Is parallel compress my drums still necessary with todays plugins?

[aunshui]

Parallel compression, like any other technique, is a tool, and like any other tool, it's only as useful as you want it to be

I use it a fair amount during the sound design stage, specifically when I'm making drums and basses. I'll dial in the sound I want, then bounce everything out as a singe audio file, which I can then load into Maschine or whatever for sequencing.

This is all in aid of "simplifying" the mixing stage - if I can get drum sounds I'm happy with during sound design, oftentimes all I'll need to do is throw a single compressor on the drum bus and call it a day. That said, I won't intentionally "avoid" parallel compression while mixing, although I'm partial to having a bit of dynamic range in my tracks, so if the drums still aren't "big" enough after I've spent some time mixing, it's usually a clue to go back and re-check the other elements of the mix, rather than pile on even more compression.

One thing I will commonly do while mixing is double up tracks, which is kind of the same as parallel compression, as you're still effectively "doubling" the sound, but minus the whole compression part. Up to you if you think they are as similar as I do.

That said, I think the actual point of your post is something along the lines of "the plugins available today are good enough to render techniques like parallel compression useless." As an all-ITB producer right now, I'm certainly happy with the selection of high-quality plugins available, but overall I'd have to say no, I don't think there is yet a plugin that makes parallel compression irrelevant.

[le_enigmatic]

Parallel compression is a tool to use. If you feel that you are happy without parallel compression then thats fine it's not a rule to go by.

But you have to understand what happens when you use parallel compression and what the benefits are when you do.

I swear by it. I use a GML going into a Fairchild for nearly all my parallel compression needs. I use it to bring a lot of the high and end and harmonics in the sound a lot. I also have it to make the subtleties stand out a bit. Something I feel plugins (as in insert) can't really re-create. You can use parallel compression ITB through an aux. That way you have total control of what happens and you can add any reverb or any automation, something you cant really do on an insert.

But really there are no defined rules. Whatever works best for you. Try it, you might be surprised. But yes, people definitely use parallel compression still.

[aproblem]

Originally Posted by aunshui

One thing I will commonly do while mixing is double up tracks, which is kind of the same as parallel compression, as you're still effectively "doubling" the sound, but minus the whole compression part. Up to you if you think they are as similar as I do.

Isn't that basically like turning the volume up though..

[DSK]

Originally Posted by aproblem

Isn't that basically like turning the volume up though..

Actually because of latency it might add or subtract some frequencies due phasing.

What he suggests is more like a chorusing effect that thickens up the sound than just turning up the volume.

[Kindred]

Originally Posted by aproblem

Isn't that basically like turning the volume up though..

+1 - I would have thought this only works if one of the signals was processed and then you could control both to get a wet/dry effect. With identical signals I would have thought you introduce phasing issues - I could be wrong as I have never tried this tho...

[Babyslayer]

good shit. I do understand some plugins can't recreate the "parallel" sound, but I can eq and slap on some plugins to save my cpu. but good shit though *sips coffee*

[AJ Reynolds]

some plugin compressors have a dry/wet control for easy parallel compression.

[aunshui]

Originally Posted by AJ Reynolds

some plugin compressors have a dry/wet control for easy parallel compression.

Not exactly the same thing. For one, you're not doubling the signal, and two, a single wet/dry knob lacks the more precise control that comes from actually having two signals to blend together.

Originally Posted by Babyslayer

good shit. I do understand some plugins can't recreate the "parallel" sound, but I can eq and slap on some plugins to save my cpu. but good shit though *sips coffee*

Yeah, I mean, whatever works for you. Diff'rent strokes and all that

Originally Posted by DSK

Actually because of latency it might add or subtract some frequencies due phasing.

What he suggests is more like a chorusing effect that thickens up the sound than just turning up the volume.

I wouldn't call it chorusing, as there isn't any detuning involved (or latency, assuming you didn't accidentally move one of the tracks when you were copying it ), but it definitely thickens up the sound in a different way than just raising the relative volume in the mix.

I can't explain the physics behind it, but I'm sure someone else can if you're interested in finding out more.

The real fun starts when you effect one but leave the other dry. Which is exactly what parallel compression is - doubling the track, but with a compressor on one of them. Hence why I mentioned it in this thread.

[OttoPilot]

Originally Posted by aproblem

Isn't that basically like turning the volume up though..

I think some further explanation of "doubling up tracks" is needed. Right now it does indeed sound like that..

[stinkyfingers]

Originally Posted by aunshui

I wouldn't call it chorusing, as there isn't any detuning involved (or latency, assuming you didn't accidentally move one of the tracks when you were copying it ), but it definitely thickens up the sound in a different way than just raising the relative volume in the mix.

I can't explain the physics behind it, but I'm sure someone else can if you're interested in finding out more.

doubling a track (without processing involved) is exactly the same thing as doubling the amplitude of the one track...(ie...raising the fader "+6dB")

here's the physics behind it: 1 + 1 = 2

[Ninja_Edit]

So those of you who send to another track, not change wet/dry ratio, how do you process the signals that you can't with wet/dry? I'm guessing EQing them differently and panning.

[audslu]

I m not so experienced with parallel compressing because until recently i didn't like it, i prefered my sound more "straightforward" but i m starting to like the subtleties that parallel comp can bring. I also like how it sounds in sidechained bass. I think experimenting is key don't give up because you didn't like it once, you may be excited in another track or if you hit the sweet spot, anyways it can give you a *certain* sound so that alone goes a long way in the right context.

Double tracks is great when you tweak the copy of course, just with plain (but surgical) eq and you 'll need no compression after that.

Just doubling the tracks sounds better because louder=better, even a little louder always tricks the ears... +6db you 're heavily cheating.

[kraku]

IMHO parallel compression's key point is to retain the natural transients but still have that fat compressed sound. Wether you use EQ pre/post compression is up to your own personal taste...

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by stinkyfingers

doubling a track (without processing involved) is exactly the same thing as doubling the amplitude of the one track...(ie...raising the fader "+6dB")

here's the physics behind it: 1 + 1 = 2

Bingo.

Originally Posted by kraku

IMHO parallel compression's key point is to retain the natural transients but still have that fat compressed sound. Wether you use EQ pre/post compression is up to your own personal taste...

Parallel compression is great to beef up the RMS volume, while still having a dynamic performance.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Ninja_Edit]

Louder doesn't always = better. When you put a CD in your stereo, what volume do play it at?

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Ninja_Edit

Louder doesn't always = better. When you put a CD in your stereo, what volume do play it at?

You might want to read about parallel compression before you make blanket statements, eh?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[MrTechno]

Originally Posted by aunshui

Parallel compression, like any other technique, is a tool, and like any other tool, it's only as useful as you want it to be

I use it a fair amount during the sound design stage, specifically when I'm making drums and basses. I'll dial in the sound I want, then bounce everything out as a singe audio file, which I can then load into Maschine or whatever for sequencing.

This is all in aid of "simplifying" the mixing stage - if I can get drum sounds I'm happy with during sound design, oftentimes all I'll need to do is throw a single compressor on the drum bus and call it a day. That said, I won't intentionally "avoid" parallel compression while mixing, although I'm partial to having a bit of dynamic range in my tracks, so if the drums still aren't "big" enough after I've spent some time mixing, it's usually a clue to go back and re-check the other elements of the mix, rather than pile on even more compression.

One thing I will commonly do while mixing is double up tracks, which is kind of the same as parallel compression, as you're still effectively "doubling" the sound, but minus the whole compression part. Up to you if you think they are as similar as I do.

That said, I think the actual point of your post is something along the lines of "the plugins available today are good enough to render techniques like parallel compression useless." As an all-ITB producer right now, I'm certainly happy with the selection of high-quality plugins available, but overall I'd have to say no, I don't think there is yet a plugin that makes parallel compression irrelevant.

Sorry but doubling up track is nothing like parallel compression, nothing.
Just my take on it.

[MrTechno]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

You might want to read about parallel compression before you make blanket statements, eh?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Exactly, like compression is all about increasing volume, seriously.

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by MrTechno

Exactly, like compression is all about increasing volume, seriously.

Agreed. Some people just don't have a firm enough grasp to make authoritative statements. Aimed at nobody in particular, mind you.

Compression *decreases* dynamic range by default (Please don't bring up expanding hahahaha).

Once input exceeds the set threshold, the 'compression ratio' alters the dynamics. Say 4:1, for every 4dB the signal exceeds the threshold, the output only changes by 1dB. Therefore, if you have low/no make-up gain, and a low enough threshold, you can actually end up with a file that is significantly *softer* than the original (albeit with less range from peak-to-RMS signal)

Parallel compression is nice, because it ultimately allows you to retain ALL of the dynamic performance, whilst increasing RMS level to avoid 'bumpy/jumpy/erratic/sloppy' playback. If a drummer plays very sloppily, for instance, you can parallel it, to make it a little 'smoother' dynamically.

This concludes today's lesson.

[Halma]

Originally Posted by aunshui

Not exactly the same thing. For one, you're not doubling the signal, and two, a single wet/dry knob lacks the more precise control that comes from actually having two signals to blend together.

I´m not quite sure if this is correct. I thought that an internal splitter inside of the device splits the incoming signal into an unprocessed (dry) and processed (wet) signal and the blending knob actually alters the level of each signal. Like a Parallel Voltage Summer.

Can please somebody enlighten me?

[jrhager84]

Depends on what you're referring to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Halma]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Depends on what you're referring to.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Well, if I have a dry/wet controller inside of a compressor wouldn´t be that the same thing like doing it manually aka the oldschool way? Where the dry signal would be the unprocessed one and the wet the processed one?

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Halma

Well, if I have a dry/wet controller inside of a compressor wouldn´t be that the same thing like doing it manually aka the oldschool way? Where the dry signal would be the unprocessed one and the wet the processed one?

Yes, but they're inversely proportional. Bussing to an aux gives you the ability to treat them separately. I'm a parallel advocate all the way. I'm also a mid-side guy, so that probably explains a lot hahaha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Halma]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Yes, but they're inversely proportional. Bussing to an aux gives you the ability to treat them separately. I'm a parallel advocate all the way. I'm also a mid-side guy, so that probably explains a lot hahaha

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Thank you very much for this short explanation.

Edit: After thinking about it for a minute that makes totally sense. So the advantage in doing it manually means that your unprocessed signal will always be on the same level while the processed signal could be altered without changing the unprocessed one. This would not be possible with only a dry/wet controller. Am I right?

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Halma

Thank you very much for this short explanation.

Edit: After thinking about it for a minute that makes totally sense. So the advantage in doing it manually means that your unprocessed signal will always be on the same level while the processed signal could be altered without changing the unprocessed one. This would not be possible with only a dry/wet controller. Am I right?

Correct. I like to set my dry level to where the peaks are where I want, then tuck the parallel underneath. Bypassing should make you go 'whoa'. Enabling should make it feel natural still. One of those 'you aren't supposed to *hear* it when it's there, but you'll notice when it's gone' moments...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk