The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
COMPRESSION IS FOR KIDS!!!!
Old 27th August 2006
  #31
Quote:
Originally Posted by beats workin' View Post
...Also, for those of us unfortunate enough to have to work in the digital domain, can creative compression be used as a tool to "slow the initial transients down" much like a good tube mic?

thanks again,
david lawrence
(sometimes guilty of squish)
Good point!
Old 27th August 2006
  #32
Lives for gear
 

I always marveled about the liveliness of the Michael Jackson records. I just got new converters and now this is so much more obvious. Listening to HIStory for half an hour and then switching to almost anything else makes the other recordings sound muffled and liveless in comparison.

My question is: How do you preserve the transients in the context of a mix? Using automation will help in getting levels more stable, but most of the time it's still not loud enough overall. So how to get it louder? Saturation/printing hot on tape/clipping comes to mind, but that's not ideal either. Compressing only the bass frequencies maybe (multiband)? Or is it all about tracking again? :-)

Either way, it's an honour to have you here, Bruce!
Old 27th August 2006
  #33
Lives for gear
 
pigpen's Avatar
 

It should be noted first that I guess I am a Kid...

While I agree that compression can get totally out of control, I think the statement ...
"If the sound sources on your multi-track are properly recorded in the first place they will not need much limiting or compression."
is kind of case in point for me. At your level you probably don't get stuck with anything less than great , but for us that are dealing with today's Digi 002 phenomenon, it is not in our hands in the beginning. Compression is king of making some of those sounds pop out or even make them have a sound at all.
On records where I am in control of the sound going in, I do indeed use less compression than I do with those that come from the outside.....but probably still too much to your ears.

Just a note really....

Thanks a million for all your insight, this is a great forum and thanks for coming on here!
Old 27th August 2006
  #34
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

Interesting, your comment about fashion or trend sense in sound...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kats View Post
I actually read what Bruce Swedien is talking about a little different. I think there's a distinct difference between what "sounds good" in a universal sense and what "sounds good" in a fashion or trend sense.
kats....... Interesting, your comment about fashion or trend sense in sound...

Here's how I look at it... Always have, always will....

Style And Fashion-

STYLE...

Style comes from the inside...

Style is Spiritual...

Style comes from within oneself...

Style is an individual’s characteristic attitudes...


FASHION...

Fashion comes from the outside...

Fashion is something that you put on...

Fashion has to do mainly with the prevailing custom...

Fashion is one’s distinctive method of expression...

Bruce Swedien



1
Share
Old 27th August 2006
  #35
Smile Compression

Hi Bruce !

What´s your thought on paralell compression?

I´m more into this way of using a compressor, in the way that the "additive" highly compressed channel only raise low level stuff and does not clamp down transients the way a serial compressor would.

I´t would also be interesting to hear your point on tape compression and your thoughts on digital recording.

Thanks loads for being here! / Toby
1
Share
Old 27th August 2006
  #36
Lives for gear
 
mtstudios@charter's Avatar
 

It is so interesting how different engineers make platinum records. A Michael Brauer who seems to use lots of buss and parallel compressors to one who uses next to nothing, but each very successful. I guess that does show there are no rules and the record buying public does not really care how you make your record, as long it connects to them.
Old 27th August 2006
  #37
Gear Maniac
 

Bruce, I'm curious what you think of parallel compression, as it combines a compressed signal (sometime very compressed) with the untouched signal. Best of both worlds? It's a go-to approach for me with music calling for big drums, and personally I love it.
Thanks for your time.

jar
1
Share
Old 27th August 2006
  #38
Gear Nut
 

Like to add when you're working with top notch musicians who have mastery over thier dynamics it becomes a lot easier to not use compression. Having said that even with great musicianship is it possible to get away with not having compression on a R&B type singer like Michael Jackson? I'd be surprized to find the answer yes, even though the Sure Sm7 has a bit of compressed feel to it already plus if you mix to analog and compress in mastering well then maybe that's enough. But going to analog tape gives quite a bit of compression to begin with, and certain music like Jazz, classical, midi stuff(cause it's keyboard sounds are so controlled to begin with) can be ruined with compression. You don't take a world class violin player and compress him unless you want to negate his thousands of hours of practice and study. Music like the band Nirvana or something needs compression for the effect of it however it's so over used as in applied way overly too much it makes me sick. Music on the radio is lifeless!

