Compression Vs. Fader Riding

  • Thread starter Thread starter elbandito
  • Start date Start date
I with everybody here. I always go to volume automation or change the gain in the audiosuite in Protools. Especially for deessing. Before I ever reach for a compressor. Once I have the track where I like I'll add any necessary or wanted compression. I do the same with EQ. I will use one to filter out any junk, and a second if necessary to shape the sound in a mix. Fun stuff
 
mjbphotos said:
I don't track DI bass with compression (why track it rather than add it later?), but usually add it. Maybe because I'm not a bass player!
Click to expand...

Because compression can be integral to the sound of bass in the same sense distortion can be integral to the sound of guitar, and because compression makes you play differently.
 
I have been doing a lot more automation (fader riding) these days with great results.
 
When I compress, peaks reduction isn't really the main thing I'm listening for, at least not as much as how hard the track is hitting and what kinda "shape" it has. Either that, or I'm just trying to squash the hell out of the signal and turn it to mix glue lol. You can't do that by just turning down a fader. I see what you mean though, I generally say less is more. Now that I say that watch my next mix be swamped in compression.
 
ido1957 said:
Why do they have compressors in the more expensive preamps?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I understand the question. Some do. Plenty more don't.
Maybe it's not whether a compressor is combined with a pre or not, but dealing with the question why track with it?
The flip side of 'record clean and straight and do most of the finishing' in the mix' is, get it as close to finished sound in tracking.
When you can, (and when it's appropriate to shoot for that), it can move things along that much better.
 
ido1957 said:
Why do they have compressors in the more expensive preamps?
Click to expand...


I like using a very light amount of compression during tracking for some things....guitar being one of the main things.
It does some level adjustment, but it also ads the character of the comp...which is not absolutely obvious in the guitar sound, though for some things preferable to the straight-wire signal...also, the comp helps add bit of sustain.

I've used a limiter in my vocal chain on some stuff...and again, it's more about adding to/changing the flavor of the signal.

So that's why you see mic/com/EQ channel strips.


Now some folks will say you can do all that later on during the mix so why do it on the way in....but it's not always the same, and there's something about making specific decisions while tracking that in-turn drive the rest of the tracking decisions...and that's a different vibe than say, just going for all DI/"neutral" tracking and then wait for the mix to sort it all out.
I've worked both ways...so it's a per-song thing for me, whatever mood I'm in. :)

Also...for guys that record full bands with a more "live" appriach...there may be a desire/need to get all your sounds set during the tracking...to capture that live moment VS waiting for a later time to try and create the live moment....basically, tracking as-it-falls and just going with that.
 
miroslav said:
Also...for guys that record full bands with a more "live" appriach...there may be a desire/need to get all your sounds set during the tracking...to capture that live moment VS waiting for a later time to try and create the live moment....basically, tracking as-it-falls and just going with that.
Click to expand...

This, in a nutshell, is me. Trying to re-create the feeling of that live moment is always a PITA. I try my best to capture the performance as well as I can, so I add compression to the bass, certain parts of the drumkit and sometimes other instruments or vocals on the way in. What it sounds like thru the mains and satellites in the room is *hopefully* what it comes out like when I play it back in my DAW. I'll know I've done a good job when all I have to do is level things off during the mixing stage.
 
moresound said:
This goes hand in hand with live sound as well. I would ride the faders apposed to the use of compression any day.
Yet compression is fun when used right.
Click to expand...

I love the luxury of a compresser when mixing (not recording) live sound. I havent met anyone who has a 10mS reaction time or can keep that vigilant through a whole live concert. I cant. Things just happen too quickly when it's live. The unexpected is just part of live shows.

I think the objection to compression on live PA is more to do with inexperience with compressers which runs the risk of feedback, and that can be got around by being careful with the settings used.

Also a compresser with good visual indication of the amount of compression applying at any given time really helps. If you are heavily compressing during a loud number and dont know it, it's almost guaranteed that the moment the song ends or there's a quiet section you'll get huge feedback, which I've never known to go down well with the audience.

For me I would use compression at least as a safety net in addition to manual gain riding. I dont see it as one or the other. Manual riding and a compresser/limiter to catch the bits you cant catch manually. They complement each other really well.

Tim
 
Tim Gillett said:
I love the luxury of a compresser when mixing (not recording) live sound. I havent met anyone who has a 10mS reaction time or can keep that vigilant through a whole live concert. I cant. Things just happen too quickly when it's live. The unexpected is just part of live shows.
Click to expand...

Right. Even in the studio you can't automate what amounts to hundreds of volume adjustments per minute. Besides the fact that it sounds different.

Tim Gillett said:
I think the objection to compression on live PA is more to do with inexperience with compressers which runs the risk of feedback, and that can be got around by being careful with the settings used.

Also a compresser with good visual indication of the amount of compression applying at any given time really helps. If you are heavily compressing during a loud number and dont know it, it's almost guaranteed that the moment the song ends or there's a quiet section you'll get huge feedback, which I've never known to go down well with the audience.

For me I would use compression at least as a safety net in addition to manual gain riding. I dont see it as one or the other. Manual riding and a compresser/limiter to catch the bits you cant catch manually. They complement each other really well.

Tim
Click to expand...

