|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 14, 2015 8:18:39 GMT -6
I am always some kind of shy to use a good amount compression in a mix on single sources.
But very often it just makes a base, or a lead vocal, sit right in the mix.
Solo it can sound awful, in the mix a dream!
Everybody knows I am not pro, and I do it because customers ask me to deliver it ready.
Mixing is a hate and love relationship to me, if I win the lottery someone of you mixes all the music I do.
Back on topic.
Very often, a big amount of compression, on E base for example, also makes sit the reverb in the mix.
(Yes in the actual song we have reverb on the base!)
That is some kind of funny because I do not touch the reverb return, I touch the source with the compressor.
Why is this reflecting on the re-verb?
I don not understand the reason for this?
Bob for example told us that they did not used compression in the old times.
But I can not see how I would get that kind of sound without it.
Anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 14, 2015 8:27:03 GMT -6
I think it's because in the old days, acoustic design was not as refined. Rooms were much more open and reflective than they are today, and mic technique was a lot more loose and open, then you had the tape compression. The audio was recorded with a lot more natural ambience and room tone than it is today with our absorption and close mics.
Now everything is recorded very dry, with close mics, on digital converters that keep transients intact. Now we have to keep the levels down lower so that the transients aren't cut off. The only way to emulate the old style is to compress and add ambience.
That being said, I've noticed that when a pro says "just a touch of compression", their knobs are usually set for like 6db+ of compression!
I think our ideas of "just a little" and the pro's idea of "just a little" are vastly different. Same with EQ..
So I wouldn't worry too much about amounts, just turn the knobs until it sounds good.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 14, 2015 8:41:40 GMT -6
I think it's because in the old days, acoustic design was not as refined. Rooms were much more open and reflective than they are today, and mic technique was a lot more loose and open, then you had the tape compression. The audio was recorded with a lot more natural ambience and room tone than it is today with our absorption and close mics. Now everything is recorded very dry, with close mics, on digital converters that keep transients intact. Now we have to keep the levels down lower so that the transients aren't cut off. The only way to emulate the old style is to compress and add ambience. That being said, I've noticed that when a pro says "just a touch of compression", their knobs are usually set for like 6db+ of compression! I think our ideas of "just a little" and the pro's idea of "just a little" are vastly different. Same with EQ.. So I wouldn't worry too much about amounts, just turn the knobs until it sounds good. Seems like this. I had a lead vocal today first try was about 6 db of compression ABed not happy, I ended up with 10 db compression 4:1 on the UAD 1176 abd it made me smile. The moment I watched the GR meter I was surprised. If I solo the vocal the compression artifacts, such as distortion get annoying, as soon I switch on all the other instruments its like fresh ice cream. It made me think today, what the hell happened. And it seems the UAD 1176 AE just starts to shine with hitting the source. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jul 14, 2015 9:03:19 GMT -6
Also, a lot of pros will compress and EQ on the way in during recording. Lots of "rock" engineers will use "just a little" compression on the way in, meaning they are using 6+dB.. Then they use "just a little" while mixing, meaning they will have more than 12dB+ compression before things are done.
On vocals, I'll typically use an LA2A(hardware) on the way in with vocals, then use the LA2A again during mixing. Both have around 3-6dB of compression happening during the loudest parts. I think it sounds much more natural to do it in two parts rather than having one compressor trying to push 12+dB of GR at one time.
I think these pros might be onto something..
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 14, 2015 9:34:00 GMT -6
I hear way too much compression on most stuff. Even TV is tough to listen to. Everything is pushed and it causes listening fatigue.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 14, 2015 10:01:56 GMT -6
I've heard a lot of multi track masters in my day.... The older ones, the "most loved" ones -OFTEN - have an amazing amount of distortion and compression on the elements. Tape compression, compression compression, Harmonic distortion. What they don't have is a lot of bus compression and mastering compression.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 14, 2015 10:04:05 GMT -6
I've heard a lot of multi track masters in my day.... The older ones, the "most loved" ones -OFTEN - have an amazing amount of distortion and compression on the elements. Tape compression, compression compression, Harmonic distortion. What they don't have is a lot of bus compression and mastering compression. Thats interesting.... |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 14, 2015 11:39:29 GMT -6
I still remember the first time a producer asked me to strap a comp across the stereo buss during mixdown, it was 1983. It was "Zero Gravity" by Steven Bach, produced by 'famous' british rock producer Dennis Mckay.
He asked me to strap a pair of dbx 160x comps across the mix buss. He did let me mix the album and came in at the end for final 'adjustments'. I'd never had that request before so I had to ask if they were to be inserted on the MCI JH-110C master recorder or on the monitoring path to 'hear' what the radio/mastering compression might do to it.