My point is that whether or not to use compression is all relative to what you're recording with, mics analog tape etc., and also what kind of music you're recording, how good the musianship is etc...
Old 27th August 2006
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Big 3rd's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
All.....



To me, when R & B and ‘Pop’ recordings are over-compressed and over-limited, they lack the extemely fundamental qualities of both primitive energy and smooth high-frequencies.

The reason that over-compressed and over-limited recordings lose high end energy, is that much of the sound energy in a recording is concentrated in the lower frequencies.

These low-end signals will negatively influence a wide-band compressor’s operation, causing higher frequencies to be attenuated during peaks in level, making the music sound dull and lifeless.

Personally, I love transients and what they do to dramatize music. Let them live! If a recording is over-compressed, it will always be over-compressed. In other words, it will sound dull and lifeless forever!


Bruce


Funny that you are saying this because I'm an intermediate engineer still learning the craft and I find myself getting caught in hype or rules, but only when mixing my music and not when producing. In saying that, I noticed exactly what you are talking about and have many times battled within myself on whether I should use compression when it took away some of those precious top end details, especially in vocals.

Just recently I learned about the motown technique of splitting a vocal track, compressing the hell out of it, and adding lots of dbs in the high end of the copied vocal, then blending it with the original. Maybe I wasn't doing it properly but I found that I liked the original better without the blend because blending it minimized the details that I liked about it.

I was going to automate the eq on the vocals to accentuate the attack on the words that didn't come out as clear.

Do you ever ride the eq on certain tracks?
Old 29th August 2006
  #40
Lives for gear
 
djui5's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce Swedien View Post
TC Electronics M5000, highly modified, “Wooden Hall” reverb on the drums.

Bruce Swedien




I love that patch!!

This thread is great Bruce

One day I'm going to. I'm going to mix a song, entirely without compressors at all, and see what happens.

BTW, love your work
Old 3rd September 2006
  #41
Lives for gear
 
davidwilson's Avatar
 

Sometimes I like listening to songs or looking at photographs from another decadeand seeing how times have changed. Hairsyles are good for a laugh and those wedding photo's from the 70's.

For me one rule is the same in any era. I bad hairday is a bad hairday. An Ill fitting wedding tux is still an I'll fitting tux.

80's big hair, big reverb
00's straight (flattend) hair, flattened mix's
are we on to something here???

As long as it works hey...

Oh yeh thanks for your time Bruce.
1
Share
Old 11th September 2006
  #42
Lives for gear
 

Mr. Swedien-

First of all, it is extremely refreshing to read the various comments you have been writing in your forum here...

When you are tracking to tape, how hard would you hit it? Would you try keep the levels moderate to allow for full dynamics or would you track at a higher level to allow the tape to saturate and work with the sound that way?

Thanks for many hours of great reading!

--Ben
Old 12th September 2006
  #43
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

The real goal of music recording is to....

Quote:
Originally Posted by mattssons View Post
Hi Bruce !

What´s your thought on paralell compression?

I´m more into this way of using a compressor, in the way that the "additive" highly compressed channel only raise low level stuff and does not clamp down transients the way a serial compressor would.

I´t would also be interesting to hear your point on tape compression and your thoughts on digital recording.

Thanks loads for being here! / Toby
Toby.....

Toby's Question-------------->What are your thoughts on paralell compression? Bruce's answer---------->I do not use it because it has the ability to distort mix values too much.... And those mix values are too precious to be messed about with!!!

The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent...

Bruce

Old 14th September 2006
  #44
Lives for gear
 
parissound's Avatar
 

Hello Bruce and thanks again for being the best Moderator to date.

I recently finished this Latin Salsa project and took it to Skylight Studio (Best Latin Eng. in this area) here in NJ to have it mixed. I notice he would mix at low levels and kept pushing this button on his rack after he was done with the mix. I notice it was an SSL comp on the MixBuss.

He would take about 40 minutes to mix a song and take a 20min. break in between. The mixes were amazing.

Anyway, to the point. I took the mixes to my studio and checked out the session's to a big suprise that he only had a compressor plugin on the bongo's, and lead vocal with a slight compression barely anything.

The whole mix was based on automation and eq, it was an amazing mix.

From that day forward my mixes have improved due to not strapping a comp on everything.

I recomend anyone to try mixing with minumal comp and just automation and EQ.

IT WILL OPEN UP YOUR MIXES, BELIEVE ME.

