hi all
should a parallel compression kick returntrack be routed to the drumbus with all the other drumelements or should it be routed to the masterchannel? Now i have it routed to my Drumbus (i have the sendamound on full 0dB to send the whole amount of the Kickdrum to the Parallelreturncompressor)
could you please tell me how your trashold, attack, release and ratio are mostly looking like on a parallel compression Kickdrum.
i have about -20dB GR, attack is on the fastest setting, ratio is on about 20:1... my release is where iam not really shure about it where to set... and the Makeupgain iam also not shure where to set it... i guess allmost just before the Clipdiod is lighting red (can you please confirm this settings?). the paralellkickamount i set with the parallelreturns Fader!(this should work perfect for my Logical understanding!
...BUT... if i route my mainKICKchannel and my ParallelKickchannel to my Drumbus, I get a mean doubling effect with a short delay of my Kick!
please tell me how you route your Kicks to through a Returntrack....
Ps: iam Working with Ableton Live9 anf I choose the returnway just to try out which Parallelmethod suiting me best!
thank you
should a parallel track be routed to drumbus or to master
-
- KVRAF
- 2565 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
If parallel compressing a snare I'd send the dry and compressed signals to a "snare bus" which then goes to a drum bus. That way the overall snare level can be adjusted without changing the relative levels of dry amd compressed. (Or you can just use a compressor with a wet/dry control!)
-
- KVRian
- 540 posts since 28 Oct, 2014
i would never recommend parallel compression, as it also raises the volume of the peaks, which is the area you are trying to let through untouched.
imo, the best way is graphical upwards compression, as this will bring up the compressed audio, without you having to rebalance your drum levels everytime you make a change with the comp.
take a look at this compressor
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MCompressor
and look at the first picture on the page (click the pic to enlarge).
now if you click that button "custom shape", it will allow you to bend that line that goes from silence, to -12db. so you would bend that line upwards by 40 - 50%, and it will give you the same effect as parallel compression (raising and squashing all the sounds below -12db), but now, everything over -12db will remain untouched, and wont be amplified by the added compressed signal.
(the compression curve is slightly different to parallel compression, but its really not something you would be noticing)
i think the only reason parallel compression is used more than this, is that the average musician would struggle figuring this sort of thing out, but i think you'll be happy if you take the time to do so
imo, the best way is graphical upwards compression, as this will bring up the compressed audio, without you having to rebalance your drum levels everytime you make a change with the comp.
take a look at this compressor
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MCompressor
and look at the first picture on the page (click the pic to enlarge).
now if you click that button "custom shape", it will allow you to bend that line that goes from silence, to -12db. so you would bend that line upwards by 40 - 50%, and it will give you the same effect as parallel compression (raising and squashing all the sounds below -12db), but now, everything over -12db will remain untouched, and wont be amplified by the added compressed signal.
(the compression curve is slightly different to parallel compression, but its really not something you would be noticing)
i think the only reason parallel compression is used more than this, is that the average musician would struggle figuring this sort of thing out, but i think you'll be happy if you take the time to do so
-
- KVRAF
- 2565 posts since 2 Jul, 2010
I don't understand. If you change the perceived volume with upwards compression, then you should still need to rebalance the levels? Maybe you can get it down to one knob rather than two faders, but I gave two ways of doing that with parallel comp (wet/dry or bussing)._al_ wrote: imo, the best way is graphical upwards compression, as this will bring up the compressed audio, without you having to rebalance your drum levels everytime you make a change with the comp.
-
- KVRian
- 540 posts since 28 Oct, 2014
yep, you're right. i should have said rebalance the peaks. you are right that compression will make it sound louder, but once the compressor is on there, you can make numerous changes with having to worry about your meters going into the red, or your drums getting washing away behind a pad sound.
for me , the problem with parallel compression, is that when you add it, the signal automatically gets louder (not just percievably), but with this method you can have your peaks perfectly balanced with the track, and slowly bring in the fatness, to get it sounding just right.
maybe its because i make dance music, where the peaks are so important, but i find this method so much more accurate and flexible, that parallel compression just feels like a step back to me.
cheers for the input though, you do make a good point, and maybe i was a little hasty saying its the best way for everyone
oh, also i should add, that this way has some extra bonuses, like being able to solo the areas you DONT want compressed.
for example, if you set the graph so that everything lower than -12 db, is a flat line at the bottom of the graph, you will only hear the transient sounds that you are hoping to let through untouched, and likewise, if you reverse that, you will only hear the compressed area lower down.
its things like this that make this technique so flexible and useful
for me , the problem with parallel compression, is that when you add it, the signal automatically gets louder (not just percievably), but with this method you can have your peaks perfectly balanced with the track, and slowly bring in the fatness, to get it sounding just right.
maybe its because i make dance music, where the peaks are so important, but i find this method so much more accurate and flexible, that parallel compression just feels like a step back to me.
cheers for the input though, you do make a good point, and maybe i was a little hasty saying its the best way for everyone
oh, also i should add, that this way has some extra bonuses, like being able to solo the areas you DONT want compressed.
for example, if you set the graph so that everything lower than -12 db, is a flat line at the bottom of the graph, you will only hear the transient sounds that you are hoping to let through untouched, and likewise, if you reverse that, you will only hear the compressed area lower down.
its things like this that make this technique so flexible and useful
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 55 posts since 28 Aug, 2017 from south germany
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge_al_ wrote:i would never recommend parallel compression, as it also raises the volume of the peaks, which is the area you are trying to let through untouched.
imo, the best way is graphical upwards compression, as this will bring up the compressed audio, without you having to rebalance your drum levels everytime you make a change with the comp.
take a look at this compressor
https://www.meldaproduction.com/MCompressor
and look at the first picture on the page (click the pic to enlarge).
now if you click that button "custom shape", it will allow you to bend that line that goes from silence, to -12db. so you would bend that line upwards by 40 - 50%, and it will give you the same effect as parallel compression (raising and squashing all the sounds below -12db), but now, everything over -12db will remain untouched, and wont be amplified by the added compressed signal.
(the compression curve is slightly different to parallel compression, but its really not something you would be noticing)
i think the only reason parallel compression is used more than this, is that the average musician would struggle figuring this sort of thing out, but i think you'll be happy if you take the time to do so
really apriciated!
