Parallel Compression on....EVERYTHING!?

EYENSEE

EYENSEE

EYENSEE- Ian C.- Ken Sino
Question(s) for the mixing guys...
(Please correct me if I'm wrong with my logic)


We all know that adding a compressor to everything can make a mix sound ugly.

but using the parallel compression technique, it sort of retains the dynamics of your original sound, because the compression is on its on seperate track

Could I potentially add parallel compression to ALL my tracks/instruments and adjust the gain of the compression to taste?

Is this a good or bad idea?

Is this something common/uncommon with mix engineers?

Should my parallel compression settings be different for each instrument..

ex. drums/piano/horns..etc
 
Last edited:
GOOD QUESTION i know im not a big time mixing engineer, but usually what i do is put a compressor on a bus channel and send my instrument to it. however, i do put a compressor on my drums cuz i need them to stand out tha most. it also depends on what type of music you're doing. but like i said im not an expert, just try a little experimenting my dude good luck oh yeah and eqing helps alot too
 
Well, first it's important to understand that parallel compression is a different sound. So it depends on what you are going for. I don't use a lot of parallel compression on a lot of different tracks when I mix; I just use it where necessary.

For example, when I have live real drums, I will often use some parallel compression (although this gets complicated because, due to the bleed, any compression you do on drums could, in theory, be considered a bastardized form of parallel compression). Sometimes on a submix of all drums, or just on overheads or the room. This is done for a oomph/mojo reason more than a controlling dynamics reason.

Piano is an instrument that really benefits from parallel compression and it's my default compression mode as opposed to traditional compression. This is because of the complexity of the signal and trying to build the sustain without damaging the transient which is a critical component of a piano's sound.

Other places where I use parallel compression are typically to fix issues that the producer/engineer didn't do right when they selected their sounds and recorded them.

If you are really disliking standard compression, you might consider how you are implementing it. For examples, I really use little to no compression on the drums for urban records unless there's a serious problem. So it's not like you need to run around compressing everything (big misconception out there). Another example, on vocals rather than trying to get one compressor to do all the work, I typically split the job up between two (to as many as four) compressors. Also, consider the type of compression used. Optical compression responds VERY differently than VCA compression, for example. Sometimes you have to find the right kind of compressor for the job - not to mention set them correctly.

IMO, I feel like newer folks tend to look for the complicated solutions before mastering the simple ones. Why? I don't know. I will say, when I was younger, that it was MORE FUN to do some crazy processing instead of taking a simpler (and quite possibly better approach). But cooler/more fun doesn't make for a better mix. I think most people OVERTHINK the process too much and turn mixes into poo instead of just keeping things simple.

If you were to watch me mix, it would seem like I'm doing a billion INCREDIBLY SIMPLE things and not much that's really all that complicated.
 
chris carter said:
Well, first it's important to understand that parallel compression is a different sound. So it depends on what you are going for. I don't use a lot of parallel compression on a lot of different tracks when I mix; I just use it where necessary.

For example, when I have live real drums, I will often use some parallel compression (although this gets complicated because, due to the bleed, any compression you do on drums could, in theory, be considered a bastardized form of parallel compression). Sometimes on a submix of all drums, or just on overheads or the room. This is done for a oomph/mojo reason more than a controlling dynamics reason.

Piano is an instrument that really benefits from parallel compression and it's my default compression mode as opposed to traditional compression. This is because of the complexity of the signal and trying to build the sustain without damaging the transient which is a critical component of a piano's sound.

Other places where I use parallel compression are typically to fix issues that the producer/engineer didn't do right when they selected their sounds and recorded them.

If you are really disliking standard compression, you might consider how you are implementing it. For examples, I really use little to no compression on the drums for urban records unless there's a serious problem. So it's not like you need to run around compressing everything (big misconception out there). Another example, on vocals rather than trying to get one compressor to do all the work, I typically split the job up between two (to as many as four) compressors. Also, consider the type of compression used. Optical compression responds VERY differently than VCA compression, for example. Sometimes you have to find the right kind of compressor for the job - not to mention set them correctly.

IMO, I feel like newer folks tend to look for the complicated solutions before mastering the simple ones. Why? I don't know. I will say, when I was younger, that it was MORE FUN to do some crazy processing instead of taking a simpler (and quite possibly better approach). But cooler/more fun doesn't make for a better mix. I think most people OVERTHINK the process too much and turn mixes into poo instead of just keeping things simple.

If you were to watch me mix, it would seem like I'm doing a billion INCREDIBLY SIMPLE things and not much that's really all that complicated.
Click to expand...

thanks Chris! some very good info :)
 
Well said Chris.

This is a quote from the stickied thread on 'Legends Of Mixing/Mastering'

Originally Posted by Steve Albini
"I'm often asked about mixing records … 99 percent of mixing is moving the faders up and down until you find where it sounds good … Not screwing with the sound, not dreaming up elaborate effects, not manipulating the sound … "The great majority of what you do is solving problems"

It has been said before, but listen to the mix, address the problems, and let the mix tell you what needs to be done.

There are times when parallel compression could be used on every track, and times when nothing is needed at all.

