Two Stage Compression
"Craw in the ass" apology accepted and I'm not going to waste time analyzing whether the article was condescending or not, because obviously I don't think it was, yet if you felt condescended to, who can argue with that - it's the case of the old hassidic parable where both parties are right.
The first thing we need to address is your accusation of plagiarism. As a writer, I'm sure you know that's a very serious accusation and when you made it, you didn't give any specifics 1 at least I don't see anything in your last post that I recognize as specifics. As we never met in person before AES, a couple of weeks ago, I won't lose too much sleep if at the end of this discussion you still believe that to be the case, but you've made that accusation in a public forum that from now on, can come up on a Google search. And, both concepts in question are sophisticated enough that many people who read your accusation will be unable to evaluate it for themselves. I don't think that copies of both articles available online, so unless someone who's a fairly skilled engineer, sits down with both magazines, including the one from four years ago, it's going to be extremely hard for anyone to evaluate the accuracy of your accusation.
Additionally, you have to realize that your accusation reflects not just on me, but on the magazine and the editor too (who did make some changes to what I wrote). The article is not what I submitted verbatim. So, it seems to me that you should either make a serious formal complaint or remove you post or at the minimum that part from within your post - because it certainly makes one of us look really bad. I'm pretty confident that the simple fact that Brauer's multi-buss concept requires multiple stereo busses and mine can be done by daisy chaining to mono compressors makes them distinctly different concepts. So, additionally, I think an apology for that accusation is due, but of course that's up to you.
I also find is surprising that, considering the fact that we had a brief in-person conversation a few weeks ago, that if you had a serious grievance with something I wrote that you would air it publicly in a potentially defaming way, should you be accidentally mistaken. You took the time to email Larry, and Tape Op always publishes some kind of contact info with the article - email or website. Worst case scenario, a Google search for my name brings up a page that is solely current contact info and it's the first result. I can't help but think that that would have been the more appropriate and professional way to handle it between two producer/engineers in a small recording community and even more so between two writers. I don't know enough about what you write, but as you're potentially open to being on the other side of a complaint about an article, I'd have thought you'd be especially sensitive to it.
As far as writing about "concepts that he has tried to teach" after I spent a year editing Brauer's words down from 50,000 to just 6,000, which was the length of the final multi-bus piece four years ago, I have no interest in putting hours of free labor to repeat the same content I've already worked on. I don't keep track of when "he's tried to teach", but outside of the demo that he asked me to help him do at Tape Op in Tucson two years ago and giving some very thorough answers on Gearsluts, I'm not familiar with any other occasions that he's tried to teach these concepts. I'll concede that there may have been hundreds of occasions, but he's pretty in demand as a mixer, so I'd be surprised if he's had the time.
My point is, that I've witnessed and assisted, discussed and read about his techniques enough that I can assure you that there is no overlap in the concept. In Tucson he spent a lot of time demoing the way that using different compressors can change the tone and attitude of an instrument. He used bass as an example, and sent it to a mono compressor and brought it back in parallel with the source, but that's not multi-buss compression. I don't recall the patching, but that may have been done with a mult and not a buss.
If you want to really see the that the two concepts are completely different you really need to reread both articles. One is about separating instruments so that they don't duck each other by triggering the same compressor the other is about controlling wide dynamic ranges in a way that's as transparent as possible by adding in an additional parallel stage in front of your regular compression.
As far as "bad compression" I consider bad compression to be anything that doesn't achieve what you intended and doesn't give you a result that you love. I don't remember all of the examples I gave, so if there are any that in some contexts are exactly what's needed, then I'd agree with you that in those contexts they are not examples of bad compression. I have yet to find a time where the chorus dropping and not getting bigger than the verse was something desirable. I think the other examples are commonly achieved unintentionally and miss the goal of the artist/producer/engineer. Don't forget there are plenty of readers who don't yet have thousands of hours of experience and are still developing their skills. Having a specific sound to listen for can be extremely valuable regardless of how a writer characterizes it.
As far as using a single compressor properly, I almost completely agree with you. Your previous post referred to the bad engineers that I hang out with, and I'd say that the ones I'm thinking of did all sorts of crazy things that could have been achieved with one compressor set properly. However, and this is a new idea that I'm exploring, I think there are cases where a dynamic range can simply be too wide for a single compressor to handle musically. If you set it for anything other than the top of the dynamic range, when the signal hits the top, there is just too much compression.
