track w/o compression?

lee · Post by **lee** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:09 am

im almost done tracking my record. everything's done exept a few things: the meat is cooked, it just needs a little spice. i tracked mostly everything in my livingroom, one instrument at a time. the songs have a classical feel. classical percussion and the music is very instrumental: the instruments occupy the rythym.

well, i tracked without any using compression. ive been reading a lot of bob katz's articles on his web site and figured i would try to make an album with the production of a classical record-- limited processing. ive been working a little with the mixes while im waiting for the other musicians to get their parts down. immidiately i want to reach for the compressor, i know that will give the tracks a smoother low end and make it sound like all the records that i have in my cd collection. but i want to see how far i can get without sqaushing the tracks.

openended-- without hearing the tracks, can anyone give me any advice on how i can make a "professional sounding" cd without using (or without over-using) sound processors?

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:29 am

if you record stuff well and just mix it in a pleasant balance it should turn out ok, no?

if your goal is to not use any compression, then you can go through and manually ride the levels. take that as far as you can and if it still isn't sitting quite right, then break out the compressors and just use them lightly. 20db of gain reduction is fun, but 3 will probably do...

i just mastered a record where the engineer didn't use any compression in the mix at all and it's the best sounding record i've ever had come across my desk. good band in a real studio recorded by a great engineer to 2" 16 track, go figure.

8th_note · Post by **8th_note** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:44 am

What you're doing, perhaps without knowing it, is making an audiophile record. There's a niche industry out there of musicians, studios, and labels, who make uncompressed records with the dynamics preserved that they market to people like me with high-end stereos. I repeat, what you're attempting to do is to make a high fidelity recording.

That doesn't mean that some judicious compression won't help but don't be afraid to do your mix without any compression and see how it turns out. Yes, it's not going to sound like all the dreck that's getting airplay these days - it will sound better.

You might want to put a statement on the CD that the recording intentionally preserves the dynamics of the original performance, in other words, this record goes from quiet to really loud!

One of my favorite and best sounding projects is one where the band and I spent quite a bit of time discussing how much compression we wanted to use. I'm a one-stop-shop and do the mastering here so I have complete control over the final product. I did a test mix of a particular song with a modern amount of compression and I did an alternate mix with a minimum of compression. The song started with a quiet clean guitar part and built to a huge piano climax toward the end of the song. We all liked the less compressed version better and that's the way I mixed and mastered the whole album.

After the album was released I met several of the band's friends and I must have gotten a dozen reactions like the following, "You're the guy who recorded that record? Man, I love the sound of that CD." I think that one of the reasons they liked it was because it had dynamics. They didn't know that, particularly, but they knew that CD sounded different from the others in their collection.

So, to sum up - rock on, dude. Put down the crack pipe, unplug the compressor (or kill the plugin), and see what happens. If you have to use some compression to get a special character in the sound of certain tracks, fine. I know, going cold turkey is hard. But you can do it. We're here for ya, man.

pootkao · Post by **pootkao** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 12:29 pm

its funny how addicting compression gets sometimes. i find myself reaching for a plugin before i really need to far too often.

last night i posed a challenge to myself to re-mix something that is pretty dynamic but use compression only on subgroups (drums, horns, bgv). its the most alive sounding mix i've done in ages.

there really needs to be a self-help group for those of us who need to do less. because it really does equal more. you just have to trust your ears.

jckinnick · Post by **jckinnick** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 9:51 pm

8th_note wrote:What you're doing, perhaps without knowing it, is making an audiophile record. There's a niche industry out there of musicians, studios, and labels, who make uncompressed records with the dynamics preserved that they market to people like me with high-end stereos. I repeat, what you're attempting to do is to make a high fidelity recording.

That doesn't mean that some judicious compression won't help but don't be afraid to do your mix without any compression and see how it turns out. Yes, it's not going to sound like all the dreck that's getting airplay these days - it will sound better.

You might want to put a statement on the CD that the recording intentionally preserves the dynamics of the original performance, in other words, this record goes from quiet to really loud!

One of my favorite and best sounding projects is one where the band and I spent quite a bit of time discussing how much compression we wanted to use. I'm a one-stop-shop and do the mastering here so I have complete control over the final product. I did a test mix of a particular song with a modern amount of compression and I did an alternate mix with a minimum of compression. The song started with a quiet clean guitar part and built to a huge piano climax toward the end of the song. We all liked the less compressed version better and that's the way I mixed and mastered the whole album.

After the album was released I met several of the band's friends and I must have gotten a dozen reactions like the following, "You're the guy who recorded that record? Man, I love the sound of that CD." I think that one of the reasons they liked it was because it had dynamics. They didn't know that, particularly, but they knew that CD sounded different from the others in their collection.

