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

[ShofB]

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.

--Ethan

Sorry, but that statement isn't even close to the truth. If that's your experience, which I doubt, then you've been working with some really questionable engineers. If there was any truth to that then it's really amazing that for all these years people were able to produce such great recordings. How do they ever manage without digital? How did 16 bit digital recording all of the sudden take such a massive jump in performance?

 

[ShofB]

I have to agree here. There is just a quality that the input signal gains by going through an analog compressor, before the AD conversion. The quality that the compression, not to mention the preamp that precedes it, is what I am using on the way in.

Would you track with a stock preamp, then send out to a good preamp to get it's effect? No. It just does not work that way. Not for me anyway.

Best recommendation to those who do not have experience with this, (or something worthy to use) is to record directly, with nothing on the input chain. But you gotta learn somehow....Oh, and buy something worth using.

Bingo! Finally, I was hoping someone would get here.

 

[Bobbsy]

Sorry, but that statement isn't even close to the truth. If that's your experience, which I doubt, then you've been working with some really questionable engineers. If there was any truth to that then it's really amazing that for all these years people were able to produce such great recordings. How do they ever manage without digital? How did 16 bit digital recording all of the sudden take such a massive jump in performance?

Sorry, but Ethan is spot on. I've been there, used the analogue recorders and have the painful T shirt. Prior to noise reduction systems, the S/N on even professional tape based systems tended to be in the -50dB ish range compared to the 80 or 90dB even mediocre digital stuff can manage. That's why professional Dolby was invented--had the S/N been acceptably good, would Dolby have sold so well? How did we manage before digital? Careful gain staging to keep the signal as far from the noise a possible, a knowledge that music can cover a lot of noise in the mix--and an additional knowledge that distribution formats like vinyl (or optical tracks on film or relatively narrow bandwidth mono audio on TV) were themselves noisy enough that you wouldn't notice the noise in the mix.

As for compression on the way in, please read my previous post. Some of you want a "compression sound" and I guess that works with certain styles of music. The rest of us treat compression a simply a technical tool to control excessive dynamic range--and we struggle to AVOID the sound a compressor makes. For us, compression after the fact is far more controllable.

Neither side is right or wrong. It's simply a difference in the musical style we want.

 

[Rod Norman]

Don't be confused. The real question here is not yours, but a universal one. So here goes. First, CAN you compress while tracking? If you can, then here is where you should. Compression on vocals provide the performer with the freedom to emote physically, moving their head and body, all the while sounding as if their voice is right up on the mic. So that smooth approach you mention is perfect. Second, the drums. For any genre that requires consistency in the snare drum and the bass drum benefits from compression during tracking. For instance, pop music requires that solid BD and snare. Compression on a live set will give you that. So, if you can, do it. If you can't don't feel you have to. But you might then benefit from using triggers on the snare and bass drum to give you tracks with that drum machine consistency. For the vocals and little compression during mixing will solve any problems since the vocal booth is generally sound proof and you won't get any unwanted sounds pulled up with the compression. For the drums, I used to apply touch ups by hand to peaks on the snare and bass drum. I never charged clients for that time on other people's equipment. I just didn't think that a lack of proper equipment was their fault. I just got very fast at doing it. Good luck,
Rod Norman

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

 

[Bobbsy]

Don't be confused. The real question here is not yours, but a universal one. So here goes. First, CAN you compress while tracking? If you can, then here is where you should. Compression on vocals provide the performer with the freedom to emote physically, moving their head and body, all the while sounding as if their voice is right up on the mic.

Ignoring other considerations already discussed, I completely disagree with this. Rather than bringing out the best in a performance, I find that compression while tracking causes the vocalist to fight with the electronics. They try to get louder, the compressor knocks it back so they try to get even louder. It's becomes a vicious circle and can have a very bad effect on the performance.

Instead, I set my gain structure to cope with them moving, getting closer and farther from the mic, etc. then fix any dynamic issues later.

 

[bouldersoundguy]

Ignoring other considerations already discussed, I completely disagree with this. Rather than bringing out the best in a performance, I find that compression while tracking causes the vocalist to fight with the electronics. They try to get louder, the compressor knocks it back so they try to get even louder. It's becomes a vicious circle and can have a very bad effect on the performance.

Instead, I set my gain structure to cope with them moving, getting closer and farther from the mic, etc. then fix any dynamic issues later.

