Parallel Compression: How is it done and is it useful?

Not neccessarily. I do use a Waves API, but any compressor will give satisfactory results. Not sure I would use the Cubase compressor as they sound like crud for any heavy use. Maybe the KJerhaus (hell I can't spell that) classic compressor for a free one.
 
Kylotan said:
Yeah, but what I'm saying is that mixing your 30:1 compressed send with the original signal 50/50 (for example) would seem to be broadly equivalent to having a 15:1 compressor insert, because your original material can be considered to have a 1:1 compressor on it. You smash half the signal, then you bring half of it back by mixing in the original - seems equivalent to only smashing it half as much in the first place.
Click to expand...

The difference is that the highly compressed channel isn't raised so the peaks match the uncompressed signal. That would sort of average the ratios like you describe. The compressed signal is low enough that the peaks of the uncompressed signal rise well past the threshold of the compressed signal. It's a little counter-intuitive, but the lower the threshold the more dynamic the peaks are. The peaks don't get compressed as much as the "body" of the signal.

I had great success giving a slap bass some body with this method. I copied the track and limited the heck out of the peaks. Then I mixed it back in to fill in the body of the notes where all the tone was while leaving the pops of the slap technique intact. I had tried all sorts of plugins and settings in the normal series way without success.
 
Damn this is awesome - I am going to try this out today on some new tracks

Sweet trick thanks - learned something new :D
 
jimmys69 said:
With parallel compression, you are adding a compressed version of the instrument to the uncompressed. Mixing the two. This adds punch while keeping the dynamics of the original.
Click to expand...
A number of us did this or variations of it long before we knew what it was or that it was a known technique.
 
witzendoz said:
This explains it.


I use it for 2 things mainly,

Drums. I have 1 buss L+R of the drum mix going to Stereo with no compression at all (although some of the channels may have some compression beforehand i.e. snare and kick), a second L+R buss of the drum mix is going through a compressor and then to the stereo buss. By mixing the 2 you can achieve a punchy drum sound without it sounding squashed.

Vocals. I split the vocal recording to 2 channels of the mixer. I have 1 vocal channel running straight to the stereo buss with the normal eq, etc. The second vocal channel has a compressor inserted, this is compressed slightly harder (steeper ratio) than you would normally trying to act on the loud parts mostly, the compressed channel is then eq ed and I usually have the effects send going from this channel but not always depending on what I am looking for. By mixing the 2 vocal channels so that the uncompressed channel and the compressed channel are similar volume in the quiet parts and the compressed channel stays down in the loud bits with the uncompressed channel getting louder the vocal mix sits in the mix without it sounding over compressed. You have to experiment to get it right.

And sometimes I don't use parallel compression at all.

Alan.
Click to expand...

Great link and explanation. I also throw bass in there at times with the drum buss to fatten it up. :)
 
Yeah you can use it on anything. I've used it on acoustic guitars in singer/songwriter songs. It keeps a lot of the original dynamics while adding control over the transients and fattening the overall sound. So yes, you can use it on anything from rock drums to folky guitars.
 
PizzImperfect said:
So, can this be used on anything? Not just drums?

Just a case of messing around and seeing how it sounds?
Click to expand...
I use it on whole mixes on occasion. KEEP IN MIND THOUGH that with most simplistic additive processes such as this that it's also a simplistic process to completely trash the whole thing. "Less" is almost universally more.
 
Just to jump in here, 'Boulder has touched on why parallel can be different than the same at half the ratio. The key I believe is not that it has to be the kind that does or doesn't do such and such with the peaks or what have you,. it is that it allows very different and/or heavy handed styles of comp to be used- plus eq'd if desired, and then placed where you want it in level and in ways you wouldn't do to the whole path.
We can do a mix with 2nd layer 'smashed peaks, slow attack to accentuate, various colors (color' comps or not, eq or not..
 
This has been probably the most useful thread I've seen in a few weeks. I actually tried this Saturday on a drum track created with EZDrummer. I rendered the drum track by itself to a stereo wav, and then compressed after opening in a new track. I think I compressed the stereo track too much, as the cymbals were a bit distorted, but it did give more punch to the bass and drum overall. I need to fool with it some more.

Honestly, I like the suggestion of using it on bass or vocals. I never thought of that before.
 
mixsit said:
Just to jump in here, 'Boulder has touched on why parallel can be different than the same at half the ratio. The key I believe is not that it has to be the kind that does or doesn't do such and such with the peaks or what have you,. it is that it allows very different and/or heavy handed styles of comp to be used- plus eq'd if desired, and then placed where you want it in level and in ways you wouldn't do to the whole path.

We can do a mix with 2nd layer 'smashed peaks, slow attack to accentuate, various colors (color' comps or not, eq or not..
Click to expand...
Undoubtedly. Parallel compression is very rarely simply "parallel" in the sense of "same" -- I use parallel processing frequently, but almost always bandpassed somewhere, possibly shifted, often in mono, heavily bandpassed and inverted, sidechained -- It's almost never just an unaltered auxiliary.
 
Massive Master said:
Undoubtedly. Parallel compression is very rarely simply "parallel" in the sense of "same" -- I use parallel processing frequently, but almost always bandpassed somewhere, possibly shifted, often in mono, heavily bandpassed and inverted, sidechained -- It's almost never just an unaltered auxiliary.
Click to expand...

Yes. In Motown, even back in the day, they EQ'd the compressed track pretty drastically.

From the article I linked to earlier in this thread:

Often the frequency of EQ needs to be changed for the instrument. The vocal works well with tons of 5kHz to 8 kHz added to the "exciting compressor;" guitars work better with 3 kHz - 5 kHz and bass guitars work better with 800 hZ to 1.5 kHz.
Click to expand...
 
Massive Master said:
Undoubtedly. Parallel compression is very rarely simply "parallel" in the sense of "same" -- I use parallel processing frequently, but almost always bandpassed somewhere, possibly shifted, often in mono, heavily bandpassed and inverted, sidechained -- It's almost never just an unaltered auxiliary.
Click to expand...

Wow, ok my turn to ask.
'Inverted and bandpassed.. to pull something (reduce) out of the mix..? (I'll stick my neck out for at least a guess on that one :eek: But 'shifted?
 
Massive Master said:
I use it on whole mixes on occasion. KEEP IN MIND THOUGH that with most simplistic additive processes such as this that it's also a simplistic process to completely trash the whole thing. "Less" is almost universally more.
Click to expand...

This^^^^^^^

I see a lot of really bad parallel compression overuse in yall's collective future.
 
hmm, bad overuse is usually the first step, unfortunately most people stop at the fist step.

parallel compression isn't the only thing either, this has been done a lot with EQ, reverb, delay, any effect. The reason it works is because you can smash a track, and SUBTLY pull it in with the dry track.
 
Greg_L said:
This^^^^^^^

I see a lot of really bad parallel compression overuse in yall's collective future.
Click to expand...
I see. Mine' ('our's, 'there's?... But not yours? :rolleyes:
Really, it's about jumping in, getting your feet wet, but at least it's good tossing around some of the basics. Take what you can from these starting points there Greg. So maybe you mess a few up on the way. :drunk:
 
Well, you never learn until you go ahead and try.
I gave it another shot this morning. I even rendered the entire recording to a stereo track, then opened that up on another track in Reaper. After some EQ and compression, it appeared to help fill things up.

I won't do it all the time, but I will try it again sometime soon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top