Recording With Compression........opinions please ??

  • Thread starter Thread starter jpb123
  • Start date Start date
J

jpb123

New member
Hi,

I was wondering if anyone could give me there opinions, I am having to change my interface.

I have alwyas recorded with compression on the mics on the way in , however everyone I seem to speak to these days as far as buying a new interface is concerned tells me that this method is old fashioned and nobody does it this way anymore !!

In everyones opinion is it old fashioned to record with compression ( Not hard and heavy just subtle to smooth out the edges ) or is my oldstyle still valid ??

I have a feeling that the reason I'm being told this by salesmen is because not many interfaces these days come with inserts !!

Your thoughts and methods would be very much appreciated.

John
 
Recording with compression is okay if you really know the material and performers and you have a particularly good/special compressor. Otherwise it's generally safer and better to do it ITB.
 
Hi there
Yep - what he told you was crap.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using compression during tracking to help control the dynamics and prevent digital clipping.
It is not 'old fashioned' to use it at all, its a matter of engineering taste, musical style and performance technique (ie; does the vocalist have good mic technique to back off the mic a bit when belting out loud parts) which determines if you want to use it.

This is why channel strips such as the Avalon VT737 are so popular or preamps such as the UA 4-710D or Focusrite octopre with dynamics were created. Engineers have not stopped using compression during tracking.

Having said that, with 24bit recording you can leave the input levels down a bit to prevent clipping and can bring them up in the DAW without fear of adding LSB noise. I rarely, if ever, use compressors when tracking drums......mainly because the small studios I use don't have that many hardware compressors :)

Dags
 
jpb123 said:
everyone I seem to speak to these days as far as buying a new interface is concerned tells me that this method is old fashioned and nobody does it this way anymore !!
Click to expand...

Recording with compression is old school, and these days it's better to record straight and add compression and most other effects later when mixing. In the old days of analog tape, the limited dynamic range required compressing when recording. If a singer got too loud the tape would distort. And if they were too quiet on a soft part and you raised the volume (or added a compressor when mixing), then you'd also raise the tape hiss enough to be bothersome.

These days even 16-bit recording is 20-30 dB quieter than the finest analog tape recorder. So there's no need to compress when recording. As Boulder said it's not outright wrong, but why risk recording a "squashed" sound that can't be undone later? If you want to hear the compression as you record, which is a good idea, simply patch it into the playback path rather than the record path. This gives you the best of both methods: you hear the compression but don't actually commit to it.

--Ethan
 
Monitoring with compression during tracking will change the performance, whether or not you are tracking the compression. That could be good or bad depending on the situation. Some vocalists tend to "fight" the compression, pushing harder against gain reduction. That can cause problems. Some musicians "play" with the compression, deliberately using it as an effect. In those cases compressing on the way in may be necessary.

You could always split the signal and track it both ways.
 
From the purest of 'you don't need to, 'why not play it safe', all the way to the other side of it, pretty all this stuff is valid.
So, since this is all out and done with two questions (in the spirt of it..
I could see if one were umm, say not ready to go with the idea of 'comp on the way in 'casu it gets me closer to the sound we want better/sooner rather than later', that would be one thing.

But you said you're already comfortable with it.

a) Why would you want to go with something that now boxes yourself out of that option?
and b) at least converters that alow line level to grow with these out board options- pre's, comps what have you?
 
Thanks guy's for the opinions.

I track with a bit of compression to get the levels sitting right so I get a pretty good idea of how the mix is going to sound and , when I'm recording friends it just means that all I need to do after recording is add a touch of effects and eq the mini disc track and give them the cd.

Your right about it being " Old School " as I attended a Gateway recording course here in the uk in 1988 and have never changed my methods !!

I have always had a compressor on the insert and a graphic eq mostly on bypass but always on hand for problems with the source.

Thanks Guy's you are the best !!

John
I can now see both sides of the story and will try tracking without compression and adding it in cubase later to see the difference.
 
The thinking behind compressing on the way in is to maintain a healthy signal-to-noise ratio, which was important when using tape, i.e. track as loud as you can and use compression to tame the peaks.

With current digital technology, the imperative to maintain a hot signal going in is not there to nearly the same extent. You can track at quite low levels (thus the peaks become a none-issue) and still achieve a good clean signal.

Importantly, by compressing afterwards, you have the luxury of being able to change your mind. Once a signal has been compressed on the way in, you can't undo it.
 
There is also the tonal quality of using a good compressor while tracking, that hasn't been mentioned. I do not use compression to hold back peaks. I use it because of the character it can give a track. This is much harder to do later, with the limitations of my interface. I use a 1978 produced dbx160x that really seems to give a (dare I say) warmth to a vocal or bass track. I use VST compressors and manual volume editing to deal with volume levels after recording.
 
