How necessary is compression?

[P. Wallace]

If your tracks sound awesome without it, is it necessary? I guess I'm really asking how much compression do you use? What do you use it on? Guitar? Drums?

 

Discuss

[IsildursBane]

 

If your tracks sound awesome without it, is it necessary?

 

 

Depends on how you define "awesome" and what you want the tracks to sound like.

 

 

I guess I'm really asking how much compression do you use?

 

 

As much as is needed.

 

 

What do you use it on?

 

 

Whatever needs it.

 

Unless you're working to some sort of technical spec (e.g. mastering a record to 0dBfs, maximizing modulation of a radio broadcast, etc), you shouldn't think about compression (or anything for that matter) as a requirement. You should be thinking about it as a tool or a means to an end. Asking about how necessary compression is to an engineer is like asking how necessary a screwgun is to a carpenter. It's very handy and he's going to use it frequently, but it's not going to help much when he's got a box of nails in front of him.

 

-Dan.

[P. Wallace]

 

Whatever needs it.

 

 

How do you know if something needs it?

 

If your guitars are loud and thick, than you wouldn't need it right?

 

Why does it seem like a lot of recordings have compressed drums?

[IsildursBane]

 

How do you know if something needs it?

 

 

Practice. Try it with; try it without. Fiddle around with settings. Learn what each compressor does and how it affects the sound, then keep that in mind next time something comes up.

 

 

Why does it seem like a lot of recordings have compressed drums?

 

 

Because they do.

 

 

If your guitars are loud and thick, than you wouldn't need it right?

 

 

Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, you're asking the wrong questions. Stop trying to think in terms of sweeping generalizations - there's plenty of time for generalizations later once you learn how things work and sound. At this point, experiment.

 

-Dan.

[P. Wallace]

Cool, thanks Dan! I've definitely being experimenting with compression a lot lately and trying different ratios and thresholds, adjusting the envelope for a more "natural/less noticeable" effect. More specifically, on drum tracks, mainly kick and overheads. I can't get a good setting with kick, it just sounds better without compression. As far as overheads, I sent them to an aux track with some slight compression. I bring that up under the overheads going to the master. This seems to bring out some of the ghost notes on the snare and, dare I say it, cowbell. I actually get a little more room sound too. So that's been working for me, but compressing the whole kit just seems to IDK, sound unnatural. Our drummer uses a lot of ghost notes but if I compress the snare no matter what settings it sounds terrible and kills the dynamic interplay of ghost notes and outright snare hits.

[Mo Facta]

If your tracks sound awesome without it, is it necessary?

 

Nope

.

I guess I'm really asking how much compression do you use?

 

However much is necessary. It's like saying, how long is a piece of string? I think the better question would be, "when do you use compression?", mainly because there's more than one thing you can accomplish with compression so it depends on your aim. Besides just plain old dynamic range processing there's also the aesthetic reason for picking a particular compressor and the limits of how good it sounds within a given gain reduction range. It's all good to require 20dB of GR but does every compressor do it well? Sometimes I smash things like drums a good 12dB or so, and sometimes I just skim off the top. It's all very subjective and difficult to give an answer to "how much?" Then there's the particular approach of using a compressor to tailor the transients. Some compressors are good at this and some aren't "bitey" enough.

 

Think of it this way. I give you two different vocal tracks named 1 and 2. Track 1 is a vocalist with an even, natural delivery and track 2 is an erratic vocalist with a 25dB swing in dynamic range. How then is it possible for someone to say, "I use XdB of gain reduction at 4:1 on vocals"? The plain answer is that it's not possible.

 

What do you use it on?

 

Look, I'm not trying to be a smarty pants here but I use compression on whatever needs it or will benefit from it. The thing about compression is that the more you use it and the more experience you gain from using different compressors, the more you begin to build a sort of a database in your mind of what compressor is good for what purpose. In that scenario, you could use it on feasibly anything as long as you're clear on the results. If you put a gun to my head and made me answer I would say that I find myself using it on things like drums, bass, vocals and occasionally guitars (with a sidechain keyed from the snare, kick, or both). Even more occasionally you'll find it on a keyboard track. I also employ quite a good dose of saturation effects to round things out a little. Then there's the mix bus.

 

Cheers

[Lee Knight]

Listen to something you've recorded. Listen to the lead part. The star. The voice most often in pop music. Does it get too loud? So you turn it down. Does it get too quiet at times now? So the swing from soft to loud is wide.

 

Dynamic range.