Mainly I'm thinking about vocals (but it can happen with anything). One could argue that good mic technique solves the problem, and by that I mean moving away at the loud parts. The problem with that, is moving away can change the tone due to a change in proximity effect. So just like riding a fader, parallel compression set properly can narrow the dynamic range so that the compressor that follows never sees a dynamic range that's too wide to handle.
"Modern recording" recording can have many meanings, but two common elements are no console and DIY. So, if you have a situation, which will apply to many Tape Op readers, where you have a band member doubling as a producer/engineer, if they choose to record as a live ensemble, it may not be an option to ride the vocal fader and play their instrument and they may be no fader to ride. I don't know how common this is for other people, but I frequently record bands live as a unit and keep the live vocals. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
As far as seeking opinions, since I took a risk of making myself look foolish by publicly offering my opinion of the ideal dynamic range to hit a compressor's input with, I thought it might be interesting to see other people's numbers, either agreeing or in contrast. I called the people I though who would best be able to answer the question. If you've heard of the fallacy of the straw man, you've probably heard of the fallacy of false appeal to authority. It applies to both my idea of calling designers and your idea of calling people who's albums you like the sound of. Neither is a proper logical argument. I left out the fact the I asked Peter Katis and Ross Hogarth as well, but didn't get responses fast enough to include them.
I believe the exact quote of the first instance where I use the word hack was "I usually consider parallel compression to be a hack." That makes it a noun, and you're right, I was not meaning to say that I believe parallel compression is a cab driver. However, the meaning you're inferring is as if I had said "Parallel compression is a techniques use by have engineers" or "anyone who uses parallel compression is a hack" (in the non-cab driver sense of course). But I didn't say either of those, nor do I think that. However, the way that a dry signal can mask an odd sounding compressed signal can allow engineers to essentially lie to themselves. For clarity, I'm not say that's always the case or anyone who uses parallel compression is lying to themselves, but it makes it easy to think you've done a great job compressing when you haven't really achieved what you want. What percentage of the time does this happen? I have no idea, but I have seen people do it and had they just slowed down the attack time they have gotten the signal that they said they were going for - but they couldn't hear it because it was masked by the dry signal.
As far as the 1176, I did find them valuable enough to own and then eventually changed my mind. If I get an MC77, can I then lecture you about compression or must it be an 1176? Or must it be a FET compressor, because I have 8 of those and they are my most used compressors. So what's the magic lecture box, does the model have to be specifically an 1176? Isn't the MC77 not exactly an 1176 even though it looks like one from the outside? That's what makes me thing you might be saying that FET use matters rather than specific model use. It would be much simpler if you made it FETs so that I could have a license to lecture. "Double One 76, licensed to lecture" has a nice ring to it.
As far as could two stage compression be considered a hack the way I'm defining hack? Sure why not. And if so, it's the ultimate hack. We're damn near semantics, but the difference between what I consider a hack and the two stage compression is that when people talk about why they choose to use to stage compression, I find their actions are often inconsistent with what they say. I've never head anyone say, "I just use parallel compression to make the quite parts louder without capping off" My point is there is a great role for parallel compression when used as your intended function, and that's exactly it's role in "two stage compression". When you're just in parallel you can't get the same degree of envelope shaping, you dilute the tone that the compressor adds and you get less potential decrease in dynamic range (I doubt that most people really do the math to see how running a compressor in parallel at a 4:1 ratio does not give you a result of 4:1 compression when summed with the dry signal.)
If those results are what someone is going for, then that is exactly what they should do, but that's not what I'm used to hearing when I've asked "why are you using parallel compression." Plus, if you just use parallel compression, except for the limits of your electronics, your maximum potential dynamic level is still infinity. Obviously that's not literally reality, but with straight parallel you have an uncompressed signal that stays uncompressed. With two stage, that signal will get compressed as well, by the stage right after.
I don't think about these microscopic details when I mix and I'm not advocating that people should, but there's definitely a time and place for it, otherwise why would we read Tape Op and go to the conferences?