Thanks again Bruce for your precious time here at GS.

Eric Maldonado
myspace.com/parisrecordingstudio
Old 14th September 2006
  #45
Captain
 
Mike Shipley's Avatar
 

The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent...
Bruce


I dont see what this has to do compression Bruce. I say tamper away , that's half the fun , and that's how new sounds are created , we are not supposed to be all purists here and "modifying" a sound or changing a sound's sonic imprint or it's original energy , is necessary on a daily basis....I have worked on records where the "original intent" of a song wasn't figured out until the mix!!!
I agre with Bruce to an extent about "riding" the faders in lieu of compression , but some of the best records made , from the earliest , to the latest have gobs of compression (not mastering compression!) but creative compression.......mostly on a lot of British records these days , now I come to think of it.
The Mastering :thing: could be called a fashion......but not good old recording compression. Since my early days in England watching the likes of Geoff Emmerick,Mike Stone,RTBBill Price,Ken Scott etc use very healthy doses of compresssion to get the "picture right"........what ever it takes was their motto.
Peace Mike Shipley
Old 15th September 2006
  #46
Lives for gear
Im so happy Bruce that your with us. Anyway about compression in your last statement you said keeping the musical energy.

Well how about electronic music inrtuments in pop some don't have any energy you would have to give it some. I throw compression at it it not compression eq? to bring life?
Old 15th September 2006
  #47
Gear Head
 
Stefan Elmblad's Avatar
 

In all do respect I will say this:

There is one thing producing modern music with alot of premade loops and ****, keyboards etc where you might not need to compress at all, other than for shaping sound. The other side of the coin can be, for example, a demo recording with a not-so-good punkrockband where dynamics is all over the place. Some instruments, like bass guitar (especially cheap ones) has an inherent uneveness in volume between strings. Etc etc.

Compression is a tool, some recordings demand it, some are destroyed by it. Sometimes you have a choice, and then, in my book, the producer set his own rules what to use and what not. A good squeezed ambience mic can add lots to drums, etc. I'm sure you know more examples than me, Bruce.

I see the "no compression" statement about as offending as the music I hear when everything is compressed to death. Taboos don't belong in the studio, and although having the goal of less compression is a good one IMO, no one reaching for a compressor to adjust a dynamic range on rampage should feel they are doing something wrong.

Great thread btw.

/Stefan Elmblad
Old 16th September 2006
  #48
Deleted bd1be4f
Guest
As Louis Armstrong once said, "If it sounds good, it IS good". There are clearly many different philosophies of mixing, none should be considered right or wrong as long as they serve the song and achieve the desired final result.

I agree that if someone is using compression just because they think they should, that's hooey. But if compression is what is called for because as an engineer you feel that it is needed, either to alter the sonic character or provide a certain sound, go for it. Especially these days when so much audio is close miked, or as mixers we receive tracks recorded in less than ideal circumstances, it's often necessary.

Mike Shipley, Tom Lord-Alge, Bruce Swedien, et al, all are highly successful at what they do, all achieving their results through different methods. Vive le difference!
Old 16th September 2006
  #49
Gear Addict
 
bringmewater's Avatar
 

I think he's saying that by not compressing something like an acoustic guitar it will sound more authentic. Of course there are a million non authentic sounds that can sound great too so it's all good right? Depends how the uncompessed sound sits in the mix, type of song and context right?

Also, if you ride the mix you're kind compressing too.

John
Old 16th September 2006
  #50
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

I could have been refering to "Transient Response"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by shipshape View Post
The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent...
Bruce


I dont see what this has to do compression Bruce. I say tamper away , that's half the fun , and that's how new sounds are created , we are not supposed to be all purists here and "modifying" a sound or changing a sound's sonic imprint or it's original energy , is necessary on a daily basis....I have worked on records where the "original intent" of a song wasn't figured out until the mix!!!
I agre with Bruce to an extent about "riding" the faders in lieu of compression , but some of the best records made , from the earliest , to the latest have gobs of compression (not mastering compression!) but creative compression.......mostly on a lot of British records these days , now I come to think of it.
The Mastering :thing: could be called a fashion......but not good old recording compression. Since my early days in England watching the likes of Geoff Emmerick,Mike Stone,RTBBill Price,Ken Scott etc use very healthy doses of compresssion to get the "picture right"........what ever it takes was their motto.
Peace Mike Shipley
Mike....

Excellent....