But yes it is quite a common technique amongst mix engineers, and if it is improving your mixes then stay with it!
 
I use parallel compression on live drums and acoustic instruments if I want it to sound "bigger".

I use standard opto or VariMu compression if I want it to sound smooth.

I use standard FET compression for an aggressive sound.

I use sidechaining compression for a pumping fx or creating space.

I use bus compression for a gluing together factor.

I find it that simple. I think that the "knocking" but well mixed drum sound that most people are looking for can be done by throwing a limiter on a kick with a boost at 1kHz, a 4:1 compression on a clap with a scoop at 600Hz, and parallel compression on the cymbals and hats with a 2kHz scoop. This is not a formula but it will get you in the practice of using different compression types and understand what sound comes from them as well as giving you a great starting point. This is for a hip-hop or dance/pop style of drums. Not for a live drum set, more of a live/synth style.
 
Morning_Star said:
I find it that simple. I think that the "knocking" but well mixed drum sound that most people are looking for can be done by throwing a limiter on a kick with a boost at 1kHz, a 4:1 compression on a clap with a scoop at 600Hz, and parallel compression on the cymbals and hats with a 2kHz scoop. This is not a formula but it will get you in the practice of using different compression types and understand what sound comes from them as well as giving you a great starting point. This is for a hip-hop or dance/pop style of drums. Not for a live drum set, more of a live/synth style.
Click to expand...


woOt! +1 great info!
 
I'm reading this thread and loving it.


Morning_Star said:
I use parallel compression on live drums and acoustic instruments if I want it to sound "bigger".

I use standard opto or VariMu compression if I want it to sound smooth.

I use standard FET compression for an aggressive sound.

I use sidechaining compression for a pumping fx or creating space.

I use bus compression for a gluing together factor.

I find it that simple. I think that the "knocking" but well mixed drum sound that most people are looking for can be done by throwing a limiter on a kick with a boost at 1kHz, a 4:1 compression on a clap with a scoop at 600Hz, and parallel compression on the cymbals and hats with a 2kHz scoop. This is not a formula but it will get you in the practice of using different compression types and understand what sound comes from them as well as giving you a great starting point. This is for a hip-hop or dance/pop style of drums. Not for a live drum set, more of a live/synth style.
Click to expand...


By scoop... do you mean lowering the levels?
 
I've only felt the need to use a parallel compression technique on drums really, when i really want them to knock hard. This would usually be sampeled/programmed drums. I would still have my normal compression/eq on the seperate drum tracks, but also send these tracks to an aux with some more extreme compression and eq. I would mix this 'extreme' track with the regular drum tracks to liking.
 
Making drums knock is not done by compression. It's eq. Compression actually kills the attack making it not knock at all. And parallel compression, as described, is for compressing the transients for a "big acoustical sound" while retaining the dynamics of the drums.

I think you have yourself fooled. The very function of a compressor doesn't do what you are claiming.
 
I actually disagree with that.

The relationship between the fader level, EQ, and compression is a murky one at best. I've used compression on drums to make them "knock". I've used compression on drums sound to CREATE dynamics, which would seem the opposite of what they are designed to do, but yes, you can actually create more dynamic and transient response with compression. I've also done with same with nothing more than the fader. I've also done it with nothing more than EQ. I think, at some level, we have to get away from the whole "this tool is for this, and that tool is for that" kind of thing. The reality is that instead of all these tools fitting nice and neat into individual boxes (jobs) it's really more like dropping bucketfulls of paint into boxes from 100 feet up - the paint kind of goes everywhere.

But in general, I'd say that most 'newer' engineers do way too much processing on individual instrument sounds. There have been soooo many times where I'll go to some person's home studio with a friend to listen to what they are working on and I'll see all this EQ and compression and whatnot all over the place - especially on stuff like the kick. And I'll say, "why'd you do all that" and they say, "tryin' ta make in BANG!" And then I turn off all their EQ bands and compression and whatever and then put on like a low shelf (or NOTHING) and move the fader a nudge and BAM, now it's BANGIN'
 
Knock refers to the 1kHz range in the attack. The only way to use a compressor to make them knock is to allow this attack through the compressor unaffected but it has to already contain the knock factor and your just compressing the trans of the kick to make the attack stick out more. I think people are confusing boom and hard hitting bass with knock. Think about knocking on a door. That is the sound that makes kicks "knock" and punch through a mix.

If you want drums to "bang" compress the hell out of them. If you want them to "knock" you need eq or use a compressor to make the attack more pronounced that already has a knocking attack kinda like a transient designer.
 
Also I would like to know how to create dynamics by using a compressor, a device that's entire job is to limit the dynamic range of something.
 
Oh, my bad for misunderstanding the difference between "knockin'" and "bangin'". Hopefully, you can define for me "bumpin'" and "kickin'" and "thumpin'" and "slappin'" and all the other vague adjectives we use for beats that, well, do WHATEVER the word is that I want LOL.

Morning_Star said:
Also I would like to know how to create dynamics by using a compressor, a device that's entire job is to limit the dynamic range of something.
Click to expand...