Ethan Winer said:
Recording with compression is old school, and these days it's better to record straight and add compression and most other effects later when mixing.
--Ethan
Click to expand...

couldn't disagree more.

if you know how to use a compressor properly, you will know that you can 'color' the sound.....
change the dynamics....
mold the signal to do just what you want it to, through the use of a nice compressor.

i can't think of any professional mixers that do NOT use a compressor on input, on certain sound sources.

again, it has a place....
and you have to have your sh!t together enough to know when to use it..
but that's part of the art of mixing.

it's a tool.


why would you want to throw away a useful tool?
 
I believe he meant that it is best these days, for someone who does not have experience, to not use a compressor while recording. Most think that a $100 Behri is a compressor that might be worth using. Not the case.

I would also recommend most members here to experiment, but not to use compression on the way in, unless they are knowing exactly what it is they are trying to do, and have a piece of gear to do it with.
 
GONZO-X said:
if you know how to use a compressor properly, you will know that you can 'color' the sound.....
change the dynamics....
mold the signal to do just what you want it to, through the use of a nice compressor.
Click to expand...

The above is all true. But when I'm getting stuff into the computer, I don't want any color at all. Nor do I want to mold the signal. I want a plain vanilla recording, with the option of adding flavours later . . . and of reversing them.

GONZO-X said:
why would you want to throw away a useful tool?
Click to expand...

You would never really want to throw away a useful tool. But sometimes a useful tool has been superseded by an even more useful tool.
 
I compress DI'd bass on the way in and I'll sometimes (very occasionally) compress vocals just a touch on the way in... via an outboard channel strip that I happen to like the sound of... not because it needs actual compression.

Everything else goes straight in..
 
gecko zzed said:
The above is all true. But when I'm getting stuff into the computer, I don't want any color at all. Nor do I want to mold the signal. I want a plain vanilla recording, with the option of adding flavours later . . . and of reversing them.
Click to expand...

then, you're saying you really don't know what you want when you are actually recording?
 
GONZO-X said:
then, you're saying you really don't know what you want when you are actually recording?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that?

I don't use a compressor on the way in, but usually because the singers I'm dealing with don't work the mic very well.
When that's the case, I'd rather do my volume automation before using a compressor.

I don't fancy the idea of volume automating on the fly. You'd have to know the artist and the song very well to pull that off,
so I fall in line with the "why add an extra thing to go wrong" idea.

If I had some real urge to use hardware compression, I'd still rather have the luxury of automating levels first.
I'd rather have an extra pass of DA/AD with good automation done than have a comp on the way in being pushed too hard at points.
 
GONZO-X said:
then, you're saying you really don't know what you want when you are actually recording?
Click to expand...

I find it useful to allow room for creativity at all stages of the process, including mixing. It's not done at tracking and you really can't know how it's going to sound mixed, so you have to assume there's going to be further sonic adjustment. If you commit to a sound early on it can either simplify mixing later or paint you into a corner creatively. It's a balancing act.
 
bouldersoundguy said:
Monitoring with compression during tracking will change the performance, whether or not you are tracking the compression. That could be good or bad depending on the situation. Some vocalists tend to "fight" the compression, pushing harder against gain reduction. That can cause problems. Some musicians "play" with the compression, deliberately using it as an effect. In those cases compressing on the way in may be necessary. You could always split the signal and track it both ways.
Click to expand...

I agree with all of that. Of course, whether recording with compression or merely monitoring with compression, it sounds the same in the performer's headphones. So first you have to decide if you even want or need compression at all. If compression is needed, I see no advantage to committing while recording since the end result when mixed will be identical. All committing accomplishes is not having that option later.

--Ethan
 
GONZO-X said:
if you know how to use a compressor properly, you will know that you can 'color' the sound.....
change the dynamics....
mold the signal to do just what you want it to, through the use of a nice compressor.
Click to expand...

Sure, but patching compression into the playback path gives an identical result, and it gives you the option to change your mind later. To paraphrase you, why would you want to throw away a perfectly good creative option?

i can't think of any professional mixers that do NOT use a compressor on input, on certain sound sources.
Click to expand...

You need to expand your circle of friends. :D

Seriously, I've been a professional audio engineer for 40+ years, and I stopped recording with compression as soon as that was a viable option once DAWs came on the scene. Lots of pros defer all effects settings until mixdown.

Hey, I'm not telling you how you should work. I'm explaining to someone else the pros and cons of each method.

--Ethan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top