Fairly interesting article on Compressors

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Bowie

I'm used to forums where a variety of perspectives are appreciated and I'm not getting that vibe in the recording section here. I find the "who's who" thing to be kind of crass and I'm not really here for that. I'll let you guys do your thing.

Hey ya gotta do what think is right for you
However variety of perspectives and opinions are in fact appreciated and respected here regardless of experience
And you might reflect on how the "who's who thing" got started ..

I believe "From years of taking with guys in the business." can be taken without too much stretch to be a mild form of the appeal to authority argument . No? And the point was that likely as many Pro's do use compression on acoustic as do not. So that observation while correct concerning some Pro's is my no means determinative of all Pros's . And BTW it is also could be considered a bit "crass" attempting to dismiss a post about comp being used on acoustic with the assertion
that the difference between mixing and mastering compression somehow negates the examples in the post..

And pointing out the experience level of the people you were replying to, was not meant as any kind of one upmanship If you took it that way I apologize,,,, as I was only attempting to point out that a statement on mastering comp vs mixing comp was likely unnecessary

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by Bowie

From years of taking with guys in the business. It never ceases to amaze me how many of them use little to no compression on acoustic.
Also, hearing compression on a commercial recording isn't the same as mixing. Keep in mind how much compression takes place in mastering. I've been surprised at times when someone told me they didn't use mix compression on an acoustic track that clearly has some compression.

Well first of all no offense meant in my posts. It's merely that some stuff posted here, for me, is not my experience. Some of the things border on wives' tales and this is the place, at minimum, to push ideas out on the table for well-meaning, informative discussions, particularly for those newer to the craft and do a little table setting. In the end, take my opinion with a glazier of salt cause that's all it's worth.

No 99.9% of the time compression in mastering is an utterly and completely different "kind" of compression than say an LA2A. Bit depth maximizing (an old term, still used as a plug-in) although having some attributes of compression, is a look-ahead analyzer that was born of the volume wars some years back. Its push, although much, much, much less now than say 6-8 years ago was "perceived loudness". The plug-ins have grown enormously as far as minimizing the annoying perception of loud/volume but still, a different device primarily used for a different result.
One, I guess, could make an argument that using an LA2A during mixdown is an attempt to make things louder, but I know of very few engineers who approach it in that manner. And conversely, one could use a bit-depth maximize during mix down although again, somewhat bassakwards.

I think for many audio engineers, myself included, compression (as used in mixing) is a titanically annoying sonic. There are of course exceptions. The annoyance, for me, has been magnified tenfold by the ginormously crappy plug-ins available, particularly in the earlier years. Just a crappy, invasive sound that, for my taste does far more sonic damage than good. As I mentioned there are some good ones now, but I try my best to use them as a tone shaper and a gain device and decidedly not a leveler. Compression, in general, is like a dust spot in a picture, once you see it you can't undo it. Sonically that's what comps do for me. I hear it on almost everything and conversely just can't un-hear.

On the other hand, I'm all aboard with some of the better hardware compressors on the market. Some years back I bought a Charter Oak compressor the very day after renting it for a session. It is almost virtually transparent and fills the role of using compression sparingly even though one can get pretty aggressive if needed.

If I had 24-30 Charter Oak compressors I'd probably use them on everything but the obvious cost of entry makes that unobtainable. I mentioned earlier the John Mayer acoustic stuff is sonically really great even though obviously, compressed. I'd use whatever they're using without hesitation. The same applies to AKUS. Compressed for sure, but sonically beautiful.

But I digress. Again to reiterate, I meant no offense in my posts. I'm blessed to have had a very successful 23-year career as an audio engineer in an enormously difficult environment and I'm somewhat passionate about providing my opinions on what I've learned, good and bad, the mistakes and the successes, and pass along to those who might, even in a small way, benefit.

YMMV.

[dnf777]

Originally Posted by Bowie

It's kind of ironic, given that the acoustic is an instrument that often gets little or no compression.

I see the emoji, so I'm not taking your comment entirely literally, but I do find it interesting. I once asked here if much of the less dynamic acoustic folk-type music really needed compression as much as most other styles of music with bigger peaks and troughs. One reply in particular really caught my attention; that "when used properly, compression should be barely noticeable". Well heck...that could save lots of money and time! But I get it. I think.

I go back and forth on whether I think I understand compression. For now, I'm going to take some tracks and mixes and really play with them and see what I learn. I made a lot of progress on Reaper this weekend, so its now a little bit easier to play around with fx and hear real time results.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I see the emoji, so I'm not taking your comment entirely literally, but I do find it interesting. I once asked here if much of the less dynamic acoustic folk-type music really needed compression as much as most other styles of music with bigger peaks and troughs. One reply in particular really caught my attention; that "when used properly, compression should be barely noticeable". Well heck...that could save lots of money and time! But I get it. I think.

