KVR Audio

camsr · Post by **camsr** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:06 am

I think I understand compression quite well. Changing gain over time? There has to be creative limits...

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 11:39 am

camsr wrote:I think I understand compression quite well. Changing gain over time? There has to be creative limits...

But that changing of gain over time is very, very musical as it turns out. We, as humans, seem to really like the sound of it. Plus, it sounds different on every single piece of audio one uses it on which leaves endless scope for creativity. Different compressors also sound different and different levels of compression sound different. It also sounds different if you only compress part of a signal or compress different parts of the signal with different levels of compression.

I don't think of compression as changing gain over time really. I think of it more as a way to control things - to change the size of a room - to exaggerate something about a piece of audio that will make it sound more exciting - to mimic what the ear does when it hears something too loud (ear canal instinctively narrows - or 'compresses' - when something of a high spl is heard) which is also something that can feel exciting. It's applications are endless really.

Autobot · Post by **Autobot** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:28 pm

bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

ponce · Post by **ponce** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:29 pm

I have a love-hate relationship with compressors (mostly hate). I always feel like I have done something bad after using it, particularly in mastering situations with other people's music. Perhaps I don't have the right compressors?

Autobot · Post by **Autobot** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:42 pm

ponce wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with compressors (mostly hate). I always feel like I have done something bad after using it, particularly in mastering situations with other people's music. Perhaps I don't have the right compressors?

Like the most other (audio) tools the question is always: What do I want to achieve and what is the right tool for it?

e.g. compressors almost do the same thing but whit different approaches (Optical, Variable- MU, FET, VCA, wideband, multiband and so on) to solve the problem and reach the aimed task.

However for mastering purpose I really love the free as well as the paid version of this
http://www.tokyodawn.net/tdr-kotelnikov/

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:46 pm

ponce wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with compressors (mostly hate). I always feel like I have done something bad after using it, particularly in mastering situations with other people's music. Perhaps I don't have the right compressors?

Or don't know when or how to use them to their best advantage perhaps? Practice, practice, practice..

jens · Post by **jens** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:49 pm

camsr wrote:I think I understand compression quite well. Changing gain over time? There has to be creative limits...

Yes, and that time is milliseconds and even microseconds... do you really think you can draw automation-envelopes for that?

chk071 · Post by **chk071** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:50 pm

Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

Hey, that's no facepalm, she just had a very bad and tiring day at the office.

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:52 pm

Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

I don't see why that's a facepalm. A very famous engineer once said a very similar thing..

pixel85 · Post by **pixel85** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:55 pm

Nothing confuse people as much as compression

I can clearly see it here.
First, I would separate character compressors and compression as effect, because 'character' is additional option in SOME compressors, not main function of compressor.
There is so many purposes that this discussion is like: squashing track with limiters vs adding character to drums with 1176 or compression with sidechain for pumping effect vs compressing vocals.
That's why this conversations is really unclear.

do_androids_dream - in short, what you trying to tell is that mixes that you have to mix have shit performance done by artists with shit synth programming skills and compression save them from sound shit to sound great?
I'm not buying it. You really trying to say that compressors are magic tools that can change shit to something brilliant? Because from what I understand, I was an idiot spending so much time in my past programming synths and working on mixes. I should put compressor on every channel and 3 compressors on buses and 2 on master and my productions would shine in Shitport Top10. I don't think it's what you wanna tell us but it sound like that

Autobot · Post by **Autobot** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:56 pm

chk071 wrote:
Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

Hey, that's no facepalm, she just had a very bad and tiring day at the office.

Like I felt after reading this thread ...

Autobot · Post by **Autobot** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:01 pm

do_androids_dream wrote:
Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

I don't see why that's a facepalm. A very famous engineer once said a very similar thing..

I do not care the workflow of so called famous engineers. But I assume every (mix not mastering) engineer would prefer eq over compressor ... However - fortunately I can use both and not tied to a tool ...

