|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 18, 2015 11:40:03 GMT -6
Here's a question: Is compression objective or subjective? Maybe it's the limiting on the master that people are really opposed to.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 18, 2015 11:46:04 GMT -6
In the past dynamic and micro dynamic control where far more prevelant in the average player than today's average player! That's because they all played together rather than one at a time. Ensembles played off each other, with eye contact. That is no longer the case and it shows. Mass compression is relatively new, it wasn't done back in the tape days. Tape compression, transformer saturation and other non-linear effects were fought, not embraced. That is also a new concept. The only reason mass compression is used today is audio fashion. We no longer have to fight tape noise and a limited dynamic range, but you might think we do with the amount of compression used. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 18, 2015 11:57:11 GMT -6
And for tonal reasons...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 18, 2015 12:07:52 GMT -6
Indeed, people are looking to get the effect of musicians playing off each other with compression and other gear. I honestly believe this is a whole lot of why sales are in the toilet. In the old daze listening to a record felt just like it felt in the room while it was recorded. That actually blew my mind at the time. When something in front of the mike is really great such as Reggie Young's guitar, eq. and compression only screw it up. One of the older engineers told me the only mike to use on his amp is an 87. I tried it and he was right! People forget that back in the '50s and '60s you couldn't get session work unless you sounded significantly better than most other musicians.
|
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 18, 2015 12:33:51 GMT -6
+1 on "the band" factor. Anyone who has played with a great/good band recalls the reason they were good was because they played off of each other rather than compete. The audience was the winner as well as the musicians. Everyone knew their own sound and how to incorporate it into the overall scheme of things. With that mind set brought into the studio, you see the endpoint while performing and control on the way in. Compressors are a tool, but it's easy to hear when the compressor grabs the stage and becomes the instrument. Too much compressor melting going on for my taste. When an instrumentalist or vocalist realizes they actually have work to do, the finished product is much more enjoyable for everyone. Everyone isn't making Black Dog, so no reason it should all sound like it. Make the music you love with an analytical mind about every single move you make of the hand and voice. It doesn't need to sound mastered at the beginning, but it should make you want to hear it again without wondering how to overly "repair" or improve it after the fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 18, 2015 13:27:09 GMT -6
Here's a question: Is compression objective or subjective? Maybe it's the limiting on the master that people are really opposed to. i'd say both, you can compress to achieve measureable density, movement, tonal variation, but who decides what and when enough is enough? is subjective. What i'm personally opposed to is compressing the life out of things and having glass shard lead pancakes thrown at my ears, it simply doesn't sound good or resemble anything realistic imv, it is all the rage today and it REALLY SUCKS imo. I mean could you imagine if your drums sounded like that in the room? you'd be like... "wtf is wrong with these?!" ex, I'm a HUGE fan of J Steiger's work, i mean a HUGE FAN! All of his gear that i've heard is just badass, i know his new FC526 is capable of "the crush" by virtue of the "Black Velvet" remake i heard, and this is no slight on Jeffs compressors, or that mixers capabilities, but does anyone think those drums sound good sardined like that? certainly not me...., the best part about that drum track is hearing that the compressors have the capability to do that, but i'd only use that capability for the most unique of circumstances personally. to be clear, i LOVE THE CAPI GEAR lol I have some adapter cards and some AD4898's coming to try out in the FC526's, i'm expecting some very cool things from those in there, i will post up some samples when i get em going. I've also been testing out JW's supermodded Aphex 651 today and last night, just amazing! Invisible at ridiculously high gain reductions. |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 18, 2015 15:22:21 GMT -6
I'm going to relate one story since it's inline with this discussion, and hopefully have a point at the end.
A drummer friend of mine has a shop which sells Computers/work and all things musical. A lot of times I'll try new material out with him and his kit. He started dabbling in fixing junk guitars up and probably took a Strat copy in on a trade and fixed it up to be a great player with zero investment. He's teaches drums but is not an elaborate player, but can keep time like nobody's business. I try to coax him to experiment and do more with some of my stuff.
