Compression on Acoustic Fingerstyle

[lppier]

Hi,

I would like to ask if you guys compress your acoustic fingerstyle songs.
If you do, what do you listen for? Or do you look at the gain reduction?
What compressor settings do you use and how do you decide?

Thank you.

Pier.

[rick-slo]

IMO for a solo guitar usually don't use it or use it very lightly. It squashes dynamic range. Of course if you want to participate in the loudness wars then go for it. If there are just one to a few overs you might use volume reduction at those points or carefully use a limiter. Compression might be more useful when the guitar is one track in a mix to even out the levels in that track.

[sdelsolray]

Originally Posted by lppier

Hi,

I would like to ask if you guys compress your acoustic fingerstyle songs.
If you do, what do you listen for? Or do you look at the gain reduction?
What compressor settings do you use and how do you decide?

Thank you.

Pier.

I use a compressor sometimes when playing live, for the purpose of having a slightly higher average volume before feedback. I might get about 3dB. I don't want to hear it compress at all.

For recording, like RickSlo said, it really isn't needed or necessarily desired for solo fingerstyle.

[lppier]

Just like to ask - do you guys listen to Kotaro Oshio, Masaaki Kishibe and Tommy Emmanuel. I like to tone of the guitar on their tracks but can't tell whether they're compressed.

Also, I've heard that you can use compression to dampen over-loud clicks/pops. How do you do that?

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Of course if you want to participate in the loudness wars then go for it.

The "loudness wars" has little or nothing to do with analog or analog style compression. Fairly common and very large misconception.

In a broad brush stroke the loudness wars, which usually refers to contemporary music mastering and in some cases promo materials on broadcast television, is a result of bit depth maximizing which although in some ways might peripherally be described as compression is not.

A beast of an utterly and completely different color.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

The "loudness wars" has little or nothing to do with analog or analog style compression. Fairly common and very large misconception.

In a broad brush stroke the loudness wars, which usually refers to contemporary music mastering and in some cases promo materials on broadcast television, is a result of bit depth maximizing which although in some ways might peripherally be described as compression is not.

A beast of an utterly and completely different color.

Well, I don't agree. Compression, analog or digital, is part of the means of getting a dynamically squashed but loud sound. There have been numerous articles on the issue by recording engineers such as Katz. However I do not want to go on about it in the OP's thread. It might be an area of interest in a separate thread.

[RRuskin]

Originally Posted by lppier

Hi,

I would like to ask if you guys compress your acoustic fingerstyle songs.
If you do, what do you listen for? Or do you look at the gain reduction?
What compressor settings do you use and how do you decide?

Thank you.

Pier.

Since the late 70's when I started engineering/producing my own stuff, never.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Well, I don't agree. Compression, analog or digital, is part of the means of getting a dynamically squashed but loud sound. There have been numerous articles on the issue by recording engineers such as Katz. However I do not want to go on about it in the OP's thread. It might be an area of interest in a separate thread.

Naw you're off base here. I feel compelled to adjust this growing wives tales

Analog "style" (the key word being style) compression can obviously be digital as well analog and react in a similar or in some cases exact same manner as the analog unit it's design to emulate. The two are not mutually exclusive in function. That has nothing to do with the dividing lines between digital vs analog vs the much bigger dragon, bit depth maximizing and everything to do with how the compression scheme accomplishes it's task. In the case of analog style compression (digital OR analog) vs bit depth maximizing the two go about their tasks in a completely different manor and in fact the ONLY similarities would be in the broadest descriptions of the final outcome. That is of course the "apparent" increase in volume.

Where mastering engineers do often use digital multi-band compression (usually as a form of eq) it is NOT what causes the topic of loudness wars. No matter how good the analog "style" hardware or software compressor may be (digital or analog) the method in which they compress doesn't allow for the apparent volume increases that maximizing does. You simply could NOT squash out enough dynamics with conventional compression without splattered gibberish to equal the perceived volume of maximizers. Again two completely different beasts.

No one would argue Katz doesn't use compression in his methodology, but I think if you look closely most every mastering engineer on earth right now (including Katz) employes healthy maximizing. Not because they want to but because the labels deem it vital in "keeping up with the Joneses"

I'll say again.."bit depth maximizing" although easily confused with a compression scheme is the sole culprit in creating the contemporary phrase "loudness wars."