The famous producer wanted to print it, something I thought was a mistake for two reasons: First, I believed as I still do that the buss comp should be applied and adjusted during the mastering sessions. Secondly, I knew what the 160X did to the sonics, it' flatened the top end air even before compression due to it's low fi audio path, I didn't want to make the entire mix quality suffer for a quick fix that could be applied later with better gear and more control.
I lost that battle and the album sounds like a 160X.
|
|
|
|
Post by lpedrum on Jul 14, 2015 11:44:58 GMT -6
I hear way too much compression on most stuff. Even TV is tough to listen to. Everything is pushed and it causes listening fatigue. I often agree. I like compression as a musical choice, but try not to overuse it just to make a mix work. I hate dogma when it comes to any part of the music creating process, so even something we might normally not like may work in a certain situation including slamming something with compression. But I truly dislike using compression to create a false intimacy -- so many young singers get caught up in that. If you've got a great voice and something to say, you don't need to shout it in someone's ear. |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 14, 2015 13:47:01 GMT -6
Compression is like butter, gravy, pancake syrup or hot sauce.... just "Slather" it on and enjoy the yummy goodness!! Back off if it starts sounding choked or pumps/breathes too much.
|
|
|
|
Post by yotonic on Jul 14, 2015 14:40:46 GMT -6
All the great records that had "vocals" on them used recording engineers and "fader rides". Michael Jackson, Jackson Browne, James Taylor, you name it, most of those seminal records from the 70s were a Neuman U87/U67, a console, fader rides and EQ. Making records shouldn't be a "one-man show". Compression has become a crutch for the "one-man studio low budget/no budget project. And a lot of us fall into that category today, but people should get back to actual engineering. The physicality of it, moving microphones around, riding faders, pushing air. And working with others, that's where the magic is.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 14, 2015 15:26:41 GMT -6
All the great records that had "vocals" on them used recording engineers and "fader rides". Michael Jackson, Jackson Browne, James Taylor, you name it, most of those seminal records from the 70s were a Neuman U87/U67, a console, fader rides and EQ. Making records shouldn't be a "one-man show". Compression has become a crutch for the "one-man studio low budget/no budget project. And a lot of us fall into that category today, but people should get back to actual engineering. The physicality of it, moving microphones around, riding faders, pushing air. And working with others, that's where the magic is. If the compression stuff would sound awful bad I would agree here, but it sounds good... that was my surprise. |
|
|
|
Post by gouge on Jul 14, 2015 16:12:13 GMT -6
My theory is we need to sprinkle small amounts of compression liberally around the mix because tape is not used anymore.
Tape was once the compressor strapped across every track, bounce and buss.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 14, 2015 16:28:04 GMT -6
My theory is we need to sprinkle small amounts of compression liberally around the mix because tape is not used anymore. Tape was once the compressor strapped across every track, bounce and buss. Agreed - as you mention, back in the tape days, transients disappeared quicker than coffee on an 8AM call..... |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 14, 2015 16:35:31 GMT -6
I think about compression in a couple of ways, well 3.
1. to control the dynamics of a track.
eg; me playing bass, I don't have the touch of a great bass player, and some notes are unintentionally soft or loud. I would use a compressor to control that the best I can, in conjunction with manual levelling...
the compressor might or might not be set for 2 or 3.
2. To change the sounds envelope, this may or may not be in conjunction with item 1.
eg: I use the attack time to reduce the first part of the signal, perhaps a little perhaps a lot, e.g. the start of a snare sound, or acoustic guitar, or guitar pluck.
3. To change the back end of the signal
eg: to make a bass note sustain, to lengthen a snare hit, or most importantly to make the signal, groove in or against time of the tune .
4. This one is the special one, and could be part of everything or just used on its own.
For the tone of the box. Be it Harmonic distortion, or the just the sound.
I often will run a signal through 3 to 4 pieces of outboard just for the sound.. and I will try things quickly in different configurations to see which sounds best..
This is the greatest advantage of having a patch bay near my mixing sweet spot. In the space of a couple of minutes I can try a whole swathe of different things... This ALWAYS works. One will absolutely stand out as being right, and often
has the effect of getting rid of the need for EQ
cheers
Wiz
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 14, 2015 18:35:56 GMT -6
My theory is we need to sprinkle small amounts of compression liberally around the mix because tape is not used anymore. Tape was once the compressor strapped across every track, bounce and buss. Agreed - as you mention, back in the tape days, transients disappeared quicker than coffee on an 8AM call..... That's because they were now on the dirty q-tips. I did use comps a lot on tracks back in ye olde tape days. Mostly on bass, vocals and kick. The rest was usually cut without them. You had more ensemble style tracking back then with musicians playing off each other adjusting dynamics.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jul 14, 2015 18:53:32 GMT -6
Agreed - as you mention, back in the tape days, transients disappeared quicker than coffee on an 8AM call..... That's because they were now on the dirty q-tips. Hmmmm....yeah, I'm SURE that was it. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 14, 2015 20:19:15 GMT -6
I would much rather have a really good studio for vocals as opposed to drums. Motion in front of the mike is one of the main problems requiring compression. When you have a good enough studio to move the singer back two or three feet, the sound quality and "balls" of the vocal increases because a lot less compression is required.
|
|
|
|
Post by noah shain on Jul 14, 2015 20:23:28 GMT -6
Get ready to bash me!
