Is parallel compression downright silly?

[BlueRadio]

Parallel compression is used to add punchy thickness to drums/other tracks, right?

Wouldn't it add a more complex flavor to the sound to use another mic/track on say, the snare drum, rather than compressing and gating an AUX send?

For example, my *normal* snare mic would be an i5. I would then take something thicker sounding, like a beyer, make sure that the capsules were well aligned, and then gate and comp this track? Wouldn't this help eliminate miniscule phase anomalies, as well as the same plain sound spit out on another bus?

My Q, what is the advantage of parallel comping as opposed to this approach? Am I silly?

[absrec]

Originally Posted by BlueRadio

Parallel compression is used to add punchy thickness to drums/other tracks, right?

Wouldn't it add a more complex flavor to the sound to use another mic/track on say, the snare drum, rather than compressing and gating an AUX send?

For example, my *normal* snare mic would be an i5. I would then take something thicker sounding, like a beyer, make sure that the capsules were well aligned, and then gate and comp this track? Wouldn't this help eliminate miniscule phase anomalies, as well as the same plain sound spit out on another bus?

My Q, what is the advantage of parallel comping as opposed to this approach? Am I silly?

The advantage is that there is no subsitute for parallel compression. Mic technique and mixing are two totally different sciences.

-Aaron

[PoorGlory]

I don't have any phase issues with parallel compression. I compress the crap out of entire drum subgroup via group inserts on my console and send that to the master out along with the individual drum track channels. That way I'm in effect sending two drum mixes to the master fader, one uncompressed overall, and one super compressed. Adding another snare mic wouldn't be the same thing whatsoever.

[Kiwiburger]

Parallel compression is definately not silly. And nothing at all to do with mic selection.

Normal compression can destroy transients, because it's basically trying to level the tops of your signal. What you really want is to bring up the low level signals, but a normal compressor acheives this by smashing the high level signals downwards (aka "compressing"). So the damage occurs to the high level signals.

The idea behind parallel compression is to boost the lower level signals, by adding in a highly compressed mix of the same signal. So basically, you are now listening to the uncompressed (hence undamaged) signal, that is boosted with the highly compressed (and probably damaged) signal.

So the end result is you get to keep your transients relatively undamaged, while still leveling out the signal.

It's like compression from below, instead of compression from above.

And apart from that - typically there is distortion and phase smearing involved, which gives some mojo and sounds more like a record.

[C Heat]

Nice explination Kiwiburger

[Kiwiburger]

Having said that - your approach of using a second mic and smashing that is also very valid, and might sound better. Whatever works. Smashing room mics is very common.

[Improv]

I've said it before, and I've said it again... parallel compression made for the greatest quality boost in my mixes compared to any other technique I've learned. I'd be surprised if wasn't used somewhere on the mixdown of 95% of your favorite tunes.

Though it is not really something you should be worrying about when doing mic selection/tracking. Though I often track drums through a parallel buss on monitor just to "get the feel" of where it's gonna go.

[Curve Dominant]

Originally Posted by BlueRadio

Parallel compression is used to add punchy thickness to drums/other tracks, right?

Wouldn't it add a more complex flavor to the sound to use another mic/track on say, the snare drum, rather than compressing and gating an AUX send?

For example, my *normal* snare mic would be an i5. I would then take something thicker sounding, like a beyer, make sure that the capsules were well aligned, and then gate and comp this track? Wouldn't this help eliminate miniscule phase anomalies, as well as the same plain sound spit out on another bus?

My Q, what is the advantage of parallel comping as opposed to this approach? Am I silly?

No, you're not silly, it's a good question. You just need to consider this:

Parallel compression is something that is typically applied in the MIXING phase of the production.

What you are proposing, is trying to shoe-horn that technique into the TRACKING phase. And if you choose to do that, you will be making BOTH of those jobs more complicated and time-consuming... and very probably compromising both jobs in the process.

That's not to say that you cannot do it! Do whatever you want. Experiment - IF you have the time and the $$$, and the talent is willing to sit around waiting for you to impliment all that - quite the luxuries in today's economy.

In the "real world" however, where common sense will, for better or worse, impose its "reality" (assuming there is such a thing)...

You will TRACK the recording, faithfully, concentrating on that, and nothing else...

And then, you (or SOMEBODY) will MIX the recording, concentrating on that and nothing else, and in THAT phase, audio shenanigens such as parallel compression will be employed (or not).

