compression sucks, but...

  • Thread starter Thread starter junplugged
  • Start date Start date
Diggy, Id've thought you'd have figured out by now that absolutely nothing Greg_L says on this BBS can be taken seriously.

G.
 
I think what Greg is getting at is that recordings do not 'just fall into place' through correct tracking and arrangements in every case. Different songs require different things and all these tools at the end of the day can be used in a thousand and ten different ways to achieve a good recording that people will love and 99% of the time not notice exactly what's been done or if this, that or the other was fixed and to deny this is somewhat idealistic.
At least that's what I think he was getting at ! :D
 
I still don't understand compression !

However, I have been using it to shape various sounds and having been a hater {ha ha, that word !} of it on bass, by trial and error, I've found a way of getting the bass to have a little more 'Je ne sais quois' through it. I also discovered that I have been doing parallel compression for a while without realizing it.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Diggy, Id've thought you'd have figured out by now that absolutely nothing Greg_L says on this BBS can be taken seriously.

G.
Click to expand...

You take it pretty seriously as evidenced by your phone book sized futile responses to me being right.
 
Nah, fuck it. I'll go ahead and be the voice of common sense again........

There's nothing wrong with compression or compressors. To borrow an oft overused recording cliche: compression is just another tool in the box. Sure, it can be abused, and it often is, but that doesn't make compression bad. This whole notion of everything having to be perfect as you track is awesome in theory, and it should be a goal, but it's very unrealistic. If you come up a little short, that's okay. Most of us are modest home recorders that do this as a hobby. Most home recorders are limited by budget, equipment, and/or space. If you don't have the best gear in a perfect room, and most of us don't, there's nothing wrong with using compression if you A) know how, and B) need it. Do the best you can, and then if you need to tweak in the mix, then tweak. If tools like compression, EQ, and panning knobs weren't necessary, they wouldn't exist. It's foolishly idealistic and naive to suggest that a mix should just mix itself with all faders at zero. If a compressor makes a track or a whole mix sound better, then use it. Don't be dumb and refuse it based off some stupid principle.
 
Greg_L said:
There's nothing wrong with compression or compressors. To borrow an oft overused recording cliche: compression is just another tool in the box. Sure, it can be abused, and it often is, but that doesn't make compression bad. This whole notion of everything having to be perfect as you track is awesome in theory, and it should be a goal, but it's very unrealistic. If you come up a little short, that's okay. ... It's foolishly idealistic and naive to suggest that a mix should just mix itself with all faders at zero. If a compressor makes a track or a whole mix sound better, then use it. Don't be dumb and refuse it based off some stupid principle.
Click to expand...
I failed at my communication apparently. I love compression. Compression is awesome. And I would never suggest that a "nothing but faders" mix is anywhere near a finished mix. And when it is time to mix by all means use every compressor, eq, automated fader, delay, etc that you need.

But the OP said that he laments destroying is backing tracks to make room for the vocal. That is bad tracking, not a necessary evil of mixing. You can get from one side of a mix to the other without destroying the sound of anything.

The idea of recording "the whole sound" and just concentrating on capturing the notes when recording and then cutting away frequencies that you don't need in mixing... That's the very essence of "fix it in the mix".

It's not just an ideology at work. The end result is better when everything fits together before mixing. Once the sound is recorded, there is only so much you can do to alter it in mixing. When you're still recording, you can alter the sound of a part in any way imaginable including something as drastic as ditching a piano and replacing it with a banjo. It is a matter of making it fit while you can accomplish the task with minimum sonic compromise. Carving notches with EQ might fit everything into place just fine, but it won't sound as good as much less EQ on a part played with a tone and touch that just inherently fits.

Again, I'm not saying mixing is a walk in the park throwing faders up and calling it a day. I'm not saying there is anything pure and good about keeping your hands off of the EQs and compressors. Mixing is an 8-hour test of mental focus and discipline and you better bring every weapon you need. But mixing is not taking something that doesn't work together and hammering until it does work together. If your vocals are buried out of the gate and a simple slide of the fader won't dig 'em out, something is wrong.

