Middleman
Professional Amateur
sweetnubs said:
This is too funny but true. LOL.
This is too funny but true. LOL.
BigRay
New member
sweetnubs said:
Yes it is!!! I Am a bout to stat my own business in NC, and I will not participate in that nonsense. I have been a classical singer for many years, so recording classical music was a natural progression for me. I love recording pure, acoustic music in real space...nothing like it! I plan to put out a HQ product, and intend to be very picky about who I work with. I like keeping it simple..mic>>pres.>>>adc>>>recorder...no effects, no compression, nothing! Mic placement is key!
H
Harvey Gerst
New member
Yup, mic placement is always critical.BigRay said:
jmorris
New member
BigRay said:
On GC? WHATS gc?
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
GS = GearSlutz.com.jmorris said:
G.
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
I lik compression. I dont think it suck.
If used well it can make a mix sound more solid and more professional.
eck
If used well it can make a mix sound more solid and more professional.
eck
jmorris
New member
SouthSIDE Glen said:
AQh! lol, stupid me I was looking all over at Guitar Center.duhThanks Glen!
flatfinger
Use every dam bit!
Middleman said:
Yup #5's a biggie, here's some other Ideas on avoiding this pitfall. If the compressors threshold point is is centered around where most of the musical action(modulation) is occuring , pull it back up to moderate the effect.
Hard knee is coolest for fast peaks like percussion, But if you want to keep the effect more transparent , especially accross the 2buss, use a soft knee, It's more gradual and less obvious!
X
XLR
______
Good post!Middleman said:
Problem is that for the lazy, broadband compression makes recording so easy. Compression and verb - the sugar syrup of recording.
Tim
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
I thought EQ and comp was the sugar of mixing.
Eck
Eck
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
BigRay said:
I'm not a huge fan of downward compression, either. I would also highly recommend reading the compression discussion (chapters 9-11) in Bob Katz's "Mastering Audio." It's thorough and understandable. He talks a bit about understanding the difference between downward compression (knocking down the peaks) versus upward compression (pulling up the quiet parts). In my experience, upward compression has much less tendency to suck the life out of the sound. Psychoacoustically, pushing down loud passages is awkward, but cheating soft passages up isn't so obvious.
In practice, you can get there by using parallel compression: mixing the unprocessed signal with a compressed version, typically with a very low threshold setting, a ratio somewhere in the 2 to 2.5 to 1 range, a fast attack and medium release. Usually the compressed version is turned down some, just enough in there to fatten things up. If you do this digitally, you will need a precise time delay inline on the unprocessed signal to account for the delay of the compressor.
This method works great on a drum submix for instance, or an entire mix: you get a fatter sound without wimping out the sound by pushing down the peaks. I stumbled on this technique a while back just by experimenting, but Bob's discussion really helped understand how to tweak the sound for fun and profit.
Otto
sweetnubs
New member
ofajen said:
This seems like a rather odd process. If you mix the original uncompressed signal with the compressed signal you essentially end up with an uncompressed signal because any peaks that were reduced with the initial compression become present again when blended with the original un-compressed signal. This is precisely the reason why dynamic processing is done with inserts rather than auxillary send/returns. You don't want the "wet" portion mixed with the "dry" portion when using dynamic processing because blending the "wet" with the "dry" undoes the "wet" Get it? I suppose if the compression brings out frequency components that you like and you blend it with the original it will alter the "tone" or frequency content of the original signal but then again I'd just eq. Of course your general formula of ratio 2 or 2.5/fast attack/medium release is non-sensical because all these paramters vary greatly depending the signal your working with and the desired effect. Especailly if you're working with a LA-2A which doesn't have most of these parameters and I'd take it any day over most compressors that have extra parameters. Your mileage definitely may vary though!
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
It seems that way to you because you're still thinking in terms of downward compression. Upward compression is a different mindset; it does not involve compressing the largest peaks downward (hence the name "downward compression"sweetnubs said:
). It involves compressing the smaller peaks upwards. Or, more technically, whereas "standard" downward compression pulls peaks above the threshold down towards the threshold, upward compression pulls peaks that are below the threshold up towards the threshold.While parallel compression is't really the same thing and does not yield the same results as pure upwards compression, in effect it probably gets close enough for rock n' roll. You've probably heard of parallel compression unter a couple of different names: when used on drums, it's often referred to as "New York compression". When used on vocals, some like to call it "Motown compression".
For pure upwards compression (along with more standard downward compression) in a digital plugin, check out the Dynam-izer from Roger Nichols Digital (previously Neodynium from Elemental Audio.)
G.
ecktronic
Mixing and Mastering.
I beleive you are talking about expansion? Is that right?
I ahve never used expansion, never really thought of a reason to use it.
Any examples of when it would come in usefull would be mucho apreciato.
Eck
I ahve never used expansion, never really thought of a reason to use it.
Any examples of when it would come in usefull would be mucho apreciato.
Eck
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
ecktronic said:I beleive you are talking about expansion? Is that right?
I ahve never used expansion, never really thought of a reason to use it.
Any examples of when it would come in usefull would be mucho apreciato.