It is very common to use a compressor to create greater dynamic range in a kick or snare (bass and guitar are other common places, but it can be done on anything really). The basic concept is to set your ratio, attack and release in such away that you create some waveshaping whereby the attack of the sound is emphasized in relation to the rest of the sound - in other words, let the front edge of the sound through while clamping down on the remainder of a sound. For example, when mixing distorted guitars that have no freakin' attack (very common problem), I might take a compressor and set it to 4:1 with a slow attack (ie. 40ms) and a fast release (ie. 20ms) and start lowing the threshold (or input as the case may be) until I get the amount of attack that I want. If I want monster attack, I crush the snot out of the thing. If I just want a little attack, I just knock off a couple dB. Examples of this would be the song "B Song" on my music page or the track "h0711" on my beats page. The method can be applid to nearly any instrument that has a front edge of any kind to it. For example, the song "Scorpio" on my music page has a synth sound that comes in during the chorus that didn't have enough attack on the sound, it was a less dymanic, very static, type of sound. So I created greater dymanic range in teh sound by increasing it's attack so that it had a much more pronounced front edge (because it's not louder than the rest of the sound instead of essentially the same volume as the rest of the sound). This was done using a compressor. These are just examples where I remember doing it and to demonstrate that it's a technique that can be used on drums sounds or any other sounds (as demonstrated).
 
Last edited:
There's nothing better than watching two people who know what they're talking about go at it.

Everybody gains from that.
 
Ah, I see. Like a transient designers. Compression without makeup gain. I've done this for bass guitar and 808's for a more bouncy feel.
 
Morning Star is so right

For some reason most people think a compressor is the answer for everything

If you want your drums to knock why would you use a compressor
It will only knock down the your peaks
That is the attack part
That is the part makes that gives the snares knock
The snap

All you are doing is bring up the decay of the snares

Increasing the attack on the compressor will let the known.

The only problem is few people know what they are doing

So they may not know that fact

A transient designer is better

It will help you shape the sound

Don't sleep

Listen to the man

He knows what is up

Now if it was a 808 I would compress that **** because I want that body.
So
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EYENSEE said:
Question(s) for the mixing guys...
(Please correct me if I'm wrong with my logic)


We all know that adding a compressor to everything can make a mix sound ugly.

but using the parallel compression technique, it sort of retains the dynamics of your original sound, because the compression is on its on seperate track

Could I potentially add parallel compression to ALL my tracks/instruments and adjust the gain of the compression to taste?

Is this a good or bad idea?

Is this something common/uncommon with mix engineers?

Should my parallel compression settings be different for each instrument..

ex. drums/piano/horns..etc
Click to expand...

First of all, you are not understanding what "parallel compression" is.


"Parallel compression" is deals with compressing a track twice with different settengs (you can look it up)...

When you talk about "parallel compression", you seem to be talking about plain old regular compression used in the way it is typically used in a normal mic.

It is not unusual to put a compressor on every track... In fact, it is quite typical to do that...

And yes, the settings should be different for each track. Each instrument is different and needs it's own setting... And each performance is different so you need to look at each track individually and determine what it needs... This is why compressor presets are useless.


(and when you talked about "putting a compressor on every track" you seem to be talking about putting a compressor on the mix bus or overall mix... This is also quite common and a typical part if mastering. It us not the act of compressing the overall mix that makes things sound "ugly"... It is the *misuse* of compressors that do that... And the misuse of a compressor in *any* situation will make your music sound ugly.
 
dvyce said:
First of all, you are not understanding what "parallel compression" is.


"Parallel compression" is deals with compressing a track twice with different settengs (you can look it up)...

When you talk about "parallel compression", you seem to be talking about plain old regular compression used in the way it is typically used in a normal mic.

It is not unusual to put a compressor on every track... In fact, it is quite typical to do that...

And yes, the settings should be different for each track. Each instrument is different and needs it's own setting... And each performance is different so you need to look at each track individually and determine what it needs... This is why compressor presets are useless.


(and when you talked about "putting a compressor on every track" you seem to be talking about putting a compressor on the mix bus or overall mix... This is also quite common and a typical part if mastering. It us not the act of compressing the overall mix that makes things sound "ugly"... It is the *misuse* of compressors that do that... And the misuse of a compressor in *any* situation will make your music sound ugly.
Click to expand...

++++++++5 beers

u really nailed the argument. pple really need to understand the basics of these sound tool and the advanced application.
in my best of knowledge, the compressor was chiefly designed to squeeze the dynamics. overtime and experience pple realized that they could be employed for other uses( i guess these uses stemmed from "abuse" of these tools)
now lets take an example. u need to have that extra stick to the snare, u could well boost the range of the "stick" with EQ. another possible approach is by using compression with ultra slow attacks. maybe the maiden way is to combine the two processes. how do u choose the best? u jus experiment with both and see what excites u. period.
to drive the point home, parallel compression is jus one of these extraenous uses of a compressor. know how it sounds, experiment with it and then see if it excites u when mixing a particular tune.

in short, no fixed rules. u really need to read up on this tool, experiment and then keep documenting the unusual applications of the compressor.
:cheers:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top