Lets talk about compression.

It's pretty easy to get a UAD Apollo, instantiate a couple of plugs, and start singing. The high quality of results would surprise you chasmanian.

Welcome to the board by the way.

Chas
All I can say is practice makes perfect, and mistakes are great lessons!
Seriously you can read all you want but doing it is the best method!
If it works for you it works !

Hahahahahaha

I think the topic drifted a bit into mastering.
I talked about compression in mixing.

A big thank you to all who talked about the way they use compression.

I cant remember who it was, but he talked about forming the source rather than taking away level.
I knew of that, in theory, but this comment just gave me the right balls to try out a lot of settings.
Before that compression was taught to me like a holy grail for the gifted - I see now that is BS.

Today I used it on a Kick Drum and its was fascinating how I formed, or should I say blend, between Attack and Release.
The gain for that work was a nice kick sitting right in the mix.

I have to agree, to much talk produces Angst to use the tools.
Special if you get misinformation at the Internet, or by AE who are just too lazy to explain what the do.

THANKS RGOs a great place for real life information instead of BS at GS.

Well Said. I like to use compression to create more movement and shape things to have more energy. The idea of squashing something is rarely the goal for me. Perhaps once once in a while... But usually I am using compression to shape the sound and give it an increased energy. When it feels like the life has been sucked out of it, then I usually take it off.
I think it's also important to decide whether a style calls for compression to be "heard" or not. Sometimes I just want it to use it to improve the feel. But in something like a Vibey rock mix, I want it to be heard on certain tracks. But regardless, I want it to always add to the sound and not take away.

This has been a truly eye-opening thread for me to read. The concept of using compression to enhance dynamics, rather than squash them is truly inspirational. Nevertheless, I have a semi-ot question that flys a bit in the face of that paradigm. Thought about starting a new thread, but..

I'm editing/mixing and really for all purposes mastering a recording of a local amateur 12 member accapella ensemble. The style of the music is mostly classical, but the ensemble has a lighter madrigal vocal sensibility. Think "King's Singers," or even Tallis Scholars. These are mature experienced singers, not a college group or sound. No wide vibrato's - lots of complex harmonic material and delicate passages.

The recordings are soft. Pretty sure it was a stereo pair of ribbons. There's just enough of a floor of noise that if I was entertaining any thoughts of slight level matching, I'd have to pay attention. All tunes were recorded in one or two sessions so there's continuity. The space is nice. Obviously, the genre is highly dynamic, some tunes have passages where the singers are singing with guns blazing, while other may see the loudest passage barely kissing a mezzo-forte dynamic level. And there are peices that bring the full range into play. From pp to ff. To the degree that I can get away with it I would like to gently massage some of the extremes of the dynamics so the recording is a bit more ..shall we say "accessible." 

So one option I can think of off the bat is to level-match.. Make the loudest peak the baseline, and bring up the the softer recordings just a tad. Option two, put some gentle compression on everything, just touching the top 3 or 4 db with something like a 1:1.4 ratio.  Another possibility would be to isolate the offending frequencies with some multi-band compression, but I'd probably have to do that across all recordings because of the sonic footprint.

So one of my first questions is, do any of you work with classical ensembles, and if you do, do you even consider using compression in the first place? ..or is it categorically verboten to do so on classical recordings?  Other than that, can anyone offer any other tips/tricks - things that I might try?  Thanks.

""MJB no one suggested compression is a bad thing?"

Well Glyn Johns did ;-) , and while I'm not disagreeing with anyone here, in a way, when Bob Olhsson mentions how few compressors were in the great classic studios, it leads me to the conclusion they really weren't preferred. That said, I've also heard that certain great artists like Nat King Cole wouldn't record without Bill Putnam there to sweeten things up with his toolbox of gear.

I'm definitely one of those who don't know how to use them effectively, hence my reading here and listening to people's opinions I've come to respect.

In the case of the PuigChild i must have stumbled upon a setting that did in fact create an improved dynamic. Still learning as I go :-)

Funny thing about that Tony, I too have noticed certain recordings are incredibly crushed, yet they're classic in a way. In trying to learn more about getting the kind of sounds and mixes I like, I've studied recordings of Mark Knopfler, Lyle Lovett, Tom Petty and Ryan Adams. Each one had a flavor.

Lyle Lovett's Road to Ensenada was the cleanest, most honest. live type of sound, That was done in a great studio, with tip-top of the line gear, perfectly chosen, to me, a brilliant production.

Mark Knopfler's tracks were lush, and atmospheric, full of reverbs, yet intimate, with a great warmth, mainly from his soft baritone vocals. Sailing to Philadelphia is an incredibly well balanced recording beautifully arranged, with for me, a benchmark bass sound.

Ryan Adams' Easy Tiger is loud, with a very wide soundstage, very modern and a little digital harshness, but still a benchmark production for singer/songwriter/bandleader types like me. I use the song "Two" as a check on my lead vocal level. 

And then there's Tom Petty, many of my favorite songs of his have the most compressed vocal I've ever heard, I mean it's just crushed, and yet, it comes across well. I think in his case, he's such a believable vocalist, that his great talent transcends the production.

If you put me in a room with no prior knowledge of the artists and asked me about the production and sounds, I'd say Tom Petty vocal sound sucks, and that Lyle Lovette's sound was the best of all.

In my own productions, I think I won't completely know where my style lies yet, until I have the gear I want, and a decent sounding room to support it.

Back when we were recording to tape, we always rode the microphone fader to control dynamics on the way in. Unfortunately moving fader automation creates too much fader latency in most newer consoles to do that very effectively. When you are looking the singer in the eye, it's much easier to ride than after the fact.

This is gonna sound "kiss ass", now ask me if i care? 8)

   Every time I see that Sir Bob posts i get excited, i know that what he says is going to hit home in some serious way 9 out of 10 times! Of course this post does not disappoint! The idea of being across the glass and looking someone in the eye is not a thought that's struck my mind in a very long time, sadly. Instead, I've been thinking of ways to videotape my own performances so i can watch myself(same style, sense of time, and vibe over and over again...mehh) as i overdub on my new 0 latency rig build.
   In this new found lonely, "i'll do it myself" reality we call modern/overdub based recording, it's easy to forget how utterly important bandsmanship/and production teams loaded with talent, all coming together to create something meaningful, is to the quality of the end product.... it's become a thing of the past, it is very sad when you think about it. "Band" has given way to just "me"... I'm sooooo sick of me! 8)

Thanx for hanging with us mere mortals B!

In the past dynamic and micro dynamic control where far more prevelant in the average player than today's average player!