So, to sum up - rock on, dude. Put down the crack pipe, unplug the compressor (or kill the plugin), and see what happens. If you have to use some compression to get a special character in the sound of certain tracks, fine. I know, going cold turkey is hard. But you can do it. We're here for ya, man.

Cant compression bring out subtle nuances wouldnt that be good for an audiophile?

OM15.2 · Post by **OM15.2** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 11:20 pm

jckinnick wrote:
8th_note wrote:What you're doing, perhaps without knowing it, is making an audiophile record. There's a niche industry out there of musicians, studios, and labels, who make uncompressed records with the dynamics preserved that they market to people like me with high-end stereos. I repeat, what you're attempting to do is to make a high fidelity recording.

That doesn't mean that some judicious compression won't help but don't be afraid to do your mix without any compression and see how it turns out. Yes, it's not going to sound like all the dreck that's getting airplay these days - it will sound better.

You might want to put a statement on the CD that the recording intentionally preserves the dynamics of the original performance, in other words, this record goes from quiet to really loud!

One of my favorite and best sounding projects is one where the band and I spent quite a bit of time discussing how much compression we wanted to use. I'm a one-stop-shop and do the mastering here so I have complete control over the final product. I did a test mix of a particular song with a modern amount of compression and I did an alternate mix with a minimum of compression. The song started with a quiet clean guitar part and built to a huge piano climax toward the end of the song. We all liked the less compressed version better and that's the way I mixed and mastered the whole album.

After the album was released I met several of the band's friends and I must have gotten a dozen reactions like the following, "You're the guy who recorded that record? Man, I love the sound of that CD." I think that one of the reasons they liked it was because it had dynamics. They didn't know that, particularly, but they knew that CD sounded different from the others in their collection.

So, to sum up - rock on, dude. Put down the crack pipe, unplug the compressor (or kill the plugin), and see what happens. If you have to use some compression to get a special character in the sound of certain tracks, fine. I know, going cold turkey is hard. But you can do it. We're here for ya, man.

Cant compression bring out suttle nuances wouldnt that be good for an audiophile?

yes and no

RefD · Post by **RefD** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:39 am

the corksniffers would freak right out if they detected any processing sullying the audio passing thru their wood-knobbed attenuators.

but i think that particular segment are half-deaf from the dental drills they use all day, so it don't mattah.

nowt wrong with dynamics processing, but sometimes it's good to go without (or at least very little).

what does the recording actually need?

if it needs no processing, then that's where you go with it.

it's all a series of judgement calls.

$0.02

8th_note · Post by **8th_note** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:50 pm

Cant compression bring out suttle nuances wouldnt that be good for an audiophile?

Sure, and that's why I wouldn't advocate swearing off it completely. I was just trying to make the point that we get locked into using a lot of compression because everybody else seems to be doing it.

I compress the hell out of most of my projects because my client wants that modern commercial sound. It's nice, however, when I work with someone who has a fresh perspective.

river · Post by **river** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:50 pm

I compress the hell out of most of my projects because my client wants that modern commercial sound

Ah yes.....sheet music. We all must go there from time to time.

I never print compression on tracks because there's no undo button for that. If you have raw tracks at the start of the mixing, you can go anywhere you want with it, and still have the opportunity to change your mind or do a remix of a completely different nature. Some of my favorite mixes that I've done are roughs off my board after a tracking session, with maybe a very slight touch of low ratio main bus compression to tame an occasional peak.

joel hamilton · Post by **joel hamilton** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:53 pm

RefD wrote:it's all a series of judgement calls.

lee · Post by **lee** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:57 am

thanks for the encouragment fellas.

it's going to be tough, but with a support group like you, i'll be sober in no time.

i'll post some mp3's in the next few days if anyone's interested.

vvv · Post by **vvv** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 2:22 pm

For what it's worth, I only print compression going in when I play the compressor, e.g., on bass and typically on vocals.

MoreSpaceEcho · Post by **MoreSpaceEcho** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:19 pm

you play the compressor on bass when you're tracking a band playing songs you've never heard before? i'm not trying to be argumentative, i'm curious how you do that.

A-Barr · Post by **A-Barr** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:55 pm

no compression is the new compression

Sean Shannon · Post by **Sean Shannon** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:31 am

Compress on the way in? As with everything in audio, it depends.

Once you learn the sound of compression, it's OK to track with one, and a properly controlled track can be easy to fit in a mix. Overcompressing on the way in, however, is tough to undo.

Message Board

track w/o compression?

track w/o compression?

Who is online