Anyway, he handed me the guitar and I took it with all of the amp and guitar settings as it was, because it's set to the size of the building with kindness to neighbors. We were jamming along and a guy I've never met walks in and said he wanted to see what was going on. I later found out he was a drummer for a famous artist, (name deleted to protect the innocent), and he knew the proprietor. The talk turned to my friend wanting to know more about La Grange. I started playing a little and he was trying to figure some stuff out, so the other drummer sat down and pointed it out. We were jamming along and I soon found out the guy was as Frank Beard as you could want, which made me think I had a long beard, lol. At decent volumes everything melted together as we played off of each other without any fancy equipment or higher end gear. If that was recorded, the mixer and engineers' jobs were pretty much done, or it made their day a lot shorter.
How do you keep that feeling of the moment without destroying it. Enhance yes - change no... Re-amp... probably so, but that drum sound needed to be boxed up and sold as it was. The sound should have been captured as it was, because the dynamics was all controlled by forethought and feeling. But, in a more controlled environment, I would say a check list of the mind needs to be examined before attempting to print anything. If you have a clean recording on the way in, you'll always have that to fall back on. At least one unaltered track should be at your disposal for later recall, but I have several copies in different locations in more than one form. I have notes on everything I ever recorded early on in the project studio, as to what worked in the signal to make me want to hear it again and again before even being finalized in any way.
IMO, the emotion is destroyed in a lot of today's music by overly processing on the way in and out a couple of times or more. It's been said time and again: "louder is not better". When you get hornswoggled into following the crowd, your talent takes a backseat to what others dictate as desirable. Listen to some classical or crossover music of past years, before it started to fall prey to the current trends. Listen to how the movements carry you. As far as compression is concerned, I think a listener should want to turn you up as opposed to needing to turn you up. Compression can assist there. Today, turning it down or up doesn't result in gaining much ground either way. It is what it is and we're stuck with it.
As someone said before, room mics for the overall sound of drums with opposing compressed tracks for flavor/bite, seems a logical conclusion. I do that with a mixture of analog and digital drum tracks mixed in favor of the acoustic set showing the way homeward.
We are trying to communicate something from heart to heart, not from ear to ear...
|
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 18, 2015 17:32:21 GMT -6
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. Hi Bob Olhssonwhen you were doing the fader rides, what sort of movements in dB would be typical Bob? I have done this sort of thing by putting a finger on the console, at say 5dB below where the fader is, and riding the fader with my other hand, using the finger as a stop. Wondering, physically, how you did it? cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by wiz on Jul 18, 2015 17:34:07 GMT -6
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! Yeah, I feel ya.... Doing it on your own, is really hard. Really hard. I have done four albums now, on my own. Its soul crushing most of the time. Just cause you can, doesn't mean you should. 8) cheers Wiz |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 18, 2015 17:35:44 GMT -6
That's exactly how I did it. I would guess I was covering a 5-6 dB. range. I get a headache thinking about what it would be like to do it by myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 19, 2015 4:34:55 GMT -6
I ask myself - if base and guitars etc. are overdubbed and it is pretty much under controll, it sounds like a song with just putting the faders up, if adding a 3-4 db compression on some elements is a sin?
The oroginal question was about - how to use compression.....