During the mix panel at Tape Op in NOLA, Brauer said that secretly all engineers think they suck. As far as myself, I know that there are times when I suck. I've butchered plenty lot of mixes. But that's where the greatest learning comes from. I also know from the response of my clients and the repeat business and the referrals that there are times that I don't suck. I still think that the word "hack" most succinctly and accurately describes my point (when interpreted by the definition I posted above). If that word choice is hitting to close to that feeling that Brauer described us as all having, then it may not have been the most effective choice, regardless of accuracy.
Based on the emails I've received it seems like it's made a pretty positive difference for far more people than have been bothered by the the word choice.
The first thing we need to address is your accusation of plagiarism. As a writer, I'm sure you know that's a very serious accusation and when you made it, you didn't give any specifics 1 at least I don't see anything in your last post that I recognize as specifics. As we never met in person before AES, a couple of weeks ago, I won't lose too much sleep if at the end of this discussion you still believe that to be the case, but you've made that accusation in a public forum that from now on, can come up on a Google search. And, both concepts in question are sophisticated enough that many people who read your accusation will be unable to evaluate it for themselves. I don't think that copies of both articles available online, so unless someone who's a fairly skilled engineer, sits down with both magazines, including the one from four years ago, it's going to be extremely hard for anyone to evaluate the accuracy of your accusation.
Additionally, you have to realize that your accusation reflects not just on me, but on the magazine and the editor too (who did make some changes to what I wrote). The article is not what I submitted verbatim. So, it seems to me that you should either make a serious formal complaint or remove you post or at the minimum that part from within your post - because it certainly makes one of us look really bad. I'm pretty confident that the simple fact that Brauer's multi-buss concept requires multiple stereo busses and mine can be done by daisy chaining to mono compressors makes them distinctly different concepts. So, additionally, I think an apology for that accusation is due, but of course that's up to you.
I also find is surprising that, considering the fact that we had a brief in-person conversation a few weeks ago, that if you had a serious grievance with something I wrote that you would air it publicly in a potentially defaming way, should you be accidentally mistaken. You took the time to email Larry, and Tape Op always publishes some kind of contact info with the article - email or website. Worst case scenario, a Google search for my name brings up a page that is solely current contact info and it's the first result. I can't help but think that that would have been the more appropriate and professional way to handle it between two producer/engineers in a small recording community and even more so between two writers. I don't know enough about what you write, but as you're potentially open to being on the other side of a complaint about an article, I'd have thought you'd be especially sensitive to it.
As far as writing about "concepts that he has tried to teach" after I spent a year editing Brauer's words down from 50,000 to just 6,000, which was the length of the final multi-bus piece four years ago, I have no interest in putting hours of free labor to repeat the same content I've already worked on. I don't keep track of when "he's tried to teach", but outside of the demo that he asked me to help him do at Tape Op in Tucson two years ago and giving some very thorough answers on Gearsluts, I'm not familiar with any other occasions that he's tried to teach these concepts. I'll concede that there may have been hundreds of occasions, but he's pretty in demand as a mixer, so I'd be surprised if he's had the time.
My point is, that I've witnessed and assisted, discussed and read about his techniques enough that I can assure you that there is no overlap in the concept. In Tucson he spent a lot of time demoing the way that using different compressors can change the tone and attitude of an instrument. He used bass as an example, and sent it to a mono compressor and brought it back in parallel with the source, but that's not multi-buss compression. I don't recall the patching, but that may have been done with a mult and not a buss.
If you want to really see the that the two concepts are completely different you really need to reread both articles. One is about separating instruments so that they don't duck each other by triggering the same compressor the other is about controlling wide dynamic ranges in a way that's as transparent as possible by adding in an additional parallel stage in front of your regular compression.
As far as "bad compression" I consider bad compression to be anything that doesn't achieve what you intended and doesn't give you a result that you love. I don't remember all of the examples I gave, so if there are any that in some contexts are exactly what's needed, then I'd agree with you that in those contexts they are not examples of bad compression. I have yet to find a time where the chorus dropping and not getting bigger than the verse was something desirable. I think the other examples are commonly achieved unintentionally and miss the goal of the artist/producer/engineer. Don't forget there are plenty of readers who don't yet have thousands of hours of experience and are still developing their skills. Having a specific sound to listen for can be extremely valuable regardless of how a writer characterizes it.
