Compress individual tracks or Compress groups of tracks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter hubble
  • Start date Start date
H

hubble

New member
I apologize for my long question:

Do you recommend compressing each individual track seperately or is it better to focus on adding compression to groups. For instance a group of drums or a master compression over the entire mix.

Here's what I'm getting at. Most of my Fruity Loops projects always sound amazing to me. They're always crystal clear and loud. I THINK that might be because I'm dealing with samples that I have already pre-compressed, equalized, and saved. So in the program, the master mix doesn't need to be re-processed in order to sound good. Compare this to my live band recordings in Cubase SX3 where I have to struggle to clear things up.

Can this concept be applied to live music as long as everything is isolated and multitracked? Should I just compress and eq EACH track and then freeze the track that way and not worry so much about the sub-group and/or mastering compression?

And do you think this approach would help maintain a "transparent" and consistent sound where the mix doesn't sound squished?

Thanks for any opinions.
 
It would be more typical for things to be compressed individually and then maybe a limiter over the whole mix. You wouldn't want, for example, a loud snare crack to alter the level of everything else in a noticeable way.
 
hubble said:
..Can this concept be applied to live music as long as everything is isolated and multitracked? Should I just compress and eq EACH track and then freeze the track that way and not worry so much about the sub-group and/or mastering compression?

And do you think this approach would help maintain a "transparent" and consistent sound where the mix doesn't sound squished?
Click to expand...
I'm not inclined (and usually not required) to do squashed and overly loud mixes so I'll chime in here.
The obvious answer may be to use any an all of the techniques to get a mix in control. But at the early stage of the game a good tack might be to begin by building the mix and do as little harm as possible -in the spirit of preserving as much life as can be allowed.
That would (could :) ) imply : Begin with mixing and volume automation first. Gain riding does not kill off the transient. -see how far it can be taken. Then go after the obvious dynamic issues at the track level. Look at it at two general levels- Peak reductions to reign in top swings, or compression for effect and shaping?
And most likely not each track should even need it. There is something to be said for letting some things float -and avoiding a bland trap -having everything heard perfectly all the time.
The branch to group compression or limiting is a another call. Getting 'there by doing it at the track level is a different sound than by group or mix.
Take it to your comfort level then experiment with the global approaches. When in doubt, back off some of the comps and limiters and compare at equal loudness. And sometimes be surprised at how less is more. ;)
 
Do you really want to apply the same compression settings to 2 or more different tracks? Do those different tracks need the same settings? In most cases, probably no.
 
Parallel compress the individual stuff ... then limit ( / master compress) the submix/bus.

.
 
chessrock said:
Parallel compress the individual stuff ... then limit ( / master compress) the submix/bus.

.
Click to expand...
Nice options. But you're not a prosposing parallel' as go-to first? Or are you? ;)
 
danny.guitar said:
Do you really want to apply the same compression settings to 2 or more different tracks? Do those different tracks need the same settings? In most cases, probably no.
Click to expand...
Well, in fairness, there are times when group compression can be a good idea, especially when individual tracks are meant to come together as an integrated sound within the mix. For example, the application of parallel compression underneath the drum submix or backing vocal submix, or the group compression of stacked doubled tracks, things like that. And - while it is far too often overdone - there are sometimes legitimate reasons for applying some finishing compression to a final 2mix.

But as a general principle, IMHO, I'd say the earlier one *can* get something right, the better. Put another way, I'd recommend not putting off until later in the process what can be gotten right earlier in the process. On the one hand, things like parallel group compression and tightening the 2mix - by definition - have to wait for their later moment to be performed, but OTOH, don't put off until those points in the process to fix what can be fixed on the individual track level earlier in the process.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
... On the one hand, things like parallel group compression and tightening the 2mix - by definition - have to wait for their later moment to be performed, but OTOH, don't put off until those points in the process to fix what can be fixed on the individual track level earlier in the process.

G.
Click to expand...
Interesting reading that a lot of folks are advising getting a two-mix comp on early in the mix or not at all. (I've tried it and I'm not nearly there yet.. beins' there's still plenty of more basic things to get under my belt.. :rolleyes: :D
 
mixsit said:
Interesting reading that a lot of folks are advising getting a two-mix comp on early in the mix or not at all.
Click to expand...
Whoops, mix, that's not what I said, or at least not what I meant. My POV was that group comps had to wait until later by definition, and that's how it should be. But one should not IMHO wait to get to the point of group comps to try and fix problems with individual tracks.

