Is compression in post necessary on solo acoustic fingerstyle recordings?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Yes, that's what I meant. Not because it sounds any different -- if you work entirely ITB it doesn't. Mainly for the speed and convenience. If you want to change 5 seconds of a 4-minute song you can do it without having to re-render the whole 4 minutes. And you can easily and quickly A/B the old vs the new before you commit.

Ah got it , a viable workflow alternative. I can see where especially if you are working on all kinds of types different mixes and or ones sent you by others it has a lot of merit

[AcousticDreams]

In regards to Bussing and Parallel compression or reverb, I am now understanding how The signal is routed to bus track using the sends. A big thanks to Doug and all who explained this.

I do understand the concept of signal path, waters flowing, pipes.

However, What I would now like to understand is how the signal is technically-mechanically sent to the Bus Channel.

Let me further explain. Typically when you split a channel you effect the output of the original signal. A Y cable for instance, we would loose signal(possibly half). This often results in a loss of quality of sound.

So might I assume that this is not the case, we are not splitting the signal?

*Instead are we sort of duplicating the signal when we send the original to a Bus? As a recorded tract is not continuous like a river. It is an exacting length of recorded material.

** And if so, what would be the difference of just duplicating the tract in the first place? And adding compression- reverb to that duplicate tract?

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

In regards to Bussing and Parallel compression or reverb, I am now understanding how The signal is routed to bus track using the sends. A big thanks to Doug and all who explained this.

I do understand the concept of signal path, waters flowing, pipes.

However, What I would now like to understand is how the signal is technically-mechanically sent to the Bus Channel.

Let me further explain. Typically when you split a channel you effect the output of the original signal. A Y cable for instance, we would loose signal(possibly half). This often results in a loss of quality of sound.

So might I assume that this is not the case, we are not splitting the signal?

*Instead are we sort of duplicating the signal when we send the original to a Bus? As a recorded tract is not continuous like a river. It is an exacting length of recorded material.

** And if so, what would be the difference of just duplicating the tract in the first place? And adding compression- reverb to that duplicate tract?

To be sure the water through pipes is a loose analogy but think of house plumbing not a river, because a house system is a closed system to the fixtures and as you note is not continuous like a River
And so when you split the water via a T fitting in closed system, you are still going to have the same water pressure in both sections of the split.

SO The answer is yes "that is not the case" because when you split an electrical signal you do not loose any of the signal.
For example in your house (at nominal distances in houses) you still get virtually all the 110/120 volts and 15-20 amp potential at all the receptacles. Only over longer distance might that change, and in what we are talking about In the DAW the distance is not a factor.

So you are getting 100 dry signal arriving at the audio tracks outputs and 100% dry signal hitting the send BUS Which is why you would either reduce the level of what is going out of the send, or reduce the level of Aux track fader the reverb is on.

So yes in theory you could simply duplicate the track and add the FX to that dup track BUT in doing that you will likely have to reduce the levels of both of those tracks (with probably more reduction on the track with the FX in order to not get too much Effect) and also to not push the the final mix into distortion. And For me (and maybe it's just habit) but using an Aux track just seems easier

As for the questions on Bussing I have just done a quick video about how I use busses BUT will start a new thread so as to leave this for compression

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Ah got it , a viable workflow alternative. I can see where especially if you are working on all kinds of types different mixes and or ones sent you by others it has a lot of merit

I originally started doing it because that's how mixing for TV and film on either film dubbers or a 24-track was done. You listened to the "final destination" set to Input. In a DAW context, the main difference for you would be that any mix bus processing would have to go on the Master fader, not the Mix channel. If it goes on the Mix channel you'll hear (monitor) it, but it won't actually print. Also, with a bus compressor on the Master in PT, you're pushing into it and the compressor is pushing back because it's post-fader. I'd urge you to at least explore this way of working with a bus compressor in the setup you're using now. You might hate it but you might love it.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

I originally started doing it because that's how mixing for TV and film on either film dubbers or a 24-track was done. You listened to the "final destination" set to Input. In a DAW context, the main difference for you would be that any mix bus processing would have to go on the Master fader, not the Mix channel. If it goes on the Mix channel you'll hear (monitor) it, but it won't actually print. Also, with a bus compressor on the Master in PT, you're pushing into it and the compressor is pushing back because it's post-fader. I'd urge you to at least explore this way of working with a bus compressor in the setup you're using now. You might hate it but you might love it.

