[Beyersound]

Originally Posted by badhorsie777

If I had more than say... one album under my belt I might write that very book...

It just really goes against your audio presuppositions - compress to a level comparable to current cd's... and a bit hotter will make yours stand out. You just never think there's another way until someone makes such outlandish claims - it'll sound punchier with less compression... ?! I was really digging the sound of this cd I just finished (and I've remixed it 3 times already - the thing's GOING out) but I see a much better path for my next recordings.

I'm working on a guitar instrumental CD right now and that riff I recorded that opened my eyes sounds sooooo good with extra headroom. And it's ROCK for crying out loud - the one genre I thought really NEEDED to be compressed thick and agressive. Our presuppositions are so powerful - I know I'm waxing philosophical here, but it's true. We think we're being "so creative and different" but it's still the same ol same ol. I finally understand why I love Lyle Lovett (try saying that 3x fast) on his movie soundtrack album... it's THAT sound.

I personally challenge everyone to redo their default template (if you use one - I do) and bypass/remove the mix bux comp and/or limiter. Mix with peaks between -3 and -10 (24 bit) and compress individual tracks only - with an ear for natural sound, not false other-worldly impact. Only go there if it's an effect that's intended to sound creative and different (Bonham's tunnel-o-kick drum, for instance). Let the channels do their own work and at the end, don't assume you need anything - decide if you do. Even hard rock (my example) can benefit from this approach. I'm sure I will break this rule and catch myself for a while, but it's got its payoffs - and it's cumulative. One track may not tell you what you're gaining, fidelity-wise, but at the end of just 5 or 6 tracks, I noticed big time - and the bass buildup and eq problems kind of disappeared on their own.

I'm definitely in the "honeymoon" phase right now - but if you recall when you had an engineering breakthrough, you'll appreciate my giddyness :)

Thanks everyone for this board - it's a mind-blowing resource to a young guy like me learning how to get the music off his fretboard and into a finished product.

-Matt

+1 Matt! I have maintained the "no 2 buss crush" approach for 20+ years. I just listened to the Coldplay album "A Rush of Blood To The Head" thinking I would like it. It was so overcompressed(surely in mastering!) I couldn't stand to listen to it for more than 5 minutes. There were absolutely no dynamics, and it sounded really mono. This is unfortunately the case with many records today. I remember that what turned my head about a record not too many years ago(and still does) was clever use of dynamics usually through the arrangement. Those mixes really breathed well. If you squash that down to where everything is essentially the same volume, even the best engineered and mixed tracks become lifeless and boring. I call that the "mixing with compression" method. I read a Mike Shipley(he can mix a bit!) article where he said he doesn't use a 2 buss comp while mixing, only compresses individual tracks in a mix, and doesn't like them squashed in mastering. I was always enamored with the great dynamics of his mixes. I feel the same except I prefer to use a subtle 1.5 to 1 mix comp never gain reducing more than a db or two. I do use a good bit of track compression with mostly good vintage stuff, but when I start to hear something choke or sound unnatural I back it off (unless of course it is an intended effect). It is good to hear people actually talking about less crushing especially at the mastering stage. I have had about enough of the "my record has to be louder than everybody else's" approach that is so common today. Cheers