It's just a variation of the old sayings, "don't wait for the mix to fix a broken track" and "don't wait for the mastering to fix a broken mix".

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Whoops, mix, that's not what I said, or at least not what I meant. My POV was that group comps had to wait until later by definition, and that's how it should be. But one should not IMHO wait to get to the point of group comps to try and fix problems with individual tracks.

It's just a variation of the old sayings, "don't wait for the mix to fix a broken track" and "don't wait for the mastering to fix a broken mix".

G.
Click to expand...
Oops, yes that was clear. I was only referring to the mix comp. :)
 
With parallel compression, do you mean you have two of the same track, but you compress one, not compress the other, and then mix them together? If so, then do you recommend copying the track and compressing one or do you recommen re-recording an identical track and then compressing one of them? Wouldn't you have phase problems if you just copied?

Also, what sort of "tree" would you establish for this....example

vocal 1
copy of vocal 1 w/ compression

* route those two tracks to a sub group

Apply a limiter on the vocal sub group

*route that sub group to the final mix group

Apply mastering compression on the final mix group so that the vocal sub group is compressed along with all the other instruments?

My worry is that this might be 2 much compression, which is why I was originally wondering if I should focus on compressing individual tracks or compressing sub groups. But I haven't experimented much with parallel compression. Let me know if I got the idea right.

_________________________________________________

If you feel like it, I'm also wondering how the parallel compression works with an entire drum set. I mean, would you even need to parallel compress any of the cymbal tracks? I'm thinking that they'd be fine on their own, and you may want parallel compression only on the percussive drums. And again, do you then route the entire drum set to a sub group and apply a limiter?


looking forward to this good advice. thanks
 
Do some Ask or Google searches on the following phrases: "Motown compression" and "New York compression".

"Motown compression" is a popular slang name for a particular technique of parallel compression used on vocals that was popularized by Barry Gordy and the Motown crew in their heyday.

"New York compression" is a popular slang name for a technique of applying parallel compression to drums that was made popular in some of the big NYC studios a few decades ago.

There's a ton of detailed info out there on both of those techniques.

G.
 
The New York and Motown compression terms are just meaningless slang jargon used by people who like to sound more "audio educated" than they are.

Parallel compression and "mult" compression are terms that have been around for some time, and they represent, appropriately, the phenomenon for which the terms are defined.

.
 
Sometimes I compress the bass guitar and the bass drum togheter so I can keep both loud. But I still just compress a little, not so it's noticable when listening to the whole thing.

What I've been doing lately though is just trying to get the frequency spectrum even...

highs: (6k-16k)guitars and cymbals
Hi-mids (2k-6k): Vocals and snare drum
Lo-mids (250-2k): Guitars, drums
Bass: (60-250): Bass guitar, drums
Lo-Bass (20-60 Hz) Bass Drum

By "drums" I mean the whole kit, it fills up th f**king spectrum :mad: :D

Edit: I play metal and I cut the bass from the guitar at the amp
 
hubble said:
...Also, what sort of "tree" would you establish for this....example

vocal 1
copy of vocal 1 w/ compression

* route those two tracks to a sub group

Apply a limiter on the vocal sub group

*route that sub group to the final mix group
Click to expand...
What I've done is set up mix/recording templates that have evolved to include about all of the various routing and sub-group options, but that's not to say most get used each time. Very often a group' only ends up being a convenient master volume or just a straight pass-through.
Not every song wants or needs all of these multi layers of treatments.
 
I love the idea of compressing the bass guitar along with the bass drum, I'm definately going to encorporate that as a "sub-group".


Yesterday I tried focusing on compressing only individual tracks. It definately made my drums sound clear where every track sounded "isolated". (That's how I like them, but I know that's not necessarily always a good sound)

My bass guitar sounded great...my clean channel guitars sounded great.

But I ran into a problem with my distorted guitars. It seems they just sound at least 2 steps down in reference to quality and relative to everything else.