 

Compression offers one way to reduce the dynamic range, allowing you to turn up a track. The brings the low parts out of the mix without the loud parts getting too loud. Shave the peaks and turn it up.

 

Except... compression can change the sound of the thing it's compressing. For the better? Maybe. So, not only is it a utility, but it is also a creative brush. Sometimes one. Sometimes the other. Sometimes both at once.

 

Take a day and over-compress everything. Snare, vocal, guitar, bass... now listen to the radio. Or your music collection. Can you identify where certain types of sounds are the result of compression?

 

Is it needed? That's up to you.

[Flogger59]

I tend to use a few gentle stages of compression through the process, rather than just pile it on in one go. I'll track vox, drum and acoustic guitars with it (I've been doing it a loooooong time, so I know what works where), some will get added during the mix, and another strapped across the 2 buss. Then it gets mastered. The secret is to do a bit at a time.

[WRGKMC]

When i first started recording ( which was a long time ago) and got my hands on a hardware compressor, I would throw it on everything experimenting and abuse the hell out of it. It was a whole lot of fun. After awhile you start realizing things sound like crap because it doesnt sound natureal so you start using less. Then if you want to really refine things and get them to sound pro you start using it like an artist would like a fine brush to draw thin lines.

 

You dont usually use an artists paint brush to paint a barn and you dont use a brush to paint a barn to draw fine lines. Its all in learning what tools work most efficiantly specific jobs.

 

The learning process may require you to start painting a barn with an artists brush till you work yourself raw getting nowhere. Then someone comes along and says hey stupid why are you trying to paint a barn with a 1/8" brush? Didnt anyone tell you god makes 8" brushes for that kind of work? You could do that job in a day instead of a year?

On the other hand using the wrong tool for the wrong job is going to teach you the limitations of that tool the hard way which you will unlikely forget.

 

This is the same analogy for any audio tools. Learn its limitations. Then learn to use it as an artists tool. When you think things are dead on and sounding great, cut it back an additional third.

 

Compression applied properly shouldnt distract what you're hearing. It "usually" sounds best when its hard to tell its even there. (I say usually because even a compressor can be used an a special effect). After all, its the beauty of the music that needs to shine through, not the bandaids. If the music is ugly then you may have to prop it up if you can stomach the results. But anyone with a eyeball can tell you theres an ugly woman undernieth all that makeup she trowled over that botox.

[P. Wallace]

Good stuff!

[brandonhackler]

 

When i first started recording ( which was a long time ago) and got my hands on a hardware compressor, I would throw it on everything experimenting and abuse the hell out of it.

 

 

I think it's the same for everybody. Most of us eventually go through a "compression" phase where NO AMOUNT of compression is enough. But in that phase you start learning how to massage attack and release times to IMPROVE things and how to start dialing in ratios and gain reduction to fit elements in your mix into nice, tidy little areas. I think at one point i heard somebody (Chris Lord Alge maybe??) say mixing is like trying to park cars and compression allows you to fit something into one space instead of taking up 4. Thought that was a pretty good analogy. Compression also can add excitement and also bring things forward and in focus. Adversely, abused compression can do the exact opposite.

 

But to the OP, honestly, start caking it on. Get your hands dirty and after some TERRIBLY over compressed mixes that pin your ears back and give you a headache because you've pressed everything into a big lump with no dynamic range left you'll start learning some nice tricks and start building a little database in your mind of what works and what doesnt. Compression is really one of those things that you can have defined for you perfectly but still not wrap your head around. It's just something you have to dig in and start throwing it up against the wall and seeing what sticks. Have fun with it though. I'ma big fan of tasteful compression. Check out some Michael Brauer and Bruce Swedien mixes for tasteful, smart compression. Brauer being the compression master. Some FAQ with him.

 

Brandon-

[Kerouac]

I use very little compression when I mix... I normally get it to the point I'm happy with it, then back it off a bit more. The only time I go nuts with it is for effect, but I have friends who will compress the {censored} out of everything and they LOVE that sound.

[WRGKMC]

Using the "exciting compressor" is another cool thing to use. Copy the track and use reverb and compression for tha motown sound where you can hear the words clearly yet get a big reverb sound too.

 

http://www.recordinginstitute.com/R2KREQ/excomp.htm

[flatfinger]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/oct06/articles/mixing.htm

[flatfinger]

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep09/articles/compressionmadeeasy.htm

[UstadKhanAli]

Good advice from a lot of people.