In addition to feedback you run the risk of injuring a singer. Vocalists tend to try to compensate for compression by singing louder, especially when there's a lot of stage volume, and they can easily strain their voices. It's a good practice to split the mic feed to two channels so you can compress the one going to the main mix but not the one going to the monitors. I usually just set the threshold fairly high and use it like the safety net you mention so it only catches the occasional loud note.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Right. Even in the studio you can't automate what amounts to hundreds of volume adjustments per minute.
Click to expand...

Well maybe not in real-time live/during tracking....but if all you are after is precision volume control of a track, in the DAW you can do it after tracking and then it will be even more precise than any comp could be.
 
miroslav said:
Well maybe not in real-time live/during tracking....but if all you are after is precision volume control of a track, in the DAW you can do it after tracking and then it will be even more precise than any comp could be.
Click to expand...

I guess I just don't find it practical to automate volume down to time scales much below a second or two. To even approximate what I use the compressor to do would require multiple volume adjustments per second of a track in some cases, and it would still sound different.
 
No....I don't manually go down to a second or two across the entire track, but I can pick exactly how much change I want and at the exact spot I want it, based on what I am hearing....that's all I'm saying.

IOW, the comp is going to just work off the settings without discrimination as it can't hear/judge...it's only executing...
...but sometimes you may not want the same numbers applied across the whole length of track. That's what I mean about it being more precise IMO when doing pure volume adjustment manually (aka automation) to the track in the DAW.
You can hear/adjust each section of audio exactly how you want it...as opposed to more of a "threshold & leveling" approach that a comp would take.
 
miroslav said:
No....I don't manually go down to a second or two across the entire track, but I can pick exactly how much change I want and at the exact spot I want it, based on what I am hearing....that's all I'm saying.

IOW, the comp is going to just work off the settings without discrimination as it can't hear/judge...it's only executing...
...but sometimes you may not want the same numbers applied across the whole length of track. That's what I mean about it being more precise IMO when doing pure volume adjustment manually (aka automation) to the track in the DAW.
You can hear/adjust each section of audio exactly how you want it...as opposed to more of a "threshold & leveling" approach that a comp would take.
Click to expand...

Ding! And here would be a good spot to inject even a little more light. :D

You keep seeing 'comps change the dynamics and the 'shape', altering the tone or sound, automation doesn't'. I've been calling this' micro / macro', maybe that's not the right term?

We can put a comp on that is slow enough to pass over most of the small stuff- i.e. closer to the speed of a fader move.
We can also go in and place automation (key spots where it's worth the effort) at the micro level, change impact of peaks, valleys', emphasize/deemphasize/trim- 'Shape change right down into the 'word level'.

Rather completely different than normal compression - but presumably because much of a comp's sonic effect and 'signature is its static reaction to varying dynamic- which would be silly with automation of course.

Automation can be placed when, where, how much and envelope altering or not.
 
An example of doing it manually was the other week when I recorded a live violin duo. Right at the end of a piece one of the fiddlers gave a big flourish on his bow and it hit the overhead mic. Man, what a sound. It even scared the sh.. out of him! All the audience laughed sympathetically of course.

Later on, on the recording I manually pulled down just that crash by maybe 15 db. You could still hear the crash but at least it wasnt like a thunderclap anymore.

Tim
 
mixsit said:
Rather completely different than normal compression - but presumably because much of a comp's sonic effect and 'signature is its static reaction to varying dynamic- which would be silly with automation of course.
Click to expand...

Which reminds me what I was going to add, that compressors can do things rhythmically that you wouldn't want to try with automation.
 
A compressor can be considered an instrument much like any of the musical instruments you record. If you don't know the instrument well enough to play it, you can't expect to make much of an impact on the listener. Compressors are the same. They are not a magic box and if you don't know how to operate one then it can very easily mess up your recording. If you want a section louder, sure, ride the fader, turn it up, or down as the case may be.

Compressors on the other hand can alter the level of the louder parts while keeping the quieter parts untouched. Or you can use makeup gain to reverse that and bring up the quieter parts while leaving the louder parts untouched. How much is changed depends on your understanding and ability to manipulate the compressor parameters. At what level do you want to start compressing? How much do you want to compress it? How quickly do you want the compressor to kick in and how long do you want it to hang on? Trying to do all this with fader riding isn't quite going to have the same effect. But as I said, if you need it louder, turn it up, if you want it quieter, turn it down. But if you want to unleash some of the benefits of compression, then learn how to operate one and experiment with your mix.
 
If your machine chokes on the processing why not do the track individually and render it. Save a backup of the original track in case you later don't like it. This takes all of the load off when doing a final mix.
 
I started out using compression to "manage" levels in a vocal track, the to add gain to any track that couldn't keep up & then to save me having to adjust small changes.
THEN I realized I was making a mess.
NOW I adjust levels on the faders for most of the above and use automation to do it. That means I get a lovely, active image of things bopping up & down all over the place which is due, mostly, to a lack of consistency in playing & performing & is mostly my fault.
GregL will testify that I go WAY overboard in the automation world.
As for compression, I'm still trying to get my head around it & I TRY to use it as little as possible.
The compression settings in Reaper seem to have helped me reduce my use which sounds silly but is true.
I do Like the SOUND of Blockfish's Fat Drum Loop & Close Vocals though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top