Jump to content

Compression is it a crutch?


Recommended Posts

  • Members
Actually, I do. If it didn't have an effect on the signal, there would be no point to it.


Continue to be a pompous, condescending ass!
:thu:



"transparent compression" doesn't mean it has "no effect on the signal"-

You make it so easy to be condecending because you are so ignorant.
:wave:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 119
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Rather than argue, maybe you two could try finding common ground in terms of the definitions and terminology... :idea:

 

For example; Bryan, can you please define what "transparent compression" means to you?

 

Then if you guys still disagree, please do so agreeably. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I like compression. I don't really think of it as a crutch - although I know some people will think what I am about to say will sound like it is a crutch.

It really helps if you play clean with long delays to keep things in check and stop stuff popping out too much. The extra even sustain really helps build even delayed textures.

Extra sustain is the best part of a compressor IMO. Transparent compression for me is where you get this extra sustain but retain the character of your none compressed sound (by character I mean texture, EQ etc... of your uncompressed tone).

Now, down to important issues - whay the hell is there not a parody thread about 'compression in your crotch'?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

OK! now lets get into compressor/limiting. I think its the limiting that most guitar players don't care for or at least the ones that hate comps.. A clean sounding compressor would be one that doesn't change the tone . example TC pedal comp or the Keeley comp.
Ross types like the boss cs3 can get honky. Compressor /limiting can also take away from your high end so the addition of a treble control can be a +

WTF are you all fighting over a comp ? I'm wondering if either of you know what a comp does.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

I'm still not sure what the concept of compression as a crutch is. What is it a crutch for? Distortion is a crutch for notes that aren't cleanly attacked, or hit; but I don't get what compression does to your playing to make it appear better than it is, I'm guessing the sustain is what everyone is getting at.

 

I don't think I really use compression for additional sustain. I just use it because it makes those two and four positions on my Strat pickup switch sound even more pronounced. You know, that Alex Chilton Big Star type guitar sound (although, not quite to that extent). I just use it as an available tone, I guess more of an EQ to alter the tone than to actually play long sustaining solos and "play" the effect.

 

This probably doesn't make sense, if anyone wants clarification of any part of what I tried to say, just ask. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
I like compression. I don't really think of it as a crutch - although I know some people will think what I am about to say will sound like it is a crutch.


It really helps if you play clean with long delays to keep things in check and stop stuff popping out too much. The extra
even
sustain really helps build even delayed textures.


Extra sustain is the best part of a compressor IMO. Transparent compression for me is where you get this extra sustain but retain the character of your none compressed sound (by character I mean texture, EQ etc... of your uncompressed tone).


Now, down to important issues - whay the hell is there not a parody thread about 'compression in your crotch'?



That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.

That said, if the thing sounded exactly the same on as off, it would be a useless tool. People use compression because they like what it does to their sound, not because it does nothing to their sound.

"Transparency" is just another cork-sniffing buzzword, most of the time, though.

My ignorance might make it easy to be condescending, Bryan, but it doesn't make it easy to spell it*, huh?:lol:

*Some might say that looking at the spelling in the very post you're quoting, or even using spell check, is easy, but everybody's at their own level, I guess.:idk:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.


That said, if the thing sounded exactly the same on as off, it would be a useless tool. People use compression because they like what it does to their sound, not because it does nothing to their sound.


"Transparency" is just another cork-sniffing buzzword, most of the time, though.


My ignorance might make it easy to
be
condescending, Bryan, but it doesn't make it easy to spell it*, huh?
:lol:

*Some might say that looking at the spelling in the very post you're quoting, or even using spell check, is easy, but everybody's at their own level, I guess.
:idk:




I don't use a comp for what it does to my sound but what it does to my signal. "Transparency" a buzz word? naaaaaaaaaa!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
When I started the thread what I was saying is if your heavy handed and have a tendency to pick some notes harder than others. Compression will even those notes out and make them sound the same level.



yep! that it will do and the weak note it will bring up. But the trade off is loss of Dynamics. But if you have an attack control.............

