COMPRESSING OVERHEADS....

[Recycled_Brains]

The point is that you process the signal in parallel to itself. If that makes sense.

/Jonas

this helps, but please explain what you mean by "parallel to itself" more specifically.

i'm not sure if you mean, process the copy in the same way as the original signal, or do it in sort of an opposite (mirror image maybe) kind of way, or maybe both of those are way off....

[Jonkan]

just create a copy (or bus the signal so that you get a parallel copy of the original signal), and then process it with something (like a compressor)..then blend the two signals (which come from the same source) to taste.

So that you have the "original" signal, and the processed signal underneath it.

Somebody else, explain this in better words please!

/J

[Recycled_Brains]

.

Somebody else, explain this in better words please!

/J

i got it. thanks.

i've actually done that in the past with acoustic guitars. i just never heard the term parallel to describe it.

[chrissss]

i'm not sure if you mean, process the copy in the same way as the original signal, or do it in sort of an opposite (mirror image maybe) kind of way, or maybe both of those are way off....


i think you're overthinking it. it's less complicated than that. the core of the idea is that you double the track and effect one of them, while leaving the other as it is.

so lets say i have a vocal on track one that i want to compress.

the 'regular' way to do it would be:
->output the vocal track it to channel 1 of my board, insert a compressor, and compress it.
or i could do it the 'parallel' way:
->output the vocal track to channel 1 AND channel 2 of my board (now i have two channels with the exact same signal). Then I insert a compressor only on channel 2 and compress. Now i have 2 channels with the vocal track on them, but one is untouched, and one is compressed (so now i can play with the balance of the two using the faders).

so that's all it is. hope that made sense, it's really easy to overthink these things, especially when a couple different terms are being thrown around, but really parallel compression is just the idea that there are TWO versions of the same track, one WITH compression, one WITHOUT.

-chris

[Professor]

Jeremy: most of the time it is a pair of Omni's (earthworks TC30k's) on stereo bar, just for ease of placement. Spaced omni basically. I can rotate thm on the bar and use that as my "width" on the way in.

Funny. As I was writing that question, the thought struck me that it might be best when using spaced omnis since at least in theory, they rely entirely on phase differences for stereo placement while the coincident techniques are necessarily in-phase and wouldn't change much with an MS matrix. Prehaps I'll to revisit some old mixes that had spaced omnis or at least keep this in mind next time I have the QTC-1 pair up over a drumset. Come to think of it, I close mic'ed the grand piano (lid closed so it was really close) with a pair of DPA 4061 miniature omnis, and when I do that I always have a little bit of trouble in the middle two octaves of the piano so I'll have to see if this will help that out for the big band mixing.

While poking around on ye olde internet, I found that Ted Fletcher (designer for the Joe Meek gear) has a product called Edward the Compressor which doesn't yet seem to be in production but which does this whole process in one box. It says in the documentation in various places that he used an MS encoder, then a dual compressor on M and S, and then an MS decoder as a way of overcoming the problems of inconsistencies in light sources for an opto compressor which cause subtle LR drifting of the center image. By compressing in MS instead, those problems result in subtle widening and narrowing of the image which is much harder to detect than LR drift of the center - and the ability to add a "width" control comes as a sort of free bonus.

-Jeremy

[joel hamilton]

Jeremy: most of the time it is a pair of Omni's (earthworks TC30k's) on stereo bar, just for ease of placement. Spaced omni basically. I can rotate thm on the bar and use that as my "width" on the way in.

Funny. As I was writing that question, the thought struck me that it might be best when using spaced omnis since at least in theory, they rely entirely on phase differences for stereo placement while the coincident techniques are necessarily in-phase and wouldn't change much with an MS matrix. Prehaps I'll to revisit some old mixes that had spaced omnis or at least keep this in mind next time I have the QTC-1 pair up over a drumset. Come to think of it, I close mic'ed the grand piano (lid closed so it was really close) with a pair of DPA 4061 miniature omnis, and when I do that I always have a little bit of trouble in the middle two octaves of the piano so I'll have to see if this will help that out for the big band mixing.

While poking around on ye olde internet, I found that Ted Fletcher (designer for the Joe Meek gear) has a product called Edward the Compressor which doesn't yet seem to be in production but which does this whole process in one box. It says in the documentation in various places that he used an MS encoder, then a dual compressor on M and S, and then an MS decoder as a way of overcoming the problems of inconsistencies in light sources for an opto compressor which cause subtle LR drifting of the center image. By compressing in MS instead, those problems result in subtle widening and narrowing of the image which is much harder to detect than LR drift of the center - and the ability to add a "width" control comes as a sort of free bonus.

-Jeremy

Teds box looks amazing for that, and it is much less expensive than the manley vari-mu that you can get with the MS feature.
I saw that TFpro box at TapeOpcon. Ted was showing that, and and EQ (that I slammed in a review. I hated it, and that is rare).

Funny that you guessed the omni thing. For the reasons you outlined as well. The "width" control I get out of that arrangement is stupid. Really boggles my mind even when i am the one doing it! Ya know what i mean? even when i know the theory... Because in practice, the phase relationships to the snare (for instance) in the OH will vary from sesion to session greatly. that is why I said "sometimes" when talking about "turning OFF the snare in the OH." conversely, it is amazing to me when i am mixing tracks i did not record, but have been presented with to mix, how much I can "get back in" and really change the overall kit balance in the OH alone, never mind doing this across an entire drum sub, treating it like a stereo source and really poking around "inside" the phase relationships. Straight HPF and LPF coupled with this technique can change the overall sonics of a drum recording SO effectively. I have relied on this VERY heavily during mixes with . um, questionable phase relationships in the drums, and any other multi-mic'd source for that matter. Mostly drums though, because if there is a shit recording of a guitar cab with two mics, I can almost always just lean on the "better" of the two, ya know?

[Jonkan]

Joel, im definately gonna experiment with M/S matrixes and these techniques next time im mixing something. It sounds like loads of fun!

and chrisss:

but really parallel compression is just the idea that there are TWO versions of the same track, one WITH compression, one WITHOUT.

Nice explanation, but...

I often both paralell and serial compress stuff...So paralell compression doesnt necessarily need to be one uncompressed signal mixed with a compressed copy. It can also be a compressed signal mixed with a differently compressed copy or mult, if that makes sense. The main thing is that the new signal is paralell to the original.

I often do this on drums. Compress both the individual tracks, and then parallell compress mults of single drums and groups of drums.

Sometimes i create 2 or 3 mults of a signal and process them differently than the original to get what i want.

Im probably overabusing compression alot, but it works for me ITB...
/J

[Recycled_Brains]

I often both paralell and serial compress stuff...So paralell compression doesnt necessarily need to be one uncompressed signal mixed with a compressed copy. It can also be a compressed signal mixed with a differently compressed copy or mult, if that makes sense. The main thing is that the new signal is paralell to the original.

I often do this on drums. Compress both the individual tracks, and then parallell compress mults of single drums and groups of drums.

Sometimes i create 2 or 3 mults of a signal and process them differently than the original to get what i want.

Im probably overabusing compression alot, but it works for me ITB...
/J

i like doing this as well. never done it with drums before. it's fun to try out with vocals. i also tried it out with acoustic guitar recently. i really hammered one side with the "all buttons in" comp. on the 1176 plug-in, and then used a bit less (but still pretty slammed) on the duplicate, and panned the two at around 40 l and r..... sounded really cool.