compress during tracking??

[Fishmed]

I wonder how much this has to do with how we compress? Example. If we had a totally sound proof room for monitoring would we be more often NOT compressing items? Or more often compressing. Same with EQ.I have a pretty nice control room but it is not sound proof. I wonder if a control room was totally sound proof would we change our judgmnent on what did or did not need compression as we could REALLY hear only source material via microphones not combination of mic's and ambiant room noise leaking in. I dont know, maybe im talking out my butt, just an idea.

If you had a perfect room for tracking/mixing you would get a better sound to start with and when you do apply EQ/Compression it would be more accurate. I would say less if you took account for capturing better sounds from the source, but you would still need to apply EQ/Compression as the mix required.

 

[jmorris]

What I’m talking about is are we really hearing the source accurately in order to properly add compression and/or eq. We judge their necessity by the sounds they present to us. If we hear them through ambient room sounds 25 feet away as well as from mic 4 inches from source, are we really able to judge what they need.

 

[heroics321]

this brings up an interesting point about analog recording and comping on the way in. analog tapes adds compression so they say ,so why did all the "old timers" always compress on the way in but the new digital recordest do not? you would think it would be the oposite

I'd imagine one reason would be to have more hardware open during mixdown, and also when you compress the signal coming from tape, hiss could present a problem.

 

[orson198305]

compressing on the way in is stupid - you cant undo any mistakes as you can with software

 

[jmorris]

compressing on the way in is stupid - you cant undo any mistakes as you can with software

It isnt stupid at all if you know what you are doing.

 

[orson198305]

yeah that's my point - read my earlier posts, i'm just adding to the stupidity of some of the arguments.

 

[jmorris]

I have been trying for a baby

lol ,lol,lol

 

[orson198305]

Just like to get a few of your opinions;

When i record, i use something i have arranged & written earlier etc, i don't try to create the final sound from my guitar amp etc, then record. I create the final sound by listening to what is coming out of my monitors (excluding reverb & delay). I generally find that this works for me. I am not an "expect", and at home i don't have super high end audio equipment. I was just wondering what everybody else does? Do you find it more comfortable getting the sound then recording with as little colouration as possible? Or judging what is going to be recorded by listening to you monitors & fiddling with equipment?

 

[fraserhutch]

For me, (not implying that I am an expert) in general I try to print with as little processing as possible. That's what I learnt from some very good engineers.

When I used to track audio, it was usually necessary for me to use a little light compression to maximize the signal.

Now that i am digital, I find I rarely use compression going in.

Just like to get a few of your opinions;

When i record, i use something i have arranged & written earlier etc, i don't try to create the final sound from my guitar amp etc, then record. I create the final sound by listening to what is coming out of my monitors (excluding reverb & delay). I generally find that this works for me. I am not an "expect", and at home i don't have super high end audio equipment. I was just wondering what everybody else does? Do you find it more comfortable getting the sound then recording with as little colouration as possible? Or judging what is going to be recorded by listening to you monitors & fiddling with equipment?

 

[jmorris]

yeah that's my point - read my earlier posts, i'm just adding to the stupidity of some of the arguments.

Oh, duh, I get it now! I was begining to think, man are you talking about