Upward compression/parallel compression

[inthecorner]

Hi there. I was wondering how many full time mastering engineers make use of upward compression when they master?

[Odeon-Mastering]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Hi there. I was wondering how many full time mastering engineers make use of upward compression when they master?

guilty as charged ..but only when needed and never as default

I am not totally full time though

[inthecorner]

Why do u say "guilty as charged" do you view it as a negative thing to do or are u just careful with using it? What compressor do u like to use when applying this process?

[Odeon-Mastering]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Why do u say "guilty as charged" do you view it as a negative thing to do or are u just careful with using it? What compressor do u like to use when applying this process?

Not negative at all.

I still do it ITB with the API2500 (Waves) and yes, I am super careful when using it. Its effect can be very appealing at first but sometimes the mix cAn change in weird ways.

[MASSIVE Master]

I don't think many of us are "not guilty" for that matter.

[inthecorner]

Have any of you ever done parallel compression using a multi-band compressor as your choice of compression? What are some of your opinions regarding the results with a multi band vs single band?

[Odeon-Mastering]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Have any of you ever done parallel compression using a multi-band compressor as your choice of compression? What are some of your opinions regarding the results with a multi band vs single band?

I tried it with a non linear phase multiband compressor and things went out of focus* immediately.

* for lack of a better term

[CJ Mastering]

I tried it with a non linear phase multiband compressor and things went out of focus* immediately.

Try it with a single band compressor
Cj

[Odeon-Mastering]

Originally Posted by CJ Mastering

Try it with a single band compressor
Cj

try reading the whole thread

[dcollins]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Hi there. I was wondering how many full time mastering engineers make use of upward compression when they master?

I try it periodically just to be reminded that I don't like it.


DC

[lowland]

It's there if needed. Personally, I don't need very often - perhaps a couple of times in the last year.

[inthecorner]

Originally Posted by lowland

It's there if needed. Personally, I don't need very often - perhaps a couple of times in the last year.

How would one judge when it is necessary? When do u use it? Thanks

[Giannis]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Hi there. I was wondering how many full time mastering engineers make use of upward compression when they master?

Hi! I use parallel compression and EQing a lot! I just bought a "blender" the mini mastering console and I am very happy!!! I have inserted the Manley massive-passive and a charter oak scl-1 compression in it and from there I go to a summit audio dcl-200 compressor... 9 out of 10 times I and up using a parallel compression from charter ok (upward) just to enhance the groove I want and then "tighting" the hole track with a very mild compression with the summit!!! The result is amazing!!!

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by lowland

Personally, I don't need very often - perhaps a couple of times in the last year.

Same here. I got it to work for me a few weeks back when there was a low octave bass note that was hard to dig out, but was able to isolate with a lp mb, and blend back in, but that's about it.

[lowland]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

How would one judge when it is necessary? When do u use it? Thanks

Usually as a subtle fattener for anaemic mixes. I've also used it on orchestral material to bring up the low-level stuff a little - care needed there re. noise floor.

[Storyville]

The best thing about using parallel compression is the ability to eq the parallel signal, and fine tune attack and release curves in a unique way. The worst thing about parallel compression is knowing IF & WHEN the blend of dry to effect will be correct.

I use it very rarely when mastering.

I use it on occasion in a mix - and most to do something like, if I want the click sound of a kick to be really present, I'll run a parallel signal with the lows cut out and bomb the hell out of it on an aggressive comp (1176 all buttons in = sweet horror), then blend it up to the point where the click sounds really hard, but not like a separate entity. Wow, that was a run on sentence.

[csl]

It's handy when mastering electronic material with prominent, bassy kicks; can gain quite a bit of weight without affecting those kick transients too much.

[inthecorner]

There's something I was wondering about. After parallel compression has been applied to a master, one obviously has to again compresses the entire song (both channels together - dry & processed) in order to complete the mastering process.... I know this is a really stupid question but just bare with me..... You got 2 channels running alongside each other, the one is the unprocessed mixed song (loads of headroom) the other is a highly compressed exact duplicate of the other channel (mixed together to taste).... Now on the master fader you start mastering them as a whole. Applying EQ, compression, getting it just right.... Won't the compressed source start to seriously sound messed up once you finally add the maximizer? I mean it's already compressed (the 2nd channel of the source material used in parallel compression method) with a 20db gain reduction.... Something I am just wondering about..... Totally stupid I know but still I'm dying to know what you guys have to say about such a thought?

[Odeon-Mastering]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

After parallel compression has been applied to a master, one obviously has to again compresses the entire song (both channels together - dry & processed) in order to complete the mastering process....

Not necessarily

Won't the compressed source start to seriously sound messed up once you finally add the maximizer

The parallel path is usually really quiet compared to the direct.
If you listen to it, it sounds squashed before even applying any more processing...but aS I said it is mixed at a very low level.

[Waltz Mastering]

Originally Posted by inthecorner

Now on the master fader you start mastering them as a whole. Applying EQ, compression, getting it just right.... Won't the compressed source start to seriously sound messed up once you finally add the maximizer? I mean it's already compressed (the 2nd channel of the source material used in parallel compression method) with a 20db gain reduction

I can't imagine anything that would benefit from 20 dB of gain reduction, but I think the idea of parallel is that the track that is compressed a bit more is blended in and sometimes 6 to 12 or so dB lower than the track that it's mixed with. If the idea of parallel is to preserve the peaks, I don't think you'd want to hit the combined track to hard or you would be defeating the alleged purpose.

[Cellotron]

Originally Posted by dcollins

I try it periodically just to be reminded that I don't like it.

Same here. It's extremely rare that I've ever used parallel compression when mastering - maybe once or twice in the past few years. To add density to anemic tracks I usually just choose more straightforward tools of eq, standard broadband downward compression, and maybe some transformer based saturation.

I think parallel compression can be more useful during mixing, for things such as drum bus - but over the entire mix to me it just adds more complexity to the chain while allowing a big risk of mucking and muddying things up if your not careful. Obviously OMMV!

Once in a blue moon I've been getting good use from some digital upward expanders such as the Stillwell Audio Transient Monster and the Voxengo LF Max Punch to restore some punch and snap to overly mushy sounding tracks. These types of things are certainly not "go to" processors though.

Best regards,
Steve Berson

[Bonati]

I've tried it with the Weiss DS1-MK3 but never liked the results. I kept getting myself in trouble with it so I stopped.

[Jean Doe]

I have to admit that i do use it a lot. Mainly on electronic dance music that sounds a bit thin or when clients request loud yet punchy (which happens often ). Of course there are other ways to achieve the above, but sometimes a little bit of upward comp can go a long way (in my limited experience).

[Adam Dempsey]

Originally Posted by Odeon-Mastering

The parallel path is usually really quiet compared to the direct.
If you listen to it, it sounds squashed before even applying any more processing...but aS I said it is mixed at a very low level.

Not only that, or so much a case of blending in a squashed path, but to achieve upwards compression you'd have the threshold on the parallel path set so that there is no gain reduction happening in the quietest passages. And a fast attack. Hence the net result of: the louder the source, the less the compressed signal contributes to the final output; the quieter the source, the two paths merely sum.
It can greatly achieve density for when you want to 'pull up the soft' rather than 'squeeze down the loud', but I've also not had need for it for a long time.

[emrr]

Dolby 740, anyone?