OK I more or less get what you saying about having the comp push back when on the Master because of post fader

But not clear about if the comp is on the mix bus it is not printing ?
I assume you talking about when printing to an audio track as opposed to bouncing to disk ?
Because seems to me if feeding the mix bus output to the input of the audio track it is going to record the FX to the audio track is it not ?

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

But not clear about if the comp is on the mix bus it is not printing ?
I assume you talking about when printing to an audio track as opposed to bouncing to disk ?

Yes, that's what I mean. I'm still struggling with how to post an image, but when I figure it out you can look at the routing and it'll be more clear, I'm sure.

Later edit... aha! I think I've got it. In this layout, my Mix track is output to Analog 1/2, d/a converters that go to my monitor switcher. So it's the equivalent of your Stereo Monitor output in your setup.

[Chipotle]

Originally Posted by Knives&Guitars

However, What I would now like to understand is how the signal is technically-mechanically sent to the Bus Channel.

In the digital domain, there is no loss or degradation. You are simply sending the same stream of 1s and 0s to two (or more) different places. I suppose you could think of it as being a "copy" of the original, if you wanted, but it's really a real-time stream of that data--it isn't captured anywhere until you print it, whether on another track or the final mix.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Yes, that's what I mean. I'm still struggling with how to post an image, but when I figure it out you can look at the routing and it'll be more clear, I'm sure.

Later edit... aha! I think I've got it. In this layout, my Mix track is output to Analog 1/2, d/a converters that go to my monitor switcher. So it's the equivalent of your Stereo Monitor output in your setup.

Glad you got the posting a screen shot sorted

Yes that is how I pictured what you are talking about.

So as an interesting anecdote it's a fair testament to Pro tools functionality that you are still using what ever older version of PT that is ?
I have one friend that has a basement project studio and is still using PT 7,,, I think it is every day . (looks kinda like your screen shot)

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Glad you got the posting a screen shot sorted

Yes that is how I pictured what you are talking about.

So as an interesting anecdote it's a fair testament to Pro tools functionality that you are still using what ever older version of PT that is ?
I have one friend that has a basement project studio and is still using PT 7,,, I think it is every day . (looks kinda like your screen shot)

Yep, it's a 7-something TDM system. With the same workflow and efficiency as your HDX, but yours probably sounds better. I also have a copy of PT10 Native on a Macbook (and Logic as well) which can handle a couple of modern plugins that the old rig won't, but I really don't like working on it nearly as much.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

Yep, it's a 7-something TDM system. With the same workflow and efficiency as your HDX, but yours probably sounds better. I also have a copy of PT10 Native on a Macbook (and Logic as well) which can handle a couple of modern plugins that the old rig won't, but I really don't like working on it nearly as much.

TDM, so I assume you're using one or more Digi 192's ?

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

TDM, so I assume you're using one or more Digi 192's ?

I am. I've got three, but two are in the shed.

Thanks for the input guys. The discussion veered off into territory I don't really understand at this point but it has been interesting.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by J-Doug

Thanks for the input guys. The discussion veered off into territory I don't really understand at this point but it has been interesting.

Sorry about that I think what I should do is start a thread about the different DAWs we all use and what our sessions/projects actually look like

[Brent Hahn]

Originally Posted by KevWind

Sorry about that I think what I should do is start a thread about the different DAWs we all use and what our sessions/projects actually look like

I think one thing that might be a little confusing (to other people) about your template is that you've renamed your converter inputs after the mics that are plugged into them. I could be wrong.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by Brent Hahn

I think one thing that might be a little confusing (to other people) about your template is that you've renamed your converter inputs after the mics that are plugged into them. I could be wrong.

No not wrong and good catch, in that the audio inputs are indeed renamed to reflect the mics that are plugged into them So the N22 L was renamed from the default Analog 1 and the N22 R was default analog 2 and the Vox mic on the vocals was analog 3......... A renaming luxury afforded by only ever recording myself

But honestly I have to say you are the only person I've seen refer to the "analog audio inputs" as "converter inputs " (which I get,,, is technically correct ) given they are in fact coming from the Interfaces A/D converter channels .... but most people just call them audio 1-2 -3 -4 etc.. As I posted I think this discussion should probably be in this new thread I started......... I will post a screen shot of my I/O matrix in the other as well help clarify

https://www.acousticguitarforum.com/...d.php?t=615461