I'm going to post some clips. Hopefully I can plead "educational use" on this and not have these taken down. These clips are cut to just a few seconds each so they can't be used for regular listening. Anyway, this is from the Medeski Martain and Wood album "Tonic". It was recorded with a stereo mic in the middle of the band direct to two track. No close micing. No mixing at all.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3423276/MMWRiseUpSample.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3423276/MMWSevenDeadliesSample.wav
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3423276/MMWYourLadySample.wav

It all fits. It sounds like a professional mix. There are a million things that could be improved if a multi-track existed and mixing could be attempted. But nothing is broken. Leads come forward because the band plays them forward. Bass and drums don't step on each other because they are aware of each other. This is what I'm talking about.
 
Well, I hate compression and simply don't use it.
Ultimately I do all my recordings for me so I don't care at all how loud my mixes end up. If I want the full dynamic range for super soft to loud I have it. I just turn the overall mix down 'till it doesn't clip.
That often leaves my recordings pretty soft by most peoples' standards.
Doesn't matter to me ...... anyone that wants to hear my stuff can turn up how ever much they need to or not listen.
And since I never bother with playing my stuff for anyone but me anyway the issue never comes up.
I get my audience interaction live ..... recordings are just a way for me to hear what's bubbling around in my head.
:)
 
Why does everyone seem to think compression is only about making something loud? It can be useful in so many other ways, too. Smash some peaks on a single track without turning up the whole thing afterward. Use a slow attack and release to leave the peaks alone and fatten up a drum kit. Keep that chickin' pickin' consistent. Get more apparent headroom out of your clean instrument amplifier. Make an instrument pump and breathe on purpose. Double you tee eff.
 
BrentDomann said:
Why does everyone seem to think compression is only about making something loud? It can be useful in so many other ways, too. Smash some peaks on a single track without turning up the whole thing afterward. Use a slow attack and release to leave the peaks alone and fatten up a drum kit. Keep that chickin' pickin' consistent. Get more apparent headroom out of your clean instrument amplifier. Make an instrument pump and breathe on purpose. Double you tee eff.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It can do many great things. I'm thinking a lot of people don't know how to use compression and/or they jump on the anti-compression bandwagon driven by audio snobs.
 
Chibi Nappa said:
The idea of recording "the whole sound" and just concentrating on capturing the notes when recording and then cutting away frequencies that you don't need in mixing... That's the very essence of "fix it in the mix".

Carving notches with EQ might fit everything into place just fine, but it won't sound as good as much less EQ on a part played with a tone and touch that just inherently fits.

But mixing is not taking something that doesn't work together and hammering until it does work together. If your vocals are buried out of the gate and a simple slide of the fader won't dig 'em out, something is wrong.

It all fits. It sounds like a professional mix. There are a million things that could be improved if a multi-track existed and mixing could be attempted. But nothing is broken. Leads come forward because the band plays them forward. Bass and drums don't step on each other because they are aware of each other. This is what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
This goes a long way for saying keep things simple and to plan ahead but if you think about it that doesn't really address the OP's problem.
The tracks you posted were mixed too and ya, they used EQ and compression only while they were tracking. I'm sure everyone from techs to musicians worked for hours to get that mix to gel before hitting that record button.

The big difference with the OP's tracks is the post production summing of the room/rooms which is a problem that doesn't exist in a simple stereo mic'd recording. With multi tracking you need to make room for tracks summing and you have to use EQ and compression to make them fit, more tracks = more complex. It's a whole different art of arrangement after the fact.
 
I'd make the argument that the more tracks you have to sum, the tighter the tracking should be in order to use LESS post processing, not more.

And, while I agree that compression has many very legitimate uses, there ain't all that many of them for me in a dense mix of a large number of tracks. Optical compression on the vocal tracking, and some kind of leveling compression on the direct bass line in post to level, and that's more often than not all the pre-mastering compression we regularly use on a typical rock/pop/country/alternative mix of 20-30 raw tracks. Of course, there are times when more is called for, but those are the exception and not the rule for us.