As far as using a single compressor properly, I almost completely agree with you. Your previous post referred to the bad engineers that I hang out with, and I'd say that the ones I'm thinking of did all sorts of crazy things that could have been achieved with one compressor set properly. However, and this is a new idea that I'm exploring, I think there are cases where a dynamic range can simply be too wide for a single compressor to handle musically. If you set it for anything other than the top of the dynamic range, when the signal hits the top, there is just too much compression.
Mainly I'm thinking about vocals (but it can happen with anything). One could argue that good mic technique solves the problem, and by that I mean moving away at the loud parts. The problem with that, is moving away can change the tone due to a change in proximity effect. So just like riding a fader, parallel compression set properly can narrow the dynamic range so that the compressor that follows never sees a dynamic range that's too wide to handle.
"Modern recording" recording can have many meanings, but two common elements are no console and DIY. So, if you have a situation, which will apply to many Tape Op readers, where you have a band member doubling as a producer/engineer, if they choose to record as a live ensemble, it may not be an option to ride the vocal fader and play their instrument and they may be no fader to ride. I don't know how common this is for other people, but I frequently record bands live as a unit and keep the live vocals. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
As far as seeking opinions, since I took a risk of making myself look foolish by publicly offering my opinion of the ideal dynamic range to hit a compressor's input with, I thought it might be interesting to see other people's numbers, either agreeing or in contrast. I called the people I though who would best be able to answer the question. If you've heard of the fallacy of the straw man, you've probably heard of the fallacy of false appeal to authority. It applies to both my idea of calling designers and your idea of calling people who's albums you like the sound of. Neither is a proper logical argument. I left out the fact the I asked Peter Katis and Ross Hogarth as well, but didn't get responses fast enough to include them.
I believe the exact quote of the first instance where I use the word hack was "I usually consider parallel compression to be a hack." That makes it a noun, and you're right, I was not meaning to say that I believe parallel compression is a cab driver. However, the meaning you're inferring is as if I had said "Parallel compression is a techniques use by have engineers" or "anyone who uses parallel compression is a hack" (in the non-cab driver sense of course). But I didn't say either of those, nor do I think that. However, the way that a dry signal can mask an odd sounding compressed signal can allow engineers to essentially lie to themselves. For clarity, I'm not say that's always the case or anyone who uses parallel compression is lying to themselves, but it makes it easy to think you've done a great job compressing when you haven't really achieved what you want. What percentage of the time does this happen? I have no idea, but I have seen people do it and had they just slowed down the attack time they have gotten the signal that they said they were going for - but they couldn't hear it because it was masked by the dry signal.
As far as the 1176, I did find them valuable enough to own and then eventually changed my mind. If I get an MC77, can I then lecture you about compression or must it be an 1176? Or must it be a FET compressor, because I have 8 of those and they are my most used compressors. So what's the magic lecture box, does the model have to be specifically an 1176? Isn't the MC77 not exactly an 1176 even though it looks like one from the outside? That's what makes me thing you might be saying that FET use matters rather than specific model use. It would be much simpler if you made it FETs so that I could have a license to lecture. "Double One 76, licensed to lecture" has a nice ring to it.
As far as could two stage compression be considered a hack the way I'm defining hack? Sure why not. And if so, it's the ultimate hack. We're damn near semantics, but the difference between what I consider a hack and the two stage compression is that when people talk about why they choose to use to stage compression, I find their actions are often inconsistent with what they say. I've never head anyone say, "I just use parallel compression to make the quite parts louder without capping off" My point is there is a great role for parallel compression when used as your intended function, and that's exactly it's role in "two stage compression". When you're just in parallel you can't get the same degree of envelope shaping, you dilute the tone that the compressor adds and you get less potential decrease in dynamic range (I doubt that most people really do the math to see how running a compressor in parallel at a 4:1 ratio does not give you a result of 4:1 compression when summed with the dry signal.)
If those results are what someone is going for, then that is exactly what they should do, but that's not what I'm used to hearing when I've asked "why are you using parallel compression." Plus, if you just use parallel compression, except for the limits of your electronics, your maximum potential dynamic level is still infinity. Obviously that's not literally reality, but with straight parallel you have an uncompressed signal that stays uncompressed. With two stage, that signal will get compressed as well, by the stage right after.