It's appropriate here on this thread (and forum in general) as SO many here utterly and completely misunderstand compression, how it works, what the parameters indeed control, why it works and in more cases than not why it doesn't work. A fundamental understanding of compression and why it can easily be either beneficial or adding to the train wreck shouldn't be confused with the much more in-depth techniques used in modern day mastering. Using a analog compressor on your acoustic guitar (no matter how aggressive it's employed) won't contribute to the volume wars.

I'll take it to another thread now

[rick-slo]

Again I disagree with you Joseph when you say that compression has nothing to do with contributing to the loudness wars. I suggest you read http://www.digido.com/level-practice...-k-system.html so at least we are on the same page as to what is being discussed when talking about loudness wars.
To maximize bit depth at each point in the music you would not only have to record hot (near 0 when recording in 16 bit) but compress a lot to get a high average volume.
Of course compression without makeup gain lowers volume and of course compression can be useful and used with taste can improve the sound and impact of a particular piece of music.
Just recording a hot signal is not what is generally being referred to when you hear comments about the degradation of sound in the loudness wars. Yes a hot signal may cause some analog equipment to distort (self compress) and even some digital software manipuation to degrade in function but generally what is being referred in the damage to music with the loudness wars is the squashing of dynamic range (sucking the life out of a piece of music) by more and more compression and make up gain added until it looks like (as mentioned in the article) you are recording a bunch of square waves.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Again I disagree with you Joseph when you say that compression has nothing to do with contributing to the loudness wars. I suggest you read http://www.digido.com/level-practice...-k-system.html so at least we are on the same page as to what is being discussed when talking about loudness wars.
To maximize bit depth at each point in the music you would not only have to record hot (near 0 when recording in 16 bit) but compress a lot to get a high average volume.
Of course compression without makeup gain lowers volume and of course compression can be useful and used with taste can improve the sound and impact of a particular piece of music.
Just recording a hot signal is not what is generally being referred to when you hear comments about the degradation of sound in the loudness wars. Yes a hot signal may cause some analog equipment to distort (self compress) and even some digital software manipuation to degrade in function but generally what is being referred in the damage to music with the loudness wars is the squashing of dynamic range (sucking the life out of a piece of music) by more and more compression and make up gain added until it looks like (as mentioned in the article) you are recording a bunch of square waves.

Rick,

I've read that article. I'm intimately familiar with the stages of K monitoring and in fact all monitoring specs as I mix TV for a living. A single dB mistake in my world and someone down the line won't feed my mix... I lose my job. I have my nose in Dorrough meters 14 hours a day 6 days a week and have for many years now.

It should be VERY clear here no one is taking about maximizing bit depth "at each point in the music" and in fact if that statement is in the article I'm at a loss as to its context. Perhaps we could discuss this another time.

Further you seem to be inferring that I DON'T feel that modern day production techniques crush dynamics. They absolutely do and they do so in some examples to various comical degrees ie: Ricky Martin. I understand dynamics not only from a recording perspective but also from a playing perspective and a production perspective. My favorite projects are either classical or film score productions and I like to think both will remain somewhat dynamic despite current trends.

Katz article is an overview on several modern day production issues including digital metering scales (K), monitoring, the degrading state of contemporary music production techniques and the ramifications and possible fixes there in. His example of Ricky Martins wave form is a classic view of a maximized signal. You (or even Katz) might call that an example of over use of compression and where it makes perfect sense in the context of this discussion the technique shown is maximizing not analog compression regardless of how it's described in the article. No one (most of all myself) is a)ignoring the horrid sound of contemporary production and b) advocating that nothing should be done about it.

Katz uses the word compression VERY loosely in the context of the discussion and never once goes into any technical clarification of actual equipment and or software or even techniques used to obtain the "Ricky Martin" type production. That is of course because the gist of the article is about metering and how the introduction of various metering scales could ease the crunch that has become the industry mastering status quo wreck. The article is not intended to specifically identify what or how things are being crushed as it's way out of the scope of that articles intended goal.

