Gearslutz.com - View Single Post - Normal compression VS Parallel compression ...a quick question
View Single Post
Old 22nd May 2009   #11
Adam Dempsey
Mastering Engineer
 
Adam Dempsey's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: Melbourne - Australia's music capital.
Posts: 1,720

Verified Member
It feels to me like impressions of the use of this technique are becoming overly complicated and maybe this thread at least needs a link to this fairly well known article from 1997 by Richard Hulse, originally in 'Studio Sound', 1977.

Quote:
It has been around since at least the early sixties and dozens of companies have used it as the basis of a wide range of products.
In short:
Series compression = regular downwards compression.
Parallel = upwards compression, usually minimum 2:1 ratio, fast attack to prevent overshoot of the two paths, and no gain reduction during the softest passages of the source signal. Result: as your level exceeds the threshold, less compressed signal is in your final output.

As mentioned, getting an ear for general compression first is paramount. Hear it first in your head: do you need to tame the dynamics? Would EQ be better, if it's a spectrum balance issue? If compression, do you need to tame things from the top down or raise detail from the bottom up and minimally affect the upper dynamics?

Suggestion: blend it into your dry (uncompressed) signal, rather than blending the dry into the compressed. Yes, it can be subtle, if you're talking mastering and not the slammed sound of side chain drum buss compression. Above all, keep it musical.
__________________
Adam
Jack the Bear's Deluxe Mastering
facebook | twitter | myspace
Is adding presence the same as subtracting absence?
Adam Dempsey is offline   Reply With Quote