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:12 pm

pixel85 wrote:Nothing confuse people as much as compression I can clearly see it here.
First, I would separate character compressors and compression as effect, because 'character' is additional option in SOME compressors, not main function of compressor.
There is so many purposes that this discussion is like: squashing track with limiters vs adding character to drums with 1176 or compression with sidechain for pumping effect vs compressing vocals.
That's why this conversations is really unclear.

do_androids_dream - in short, what you trying to tell is that mixes that you have to mix have shit performance done by artists with shit synth programming skills and compression save them from sound shit to sound great?
I'm not buying it. You really trying to say that compressors are magic tools that can change shit to something brilliant? Because from what I understand, I was an idiot spending so much time in my past programming synths and working on mixes. I should put compressor on every channel and 3 compressors on buses and 2 on master and my productions would shine in Shitport Top10. I don't think it's what you wanna tell us but it sound like that

What I'm saying is.. the 'thing' that makes a lot of, shall we say, lacklustre/generic/formulaic/uninspired commercial music, sound 'good' or even 'great' to millions of people is a result of production - which is largely clever application of compression techniques in todays modern pop and dance music. I'm talking largely about how compression is the easiest way to 'cover up' something totally generic and formulaic. If you're not a great, exciting performer when it comes to recording time one can 'fake' it with compressors somewhat after the fact

Think of how many bland drum performances can be made to sound more exciting with certain compression techniques (slamming overheads or room mics for example).

Of course, we are going heavily into subjective areas here but, 'great' songs - that stand the test of time - tend to stand up no matter what processing you do - the song itself shines through without gimmicks or cliched production techniques. When the song is essentially shit (ie. sounds like everything else out there) the production can make it seem exciting enough - for long enough - to see it's way into the top 40 for a short while - then it's job is done and it can disappear without anyone remembering it lol. But it will have made the money it needed to make or have given the artists face brief appearances on tv to stab its way into the unwitting subconscious lol.

do_androids_dream · Post by **do_androids_dream** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:19 pm

Autobot wrote:
do_androids_dream wrote:
Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.

I don't see why that's a facepalm. A very famous engineer once said a very similar thing..
I do not care the workflow of so called famous engineers. But I assume every (mix not mastering) engineer would prefer eq over compressor ... However - fortunately I can use both and not tied to a tool ...

It was a seminar I watched on youtube a long while back and it was kind of light-hearted in nature but I remember someone (can't remember exactly who but it was someone who had mixed a lot of well known music) who said that compression was, in his opinion, the most 'musical' of all the available tools and if he had to choose just one type of tool to work with it would be compression. He also said that eq was overrated.. it was interesting. He was arguing that eq'ing doesn't necessarily have much impact on the 'song' - the overall effect of the song (as can be proven by listening to cover versions of a song - you still experience and enjoy the 'song' - unless it's a terrible version lol) - whereas compression really can be the difference between something sounding very dull and uninspired and something sounding very exciting - and keeping you listening.

Autobot · Post by **Autobot** » Mon Apr 25, 2016 2:31 pm

do_androids_dream wrote:
Autobot wrote:
do_androids_dream wrote:
Autobot wrote:
bongo_x wrote:If I had to only choose one effect to use I might choose compression over eq. Compressors are fantastic.
Compressors are also the hardest thing for people to learn to use well.
I don't see why that's a facepalm. A very famous engineer once said a very similar thing..
I do not care the workflow of so called famous engineers. But I assume every (mix not mastering) engineer would prefer eq over compressor ... However - fortunately I can use both and not tied to a tool ...
It was a seminar I watched on youtube a long while back and it was kind of light-hearted in nature but I remember someone (can't remember exactly who but it was someone who had mixed a lot of well known music) who said that compression was, in his opinion, the most 'musical' of all the available tools and if he had to choose just one type of tool to work with it would be compression. He also said that eq was overrated.. it was interesting. He was arguing that eq'ing doesn't necessarily have much impact on the 'song' - the overall effect of the song (as can be proven by listening to cover versions of a song - you still experience and enjoy the 'song' - unless it's a terrible version lol) - whereas compression really can be the difference between something sounding very dull and uninspired and something sounding very exciting - and keeping you listening.

Ahh okay ... I get the point and would agree to a certain degree ...
but the condition is that every sound is well aligned / recorded / programmed and it depends heavily on which genre we are working e.g. a well recorded jazz trio may benefit more from a decent and proper compressor usage then of eq'ing ...

Do you ever think compressors, suck?