I don't think about these microscopic details when I mix and I'm not advocating that people should, but there's definitely a time and place for it, otherwise why would we read Tape Op and go to the conferences?
During the mix panel at Tape Op in NOLA, Brauer said that secretly all engineers think they suck. As far as myself, I know that there are times when I suck. I've butchered plenty lot of mixes. But that's where the greatest learning comes from. I also know from the response of my clients and the repeat business and the referrals that there are times that I don't suck. I still think that the word "hack" most succinctly and accurately describes my point (when interpreted by the definition I posted above). If that word choice is hitting to close to that feeling that Brauer described us as all having, then it may not have been the most effective choice, regardless of accuracy.
Based on the emails I've received it seems like it's made a pretty positive difference for far more people than have been bothered by the the word choice.
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
-
JohnDavisNYC
- ghost haunting audio students
- Posts: 3035
- Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2003 2:43 pm
- Location: crooklyn, ny
- Contact:
-
fossiltooth
- carpal tunnel
- Posts: 1734
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:03 pm
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Contact:
Yep, yep, yep.
At this point I think most folks stopped reading the new posts in this thread quite some time ago.
JJ, Mike, perhaps it's time to swap emails and continue in relative comfort and privacy?
There's a good reason no one ever made a sequel to Grumpy Old Men.
Oh wait... what's that? They did?
OK. Did it suck?
Thank you.
At this point I think most folks stopped reading the new posts in this thread quite some time ago.
JJ, Mike, perhaps it's time to swap emails and continue in relative comfort and privacy?
There's a good reason no one ever made a sequel to Grumpy Old Men.
Oh wait... what's that? They did?
OK. Did it suck?
Thank you.
-
trodden
- on a wing and a prayer
- Posts: 5698
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 8:21 am
- Location: C-attle
- Contact:
HA!!!fossiltooth wrote:Yep, yep, yep.
At this point I think most folks stopped reading the new posts in this thread quite some time ago.
JJ, Mike, perhaps it's time to swap emails and continue in relative comfort and privacy?
There's a good reason no one ever made a sequel to Grumpy Old Men.
Oh wait... what's that? They did?
OK. Did it suck?
Thank you.
-
Jeremy Garber
- suffering 'studio suck'
- Posts: 497
- Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:05 am
- Location: Louisiana
I have no issue with your feelings, just with the resulting behavior.
As far as "one of the people" who influenced you, I know who you're talking about and what was said - he and i discussed it at AES.
He ahd the same issue with the word "hack" and the letter he was planning on writing was to take an issue with the math in the side bar.
I did the math a couple of times and came up with the same answer every time but one. So, he may have a point - part of which was there are a lot of variables with the blend that will influence the result. I agree with that and I'm not sure that there is a single version of the math that can stand in the abstract.
I've been teaching for about 17 years and am also certified in teaching people how to teach. one thing I've learned (and all od this can be an example too) is the it doesn't matter what you say, it matters how people hear it (or see it, touch it do it). So if you want to communicate a single idea to a bunch of people, you have to do it in more than one way. There are a few people who've said that it was that math sidebar that made the idea click for them.
I think that given the exact context that I was describe, the math is accurate, but the sole purpose was to provide yet another metaphor to reach people who's style of learning and thinking are best reached through that description.
As far as the plagiarism accusation in any form, you should back it up or withdraw it.
If you want to say that any technique using more than one buss is plagiarizing Brauer's technique, fine. In that case you're wrong because that's not accurate and the concept that this last article was about can be done in mono and without any busses as it - exactly as describe in the article.
As far as my understanding, I just found out that Brauer has posted an explanation of multi buss compression that I wrote on Gearsluts as the answer to one of his website questions. He then followed that with "gotta say, that is probably the best description of my method that I've ever read and certainly better than I've ever tried to explain it. Very concise. Awesome, thanks. "
So I feel comfortable in say that I understand his technique adequately to say that your accusation is fully 100% without any factual basis and as such odd that you would make it in the first place, post it at all and be unwilling to apologize for it.
I've certainly done my best to make it clear that what you took offense to was in no way meant in the way that you took it. I;m happy to apologize to you for writing it even though i feel like I'd be apologizing for your misinterpretation. It's a shame that the best you can come up with is that you might have been reading it with a prejudice from someone else.