 

I'll just add that if you gain ride or use automation or otherwise move the faders around during mixdown, this greatly lessens the *need* for compression.

[UstadKhanAli]

If various speakers can play back your mixes without a problem and it sounds good on a variety of speakers, then you should be fine. If you feel the dynamic range is too wild and things get lost or suddenly leap out or it doesn't sound "steady", then you can consider compression.

 

Compression is all about listening. When you use it and apply it, you really need to listen. Twiddle with the knobs (virtual or otherwise). What does it do? Listen. What happens when you use heavy compression but you have a really short release? What happens when you adjust the Attack setting? Listen. You really need to listen.

 

Buy a book that covers recording engineering, including compression. You can learn a lot from that. You can learn a lot from what people tell you here too. And then go forth and compress. And listen. And compress. And listen. And adjust. And listen. And listen some more.

[Kerouac]

 

Good advice from a lot of people. I'll just add that if you gain ride or use automation or otherwise move the faders around during mixdown, this greatly lessens the *need* for compression.

 

 

TRUTH. I think that's one of the reasons I can get away without really cranking it on.

[Eddie]

 

...Buy a book that covers recording engineering, including compression...

 

 

Great advice in this thread.

I'll recommend a book that has been extremely useful to me:

Mixing Audio

http://www.mixingaudio.com/

 

I also enjoyed Bill Gibson's books (The AudioPro Home Recording Course vols 1, 2 and 3 I think), and The Mixing Engineer's Handbook by Bobby Owsinski.

http://www.billgibsonmusic.com/

 

In addition there's online information in forums, Sound on Sound (as mentioned above), and I think HC also has information covering the different tools and effects.

[Keniko]

Look at compression this way. Automatic fader control. Meaning, you can control the dynamics of any instrument or vocal. Your ears are your best friend in the studio. Listen to each track... especially drums,vocals and bass. Drums will be the most dynamic instrument you'll record then vocals. You want to control the overall levels of the instruments and keep tracks even sounding even in terms of level. If the vocals sound even but a with a few bursts, then a little compression will tame those bursts. Same with drums, as drummers will hit drums differently through out the song raising individual drum levels. Again, a little compression will tame these hits and even the over all sound of the kit.

[henrebotha]

I've recently started mixing like this:

 

1. Set peak levels to ideal targets, like (for a rock mix) kick around -10, lead vocal around -14, etc.

2. Apply processing where needed, which is usually when something drowns a bit in the mix at a certain point.

 

It's during step 2 that I apply compression, but my first stop is almost always EQ. Aside from high-passing virtually everything, and notching out annoying bits (especially on bad singers' tracks), I'll often apply some boost here and there to bring out a certain character in a sound. Kick, bass, and electric guitars often need a lot of this - my suspicion is that the "huge EQ boost" sound has become internalised by listeners as an inherent part of the sound (just like the distinct sound of a given speaker cab has become internalised as part of the guitar sound).

 

Once I've EQ'd, then I bring up the comps. A lot of the drummers I've recorded have had very inconsistent feet, so the kick needs some compression to keep it even. Same deal with bass - I can tolerate some fluctuation in guitar levels, but not the bass. And on top of that, I want my snare and kick to really jump out, which is difficult considering how busy modern rock arrangements get, so I apply liberal parallel compression to keep the kick and snare up front. With vocals, I often employ serial compression - one comp to keep rogue peaks in line, and another to smooth it out in general. But nothing too hard. If the vocalist is too inconsistent, I'd rather use automation - I hate that Britney Spears-style over-compression on vocals, where you can hear the singer's tongue hitting their teeth. *shudder* Electric guitars I'll squash a bit - again, I think that's part of the sound, especially with semi-sustained power chord riffs. In my own music, I use a lot of distortion, ring modulation, etc in my synth patches, which can cause wild fluctuations in volume - so some compression is often needed to keep it musical.

 

I don't compress overheads, or room mics. I don't compress my drum bus. I definitely don't compress reverb channels. I don't compress acoustic guitars - they sound nice to me as is. I don't compress my main mix, EVER.

 

Obviously all of the above varies depending on the recorded material, but for the most part it's how my mixes turn out.

 

I think people have given compression a bad rap. It's an incredible tool, and who's to say that other tools are "better"?

 

And besides: people nowadays have a bigger variety of listening systems than ever. Keeping dynamics in line goes a long way towards ensuring a mix translates well.

[WRGKMC]

 

Compression is all about listening. When you use it and apply it, you really need to listen.