IOW: Don't try to wear both hats at one time, for no other reason that, it will very likely piss off the client to no end, and make for an over-budget production with a lack-lustre sound.

YMMV.

-Eric Vincent @ Studio Curve Dominant

[wilcofan]

Parallel miking and parallel compression are both useful ways to retain transients while adding body and loudness.

IMO, parallel miking doesn't have to interfere with tracking as long as you're committed to keeping both tracks separate. Setting up a second mike doesn't really take that long. After some practice getting them in phase regularly is not painstaking.

Combining the signals to one channel while tracking... now that would mess me up.

[peeder]

I think this technique is used more for altering an envelope than leveling a set of notes.

In either case, multi-micing isn't going to get you there. If it does get you there, it will be phasey or saturated (either you are overloading the circuit or you are having the mics cancel each other as the means of dynamic compression).

[Denny McNerney]

yes, blueradio, you are silly.

[Methlab]

in software, what do you guys like to parallel compress with? I have not been getting the results lately that I want. I kind of got sick of my drum sound to be honest. Now I just buss everything to a drum bus and put the vintage warmer on there in tape compression mode.

I get ok results by setting up the Waves SSL comp on and squashing the kick snare and toms by using sends. I still debate if I should use a fast attack or a slow one.

Does anyone use the L1 to squish?

[kats]

I've said it before, and I've said it again... parallel compression made for the greatest quality boost in my mixes compared to any other technique I've learned. I'd be surprised if wasn't used somewhere on the mixdown of 95% of your favorite tunes.

I dunno. For me it's the same thing as running a verb 100% wet on an AUX send as opposed to dialing in a verb on an insert. Parallel comp is just easier and if your comp has flexable controls you can dial it right in on the original subgroup and in many cases it will sound better than parallel comping.

[BlueRadio]

Interesting comments. Maybe I should have been more clear on my question...

If you are controlling the tracking and mixing phase of a recording (which I typically am), wouldn't parallel micing be a little less redundant?

I do now have a better understanding of the logic behind parallel comp thanks to kiwiburger, but I still think that my previous statement has some serious validity. Thanks for your thoughts guys.

[artnoiser]

blueradio, did you by any chance mean

recording the things you want to parallel compress with additional mic/mics, and send those to the parallel compressor?

if this is the case, i agree it would be more time consuming because you'd have to do everything twice right? In the case of wanting to parallel comp your drumbuss, if you used 8 mics, you'd be doubling thatm not to mention, eq and comp and whatnot.

A lot of work for sure, but who knows, maybe it kicks royal arse and is a lot of fun!

[Protools Guy]

Originally Posted by Methlab

in software, what do you guys like to parallel compress with? I have not been getting the results lately that I want. I kind of got sick of my drum sound to be honest. Now I just buss everything to a drum bus and put the vintage warmer on there in tape compression mode.

I get ok results by setting up the Waves SSL comp on and squashing the kick snare and toms by using sends. I still debate if I should use a fast attack or a slow one.

Does anyone use the L1 to squish?

It's helped out with my overheads quite a bit. I have used the SSL comp and like it very much, but opted for the SSL channel instead. I have it set for fast attack. I mix it in just a bit to add air and open up the high end of the overheads.

[artnoiser]

Originally Posted by Methlab

in software, what do you guys like to parallel compress with? I have not been getting the results lately that I want. I kind of got sick of my drum sound to be honest. Now I just buss everything to a drum bus and put the vintage warmer on there in tape compression mode.

I get ok results by setting up the Waves SSL comp on and squashing the kick snare and toms by using sends. I still debate if I should use a fast attack or a slow one.

Does anyone use the L1 to squish?

Most of the times I use UAD's 1176LN.

As far as fast or slow or anything in between attack really only depends on what it feels like with the rest of the mix. No debate there. Although i must say it's usually on fast(er) attack more than anything else.

[Musiclab]

Here's a silly idea why dont you try it and see if you like it

[2012]

There is nothing silly about it.

[artnoiser]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

Here's a silly idea why dont you try it and see if you like it

Or as someone so beautifully understated it in another thread:

"who knows, maybe i'll come to a conclusion by trying it"

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Musiclab

Here's a silly idea why dont you try it and see if you like it

LOL

Pretty funny.