What I said was... - "The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent..."

I could have been refering to "Transient Response"... A favorite topic with me... Almost as important to me as 'OVER-COMPRESSION!!!"

HOWEVER -

Good transient response is especially important when recording acoustic instruments. This is one case where it’s extremely important for one to have equipment that is able to capture as much of the initial transient as possible, and all it’s accompanying delicate details.

In the music that I am normally involved in, I have always felt that good transient content is one of the very most important components of the recorded image. I would even go so far as to say that transient response has at it’s core a direct relationship to the emotional impact of a recording. Particularly in the main genre’s of music that I record.... namely R & B and ‘Pop’ recordings.

The faithful recording and reproduction of sound source transients makes the strong rhythmic elements in R & B and ‘Pop’ recordings much more dramatic. These are the elements that are so important, such as the ‘Kick’ or bass drum, the ‘Snare’ drum, hand-claps, percussion...etc.

I think that well recorded transients give R & B and ‘Pop’ recordings a feeling of tremendous energy.

To me, the excessive use of compression and limiting diminish the drama of sound source transients in recorded music. Along that same line of thinking, I should also point out that I have never been(and probably never will be) a big fan of dynamics compression anywhere during the recording process.

To me, when R & B and ‘Pop’ recordings are over-compressed and over-limited, they lack the extremely fundamental qualities of both primitive energy and smooth high-frequencies. The reason that over-compressed and over-limited recordings lose high end energy, is that much of the sound energy in a recording is concentrated in the lower frequencies. These low-end signals will negatively influence a wide-band compressor’s operation, causing higher frequencies to be attenuated during peaks in level, making the music sound dull and lifeless.

Personally, I love transients and what they do to dramatize music. Let them live! If a recording is over-compressed, it will always be over-compressed. In other words, it will sound dull and lifeless forever!!!

Sorry, Mike....

Bruce Swedien


Old 16th September 2006
  #51
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

I think we come from two different camps.

[QUOTE=shipshape;879555]The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent...
Bruce


Mike.....

One more thing.. I think we come from two different camps. Neither is totally right.... Neither is totally wrong.... BUT, THEY ARE DIFFERENT!!!

Isn't that great???

Bruce


Old 16th September 2006
  #52
The title of this thread is true on many levels (no pun intended!)

With analog tape - an engineers skill in using that medium and having it reproduce transient response well and evade noise (hiss) was part of the skill set of an engineer.

If I may - I think where the rot set in regarding recording levels & perhaps over compression in this digital age, was:

MID 1980's: the advent of DAT players and the (probably correct) rumors that one had to get recording levels as high as possible up to digital zero - "to use up all the bits" and get the best out of the a/d conversion. Anyone around at the time who used DAT tapes will remember trying to get the level as HIGH AS POSSIBLE on those recorders.. It seemed to become part of the engineers skill set - staring at DAT meters, trying to print a take almost hitting zero, but with no overs.

MID 1990's:If we fast forward to DAW's (Digital Audio Workstations - Pro Tools Cubase etc) this "hot level superstition" carried forward.. Many companies advertised 'over limiters' to facilitate 'hot level' - many to this day incorporate 'over killer' systems in their converters, designed to round off transients to get.... - hot levels...

1990's-Present day:Enter the home recordist, and some DIY engineering rationale.. The home recordist, armed with this 'must record at hot level' preconception - comes up with with this solution.... "why don't I use a compressor, to tame the signal levels sent to my converters, therefore, serving up hotter level to them?"

IMHO - what happened was twofold:

1) no one bothered to tell the home recordists that converter technology improved A LOT since the early DAT recorders and the need to slam level to them became redundant.

2) marketing hype about hot level to digital converters appealed to both newbies and people making the nervous transition from 2" tape to digital - many drank this cool aid (myself included!)

As a result misguided people may be unnecessarily CRUSHING the dynamic content of their recorded audio. This logic has filtered upwards to the younger generation working at recording studios too.

Adding to this the record companies A&R departments quest for hot / loud sounding CD masters - further compounds the problem.

That's perhaps where a lot of today's 'must put a compressor on everything' engineer habits have come from....in my opinion.

