Start off by having your attack and release settings set to fast, and your ratio at infinite (or as high as you can put it)
Start bringing the threshold down til you hear a "pumping effect" then bring it up a lil til u find that "sweet spot"
Then move on to att and rel settings, adj to taste. (I typically use em fast)
Last bring the ratio down to about 3:1 to 4:1 (you can experiment with higher ratios depending how dynamic the take is)
Give it a try!!
Hello!
Yes, that does seem to be a great way to dial in compression! When I mean to go for intuitive dynamic squeeze/transparent compression your mentioned steps are often how I end up committing to sounds in the moment
Just a fun additional thought your post led me to think about again, perhaps you will have some thoughts as well?--- sometimes I'll vary the order in which I adjust the sections on the unit. A quick example: setting ratio first (and leave set), exaggerate threshold for setting attack, balance threshold, pick final release timing. To dive headfirst down a rabbit hole: I find sometimes changing the order of setting knobs can be a great way to work in some mojo if you want stereo spread to feel more alive or "non-linear". *Apologies for the buzz words lol, but I will try to illustrate:
A way to do this could be= Compress one side of a designated stereo pair with a compressor using one setting-adjustment order, then dial in the other side using a different order of dialing in settings. If you're able to achieve fairly similar levels of transparent gain reduction despite the variations in attack time, release rhythm, strength of squeeze (ratio) you should ultimately achieve a bloody subtle stereo phase/dynamic variation between the two sides!
It sounds like a no-no for technical reasons, BUT, achieving transparent dynamic control despite differences in labeled settings seems to bring subtle attention to the normally unnoticed, inherent qualities of the stereo channels. Here this audio-process translates to an pre-conscious presence of movement, and in the summed down perceptual experience of unfamiliarized-listeners: they likely perceive this movement as a stereo movement within the song which is perceived as
definitively-wide, or
uniquely exciting, etc....
like all the analog propaganda out there tries to covertly sell, there is definitely truth to the human brain getting a kick out of perceptual variation within highly preferred, perceptually expected parameters. That last idea is like watching a favorite movie-- a story with expected plot, characters, etc, but down our current rabbit hole, by some deliberate yet bizarre design you happen to see niffty little subtleties you didnt quite experience before when you've watched this favorite story unfold. I'd honestly argue most human preference develops this way----think "swings in artistic fad" throughout history. for example: was it just chaos when the spread of glam rock/metal in all its sparkly shiny glory preceded grunge in its danky raw decadence? lol, fun times.Over time and after diving into clearly preferred artistic and emotional experience We yearn for the unexplored, novel depths of unfamiliarity me thinks!
Rambles aside!! lol, I've specifically been considering this in the audio engineering realm given most veteran analog guru's I've attempted to learn from claim the aesthetic intrigue with, and gravitational pull towards, analog and vintage gear/engineering relates to the subtle variations between hardware units and their tasty products in the mix/master---I think this is perhaps true!
Alas! I've not mentioned vocals! rofl, sweet spots are where its at for vocals my friend I absolutely agree! I really think its invaluable to learn what the dynamic sweet spot sounds like, especially for vocals o course. I like what DarkRed mentioned about the importance of intentional variation throughout the song aiding the journey of the listener, I will try to respond soon if I have the time right now!
-MadHat