+1. Vocal compression can lead to less consistent performance. It doesn't automatically, but it makes it more likely with a lot of singers. I do track vocals with compression sometimes but it has to be done lightly so as not to encourage bad mic technique. I also have the ability to patch the compressor so it's tracked but not in the monitors.

I won't say never do it, just be aware of the possible problems.

 

[miroslav]

Yeah...if you are listening to the comp working while singing...it may lead you to that.
You kinda' have to ignore the comp and just sing normally (like playing to a click...hear it, but don't be ruled by it), but that takes a bit of recording experience.

 

[mixsit]

Yeah. But at this point this thread, besides having gone full circle about four times has addressed a whole stack of reasons/rationales to or not to.
And most of them are true.
Imagine that.

 

[Farview]

Sorry, but that statement isn't even close to the truth. If that's your experience, which I doubt, then you've been working with some really questionable engineers. If there was any truth to that then it's really amazing that for all these years people were able to produce such great recordings. How do they ever manage without digital? How did 16 bit digital recording all of the sudden take such a massive jump in performance?

Oh, it was my experience too. Compression wasn't my biggest hassle with tape, EQ was. Because of the style of music I was doing and the amount of high end I needed on things like kick drum and bass, I learned very quickly that I had to add that on the way in, otherwise I was accomplishing nothing more that raising the tape hiss during the mix. Compression would be the same story, any time you need the raise the level of the track to get it to sit in the mix, you were raising the noise.

 

[Bobbsy]

You could have been rich, Farview. You were halfway to inventing Dolby Noise Reduction--it's basically a carefully determined EQ boosting the highs as you record, then a reciprocal EQ on playback to return the music to where it should be which has the effect of reducing the HF noise.

Just think! We could could have been talking about Farview Noise Reduction!

 

[Mo Facta]

You could have been rich, Farview. You were halfway to inventing Dolby Noise Reduction--it's basically a carefully determined EQ boosting the highs as you record, then a reciprocal EQ on playback to return the music to where it should be which has the effect of reducing the HF noise.

Not exactly.

Depending on what Dolby NR system you're talking about, most of them were based on compansion (compression and expansion) and band splitting the signal into as many as four bands. The recording phase implemented pre-emphasis (compression), mostly of the high frequencies, and then playback implemented de-emphasis (expansion). Thus, the high frequencies are compressed to tape and recorded at a higher overall level than the rest of the spectrum so that upon playback, the de-emphasis process would restore the dynamic range and level albeit with reduced noise.

And to address the dynamic range of tape vs. 16-bit.

16-bit dynamic range, as most of us know, is around 96dB although it's probably closer to 93dB. At the height of analogue tape recording, using Dolby SR noise reduction system, a maximum of 110dB of dynamic range was achieved. So, Mr ShofB has a point. Read this:

Dynamic range in analog audio is the difference between low-level thermal noise in the electronic circuitry and high-level signal saturation resulting in increased distortion and, if pushed higher, clipping.[12] Multiple noise processes determine the noise floor of a system. Noise can be picked up from microphone self-noise, preamp noise, wiring and interconnection noise, media noise, etc. Early 78 rpm phonograph discs had a dynamic range of up to 40 dB,[13] soon reduced to 30 dB and worse due to wear from repeated play. German magnetic tape in 1941 was reported to have had a dynamic range of 60 dB,[14] though modern day restoration experts of such tapes note 45-50 dB as the observed dynamic range.[15] Ampex tape recorders in the 1950s achieved 60 dB in practical usage,[14] though tape formulations such as Scotch 111 boasted 68 dB dynamic range.[16] In the 1960s, improvements in tape formulation processes resulted in 7 dB greater range,[16] and Ray Dolby developed the Dolby A-Type noise reduction system that increased low- and mid-frequency dynamic range on magnetic tape by 10 dB, and high-frequency by 15 dB, using companding (compression and expansion) of four frequency bands.[17] The peak of professional analog magnetic recording tape technology reached 90 dB dynamic range in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion, or about 80 dB in practical broadband applications.[16] The Dolby SR noise reduction system gave a 20 dB further increased range resulting in 110 dB in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion.

Cheers

 

[Bobbsy]

Hey! I was making a joke for Farview, not trying to give a full explanation of Dolby.

As for the S/N ratio, Dolby was always a bit controversial. It did a darn good job of noise reduction and didn't mess up the audio badly--but there WERE audible differences before and after the process--it's impossible in a compander to exactly match the encoding at the decoding side. Using Dolby kind of takes the process outside the purist "analogue is best" theory--arguably even the professional version adds more artifacts/changes to your music than a good quality A-D/D-A process. But that's another discussion I guess!