I "master for air" audio production all day long. Not because I'm a mastering artist (no, no, no ,no as I'm as far from that level of talent as humanly possible)but because my world is about, and demands. lightning turnarounds. Mix and ship. I can crush a production piece to utter smitherines with the best of them (as I certainly have the tools to do so) and if the client wants it that way will do so till the cows come home. That said "crushing for air" never includes the use of an analog style compressor. Well...maybe "never" is a strong word here but **** near never.

My point in all of this again is the level of misconceptions surrounding the word compression is biblical. Every amateur recordist on Earth is convinced they need a great software compression plug-in and every DAW manufacturer panders to that mind set with their advertising but comically 99.9% of those end users don't and won't ever understand the basic fundamentals of a simple compressor. That thought is continued down the road to first time users who might somehow be influenced into thinking using a simple analog style compressor on an acoustic guitar or even an acoustic guitar recording somehow adds to the loudness wars. Nothing could be further from the truth. I wouldn't be caught dead (at least most of the time) mixing an aggressive rock style drum kit without judicious amounts of compression. That, in and of itself, is light years removed from the snap shot of Katz's example of the Ricky Martin clip.

[rick-slo]

Joseph, I agree with most of your last post about the uses of compression. A couple of things though first being that you keep mentioning analog compression and that was not mentioned in the OP post. In all likelihood he would be using digital compression. You can still mess up over doing an analog compressor but digital compression can compress the music even more thus part of the reason for the acceleration of the loudness war problem in the digital realm. Second to quote Katz:

"Fueling that race are powerful digital compressors and limiters which enable mastering engineers to produce CDs whose average level is almost the same as the peak level! There is no precedent for that in over 100 years of recording. We end up mastering to the lowest common denominator, and fight desperately to avoid that situation, wasting a lot of time showing clients that the sound quality suffers as the average level goes up."

Does that statement really need to be qualified with what particular brand of compressor or limiter one uses?

Third, if all you meant by maximizing bit depth is being a 0 recording level on the maximum volume peak then short of distorting some equipment then all the consumer has to do is turn the volume know down if they want. Of course I am not talking about a situation such as setting levels that go straight to broadcast which would be rather off topic for the OP concerns.


BTW what's with those TV ads that are a lot louder than the rest of the program.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Joseph, I agree with most of your last post about the uses of compression. A couple of things though first being that you keep mentioning analog compression and that was not mentioned in the OP post. In all likelihood he would be using digital compression. You can still mess up over doing an analog compressor but digital compression can compress the music even more thus part of the reason for the acceleration of the loudness war problem in the digital realm. Second to quote Katz:

"Fueling that race are powerful digital compressors and limiters which enable mastering engineers to produce CDs whose average level is almost the same as the peak level! There is no precedent for that in over 100 years of recording. We end up mastering to the lowest common denominator, and fight desperately to avoid that situation, wasting a lot of time showing clients that the sound quality suffers as the average level goes up."

Does that statement really need to be qualified with what particular brand of compressor or limiter one uses?

Third, if all you meant by maximizing bit depth is being a 0 recording level on the maximum volume peak then short of distorting some equipment then all the consumer has to do is turn the volume know down if they want. Of course I am not talking about a situation such as setting levels that go straight to broadcast which would be rather off topic for the OP concerns.


BTW what's with those TV ads that are a lot louder than the rest of the program.

Hey Rick,

We're really much closer in mind set than you might think. I simple MUST however get this idea across.

As to the analog vs digital compression. Many, many plug-in software writers produce software (digital) compressors that by there very nature emulate an analog compressor. All of my presentation assumes for this discussion that either are interchangeable. McDsp makes a whole group of very usable digital plug-ins that work as various types of typical analog compression. There is of course an emulation of over-easy compression, or optical compression ect ect. The fact that it's a plug-in (and digital) at least on the surface doesn't change the means in which it achieves it's end. There is the usual parameters that react to incoming signals. Threshold levels, ratio control, speed or rate, and release. Some of the plug-in even have make-up gain circuitry. Bomb Factory, Focusrite and UA audio all have produced some great plug-ins that where the don't quite have the sonic delivery capabilities of hardware are really quite good.

Either way (a digital emulation of analog OR an analog compressor) the parameters, that's is the tools to create the end results, are identical.