I typically group my main guitars, and then I apply a mutli-band compressor to that sub-group and cut out the high end. As long as they have the compressor on the group channel, they used to alawys sound decent. Problem is 2 major limitations. One, it would sometimes effect the dynamics. Two, I could only compress them if I cut the high end out of the compressor, otherwise it would "crackle" almost like a speaker distorting. That would limit my options for tones. This is why I wanted to get rid of the limitations of using that group compressor method. (by the way, I use Guitar Rig...sometimes great, sometimes horrible)

So without the mulit-band compressor, it seems hard to get the two guitars to mesh together. A few times, I was able to solo one of the tracks and get a sound I liked. Then I'd do the same to the other track. But when listening to the entire mix, they would mix together with some minor but annoying frequencies that weren't very noticable when soloing. I've heard of assigning each track it's own frequencies so that they all mesh well together. Does this seem to be my problem?
 
hubble said:
I love the idea of compressing the bass guitar along with the bass drum, I'm definately going to encorporate that as a "sub-group".
Click to expand...
It's important to keep difference in one's head between corrective compression - which is often best reserved for the individual tracks - and "glue" compression with would be laid over submixes or the whole mix. There are many examples where corrective compression is best applied to the individula track and not to a group or submix. Three examples:

1) when there is a noticable difference in the regualrity and control with which the drummer and the bass player play their instruments. For example if you have a drummer who just doesn't kick the kick with consistant force, but you have a very good base player who knows how to properly control the dynamics of his bass, the amount and type of compression that would be ideal for each track would be different.

2) when you have a decent kick, but a bass guitar with uneven dynamics naturally built in that the player doesn't tame himself. It's fairly common for many bass guitars to have certain embedded notes (e.g. an open E, just as one example) that just ring more than the rest. it's common to attack that with compression to level out the overall envelope of the bass track. Such compression may not be the same thing the the kick calls for.

3) if the bass is playing more of a jazz-style line, that can call for different treatment than the kick.

So, yeah, I'd keep the idea of subbing the bass and kick handy - in fact, I uusally wind up creating a rhythm stem consisting of the drum kit in it's entirity along with the bass - but only rarely would I actually apply corrective compression to the whole stem.
hubble said:
So without the mulit-band compressor, it seems hard to get the two guitars to mesh together. A few times, I was able to solo one of the tracks and get a sound I liked. Then I'd do the same to the other track. But when listening to the entire mix, they would mix together with some minor but annoying frequencies that weren't very noticable when soloing. I've heard of assigning each track it's own frequencies so that they all mesh well together. Does this seem to be my problem?
Click to expand...
I'd personally say yes, for the most part. It's always tricky at the beginning until one gets practiced at at working on solo tracks and getting them to mesh properly, expecially with distorted guitar which has ugly harmonics all over the map.

The trick is not to get them to sound awsome when soloed - unles syou are working on a lead or solo guitar - but to use the soloing to remove problems and to prep it for mixing. The remove problems part of it is easier because problems are easier to hear. Prepping for the mix, however, requires thinking and planning ahead; i.e. writing the part for that instrument in the whole cast of characters qcalled the band. Put anoter way, it's finding two sounds (one for each guitar) that sound good together, and then designing each sound seperately, from the ground up, rather than just taking two sounds that sound Ok seperately and throwing them into a forced marriage.

As far as the MBC goes, I will only say this; MBCs have only been around in common use for about 10-15 years. Hard rock/heavy metal/distorted guitars have been around for getting close to 40 years. They didn't all of a sudden start sounding better 15 years ago. While it may make some things seem easier, you shouldn't necessarily need an MBC to get what you need. Jimmy Page, Ronnie Montrose, Richie Blackmore, Rudy Schenker and Tommy Iommi didn't need 'em ;).

G.
 
Excellent suggestions as always SouthSIDE...

The only point I'd like to make is that 15-20 years ago, mainstream sounds for guitars were completely different. And while I think it's all personal taste and not necessarily better, I'm looking for a more modern sound right now. (even though Jimmy Paige was one of my idols. lol It's just not an appropriate guitar sound for my current productions)

So maybe I need to stick with MBC and just learn to operate it better. Compression can vary in so many ways, I am learning something new every time I touch a nob. Thanks for the advice guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top