I just finished tracking a lead vocal track on an album I'm in the middle of. Major label release, intended to compete in the modern/active/alternative/hard rock radio world. Not metal.
3 compressors and 2 eqs.
Joly K47h
AWTAC channel amp
1608 line in
Maag eq 4 with a small cut in the 40hz and sub, 3 point 40khz boost
Distressor 10:1 shaving 2-4 db fast attack
Retro 176 12:1 med attack and release, interstage xformer in, working hard -10 to -20
Retro double wide, slow attack/fast release, double mode, hitting -3 to -10
Retro 2a3 little 60hz atten and a little 16khz bump nice and wide.
Sounds hi-fi and urgent. Not splatty or sibilant or flat and lifeless.
Closed to a finished mix vocal sound.
But I've used this chain over years trying to get it right. I like to track it dang close to how it's gonna sound, if not all the way there.
I'm still gonna ride it in the mix.
Don't hate me!
My name is Noah and I'm a compressor addict.
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 14, 2015 20:52:23 GMT -6
I would much rather have a really good studio for vocals as opposed to drums. Motion in front of the mike is one of the main problems requiring compression. When you have a good enough studio to move the singer back two or three feet, the sound quality and "balls" of the vocal increases because a lot less compression is required. Bob, how's a studio 'good' for a mic distance like that? Just good sounding in terms of early reflections? |
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 14, 2015 21:21:14 GMT -6
That's because they were now on the dirty q-tips. Hmmmm....yeah, I'm SURE that was it. Pop records have always sounded better than they would have in reality. Classical recordings might have gotten better the cleaner they were recorded, maybe some jazz too, but rock was better with every effect, artifice, and device available. Linear freq and dynamic response wasn't desirable, had it been attainable in the day. You liked the recorded songs that socked out of whatever crappy system it was played on. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 15,012 
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Jul 14, 2015 21:31:13 GMT -6
Having grown up at FOH and Wedges, I have always viewed dynamics as control or effects!
Now days everybody has to hear their expensive comp, that wasn't always the case. Always used more limiting with just a kiss of compression.
I often comment that I can hear the gain reduction meter slamming against the little Merle peg on most modern recordings, TV and even Film!
|
|
|
|
Post by donr on Jul 14, 2015 21:40:19 GMT -6
Having grown up at FOH and Wedges, I have always viewed dynamics as control or effects! Now days everybody has to hear their expensive comp, that wasn't always the case. Always used more limiting with just a kiss of compression. I often comment that I can hear the gain reduction meter slamming against the little Merle peg on most modern recordings, TV and even Film! Yeah, but how did it sound? I'm actually with you Eric, I took that peg on VU meters when I got into recording as some kind of governor. It must have been, right? I'd flinch when you could hear the needle hitting the peg as you slammed some gain structure somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 14, 2015 21:46:15 GMT -6
I think it's because in the old days, acoustic design was not as refined. Rooms were much more open and reflective than they are today, and mic technique was a lot more loose and open, then you had the tape compression. The audio was recorded with a lot more natural ambience and room tone than it is today with our absorption and close mics. Now everything is recorded very dry, with close mics, on digital converters that keep transients intact. Now we have to keep the levels down lower so that the transients aren't cut off. The only way to emulate the old style is to compress and add ambience. That being said, I've noticed that when a pro says "just a touch of compression", their knobs are usually set for like 6db+ of compression! I think our ideas of "just a little" and the pro's idea of "just a little" are vastly different. Same with EQ.. So I wouldn't worry too much about amounts, just turn the knobs until it sounds good. People should have to pay for a post like this...excellent... |
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Jul 14, 2015 21:59:28 GMT -6
Overt close mic'ing gives you an unnaturally wide dynamic range. Heavy compression ultimately became the anecdote to that - +1 on those 'little compression' comments usually meaning "less than 12dB in a single instance". 2 stage compression works great, keep the release short on the first comp and use an RMS comp for number 2.
I prefer a lot less compression than most, but I also mic further back. I don't find the DR much different to stuff I hear in the same style, it's just an easier way to work and the ambience usually helps more than it hurts.
|
|