Out of curiosity...how many analogue HR members use Dolby and how many record clean to their tape machines? I haven't seen much (if any) mention of Dolby made but maybe it's just assumed?

 

[grimtraveller]

Out of curiosity...how many analogue HR members use Dolby and how many record clean to their tape machines? I haven't seen much (if any) mention of Dolby made but maybe it's just assumed?

You have to go to the deep, dark recesses of the analogue only forum to find the answer to this particular brand of mystery.

 

[Bobbsy]

I've always been scared to venture into the deep, dark recesses of the Analogue Forum. It smells like an ambush to me

 

[Farview]

Not exactly.

Depending on what Dolby NR system you're talking about, most of them were based on compansion (compression and expansion) and band splitting the signal into as many as four bands. The recording phase implemented pre-emphasis (compression), mostly of the high frequencies, and then playback implemented de-emphasis (expansion). Thus, the high frequencies are compressed to tape and recorded at a higher overall level than the rest of the spectrum so that upon playback, the de-emphasis process would restore the dynamic range and level albeit with reduced noise.

And to address the dynamic range of tape vs. 16-bit.

16-bit dynamic range, as most of us know, is around 96dB although it's probably closer to 93dB. At the height of analogue tape recording, using Dolby SR noise reduction system, a maximum of 110dB of dynamic range was achieved. So, Mr ShofB has a point. Read this:



Cheers

110 db in the midband frequencies at 3% distortion. Hardly audiophile stuff we are talking about. Im pretty sure am radio might do a better job.

 

[Ethan Winer]

16-bit dynamic range, as most of us know, is around 96dB although it's probably closer to 93dB.

And the typical s/n of even a quiet room is more like 50 to 70 dB. So usually the room's own ambient background dominates the s/n rather than the number of bits. Unless you scream loudly right into a microphone from one inch away.

At the height of analogue tape recording, using Dolby SR noise reduction system, a maximum of 110dB of dynamic range was achieved.

Yes and no. The true s/n is always limited by the physical medium. So the noise is never more than 60 dB below the signal. All noise reduction does is reduce the tape hiss during quiet passages, sort of like a person manually riding the volume level.

Speaking of riding levels, back in the days of analog tape engineers would routinely do the same while mixing to minimize tape hiss. I remember muting tracks when nothing was playing at the moment. Further, stuff that's meant to be mixed softly is still recorded at full level on its own track. So when you reduce the level to -20 or whatever to sit properly in the mix, that track's tape hiss is also reduced.

People obsess over jitter and dither that are 90 to 120 dB below the music, believing those things matter (though they don't IMO). But tape hiss that's only 60 dB down is audible under many types of music.

--Ethan

 

[miroslav]

Out of curiosity...how many analogue HR members use Dolby and how many record clean to their tape machines? I haven't seen much (if any) mention of Dolby made but maybe it's just assumed?

On my small format 16-track, I always used Dolby.
On my 2-track and now my 24-track....nothing, I just hit 'em 'til it hurts.

 

[mixsit]

On my small format 16-track, I always used Dolby.
On my 2-track and now my 24-track....nothing, I just hit 'em 'til it hurts.

Do you ever run into situations where you would want to shift to digi' for the noise floor?

 

[c7pror]

As far as Comp going in, I have to agree with the fellow member who suggested splitting the input signal to separate tracks. That way, you have the option in final mix to use whichever you prefer.
You may just use both in the final so they could compliment each other.Just send them to one Aux,
then plat with the track faders and WUALA!!!! you may just like what you hear.

 

[mixsit]

As far as Comp going in, I have to agree with the fellow member who suggested splitting the input signal to separate tracks. That way, you have the option in final mix to use whichever you prefer.
You may just use both in the final so they could compliment each other.Just send them to one Aux,
then plat with the track faders and WUALA!!!! you may just like what you hear.

That is one take on it. Sort'of a yeah I 'wanna do it but can't quite decide,, Then I can always decide later (or not.. ) Maybe do some comparisons on the mp3 Forum.. Or run them in paralell and compare that to...

..Hey wait a minute. How the hell did I end up with these 28 extra tracks(?!) 22 of which I now have to edit/sort and 'comp


Toung in Cheek there.. Welcom to the fun house