|
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Jul 19, 2015 4:41:23 GMT -6
I ask myself - if base and guitars etc. are overdubbed and it is pretty much under controll, it sounds like a song with just putting the faders up, if adding a 3-4 db compression on some elements is a sin? The oroginal question was about - how to use compression..... I don't feel like going back and rereading the entire thread, but isn't there a 'cohesion' effect that results from layering compression - I.e, a little on the way in, a little more on the track, then maybe even on a sub group, and then eventually more in the master or 2-buss? |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 19, 2015 9:25:43 GMT -6
It's important to understand that all compression causes distortion and distortion accumulates. It's actually amazing how much peak limiting can be used on a really clean mix. The best way to achieve cohesion I know is to record everything with the same mike preamp exactly as would be done using a recording console. Recording with nothing but KM-84s, 86s and 67/87s adds to cohesion without contributing distortion. We're really talking about the amount of contrast between different mix elements.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 19, 2015 10:26:11 GMT -6
It's important to understand that all compression causes distortion and distortion accumulates. It's actually amazing how much peak limiting can be used on a really clean mix. The best way to achieve cohesion I know is to record everything with the same mike preamp exactly as would be done using a recording console. Recording with nothing but KM-84s, 86s and 67/87s adds to cohesion without contributing distortion. We're really talking about the amount of contrast between different mix elements. This one could lead a reader to think that distortion in general is a bad thing. I think we all agree that some distortions are just fine, pleasing to the ear. I do think we overcook the topic since a few threads long. |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Jul 19, 2015 10:29:12 GMT -6
Back in ye olde tape days the musicians brought the tones and talent. We captured them. Now we are forced to help and make up for what they now lack. Now we must provide the instruments too? I prefer great musicians recorded accurately. They don't need any help. Our gear sometimes gets in the way of those folks. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 19, 2015 10:48:59 GMT -6
I ask myself - if base and guitars etc. are overdubbed and it is pretty much under controll, it sounds like a song with just putting the faders up, if adding a 3-4 db compression on some elements is a sin? The oroginal question was about - how to use compression..... how to use compression cannot be answered neatly, it's use is contingent upon the music at hand 100% of the time, if you ask "how do i use compression in ______ case?" You'll get better answers is my bet. |
|
|
|
Post by b1 on Jul 19, 2015 11:09:37 GMT -6
If people would start to incorporate the things Bob and Jim are saying; into their thinking, we might see the industry start to make a change for the better - in our lifetime. Or better yet, independents start to over-ride the big players... I get warm and fuzzy inside when there's talk in favor of limiting as opposed to compression. That makes my day.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 19, 2015 11:28:18 GMT -6
It's important to understand that all compression causes distortion and distortion accumulates. It's actually amazing how much peak limiting can be used on a really clean mix. The best way to achieve cohesion I know is to record everything with the same mike preamp exactly as would be done using a recording console. Recording with nothing but KM-84s, 86s and 67/87s adds to cohesion without contributing distortion. We're really talking about the amount of contrast between different mix elements. This one could lead a reader to think that distortion in general is a bad thing. I think we all agree that some distortions are just fine, pleasing to the ear. I do think we overcook the topic since a few threads long. Distortion in general IS a bad thing. What Bob is alluding to is dead accurate, the more of a mishmash concerning mics, pre, comps, eq's you use, the less congruency and more confusion you'll end up with in your recording due to the distortions and phase shifts from all the diff gear, the over use of parallel compression is another contributing factor to the confusion and resultant sonic pancakes. The consistency of a Console is a thing of beauty imo, it's the only real way to get a consistent sonic footprint that represents your musical canvas to create upon, and draw contrast from.....(unless u use CAPI stuff as an outboard console haha). Take it or leave it, but here's the biggest tip i could ever give, it's been proven that people don't notice sameness, they notice difference, if you use an 1176, neve 1073 or any other piece of gear on every single channel, you've essentially used it nowhere... and that can be a very powerful thing!.... as long as you used it EVERYWHERE. Now an example in context, so you used _____ console to capture an entire mix, it's very congruent and has the same sonic footprint everywhere right?(within electronics variance anyway).