I go back and forth on whether I think I understand compression. For now, I'm going to take some tracks and mixes and really play with them and see what I learn. I made a lot of progress on Reaper this weekend, so its now a little bit easier to play around with fx and hear real time results.

While there are a number of standard practices and for good reasons, still absolutely nothing is set in stone. Or put another way when it comes to effects the main general rule is, there are no absolute immutable rules.

Yes indeed once the logistics of DAW recording become familiar it gets a whole easier and fun where you can begin to focus on the craft and the art
Not completely dissimilar from back in pre history when we learned to drive an auto with an manual transmission and clutch . Where until we became proficient at shifting with the clutch, driving was not all that fun and we could not really enjoy the expanded freedom to explore the places and possibilities that driving affords .

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by dnf777

I see the emoji, so I'm not taking your comment entirely literally, but I do find it interesting. I once asked here if much of the less dynamic acoustic folk-type music really needed compression as much as most other styles of music with bigger peaks and troughs. One reply in particular really caught my attention; that "when used properly, compression should be barely noticeable". Well heck...that could save lots of money and time! But I get it. I think.

I go back and forth on whether I think I understand compression. For now, I'm going to take some tracks and mixes and really play with them and see what I learn. I made a lot of progress on Reaper this weekend, so its now a little bit easier to play around with fx and hear real time results.

I'm gonna go down this road although I ought not to. Find 1 minute of an audio track (preferably an acoustic) you've recorded. Call up your volume automation in Reaper. Without too much micro-managing draw an upside-down volume dip on all the peaks across that 1-minute piece of audio. Don't sweat the details, you may or may not pick all the peaks that sonically need to be addressed but that's fine for this demo. For the purpose here in, I'd bring each peak down -3dB. Bear in mind this is an experiment not a finished audio solution.

At this point, each peak should now be aligned (volume-wise) more consistently with the other, smaller peaks that inevitably occur. Ostensibly you've brought higher peaks in uniform with the lower peaks. Two things now happen. Since you've lowered the larger peaks down -3db you're free to raise the volume of the overall track since you've now gained 3db of headroom. Secondarily (or maybe primarily) the phrasing of the 1-minute acoustic audio is now a consistent, even track. Sort of like a great player with a great right-hand attack.

It's important to note that this technique is not always called for especially when the intent is a broad dynamic acoustic guitar track. That is to say you "want' to hear the high and low of a track. say for instance a quiet passage that evolves into a heavy strumming. In that case, leveling peaks would destroy the intent.

A compressor works similarly although the above example is singular in its intent, that intent is of course leveling a track's output. A compressor can take that methodology several steps further. Common compressor parameters include the ability to address the Attack. The attack is how quickly the compressor itself essentially turns on. A very slow attack, on say a snare drum, would allow for the wack of the initial snare hit but then slowly kick in post wack. There is also a Threshold parameter on compressors. Threshold is fairly simple. You simply set a dB level in which you wish the compressor to start..compressing. If for instance, I set a very low threshold, say -2db EVERYTHING audio-wise below -2db remains uncompressed (more or less, depending on the type and brand of the compressor). The compressor simply leaves that audio untouched. No compression exists until the audio exceeds -2db. Another control parameter of compression is the Release. Again a very simple concept. It merely tells the compressor how long it should attempt to hold on to a note, or even a passage before it stops processing. That brings us to the Ratio parameter which seems to be the most misunderstood. The Ratio specifies the amount of compression applied to the signal. This setting is expressed in decibels. For example, a ratio of 2:1 indicates that a signal exceeding the threshold by 2 dB will be attenuated down by 1 dB. A signal exceeding the threshold by 8 dB will be attenuated down by 4 dB, etc. Finally, there is often a "make-up gain" control that does just that. Makes up for gain. If one compresses a signal to the point it's lowering the volume this gain control can be handy.

Tryin' to summarize here: There is no doubt that a good compressor has more tools in the toolbox than good old-fashioned volume automation BUT, and it's a big but (at least for me) there's a sonic price to pay in deferring to compression. Going through a compressor, no matter how lightly used, creates an audio footprint. Some are very strong and I tend to recoil, like fingers on a chalkboard, others subtly but still mostly obvious, unless of course, one gets into some of the great hardware boxes out there, and honestly at that point the game changes for the better concerning compression, but at a substantial financial investment.

In the end, I can use volume (or clip gain) automation to do most, if not all the tasks a compressor provides and in many, if not most, cases a much better job, and sonically (at least for me) substantially better audio quality.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Joseph Hanna

I'm gonna go down this road although I ought not to.

