compression adds color?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rightbrainnow
  • Start date Start date
R

rightbrainnow

New member
I just dont get it. How does a compressor add color? Why would you want it to? A mic pre and a microphone can do that. Im trying to justify buying a compressor for vocals, but i kinda cant. Ive never heard anything where its "heres the track with compression...heres the track without it."..so maybe i dont get it. I thought a compressor just changed the "physical" volume of the sound...i didnt think it added to the sound, I thought thats what the preamp and mic were for (if you wanated it). If you have a nice mic, a nice preamp...and you like the sound that comes out of it, wouldnt a compressor just be needed to keep the sound within the "picture frame"? I wouldnt want to buy a compressor that changed or manipulated the tone or color etc.
 
So if you had a red and green crayon you'd be happy?
Different combos of stuff is what makes recordings interesting.
Condenser into a clean pre into a colored comp (though I don't like that term)
will give a different sound than a Dynamic into a colored pre into a cleaner compressor
 
Last edited:
If you can hear the compression, then you're doing things in the wrong way. Vocals, clean electric guitars and bass benefit from compression even if you can hear the difference. You should read more about the stuff. There's a lot of information in the forums and the Interent. Do search.
 
I prefer to think of it as the compressor takes away color........cuz it sounds worse after compression, not better.......

do a side by side, one completely dry vocal take, then using identical gear, add a compressor set for heavy attenuation. Sing the same vocal.

compare them side by side, then try to tell me you like the compressed track better.....
 
i like lots of colors, but ill be using the same compressor for everything. I guess i just want a compressor that that keeps everything in check.
 
The right compressor should not make the track sound bad. In fact, it should barely change the sound at all. I prefer to think of compressors as texture-izers when used properly. I like the texture that my VLA imparts on vocal takes and acoustic guitars.

It is a subtle grain and smear effect that makes it sound smooth and nice.

Good compressors dont shit up the signal. Shitty ones do, and good ones only do when in the hands of the inexperienced.
 
Good compression is one of the things that kind of seperates the Big boys from the rest. In fact, most of the time compression is used because of the "color" it imparts and not to "keep the sound within the picture frame". Thats what proper gain structure is for. Most of the good, vintage, and expensive comps are coveted for how they do change the sound of a track, and not how they don't, all though there are some nice comps that are pretty invisible out there.

People here seem to like to talk a lot about not EQ'ing, clean preamps, invisible compressors etc... They talk about how we want to accurately capture everything we are given. This is all good in theory, but thats not how the great enigneers and producers are made. With most musical acts, especially in the rock'n'roll genre's, no one really wants to hear exactly what the band sounds like. Even the bands do not want to hear that. That is why bands scour the Earth looking for this toy and that toy to improve that sound. When recording, the engineer, studio rooms, producers etc... are hired based on how they do change things.
 
rightbrainnow said:
I just dont get it. How does a compressor add color? Why would you want it to?
Click to expand...
They all have their somewhat particular ways of changing the dynamic -and/or to some extent purposely changing the shape of the instrument. That alone IMO is a pretty audible change.
What's with this 'if you can hear it's wrong'? Oftentimes you want it subtle, but if you put it there, you damn well ought to be able to hear it. :rolleyes: edit: Ok. Sometimes. :)
Wayne
 
Last edited:
More often than not if you can't hear the compressor, than you just can't hear it, not so much that the compressor is invisible. In general, I would say that if you can't hear the compressor, that is when something is wrong. Adjust your levels if you just want a couple of db of attenuation, or compress.... Either way, it is making an audible change. If not, why use it at all? :D
 
compression color

some people use compression as an effect, in which case it is noticeable. sometimes i compress the hell out of a clean electric guitar signal and i like it. but the more common use (and proper application) of compression is to even out the audio signal; that is, boost the parts of the signal that are low amplitude and reduce the parts that are high. there shouldn't be too much of an associated subjective quality introduced - it should just sound more evened out (and basically easier on the ears). by compressing various signals in a recording you help each instrument (or part) occupy its own place in the frequency spectrum by packing each part tight.

you control the ratio of relative change (how much the input must change before the the output changes), the overall threshold (when does it change), and the speed of onset and offset of change. most of you guys will say, "well no shit!" but it doesn't seem like many in this thread realize what the compressor is actually doing (and thus understand about "coloring" the signal). too much, and it sounds like there's no life left. it is especially useful if you want to normalize your tracks, because you get those peaks down. if you ever go into your individual tracks and reduce the amplitude on little peaks, you are essentially doing a kind of manual compression.

the coloring effect is often related to the attack and decay settings - the thing starts breathing, and peaks jump out in weird ways, and trophs become more audible.

steve albini says that a compressor is a hack engineer's best friend. this is probably true to some extent, but i think subtle compression on drums, bass, and vocals can fatten up the sound considerably. an overly compressed sound is generally bad, and indicative of amateurish production skills.
 