I wager Bruce hasn't had to record his clients on cheap ADAT players, was always recording mutitrack to 2" tape. And has been using 1/4inch or 1/2 inch or even 1inch mix tapes and NOT worrying too much about mix levels to cheap DAT players!!
Old 16th September 2006
  #53
Lives for gear
 

Today - People reference super hot CD's for mixes (maybe not even consciously) and try to set buss comperssors and drum sub compressors to work too fast so it sounds more like an L2 - i've seen a lot of people do this.
Old 16th September 2006
  #54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbuntz View Post
Today - People reference super hot CD's for mixes (maybe not even consciously) and try to set buss comperssors and drum sub compressors to work too fast so it sounds more like an L2 - i've seen a lot of people do this.
Yep..
Old 16th September 2006
  #55
LAU
Gear Maniac
 
LAU's Avatar
 

compression is....compression!

ok,

compression has always fascinated me, just as other things where fascinating to me....for instance; when i was a kid, i heard records with this 'warm, vibey' sound on them....i recognized this sound on different records....then over a certain period of time i discovered that it was a fender rhodes electric piano...when i discovered this i found out that there were several different models, and later i discovered that there where different ways of recording the instrument.

now, later i started to recognize certain strange pumping sounds on certain records, and the record at home sounded different on the radio.etc etc....
we (gearslutz) all have had similair experiences, and some of us have learned a lot about all these dynamic machines....

Mr Swedien prefers not to use any compression, or maybe just a little here an there when necessary....

i think his track record prooves that he does not need compression to make fat, sparkling mixes that 'take you away' over and over again, and that stay fresh....


Other people need their compressors to make their music, or to mix their mix....

Daft punk depends on compression and has had a lot of influence on the whole 'dance music' genre.

Michael Brauer, who ALSO did and does a lot of RnB and Pop (mr Swedien!), has lifted the use of compression to an higher art form, BUT, it took him years.....he is NOT a kid!

and you are right Mr Swedien, the difference in esthetical camps is great!

it's all about awareness......and to have fun during the learning experience wich we call life.

Old 16th September 2006
  #56
Gear Addict
 
van Overhalen's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
.... "why don't I use a compressor, to tame the signal levels sent to my converters, therefore, serving up hotter level to them?"
I don't know Jules...

George Martin wrote in his "All you need is ears"- biography that he used the exact same technique with the Beatles to be able to get a great, high energetic one track rythm section...to get a hotter level ....to....TAPE ! Wow how's THAT.
This crazy fellow EVEN COMPRESSED TO TAPE !
and he did that in the sixties and he recorded to 1" 4 track.
and why is it that all of a sudden everybody is THAT hysteric about compressing audio ?

A whole lot of engineers even nowadays name Beatles recordings as reference,
so it can not be THAT bad.

Compression is great, it sounds great and only because people overdo it like they overdo anything doesn't mean it has lost it's value...

...and please name me any record that you know of that is done entirely without compression (neither in recording, nor mixing nor mastering)
I really wanna know !
Old 16th September 2006
  #57
Viking
 
Bruce Swedien's Avatar
 

What I would call “Basically - an unaltered acoustical event”.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shipshape View Post
The real goal of music recording is to preserve the physical energy of the music and the musical statement itself. If those values are tampered with, the music will not be true to it's original intent...
Bruce


I dont see what this has to do compression Bruce. I say tamper away , that's half the fun , and that's how new sounds are created , we are not supposed to be all purists here and "modifying" a sound or changing a sound's sonic imprint or it's original energy , is necessary on a daily basis....I have worked on records where the "original intent" of a song wasn't figured out until the mix!!!
I agre with Bruce to an extent about "riding" the faders in lieu of compression , but some of the best records made , from the earliest , to the latest have gobs of compression (not mastering compression!) but creative compression.......mostly on a lot of British records these days , now I come to think of it.
The Mastering :thing: could be called a fashion......but not good old recording compression. Since my early days in England watching the likes of Geoff Emmerick,Mike Stone,RTBBill Price,Ken Scott etc use very healthy doses of compresssion to get the "picture right"........what ever it takes was their motto.
Peace Mike Shipley
Mike....

Just one more little thing. I am most definitely not an audio "Purist". Please don't put me in that catagory... I too say tamper away , that's more than half the fun , and that's how new sounds are created. Sonic "Fantasy' is very important to me...

What I am going after is "Sonic Musical Fantasy". Check this out. Perhaps it will clear up where I'm comiing from...

What is Stereo To Me?