And as far as EQ, yeah, there's often a liberal amount of sweeping done, but no more and no differently because of the number of tracks involved. If we sweep a guitar (just for an example), it'll likely get pretty much the exact same sweep whether it's one of two tracks or twenty. And similar with other post EQ techniques; if I need to tongue-and-groove a couple of rhythm acoustics yeah that's more than I'd need to do if there was only one rhythm acoustic, but that probably would not change based on the amount of other tracks that come along with them in the mix.

Everybody has their own production technique style; I'm not saying this way is the only way to do it. But I am saying that the idea that more tracks automatically means more processing required is not true; with good tracking it's not necessary. And it's preferable; it's not only less work (;)), but it sounds better. IME, 20 tracks with a busload of post-processing almost always sounds worse than 20 tracks with less post processing on them. The processed stuff tends to just sound more "muddy", whereas the cleaner tracks sound, well, cleaner.

IMHO, YMMV, 10EST/9CST, ETC.

G.
 
I like compression to keep the blood loss to a minimum while waiting on the bamalamps.
 
Ewww. I feel like I need a shot of testosterone and some whiskey before I start digging up my Aunt's Yanni collection or some whalesong or something. With the kid analogy though? Seriously? Okay then, most of my friend's kids really aren't as cute or gifted as their parents think they are, and yeah they can sound annoying and probably could use a bit of 'compression' to make them behave too. Don't be afraid to compress your kids into line, just don't overdo it or they grow up so perfect they have no character, and hate you.
 
This is kind of a funny thread

I kinda get the OPs original point but would say that if everything is special and perfect then nothing is.
If every woman in the world were a perfect ten then not one of them would stand out as something special (although trips to WalMart would be a lot easier on the eye Sheesh!)

In mixing if every instrument in every track has tons of top end, tons of low end, tons of dynamic range and the frequency spectrum is packed from end to end with content then nothing can stand out and "Shine" as the key thing driving the music at that point that needs to have the attention and shine through

Some of the most hotly sought after equipment in studios are, you guessed it, compressors. CLA and TLA, Love em or hate em, get some of the best tracked stuff available and still use compressors like crazy to shape the sound.
With the exception of classical and some jazz every record that people recording are trying to duplicate the "sound of" has all kinds of compression going on all over the place.

Heck even in classical music the mixing and compressing has usually been handled by the arrangement so you don't have a really loud group of ten double basses playing during a quiet violin solo that you need to mix out of the way. and EQ is handled by only letting each instrument play within a fairly narrow range of notes so the Cellos don's interfere with the violas, who in turn don't interfere with the violins and so on

If you are dealing with a close mic'd group of tracks as most home recorders are going to be (unless they happen to live in a large live room at abbey road) then volume and mute automation is far more important for arrangement and control purposes than compression

Compression is a sonic shaping tool, You can make a drum track more punchy in the chorus and more ambient in the bridge just by messing with the attack times and ratios. Make a bass track sit back and behave in the verses but drive the song in the middle eight and so on

I'm finding that the more I find out about compression the more I can use it to put back some of the life and movement into instruments that I, by necessity, track at a distance of 6-12" from the mics most of the time. Even well tracked (which I think I'm getting better at) that can sound kind of flat and static and not at all how anyone actually really listens to "real" music

Anyone who thinks compression is just about squashing dynamics to make things louder is failing to use their imagination, There are about a billion other things that you can do with it.
The problem is that you have to spend a long time messing about with your compressors to really figure out what you can do with them and this is where, IMO & IME many people fall short. Many people seem to want a recipe: Use settings ABC on your vox and it will be perfect and of course when you try that it sounds like crap and then we get all this nonsense on the evils of compression

of course YMMV

Rant Done!
 
Last edited:
diggy_dude said:
Compression only sucks if you overuse it. Subtlety is the key.....
Click to expand...


not true..a "crush" compression ondrum room mikes can be awesome and is use a lot on heavy rock recording

knowing how to tailor wave shape using a compressor is your greatest help when mixing

so too is heavy compression on guitars . bass and vocals to achieve desired effects
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top