Eck
no. there is upward expansion (make the peaks louder) and downward expansion (make the quiet parts quieter). both of these increase the total dynamic range.
upward compression reduces dynamic range by bringing up the quiet parts, while downward compression reduces dynamic range by bring down the loud parts.
is that clear, now?
otto
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
sweetnubs said:
Again, I would suggest reading Bob's discussion (or another source if you have one) to really understand upward and downward compression.
Glen, I figured there would be at least one plug-in already out there to do this, but didn't know which one. Thanks for the tip! I'll see if Nichol's Dynamizer is something I may want to use now that I'm doing more stuff in the digital domain.
Otto
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
I have Neodynium, which as far as I can tell is the same thing, it's just a different skin (Roger Nichols bought out Elemental Audio a couple of months ago and re-skinned and re-named their software [and, unfortunately applied upward expansion on the pricing while he was at itofajen said:
]) While I frankly don't use upward compression all that much myself except for special fixes, the plug is quite nice IMHO. The sound is farily neutral and the flexability and layout are both very nice. It actually has four "bands" of up/down/both compression, but they are vertically stacked bands based upon amplitude, not horizontal bands based upon frequency.I'd also point out that just about any graphical dynamics processor plug can do it also. These are the kinds of plugs that typically come standard with most NLEs that are in the form of an X/Y slope (X=input amplitude, Y=output amplitude) that you can bend into different curves of compression and expansion.
For ecktronic, sweets and the rest, perhaps the easiest way to think about upward and downward compression and expansion is to cener it all around the threshold setting:
Upward compression = pulling peaks below the threshold up towards the threshold level.
Upward expansion = pushing peaks already above the threshold even further above the threshold.
Dowwnard compression = pulling peaks above the threshold down closer to the threshold ("standard" compression).
Downward expansion = pushing peaks already below the threshold even further below the threshold.
Compression always means reducing the dynamic range. Expansion always means increasing the dynamic range.
It is possible (with the right hardware or software) to do "upward" and "downward" at the same time. In terms of compression, this means "pinching" all peaks closer to the threshold level, whether they are above or below it. In terms of expansion, this means "pushing away" all peaks from the threshold, whether above or below it.
G.
Last edited:
sweetnubs
New member
where I quoted he speaks of "parallel" compression which is what I speak of. I used downward compression as an example because it is most familiar to everyone. I know what "upward" compression is. Again regardless if it is upward or downward by combining the original uncompressed singal with the compressed signal (regardless if it is upwards or downwards) you add back the dynamic range that was altered in the first place essentially nulling the process. Again this is why dynamic processers are used at insert points and not send/returns. However if by using the compression the frequency content is altered: for instance if bass content is increased as a byproduct of compression and this is combined with the original signal then you will have a more "bass heavy" signal which is just a round about way of using eq. Of course if you like the compression artifacts then you are simply using parallel compression as an effect which quite fine with me then but let's please not call it compression because the original dynamic range remains intact. I just want folks to be clear with how compression is generally used and why dynamic processing is generally done at the inserts.
SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
You're right, the overall dynamic range remains intact. But the density, RMS, and range between peak and RMS do not. By using parallel compression, one can have the "tightening" effect of compression without crushing the peaks in the process. This effect cannot often be readily duplicated with EQ alone; it is a different animal, and it does use compression to acheive it.sweetnubs said:
G.
O
ofajen
Daddy-O Daddy-O Baby
sweetnubs said:
The dynamic range you add back in with the uncompressed signal is mostly on the loud parts, which is a useful thing to keep. That keeps the music from wimping out. Pushing down the peaks is awkward. OTOH, the quiet parts will be raised.
The fact is that if you do things right, this technique works. I've done it. Lots of people have done it. It sounds really good. I don't use downward compression much, but when I need to fatten things up a bit I'll try parallel compression.
Now there are digital tools that do upward compression without resorting to this method, but this method is simple and available if you have something as basic as an RNC and a small mixer. The process is valid if you know what you are doing.
The amount of upward compression is controlled by the attenuation of the compressed signal. Spend your time experimenting with how much compressed signal to mix in. The object of the technique is for the parallel compressor to contribute less and less to the total sound as the signal gets louder, thus leaving the peaks pretty much unchanged. Where the upward compression comes in is from the compressed signal on the quiet parts where it will be holding those levels higher than the uncompressed signal will. You use a very low threshold so that the parallel compressor is into gain reduction almost all the time.
Yes, this is different from ordinary serial processing, but as far as I know there is no analog compressor designed to do upward compression out of the box on its own (though I don't pretend to know the capability of every analog compressor).
Rather than just reading this forum, I'd hope that some people just get out there and experiment. This is a simple and powerful technique. Again, however, if you don't have an upward expansion plug in and do this digitally using parallel compression, make sure to use a delay line on the uncompressed signal to compensate for the processing time of the compressor. So far, I've only done this in the analog domain, where the delays are too short to create problems.
I'm glad to know that there are digital plugins that do upward compression. It seems I started working in the digital realm just too late to pick up Neodynium before Roger Nichols came in and hiked the prices way up!
Otto