -- absolutely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top