If a compressors proper application is to jsut even out the audio signal without leaving a sonic signature, then why are almost all of the nice, vintage, and coveted compressors the kind that leave a distinct and definitive sonic signature?

No disrespect to Steve Albini, but he is in the vast minority with a statement like that when considering all of the other great engineers and producers with similar or greater credits to their name. Most accredited engineers and producers are known to use more than just subtle compression. Of course most of those guys are also using really well built and well designed compressors.
 
im new to this; what about compression on drums, particularly kick and snare? i dont know what im doing when i pull up the compression plugin in protools, but i wing it and turn the knobs until i hear something that almost doesnt sound like my crappy "room".

my drums are great, if you are playing outside, at MSG, or an auditorium. there just loud as hell.

i will do a search on this; the whole "proper" tuning for drums on a recording, etc. dont waste your time explaining to me, im sure its all in the archives somewhere.
 
If a compressors proper application is to jsut even out the audio signal without leaving a sonic signature, then why are almost all of the nice, vintage, and coveted compressors the kind that leave a distinct and definitive sonic signature?
Click to expand...

i would say that whether or not any compressor leaves a sonic signature depends on how you use it. some might have some kind of "analog" or "tube sound" in the presets, or be good at that, but that's because there's a market for retro/analog sounding recordings. everybody is looking for "added warmth" or whatever, but that is not what compression was designed to accomplish really. of course, that doesn't mean you can't try to get that sort of sound from it.

companies also might market their compressors in a way that suggests you can hear it, because many people want to hear the effect they are using - they don't understand that there are equalization benefits that aren't preceptually obvious. to really tell sometimes you might need to compare the samples in long-term ABX tests.

No disrespect to Steve Albini, but he is in the vast minority with a statement like that when considering all of the other great engineers and producers with similar or greater credits to their name. Most accredited engineers and producers are known to use more than just subtle compression. Of course most of those guys are also using really well built and well designed compressors.
Click to expand...

of course he represents the extreme view on this - and his recordings are raw as hell, though crisp, and well recorded i think (especially very loud). think of it this way - in an ideal recording set-up, the EQing is perfect and compression should be unnecessary. in a good live set-up, you don't need it, though i think people use it live as well. personally, i think slight compression helps keep things a little punchy. albini's quote also doesn't necessarily mean an engineer should NEVER use it, it's just that hacks often over-rely on it due to EQ inadequacy and other issues.

i use the FMR audio RNC1773 and i think it fluffs things up nicely - but there's no "signature."
 
The RNC is one of those compressors that I do feel is pretty transparent. That is as long as you don't hit it with more than about 4 to 6 db of gain reduction. If however you want to think about Distressors, 1176's, LA2's, API comps, Neve comps, SSL Comps, Chandler TG1's, Manley's etc... none of those are really used for their "transparency". Just like a microphone and a preamp, compressors are tools that are often designed to change the way things sound. That is why their are engineers and producers and why they get hired. EQ is great, especially with good EQ's, but their are audible things that compressors do that no EQ can really do. You can use a comp to audibly change dynamics, change the attack of a track, the sustain of a track etc... I rarely use compression solely as a leveler. To me it does not matter what a comp was designed to do, only what it does do. People tend to spend good money on compression because of what it does do, and not what the original designer of the very first comp meant for it to do. All of the comps that I mentioned are actually designed to have an impact on your sound, and not so much to be invisible.
 
yeah, i hear ya. like i said, people are looking for certain sounds - often it is a retro type of sound. i'm more in the albini camp myself - i want things to sound present, crisp, and clear. if the technology of compression helps you get a sound you're looking for, go for it. i would encourage those looking for retro warmth to consider why you want that - you're recording NOW! the reason those old recordings sound like that was because the technology was worse, and now we have nostalgic feelings towards the sounds. good mics and pre-amps, and a little EQing expertise will get you a hell of a long way these days.

i've often found that when people use compression to get some "sound," the recordings often sound muddy and blurred. if you want a live drum sound, you should be spare with compression.

i was just trying to debunk the idea that compression technology is intended as an effect - it's not - it's a treatment ...technically speaking, that is. but don't get me wrong - i'm all for experimentation. i had a recording in a sound/video exhibition just last week that was banjo plucking put through two 8-second delays and then superimposed on top of a stretched sample of a drum stool squeak. i'm no purist.

:eek:

but most people just want their instruments to mix well and sound real.
 
pitchfork said:
the more common use (and proper application) of compression is to even out the audio signal; that is, BoostBoost the parts of the signal that are low amplitude.
Click to expand...
Don't mean to pick on you pitch fork... but this statement is probably the most misunderstood concept of compression. A compressor does not boost weak signals or passages... it compresses the peaks of only the highest gain content... Makeup gain then boosts everything (including the compressed peaks).

pitchfork said:
by compressing various signals in a recording you help each instrument (or part) occupy its own place in the frequency spectrum by packing each part tight.
Click to expand...
Yes, a compressor can EQ to some extent...(not really it's designed purpose, but a result of it's design)... but only if your problems are related to the amplitude of particular frequencies overpowering a track... I think to sit individual instruments in a mix, and keep the mix clean and "uncluttered", not "muddy", you really need to boost, or more often cut, audio dependent on frequency, not amplitude, a compressor can't do this. You have to find the overlapping frequencies in the mix and move them out of the way of each other... a parametric is more like it...
 
Don't mean to pick on you pitch fork... but this statement is probably the most misunderstood concept of compression. A compressor does not boost weak signals or passages... it compresses the peaks of only the highest gain content... Makeup gain then boosts everything (including the compressed peaks).
Click to expand...

you're not picking on me, you're right. i understand that there is no selective boosting - i should have said it boosts them relative to the peak signals. perceptually, i think this often has the effect of differentially boosting low amplitude signals (especially at loud volumes), especially if they are low frequency, but that is a different issue.

Yes, a compressor can EQ to some extent...(not really it's designed purpose, but a result of it's design)... but only if your problems are related to the amplitude of particular frequencies overpowering a track... I think to sit individual instruments in a mix, and keep the mix clean and "uncluttered", not "muddy", you really need to boost, or more often cut, audio dependent on frequency, not amplitude, a compressor can't do this. You have to find the overlapping frequencies in the mix and move them out of the way of each other... a parametric is more like it...
Click to expand...

again, you're right - but i was trying to explain conceptually the benefit of using transparent compression - because there is generally a correlation between high amplitude parts of the signal and the frequencies (i.e., peaks generally do not have the same frequency distribution as the rest of the signal), it is technically a byproduct of compression that it can function like an EQ - but at the same time, this effect results in compression providing a way to help each instrument sit in its own place in the mix better. this EQ effect of compression is actually something that would be harder to duplicate with parametric EQ - you would need to do spectrum analyses and multiple EQ passes i would think (unless there are fancier para EQs than i use - could be). of course, the more properly EQ'd a signal is, the less this byproduct effect would matter.
 
rightbrainnow said:
How does a compressor add color? Why would you want it to? A mic pre and a microphone can do that. Im trying to justify buying a compre I wouldnt want to buy a compressor that changed or manipulated the tone or color etc.
Click to expand...

A compressor adds compression. Crayons add color. Toner adds tone.
 
Last edited:
yea, i guess i want the most transparent compressor possible then. My signal is a Blue mic through a sebatron vmp, and i dont have the cash to fork over for a compressor to equal the value of other things in my chain...so i just want something thats not noticed..and only helps on the audible things.
 
pitchfork said:
this EQ effect of compression is actually something that would be harder to duplicate with parametric EQ - you would need to do spectrum analyses and multiple EQ passes i would think (unless there are fancier para EQs than i use - could be). of course, the more properly EQ'd a signal is, the less this byproduct effect would matter.
Click to expand...

Overall I think we're in agreement here. Yes a compressor by design will effect the equalization of a track... this can be used in a benificial manner by bringing the amplitude of the entier audio spectrum of the track down to the same level. It does this with little intervention at all... simply by reducing the frequency peaks.

But I wouldn't go as far as stating that you'd need a spectrum analyzer to accomplish the same (or better) with an EQ.

A person can spend hours soloing tracks and EQing to pefection... each track, by itself, sounds perfect... do this across 32 track, bring them all up together... somehow the mix sounds like crap... solo any track... bingo, perfection...

But tracks don't stand alone in a mix... they've got to play well with other... yeah go ahead and spend some solo time on your feature tracks... but leave the rest for the mix...

Try this... most of your clutter is going to be in the midband (this gets crowded pretty quickly). Most people clean this up by sweeping & cutting in this spectrum... but how 'bout this... instead of cutting the response as you sweep through the offending frequencies... narrow your Q, and boost instead (by about 6 dB). Rather than looking for the sweep spot... look for the frequency where things really start to fall apart... when it really sounds like crap... notch here and things will start to fall into place pretty quickly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top