 

 

What to listen for and knowing when to apply it is a bigest factor here. It boils down to dynamics and transients.

Things like guitar and bass or electric keyboards have much less dynamic responce than something like drums and vocals.

A good singer can sustain a steady db level, and a good drummer can impact his drums evenly without having one slam weaker than the next.

So you have to be able to focus and judge that. Watching meter levels can help. Guitars can be driven or acoustic, or dynamics can be used in an artictic manor by digging in and lightening up the touch.

 

A good performance may have wave type dynamics, starting at and Pianissimo to Forte to a dramatic Crescendo to a Forte back to a Pianissimo.

Some instruments have that dynamic range, some dont. Thst it in a nutshell. What you listen for is if the dynamic highs and lows of one instrument so much greater than another that it maskes other instruments with big volume changes. You may, (and I say may here for a reason) want to reduce the dynamic responce of one instrument so its closer to others so the two will have simular dynamics. This can make your arrangement rise and fall in closer unison and not have one overshaddow another.

 

You may also have the opposite. An instrument may lack dynamics and an expander can be used to increase its dynamics.

 

You also have to use judgement. Will reducing dynamics improve the clarity of a performance, gell things together? A musician will often drop in volume/dynamics when they arent playing 100%. Using something to bring that part up may be sticking that weak performance in your face when its supposed to be sublimital background sound. Backwash.

 

So having good listening skills, Knowing music well, and developing good controll of your tools when applying them to the various musical parts can "enhance" the musical arrangement and the performance. If you record your own music, it begins with the performance and the tone you record. If you can get the dynamics you need tracking, theres littel need to manipulate it with tools after the fact. I've left out using tools as artistic tools or using a comp as an effect at this point. They surely can be used that way and often sound cool as hell. The use of them should be done through knowlegable use and not just blind accident so you can do it again at will. In other words, you may accidentally find something that sounds good but you should be able to analize it and repeat it again.

[LeonardScaper]

I love compression threads. Great to read everybody's take on it and try to determine just where they are on that long journey toward understanding compression.

 

 

I'll just add that if you gain ride or use automation or otherwise move the faders around during mixdown, this greatly lessens the *need* for compression.

 

 

This will really help to get you using compression in a more.......artistic manner.

[P. Wallace]

Well, after reading this thread, subsequent links, and additional research we've decieded to record our demo to minimize the amount of compression by using better mic technique and better control over our playing dynamics during recording. Our problem area was side sticking and some of the ghost notes on the snare were getting lost in the mix. I don't want to have to squash a bunch of our drums just to bring out some ghost notes/ softer dynamics. After some experimentation with our overheads and snare mic positioning, we're getting better results. I've also been fooling with kick compression with a 6:1 ratio and slow attack time and squishing the f*K out of it, but I'm so on the fence about if I like it or not. But the punch becomes more consistant from hit to hit.

[WRGKMC]

 

Well, after reading this thread, subsequent links, and additional research we've decieded to record our demo to minimize the amount of compression by using better mic technique and better control over our playing dynamics during recording. Our problem area was side sticking and some of the ghost notes on the snare were getting lost in the mix. I don't want to have to squash a bunch of our drums just to bring out some ghost notes/ softer dynamics. After some experimentation with our overheads and snare mic positioning, we're getting better results. I've also been fooling with kick compression with a 6:1 ratio and slow attack time and squishing the f*K out of it, but I'm so on the fence about if I like it or not. But the punch becomes more consistant from hit to hit.

 

 

Thats a great method to focus on. Get the most from those methods before seeking secondary tools to fix things. They were able to get fantastic recordings with minimal tools on vintage recordings. If you can get as close as possible through tracking techniques then you will really have some great tracks to use tools on.

 

You also want to keep the mastering compression in mind. You add another layer with mastering plugs and it can be used to bring out details and boost the mix to commercial levels. I find theres much better dynamics and details preserved when you only compress a signal once. I know in my recordings I hardly ever use compression on my tracks any more. I may use it on vocals because my vocals arent exactly pro, or drum tracks that have big transients. I may also use some hardware compression on the bass or guitars while tracking direct as well. It makes the strings feel like I'm playing through an amp. I rarely need to use compression on those tracks afterwards. 99% of the time id did or do use it was because I had crappy tracks and used it as a band aid.

 

Used Mastering, Its a very important tool to get things to gell and punch together properly. If I were going to lay it on it would be then weather it be a multiband limiter or straight compressor. It can makes tracks sound high fidelity or smashed like an FM radio playback if you want.