BlueRadio, "is parallel compression downright silly?" Absolutely not. It is not the be all end all answer for all mix problems but it is a very solid technique that has many uses. See Kiwiburger's explanation above.

As to just using parallel compression and extra mic's, as Musiclab said try it and find out.... but I think I know what your findings will be. You are worried about phase issues with your aux sends? How about your phase issues with the extra 16 mics on the kit?



Really, for most people the less mics on a source the better.... or to put it another way, the less mics on the same source used in the mix the better. When I do parallel compression I am usually doing the whole kit, maybe not overheads but sometimes. Anyway for a typical tracking session that is 8 to 16 mics. For what you are proposing we are now talking 16 to 32 mics on the kit and 24 to 32 tracks in the DAW or on the tape deck. These 32 mics all have to be phase accurate with each other.

Seems much easier to just use a parallel compressor when mixing to me. If you really want to make it easy just use a compressor with a "mix" knob that will blend the dry and compressed singals at the same time.

[ScumBum]

Does anyone ever parallel compress other tracks besides the drums ?

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by MushroomKingdom

Does anyone ever parallel compress other tracks besides the drums ?

lead vox, backing vox, guitars, bass, keys, banjo.... all in the past couple weeks.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by MushroomKingdom

Does anyone ever parallel compress other tracks besides the drums ?

Sure thing.... bass allot of times. I personally like my bass tracks to just NEVER move, very little in the way of dynamics (not everyone is like this so YMMV). Anyway with the bass that crushed having an uncompressed track running in parallel can really help bring it back to life, usuualy with the uncompressed track riding a little under the compressed.... or not... depends...



Percussion almost always.

Sometimes vocals.

Keys (usually not pads or strings... but sometimes).

If you check out Kiwiburger's post above what he is getting at is things with a steep transient or attack tend to get messed up with too much compression pretty quickly so the pick attack on a guitar, some vocal phrases, hell sometimes the mastering engineer will run a whole mix with parallel compression if it will help the vibe.

I guess, as much as I hate saying it, you gotta give it a try and see what works for you.

[Methlab]

I like the PSP stuff for their "mix" knob. But they impart a character on the sounds that I don't always want to go with.

Does anyone setup a buss with a compressor like the Waves SSL slammed and just send tracks into it that for parallel? I use Nuendo, and I guess you would use the post button and adjust the send to taste? It just seems like you have to send a lot more volume to the compressor that way then when you use a mix knob and can hear the parallel compression going at 10-20% mixed in.

[artnoiser]

So far I've tried it on bass, vocals & acoustic guitars...

It just depends if that's the thing the tracks need...same criteria as with eq or no eq, comp or no comp, reverb or no reverb, etc or no etc.

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by Methlab

I like the PSP stuff for their "mix" knob. But they impart a character on the sounds that I don't always want to go with.

Does anyone setup a buss with a compressor like the Waves SSL slammed and just send tracks into it that for parallel? I use Nuendo, and I guess you would use the post button and adjust the send to taste? It just seems like you have to send a lot more volume to the compressor that way then when you use a mix knob and can hear the parallel compression going at 10-20% mixed in.

I set up all the parallel tracks to use the aux send post fader and then set them all to unity. Set up the insert on the buss track for the comp you want to use then adjust the buss fader to blend what you want.

For me, most of the time (but not always) I seem to end up around 50/50 between the drums dry vs. parallel. Usually if I am doing bass it is more 60/40 leaning to the compressed side. Acc guitar might be more 60/40 to the dry side... it all depends. No formula at all.

[artnoiser]

A little bit of a tangent, but I think it still fits into the discussion,

just yesterday i was moanin' and groanin' that Monday is just around the corner, and about the work i have to be getting done in somewhat record time, and after pondering a little about recording and mixing over a few dave pensado threads i realized

and forgive me for this horrible understatement, but

maybe THE thing that makes this line of work so friggin interesting and fun is the fact that one can focus on what it sounds like inside your head, and then try to recreate it by any means possible, your own imagination being your limit

imagine the possibilites.

carving your own way in sound history, noticed or unnoticed, sharpening one owns abiilty and direction, walking new roads.

It's all rather awesome.

[jwnc]

Want to try something cool? Mix down your song with nothing on the master buss and then open a new session and do parallel compression, eq, etc on 3 copies of it. You can get some really cool things happening.. lots of energy but still have clearity, etc..

Jason