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah- the Nanny Nazi returns
:thu:



Are you interested in discussing the subject, or are you just here to hurl insults at people? :confused:

You still have not answered my question regarding "transparent compression". I think I know what you mean - I certainly know what the term means to me - but I don't want to make any assumptions here, so I asked for your definition. :)

I'm sorry if attempting to engage you in a civil discussion, or asking you to define the very term that you yourself used is proving to be too difficult or too much trouble for you... :facepalm: but that's the only way you're going to have any positive influence on all of the ignorant / "stupid guitarists". :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.




My ignorance might make it easy to
be
condescending, Bryan, but it doesn't make it easy to spell it*, huh?
:lol:

*Some might say that looking at the spelling in the very post you're quoting, or even using spell check, is easy, but everybody's at their own level, I guess.
:idk:



Touche mon ami- well played sir.

:thu:

As for Phil's Nanny Nazi comments- I've been here a long time- 90% of the time I'm the most helpful muthaF@*kah you'll ever encounter. 10% of the time I'm gonna piss all over everything- call it old age or boredom or being tired of explaining the same ol' {censored}e.

Whatevah-
:thu:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members

my analogy was not ill conceived, thank you very much. you actually just proved my point:

 

going with the analogy as you advanced it:

-outside environment is your guitar signal

-inside is your guitar signal's destination (i.e., your amp)

 

the window keeps the rain/weather outside. the wind/rain are the transients of the signal. but it still lets light through, the light being the desired part of the signal. so even though it doesn't have any appreciable affect on the desired guitar signal, it still is blocking the rain/weather (transients) when it passes the outside environment to your inside environment.

 

see how complicated you made this?? haha.

 

short version: even though windows don't look like they're doing anything, they still are doing something you want (read: even though you might not hear the "transparent" compression doing something, it is still doing something you want)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.

 

I wouldn't completely agree with that. :) From my perspective (as an audio engineer), I tend to think of gain reduction / dynamic range compression (without any artifacts) as "transparent compression", and things that add a lot of noise, distortion, or change the envelope (attack or sustain characteristics), or change the tone of the incoming audio in any audible way would be the antithesis of "transparent" to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.


I wouldn't completely agree with that.
:)
From my perspective (as an audio engineer), I tend to think of gain reduction / dynamic range compression (without any artifacts) as "transparent compression", and things that add a lot of noise, distortion, or change the envelope (attack or sustain characteristics), or change the tone of the incoming audio in any audible way would be the antithesis of "transparent" to me.



That makes sense to me as well (more so, in the big picture). I was mostly just referring to the "not changing the basic tone" part of the post (which I should have culled the quote down to, I guess). I'm thinking in terms of compressor pedals for guitar, rather than compression in general, as well.

The only point I've been trying to make is that dynamic range compression (and other applications, for that matter, even if it's so transparent that that's purely all it's doing) makes a difference in what's coming out of the speakers.

I was (I thought obviously) joking about using a tuner pedal for the ultimate in transparency (the use of signal buffers in most of them should have been the giveaway:p). I actually do understand what's going on somewhat, believe it or not.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Members
That's a pretty good definition of transparency, as far as "transparency" is concerned.


I wouldn't completely agree with that.
:)
From my perspective (as an audio engineer), I tend to think of gain reduction / dynamic range compression (without any artifacts) as "transparent compression", and things that add a lot of noise, distortion, or change the envelope (attack or sustain characteristics), or change the tone of the incoming audio in any audible way would be the antithesis of "transparent" to me.



Interesting stuff. Obviously trasnparent means different things to different people - it is a slightly annoying and non-specific term.

In terms of Phil's, much better, description of transparent, I clearly do not like transparent compression - and as Electric Catfish says - I want to hear the effect compression is having or I would not want to use one.

I still feel that it may or may not be a crutch depending on how you use it - I feel there are things I could not do without it. i don't think I am using it to compensate for technique - maybe I'll feel differently in a few years when I am a more experienced player.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 12 years later...
  • Members

Let me put it this way… I've been using light compression as the first stop in my signal chain since about 1978 (way longer than most of you have been alive.) Just a week or so ago, I thought, "Hey, how about I turn off the compressor, and just use it for solos?" 

Worked great for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...