Glad you did, what a great post organized, clear, concise, and understandable. Should be a sticky

I should note that for the most part I tend not to use compression directly on my acoustic guitar parts
I do however routinely as you say, use Clip Gain automation for basic leveling and balancing
I have however started to use UAD's LA-2A comp plug in directly on my vocal's
And as I have noted before. I always have my 2 channel tube hardware IGS Tubcore 3U Veri-Mu style Mastering Comp on my 2 Bus But I often only have it just lightly set

[DupleMeter]

I will play Devil’s advocate & say: I love compression. Not for the dynamic control, but for the girth it adds to a source & the allows me to shape the sound. I can smooth it out, or make it really punchy. To me a compressor is a big tone box.

I’m also a big fan of a couple dB of 2-bus compression. I just love the way it makes the track breathe together & cozies everything together just a little more. It’s what makes me say “that sound’s like a record”.

I will also say that I probably use more compression now than I did when I recorded to tape. To my ear, a little compression & saturation really helps to push things closer to what I liked about tape.

And to bring it back around to acoustic guitars, I often compress them at least a little because I love what it does to make them feel more authoritative.

But…that’s me. I like what I like. Others like what they like.

[Bob Womack]

Me too. There is nothing more satisfying to me than having a good mastering engineer say, "Well, there really wasn't much for me to do."

Bob

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I will play Devil’s advocate & say: I love compression. Not for the dynamic control, but for the girth it adds to a source & the allows me to shape the sound. I can smooth it out, or make it really punchy. To me a compressor is a big tone box.

I’m also a big fan of a couple dB of 2-bus compression. I just love the way it makes the track breathe together & cozies everything together just a little more. It’s what makes me say “that sound’s like a record”.

I will also say that I probably use more compression now than I did when I recorded to tape. To my ear, a little compression & saturation really helps to push things closer to what I liked about tape.

And to bring it back around to acoustic guitars, I often compress them at least a little because I love what it does to make them feel more authoritative.

But…that’s me. I like what I like. Others like what they like.

[Joseph Hanna]

Originally Posted by DupleMeter

I will play Devil’s advocate & say: I love compression. Not for the dynamic control, but for the girth it adds to a source & the allows me to shape the sound. I can smooth it out, or make it really punchy. To me a compressor is a big tone box.

I’m also a big fan of a couple dB of 2-bus compression. I just love the way it makes the track breathe together & cozies everything together just a little more. It’s what makes me say “that sound’s like a record”.

I will also say that I probably use more compression now than I did when I recorded to tape. To my ear, a little compression & saturation really helps to push things closer to what I liked about tape.

And to bring it back around to acoustic guitars, I often compress them at least a little because I love what it does to make them feel more authoritative.

But…that’s me. I like what I like. Others like what they like.

I agree. I do use my compressors as a tone box, no doubt, especially the Distressor. A grit machine. And just to be clear, there are times when a compressor makes total sense for me. I probably went too hard in my posts concerning compressors in general. It’s just sometimes the ship here on the forum turns very, very slowly. Wives' tales tend to be the bar at which things are initially judged and little can be done to steer the ship in a direction otherwise unless one splashes a lot of water.

Now compressors on 2-buss is a whole other issue and in that scenario, I'm all in. That's just a completely different ball game than mixing acoustic guitar using a compressor on an individual track(s). I simply would not be caught without a 2-buss compressor or even a compressor on all the sub-masters.

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I should note that for the most part I tend not to use compression directly on my acoustic guitar parts...

When studio recording mainly was a thing involving separate rooms and separate people, you were less likely to have your good performance ruined by a badly-compressed recording. Nowadays, doing DIY performing and recording (and compressing) while eyeballing a couple meters isn't really worth the risk for most people. That said, I do it all the time, but I have a ton of experience and fairly forgiving gear.

[DupleMeter]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

When studio recording mainly was a thing involving separate rooms and separate people, you were less likely to have your good performance ruined by a badly-compressed recording. Nowadays, doing DIY performing and recording (and compressing) while eyeballing a couple meters isn't really worth the risk for most people. That said, I do it all the time, but I have a ton of experience and fairly forgiving gear.

So true. Earlier today I was in the studio recording basic tracks for an artist's album (acoustic guitar & vocals), and as I was setting the compressors I was thinking about how much of a risk that is when you don't know what you're doing. Mind you, this was compression that was being recorded (mic > pre > EQ > comp > converters > pro tools). At one time it was just the norm. You printed the sound you wanted (or as close as you could get with the info at hand). But before anyone let you do that by yourself, you had severely messed it up so many times as an assistant engineer (and had the engineer bail you out), that you had gotten all the "uh ohs" out