I don’t think I have ever seen a really good definition of what stereo music reproduction actually is. If we attempt to precisely define the word “stereophonic” , we find in the dictionary that the first half of the word, “stereo” means, solid, firm or three-dimensional. The second half of the word or, “Phonic” means pertaining to the nature of sound. I think that may be as close as we get to a definition of stereo music reproduction. I think a real definition of stereophonic should say that “Stereophonic sound is a reproduction system consisting of two or more microphones, placed in front of a sound pick-up area, recorded discretely on two or more channels of a multi-track recording device, and then played back on two or more loudspeakers placed in front of a listening area.”

This system creates the illusion of the recorded sound having direction, position and depth in the area between the loudspeakers. This playback system produces a sound pattern at the listeners ears which our hearing sense interprets as indicating direction and depth of sound field in the limited area between the loudspeakers.

In most cases, accurate localization is the goal of a stereophonic image. In other words, when recording a large orchestra, the instruments in the center of the ensemble are accurately reproduced in the area midway between the two playback loudspeakers. Instruments at the sides of the orchestra are reproduced from either the left or the right speaker. Instruments half way between are reproduced halfway to one side and so on... This type of a stereo image is what I would call “Basically - an unaltered acoustical event”.

For me, the problem is that this technique totally eliminates “Sonic Fantasy” from the recording process. It is the clinical approach. I find it somewhat interesting, but not very inspiring. Things got really exciting for me when I discovered that I could successfully record sonic images that existed mainly in my imagination.

In other words, Since the middle 1960’s I think my philosphical approach to using the "Stereo Space", has been to take the listener into a “New Reality” that did not, or could not, exist in a real life acoustical environment. This “New Reality”, of course, existed only in my own imagination.

The real problem that I have with Over-Compressed music recordings is that they are, to me, in no way a "Musical Fantasy".

Bruce

Old 16th September 2006
  #58
I've been mixing this live jazz project, "Dogs at Large"= the Rippingtons - Russ Freeman. It has such wide dynamics, over 25 db from crank to subtle. I was using a hot-rodded comp on it to even it out a bit, 2/1 ratio which works great in evening out the overall levels, very record friendly, will work well in a car.
Last night I listened with all the comps off, well I was using that buss comp and a peak limiter on Kim Stones' bass.

I'm going to mix it this way. No comps. The feel of the room is back. The depth of the club is there again. The audience is back in their "place". The quality of those great converters and that analog console has put the real back into this listening experience, you close your eyes and you are there. There wasn't a quality difference, the comps have the same class A signal path as the console, it was a smearing of the acoustics of the room. The energy of that extreme dynamic range is exciting, I don't care if the quiet parts are hard to hear in a car, I'll just turn it up! If this was a studio recording or done with time delayed overdubs, this might not be a problem. It's so relaxing to listen to now, isn't that what music is supposed to be?

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades
Old 16th September 2006
  #59
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Since my early days in England watching the likes of Geoff Emmerick,Mike Stone,RTBBill Price,Ken Scott etc use very healthy doses of compresssion to get the "picture right"........what ever it takes was their motto.


The big difference today (IMO) is that people feel they *have* to use compression BECAUSE "the likes of Geoff Emmerick,Mike Stone,RTBBill Price,Ken Scott" did. Whereas these fellows weren't following any rules - since there was no real precendent. They did what they did because they thought it sounded good. They thought for themselves.

The hard thing for new"er" engineers (like myself) is to not second guess everything we do simply because "so and so" did it a certain way. This is simply due to so much information available to us - to the point of overload, it's easy to fall into a trap.

I guess it comes down to having enough confidence in your talent to be able to trust your own ears and sense of musical asthetic - and let the cards fall where they may.


Tony Katsabanis <------you asked heh
Old 16th September 2006
  #60
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jules View Post
.... "why don't I use a compressor, to tame the signal levels sent to my converters, therefore, serving up hotter level to them?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by van Overhalen View Post
I don't know Jules...

George Martin wrote in his "All you need is ears"- biography that he used the exact same technique with the Beatles to be able to get a great, high energetic one track rythm section...to get a hotter level ....to....TAPE
What I disagree with, is the notion that on a purely technical level, you need to compress or limit music 'to get the best out of your a/d converters' - that I think is BS. With tape there were noise, hiss and pre 24 track, 'bounce quality' issues as folks went from one machine to another - these are absent with modern converters IMHO. The only reason to use compression amd limiting with digital sytems these days, is because you like the sound of.. compression or limiting. (I am not anti compression myself)

heh
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump