parallel compression in mastering

[flatfinger]

Originally Posted by Lagerfeldt

I think parallel compression is a great way of enhancing a mix while maintaining punch.

The Flux Syrah does great parallel compression, also in combination with the de-expansion feature. Since this can be entirely threshold independent you don't get any nasty sideeffects such as pumping.

Parallel compression in the Flux Solera can lift information in an interesting way, especially in the high frequencies.

BTW, there's a 50% off sale at Flux at the moment: Flux:: sound and picture development

BTW only the pure series is 50% off... no sale price on SYRAH

[loujudson]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

Perhaps a Finalizer in Wizard mode would do the trick!

Pass the fairy dust please.

JT

... but only an Alchemist will know the proper settings, and they don't post them on the web...

L

[diogo_c]

One freeware who can handle the job is the Density MKII from bootsy.

dry/wet control, capable of handling m/s and very clean sounding.

[staudio]

Since we are on the subject of parallel compression.

Blend controls don't work well for me. I can never seem to get the balance right without two controls for level (one dry and one compressed). When I do it, I often leave the uncompressed mix at unity (or wherever it wants to be for appropriate gain staging) and then sneak up the compressed mix till I get the right fullness.

Anyone feel the same?

[Lagerfeldt]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

BTW only the pure series is 50% off... no sale price on SYRAH

Yes, naughty naughty. I think it's due to the fact that it's a very new plug-in.

[Felix (Flux)]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

BTW only the pure series is 50% off... no sale price on SYRAH

"only.." it is five quite competent plugins.... six including the Epure II EQ (both Native and TDM at 50% off!), and then Mastering Pack is 30% off as well.. (contains Epure II/Solera II/Pure Limiter II) ...



Cheers,
/Felix

[PatrikT]

A trial:

1. Blend in the para-comp signal at an input level of, say, -40 dB or whatever.

2. Blend in the original signal (uncomped, untouched) at the same input level as (1) - in this case -40 dB.


Which one is the sonic favorite?


Best Regards
Patrik

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

A trial:

1. Blend in the para-comp signal at an input level of, say, -40 dB or whatever.

2. Blend in the original signal (uncomped, untouched) at the same input level as (1) - in this case -40 dB.


Which one is the sonic favorite?


Best Regards
Patrik

Problem is #2 is simply adding gain and will result in audio going over your output ceiling if the original audio's peaks was already close to this (although blending in compressed material can do the same - but generally will give you a little more "working room" to do this than just adding gain).

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by PatrikT

A trial:

1. Blend in the para-comp signal at an input level of, say, -40 dB or whatever.

2. Blend in the original signal (uncomped, untouched) at the same input level as (1) - in this case -40 dB.


Which one is the sonic favorite?


Best Regards
Patrik

What does #2 sound like? (no flatulent noises please)

As Steve mentioned blending the source with the source is just a gain change so #2 should sound like the original.

If traditional parallel compression makes the original sound "congested", will reversing the polarity of the compressed signal make the original sound less congested?

[PatrikT]

Attached are 2 files.

One para-comped (according to suggested settings in "a mastering book") and the other para-gained.

Both para signals was set to peak at the same value.

Source was 24 bits (unmastered material) and they are dithered to 16 with TPDF.


Which one is the sonic favorite?


Regards
Patrik

[flatfinger]

So a comp with a range control is'nt just the same thing .??????????

[Superdisc]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Bob,

There often seems to be a lot of "wizardry" that hides under terminology

Yup, and being a teacher I HATE IT. It's hard enough teaching students what things do without having to teach them 5 or 6 names for the same thing

sounds like something to write a song about

[Superdisc]

Originally Posted by staudio

Since we are on the subject of parallel compression.

Blend controls don't work well for me. I can never seem to get the balance right without two controls for level (one dry and one compressed). When I do it, I often leave the uncompressed mix at unity (or wherever it wants to be for appropriate gain staging) and then sneak up the compressed mix till I get the right fullness.

Anyone feel the same?

I'd say that is sneaky - but I like to be sneaky too.

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

So a comp with a range control is'nt just the same thing .??????????

According to the FAQ on the Cytomic site:

"Q: How do I make the most of the Range knob?
A: When you want to back off how much compression is being applied, but still react to the initial bite of a sound you can use the Range knob. This effects both makes the attacks more natural sounding, and also limits the total depth of compression that is applied. This really helps limit how much the compressor dives when using ultra fast attack times. It gives a completely different sound to using parallel compression via the Mix knob, so next time you want to soften how much compression is applied try setting the Range knob to around -20 dB and listen to the stunning results!"

So it seems that their mix function is closer to PC than the range control which is an emulation of how an SSL comp reacts to transients.

[flatfinger]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

According to the FAQ on the Cytomic site:

"Q: How do I make the most of the Range knob?
A: When you want to back off how much compression is being applied, but still react to the initial bite of a sound you can use the Range knob. This effects both makes the attacks more natural sounding, and also limits the total depth of compression that is applied. This really helps limit how much the compressor dives when using ultra fast attack times. It gives a completely different sound to using parallel compression via the Mix knob, so next time you want to soften how much compression is applied try setting the Range knob to around -20 dB and listen to the stunning results!"

So it seems that their mix function is closer to PC than the range control which is an emulation of how an SSL comp reacts to transients.

Thanks M.H. ;
I missed that over on the web site .

[TranscendingM]

Originally Posted by Silver Sonya

SSSSHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Don't tell anyone this. Judicious moderation is boring.

To everybody reading this: WE'RE WIZARDS! WE SPRINKLE FAIRY DUST! WE MAKE YOUR MUSIC MAGICALLY MAGICAL MAGIC!!!!!

And the BBE sonic max. on 10! Yeah!

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by flatfinger

Since we have some real expertise here today , I thought it a good time to chime in with a related question that's been buggin me latley .

Some comps have the "Range " adjustment ( ya , comps , not gates!!) For instance , the aforementioned flux pure comp has one .
basically on the transfer function after the knee , things are as expected for ahile , but just like some old analog gear , the ability to lower gain craps out so the bigger transients get through . The response in non- linear ABOVE knee.

My question is this.. PC is supposed to be nice cause it is'nt stomping the transients .. so what about comps like this one
Cytomic | Sound Music Software............

It has a range knob to allow the gain reduction to be reduced to a set maximum...
The manual just says that it is an "alternative " to PC ( and this comp also has a dry/wet mix control too !!!! ...So it seems that the biggest signal values are preserved ( which would seem to be leaving some work for a needed limiter next in the chain !)



Are these two methods pretty much equivalent ?????






Cheers

I think in almost all cases yes. You may be able to create some curves in parallel that you can't match with a range setting. I'm not 100% sure .

[Mike Caffrey]

The difference between parallel compression and regular compression is that you don't have an absolute ceiling.

When you compress and add make up gain to compensate and then sum that, the dry signal will mask the compressed signal except in quiet sections where the dry signal will get quieter, however the compressed signal will not get as quite due to the dynamic range reduction and make up gain. Thus when you sum it with the dry signal, the overall result is that the section doesn't get as wuiet as it other wise would.


In other words, in the vast majority of cases, paralle compression makes the quieter sections louder with less or no effect on the loudest sections.

So it would be appropreiate in mastering when you need to ccompress the quite sections only.

It used to be pretty common in classical music.

[SSMastering]

Originally Posted by Ben B

Great mixes don't really need very much work at all in mastering. When I add parallel compression to a mix that already sounds good, it tends to make it more congested sounding for me.

[Jerry Tubb]

What's next... parallel dynamic EQ'ing ?

JT

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

What's next... parallel dynamic EQ'ing ?

The Multiband Parallel Compression thread was pretty entertaining.


DC

[Mike Caffrey]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

What's next... parallel dynamic EQ'ing ?

JT

Why not. Dynamic EQing makes a lot of sense - de-essing.

Suppose your verse and choruses need different EQ, maybe due to sibilance in the cymbals, and maybe it's only certain part.

Don't be to quick to dismiss any idea completely.

[PatrikT]

Originally Posted by Mike Caffrey

Suppose your verse and choruses need different EQ, maybe due to sibilance in the cymbals, and maybe it's only certain part.

I have never used different EQ for verse/chorus.

I hear roumors though, that drummers sometimes alter from hihat to ride for the chorus. I also hear about other sizzling traumas in the cymbal context. And how rimshots can destroy the perfect mix.

Maybe I need to buy a crash EQ?


Best Regards
Patrik

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

What's next... parallel dynamic EQ'ing ?

JT

Adding a filter to a compressed or expanded signal in parallel (or PMBC/MBPC) is essentially a form of dynamic EQ (not in parallel), yes?

I don't seem to see as many anti-dynamic EQ posts though for some reason. I guess that you have to name things in a way that's not offensive.

How about "balloon EQ"? Everybody likes balloons ...

Disclaimer:
I agree that none of this stuff is to be used without a significant problem being present in a mix that may benefit from its use, anymore than an EQ or light compression should be used in a perfect mix.

Process responsibly!

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Process responsibly!

Agreed Tom, just havin' a little fun with the topic, no offense bro...

I do think it's important for unwashed newbies to know that MBC/PC/DEQ etc. should be used only when needed, not by default.

As a small concession to the topic, I did use MBC on a project back in the summer.
A female vocalist with quite a resonance at 3k, esp when she was singing above mezzoforte.
An EQ cut at 3k was just too much, stole the life from the mix.
Asking for a remix at the eleventh hour was out of the question.
The producer's one of my very favorite peeps, so I had to break glass in case of fire, and whip out the MBC.
Bypassed all but one band, tailored it's parameters to suit the task, and it really did the trick.
Once in a while I'll also use one band of MBC for de-essing as well.
I do see that it has value, esp when used sparingly.

So there, you have my confession!

Cheers - JT

[masteringhouse]

Originally Posted by Jerry Tubb

Agreed Tom, just havin' a little fun with the topic, no offense bro...

No offense taken! I know better than that ...

Now I'm going to take my bat, ball, mitt, and go home. F you guys!

[Jerry Tubb]

Originally Posted by masteringhouse

Now I'm going to take my bat, ball, mitt, and go home. F you guys!

LOL (for real)!

JT

[staudio]

Originally Posted by Superdisc

I'd say that is sneaky - but I like to be sneaky too.