Compression Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter wufei
  • Start date Start date
W

wufei

New member
Im trying to master my own song and Im confuse. Do you really need compression or can you master without it? thanks
 
Im a beginner and just applying all the things Im reading in a book but somehow I think instead of making it nice its starting to sound terrible
 
Why do you want to compress?

If you cannot answer that (or your answer is "because the book told me to") then don't.

End of story.
 
I wanted to even out the peaks on my recording. and somehow I like to simulate the warm sound of the 60s

Seafroggys said:
Why do you want to compress?

If you cannot answer that (or your answer is "because the book told me to") then don't.

End of story.
Click to expand...
 
Compression has more to do with the "loud" sound of the 90s and 00s than it does with the warm sound of the 60s.

There's no single right answer to your compression question--the best thing would be to try your mix in various ways to see what you like--but when you try it, listen to your mix on the stereo in a moving car and on earbuds from your iPod walking down the street.

Not using compression will give you a wide dynamic range that lets your mix "breath" but, when listening in typical noisy locations you may have to have the volume uncomfortably loud on the average bits so as not to lose the quiet bits. On the other hand, over compression can leave your mix sounding rather flat--but it'll be more similar to most commercial masters.

So, rather than books or even advice here...just do some tests and see what sound right to YOU.
 
I see, so its a matter of personal choice. Thanks

Bobbsy said:
Compression has more to do with the "loud" sound of the 90s and 00s than it does with the warm sound of the 60s.

There's no single right answer to your compression question--the best thing would be to try your mix in various ways to see what you like--but when you try it, listen to your mix on the stereo in a moving car and on earbuds from your iPod walking down the street.

Not using compression will give you a wide dynamic range that lets your mix "breath" but, when listening in typical noisy locations you may have to have the volume uncomfortably loud on the average bits so as not to lose the quiet bits. On the other hand, over compression can leave your mix sounding rather flat--but it'll be more similar to most commercial masters.

So, rather than books or even advice here...just do some tests and see what sound right to YOU.
Click to expand...
 
Often times in the "warm 60's", at least as far as The Beatles were concerned, the masters weren't usually compressed, but the individual tracks in the mix were. They slammed those Fairchilds like crazy, that's when they worked best. Other studios using LA-2As and 1176 compressors, those were usually slammed too. That's where the magic happens.

Leave the overall 2-buss alone as far as compression.
 
I see. so thats how they do it then, no compression on the master but on each tracks, slammed meaning compression on full ratio?. Thanks

Seafroggys said:
Often times in the "warm 60's", at least as far as The Beatles were concerned, the masters weren't usually compressed, but the individual tracks in the mix were. They slammed those Fairchilds like crazy, that's when they worked best. Other studios using LA-2As and 1176 compressors, those were usually slammed too. That's where the magic happens.

Leave the overall 2-buss alone as far as compression.
Click to expand...
 
Er, not quite as simple as that.

As Seafroggys says, back in the 1960s the electronic compression tended to be on individual tracks (and there were generally very few tracks. For example, Sgt. Pepper was done on 1, 2 and 4 track recorders with lots of bouncing down.)

However, back in the days of vinyl, mastering had a lot to do with the guy running the cutting lathe making the master disk--there were constraints about how much each groove could deviate without interfering with the next one so the guy mastering was, in fact, compressing but doing so by making mechanical adjustments to the movement of the cutter head.

Nowadays, since you don't use a cutting head, you may or may not need some compression on the final product to: A- make levels match from track to track if you're doing an album, and B-make sure the quieter passages don't get lost in the sort of crap listening environments I mentioned before.
 
In order to shave off the peaks, you really need a limiter instead of a compressor. Even though they do the same thing, limiters are faster and generally more transparent when used properly than a standard compressor doing the same job.
 
+1, with the addition of "make up gain" to raise things back up to just under full saturation.

(Cue debate on loudness wars--but if you don't your mixes sound very quiet compared to commercial recordings.)
 
Well, they also printed effects to tape back then too. So they applied compression to the source, not to the tape itself.

Nowadays no need to do that. I love technology.

In my experience, since I often put heavy compression on things like vocals and bass, I end up not having to compress much, if at all, on the master to get a nice thick loud song.
 
if you're going for a cd delivery you use a brick wall limiter. more complex mixes might need multiband limiting. that is if your mix is good. I never try to fix your mix with limiting.

I mix for my LP and master for the CD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top