Software Compression on mix buss

[Heterodox]

Hey there...dumb question really:

When using a software compressor on your master output is it proper to ensure there are no peaks BEFORE the comp is on? Its easy enough to squash away the peaks, but wouldn't the audio signal be degraded by handing the compressor a peaked out signal?

[Jules]

er .... some folks 'buld' their mix by slamming into a compressor,so that bypassing the unit would reveal a crappy mix, their mix is COMPRESSOR DEPENDANT.

Thats one way.

Another way is to get a mix 'very close' to finished sounding - then just use a lick of compression to 'enhance' or'enrich' the overall sound.

Thas's another way

BOTH ways are acceptable, there are no hard & fast rules for this..

See what suits your way of working..

[jazzius]

Most software (cubase, Logic, Samplitude etc) calculate internally at 32 bits which means it's almost impossible to clip the signal internally......'course once you reduce your bits to 16 or send your signal out thru a D/A it's a different kettle of fish.....but basically, if you're using some pukker software, you should be alright...just make sure your output level or 16bit level isn't clipped.......
.....some plugs (waves LinMB for instance) will clip the signal at the 16bit max (dunno why, probably not well written) so this is worth bearing in mind......i have no idea how PT deals with all this as i'm not a PT user.

[Alécio Costa]

Hey Erik, Waves again...do we need to change codes to make the stuff function better?

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Jules
er .... some folks 'build' their mix by slamming into a compressor,so that bypassing the unit would reveal a crappy mix, their mix is COMPRESSOR DEPENDANT.

Thats one way.

Another way is to get a mix 'very close' to finished sounding - then just use a lick of compression to 'enhance' or'enrich' the overall sound.

Thas's another way

BOTH ways are acceptable, there are no hard & fast rules for this..

My experience has been that the latter approach translates a lot better but the former gets the job done faster!

[bassmac]

Originally posted by Jules
er .... some folks 'buld' their mix by slamming into a compressor,so that bypassing the unit would reveal a crappy mix, their mix is COMPRESSOR DEPENDANT.

Does this method typically use less compression in the mix?

Another way is to get a mix 'very close' to finished sounding - then just use a lick of compression to 'enhance' or'enrich' the overall sound.

And does this way typically use more?


Just guessing... it would seem to suggest that - since one is more compressor dependent than the other.

???

[Teacher]

Originally posted by bassmac
Does this method typically use less compression in the mix?




And does this way typically use more?


Just guessing... it would seem to suggest that - since one is more compressor dependent than the other.

???

its the other way around....at least for me....

[stealthbalance]

Originally posted by bassmac
Does this method typically use less compression in the mix?




And does this way typically use more?


Just guessing... it would seem to suggest that - since one is more compressor dependent than the other.

???

-------------------------------
like the Teacher says - its the other way around. if you add mix buss compression as a final add on after the mix is done , it wont take as much gain reduction because the balances will change too much and dissrupt the levels. the only way that you can add more mix buss compression at the very end is if you have really pummelled each individual track with heavy compression.
i tend to mix into a buss compressor - and if i were to all of a sudden bypass the stereo buss compressor , then my mix would collapse. within the first hour of a mix i try to decide what kind of a record im shooting for and if that will include ANY mix compression , i will activate it very early on in the process. also for me the more i compress at mixtime , the less chance there is for a mastering guy to ruin a mix ive done. i dont really care what a mastering guy does or doesn't do - just as long as the levels don't change. MVHO
s

[jazzius]

Originally posted by bombguy
I don't believe the Waves LinMB quantizes to 16 bits. Doesn't really make sense. Where does this information originate from?

--Erik

Just tried it again for my own sanity........

......downloaded Waves and Samplitude demos onto my home computer (from where i write this)

Put an already maxed out track up another 12db (clipping like a loony)......inserted an L2.......L2 shows 12db gain reduction........insert a LinMB (with everything on zero) before the L2.......L2 now shows no gain reduction.........swapped LinMB for C4.........now L2 shows 12db GR again!..........what's going on here?

[Alécio Costa]

"also for me the more i compress at mixtime , the less chance there is for a mastering guy to ruin a mix ive done. "


multiband compressors are famous for ****ing up balances, but high end analog stereo comps...

so?
Wisslord, your time bud!

[jazzius]

Bombguy, re-read my post.......I said the LinMB is set to null.......it's doing absolutely nothing on it's own (a phase flip null test proves this)..........with the LinMB in-line, it won't allow anything internally (in the DAW) above 0dBFS....the lack of GR on the L2 proves this.

[drmad69]

Hey, I confirmed that here at work also.

I am curious to see what it changes in my mixes since
I was using the timworks mastering compressor instead of L2.
Yet, I see it clip and do reduction, but on the stereo buss output,
I see the difference you where talking about.. Hmm. Could it
have something to do with the C4-LMB changes they made, LMB was supposed to be the C4 "upgrade"