NOW you insert a 1073, 1176, la2a on the lead vox, suddenly like pulling a rabbit out of your hat, the track stands out as different and featured amongst the same ole crowd(console), and you'll find it commanding the attention you desire simply because its now so strikingly different in contrast to the console/canvas you created with the consistent sound of said console. NOW, proceed to inserting other "difference maker" gear on other critical tracks that you want to stand out from the console/canvas crowd. I'm not speaking for Bob, but i believe his point was(in extreme),.. by using every piece of gear under the sun, all you'll end up with is a phasey/distorted canvas to draw NO contrast from. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 19, 2015 11:28:26 GMT -6
Back in ye olde tape days the musicians brought the tones and talent. We captured them. Now we are forced to help and make up for what they now lack. Now we must provide the instruments too? I prefer great musicians recorded accurately. They don't need any help. Our gear sometimes gets in the way of those folks. Well. Screw me then. I don't believe that everything old is great and everything new is bad though. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Jul 19, 2015 11:35:58 GMT -6
Back in ye olde tape days the musicians brought the tones and talent. We captured them. Now we are forced to help and make up for what they now lack. Now we must provide the instruments too? I prefer great musicians recorded accurately. They don't need any help. Our gear sometimes gets in the way of those folks. Well. Screw me then. I don't believe that everything old is great and everything new is bad though. dude... I heard an isolated vocal track you did, just last night, you were totally kicking ass man, don't be so humble haha as far as the second part of your response, just a thought, but let me ask you this... take any 3 songs released in the 70's, erase history and release them right now, how HUGE do you think they would be? It's a friggin desert out there..... |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 19, 2015 11:43:35 GMT -6
I'm not sure that's true - the general public doesn't seem to be very interested in song styling a la the 70's. I love Jason Isbell, but he will sell what - 80k records? And zero radio play. Wish that wasn't the case because I agree - it's a desert out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Jul 19, 2015 11:49:05 GMT -6
The problem today vs. the '70s is often the lag between when a song is written and when it gets exposed to the general public. Timeliness was a big deal in pop music that seems to have been forgotten.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 19, 2015 12:45:40 GMT -6
Just in a general sense, there used to be a premium placed on writing timeless songs that said something. Now, it's literally poo poo'd. "Uptempos are he only things getting cut."
|
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 19, 2015 12:52:20 GMT -6
This one could lead a reader to think that distortion in general is a bad thing. I think we all agree that some distortions are just fine, pleasing to the ear. I do think we overcook the topic since a few threads long. Distortion in general IS a bad thing. What Bob is alluding to is dead accurate, the more of a mishmash concerning mics, pre, comps, eq's you use, the less congruency and more confusion you'll end up with in your recording due to the distortions and phase shifts from all the diff gear, the over use of parallel compression is another contributing factor to the confusion and resultant sonic pancakes. The consistency of a Console is a thing of beauty imo, it's the only real way to get a consistent sonic footprint that represents your musical canvas to create upon, and draw contrast from.....(unless u use CAPI stuff as an outboard console haha). Take it or leave it, but here's the biggest tip i could ever give, it's been proven that people don't notice sameness, they notice difference, if you use an 1176, neve 1073 or any other piece of gear on every single channel, you've essentially used it nowhere... and that can be a very powerful thing!.... as long as you used it EVERYWHERE. Now an example in context, so you used _____ console to capture an entire mix, it's very congruent and has the same sonic footprint everywhere right?(within electronics variance anyway).
NOW you insert a 1073, 1176, la2a on the lead vox, suddenly like pulling a rabbit out of your hat, the track stands out as different and featured amongst the same ole crowd(console), and you'll find it commanding the attention you desire simply because its now so strikingly different in contrast to the console/canvas you created with the consistent sound of said console. NOW, proceed to inserting other "difference maker" gear on other critical tracks that you want to stand out from the console/canvas crowd. I'm not speaking for Bob, but i believe his point was(in extreme),.. by using every piece of gear under the sun, all you'll end up with is a phasey/distorted canvas to draw NO contrast from. thanks for going deeper..... |
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Jul 19, 2015 13:08:24 GMT -6
Back in ye olde tape days the musicians brought the tones and talent. We captured them. Now we are forced to help and make up for what they now lack. Now we must provide the instruments too? I prefer great musicians recorded accurately. They don't need any help. Our gear sometimes gets in the way of those folks. Well. Screw me then. I don't believe that everything old is great and everything new is bad though. If hear one time again that we have no talent today I will freak out. I know a lot of friedns who exactly know what to do on stage, and in studios. The diffrence is the industry changed and those gifted people even do not get a chance to show what they love to do. I say this as a musician. BTW we have many good players from the USA living here Berlin Germany. Second one is, not everything that has been overdubed is bad. At least not to my ears. I agree with John.... if we think all the time the oldies are goldies, we do not open our minds for new talented people. In my opinion we should give them a chance..... No offending, I like a lot of the oldies and the way they did it. But I know time is going on and new gnerations, who do the things diffrent, are there. To me the computers, and the daws, are a part of modern pop culture. And one thing never changed only the best ones are on top. I can live with changing times. Love and Peace. Holmes |
|