It's important here to note again that Katz is using the term "digital compressor and limiters" and in doing so streamlines his presentation but also in that practice presents information that is utterly incorrect as to the process of what's taking place. He DOES NOT MEAN digital as in a McDsp plug-in. The "compressors and limiters" he speaks of DO NOT in ANY WAY or ANY SHAPE work on the principles that would affect the average user here on an acoustic guitar forum. They are utterly and completely different mechanisms. There are bit depth maximizers on the consumer level, Waves has one, DUY has one and another called the Massey 2007 and all are capable of mathematically crushing wave forms (again the Ricky Martin example) to comical levels. There is also at least one hardware version by TC Electronic but the name escapes me. Nothing about this process including the parameters used to manipulate the plug-in have ANYTHING in common with what we know as typical analog or digital emulation of analog compression results.

In short Katz is adding to the consumer level confusion by calling the target culprits "compressors and limiters" when in fact they are not. In defense of Katz if I were writing the same article I'd probably do the same thing as by nature of our conversations it's clear that the level of misunderstanding that surrounds compression is Titanic and if he were to open that can of worms his article would sink under the weight of explanations.

Again standard analog style compression (be it digital or not) is not the culprit behind loudness wars and those here who choose to understand compression and use it for practical intended purposes will not contribute to volume wars!

PS: The promo levels for National Broadcasting have obviously reached ridiculous "war-like" levels. Nowhere in contemporary audio is it more obvious and painful. Clients have a point however as there is no glory in producing a commercial that appears to be 15dB less than their competitors. The Feds are working on addressing guidelines but it's a slippery slope and controlling these issues is difficult because the use of bit depth maximizing (if used correctly) still falls under the maximum output guidelines.

[rick-slo]

Joseph, glad we are broadly in agreement about usage if not terminology. When you mention crushing the waveform it is just another way of saying compression (the decibel range between loudest and softest sound is being reduced). Perhaps with some of these devices their function is more of bringing up the lower levels rather than reducing the higher levels but the end result is the same. I did look at the Wave products (I have the Renaissance compressor among others) and at the Massey 2007 and the controls are the usual suspects.
BTW my original post where I said "Of course if you want to participate in the loudness wars then go for it." was a tongue in cheek exaggeration.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

When you mention crushing the waveform it is just another way of saying compression (the decibel range between loudest and softest sound is being reduced). Perhaps with some of these devices their function is more of bringing up the lower levels rather than reducing the higher levels but the end result is the same.

Yes but you see that's the point. The end result perhaps could be thought of as mechanically the same only as the broadest of umbrella statement and limited to the comparison that dynamic range is indeed altered but sonically they are utterly and completely different and the method in which each creates results end user results is also completely different. My point all along is you cannot get analog style compressor to crush things to that extreme of a level without also incurring massive other sonic problems and those sonic impedances are the reason they are NOT utilized . As an example even the most aggressive hi-end brick wall hardware limiters can not mathematically create a ceiling so tight as to completely limit output above a set threshold without massive audio problems rearing their heads. A maximizer can create that same absolute dead end, brick wall, end of the road ceiling with FAR less of the splatter and squash than a traditional comp. That is of course NOT to say maximizers don't have some jagged sonic trade off's as they certainly do...just listen to an mp3 on iTunes. Still as I've said a beast of a completely different color.

As to the Waves Renaissance compressor sorry but that is a digital emulation of an analog style compressor and where it's certainly an ok plug-in it is not an example of a maximizer. Look towards the L3 or L4 for examples of playing with bit depth. The Massey however is a maximizer although your description of what the parameters do as "usual suspects" is dead wrong. If you have a chance read up on how Stephen Massey describes his creation.

Look..I'm not gonna change your mind here as it's pretty obviously made up and that's absolutely cool by me I'm just trying to dispel some misunderstood things about the term "compression" for the benefit of those that might interested. I don't claim to be a mastering engineer but I have been involved in audio production here in Hollyweird for a long time. I do have some very good friends who do work in mastering labs around town. I've personally seen some of the software they use in action and I'm here to testify to anyone that's interested the compressors we all use for live and recorded music is not the compression that's widely known in the industry as the compression that's responsible for loudness wars.

[rick-slo]

That's fine. We will agree to disagree. Anything more added would be circular at this point.