Now, if we really did meet before AES, I don't remember that at all, and that I certainly apologize for. I'm very good at remembering people and I feel awful when I don't no matter who it is. So I'm sorry for that and I hope my lack of recognition at AES didn't offend you in any way and I hope that this thread is not connected to to that.
In my opinion, the worst part is that we're now in some kind of adversarial position which is a rarity with me for anyone. I've done a few Google searches and it seems we're about the same age and maybe potentially peers in some way or another. so I'm certain, long term there are great things I can learn from you about something, but it's a little hard when you insisting on maintaining an accusation that's pretty clearly inaccurate. So, I guess that's where this whole thing gets left, because there's nothing I can do to move it to a better place.
As far as "one of the people" who influenced you, I know who you're talking about and what was said - he and i discussed it at AES.
He ahd the same issue with the word "hack" and the letter he was planning on writing was to take an issue with the math in the side bar.
I did the math a couple of times and came up with the same answer every time but one. So, he may have a point - part of which was there are a lot of variables with the blend that will influence the result. I agree with that and I'm not sure that there is a single version of the math that can stand in the abstract.
I've been teaching for about 17 years and am also certified in teaching people how to teach. one thing I've learned (and all od this can be an example too) is the it doesn't matter what you say, it matters how people hear it (or see it, touch it do it). So if you want to communicate a single idea to a bunch of people, you have to do it in more than one way. There are a few people who've said that it was that math sidebar that made the idea click for them.
I think that given the exact context that I was describe, the math is accurate, but the sole purpose was to provide yet another metaphor to reach people who's style of learning and thinking are best reached through that description.
As far as the plagiarism accusation in any form, you should back it up or withdraw it.
If you want to say that any technique using more than one buss is plagiarizing Brauer's technique, fine. In that case you're wrong because that's not accurate and the concept that this last article was about can be done in mono and without any busses as it - exactly as describe in the article.
As far as my understanding, I just found out that Brauer has posted an explanation of multi buss compression that I wrote on Gearsluts as the answer to one of his website questions. He then followed that with "gotta say, that is probably the best description of my method that I've ever read and certainly better than I've ever tried to explain it. Very concise. Awesome, thanks. "
So I feel comfortable in say that I understand his technique adequately to say that your accusation is fully 100% without any factual basis and as such odd that you would make it in the first place, post it at all and be unwilling to apologize for it.
I've certainly done my best to make it clear that what you took offense to was in no way meant in the way that you took it. I;m happy to apologize to you for writing it even though i feel like I'd be apologizing for your misinterpretation. It's a shame that the best you can come up with is that you might have been reading it with a prejudice from someone else.
Now, if we really did meet before AES, I don't remember that at all, and that I certainly apologize for. I'm very good at remembering people and I feel awful when I don't no matter who it is. So I'm sorry for that and I hope my lack of recognition at AES didn't offend you in any way and I hope that this thread is not connected to to that.
In my opinion, the worst part is that we're now in some kind of adversarial position which is a rarity with me for anyone. I've done a few Google searches and it seems we're about the same age and maybe potentially peers in some way or another. so I'm certain, long term there are great things I can learn from you about something, but it's a little hard when you insisting on maintaining an accusation that's pretty clearly inaccurate. So, I guess that's where this whole thing gets left, because there's nothing I can do to move it to a better place.
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
-
MoreSpaceEcho
- zen recordist
- Posts: 6677
- Joined: Wed May 07, 2003 11:15 am
Mike, again, my tone was unwarranted, and a bit reactionary. You are right. I'm sorry. I hadn't read this last post yet, and I removed the word in question, because I realized in a message to Larry that as I had misinterpreted your intention of "hack," you misinterpreted what I meant by assimilating somebody's technique without proper credit. I'll remove all references to that word in any of my posts, because you and Larry seem to be upset by it.
I will say that in my defense of why I draw that conclusion, I have to use your own words:
"Mike Caffrey is well versed in Michael Brauer's Multi-Buss compression methods. He's written the definitive Tape Op article on the technique and has demonstrated it with Michael Brauer at the Tape Op conference."
Knowing that, and how the party in question feels about it, I can't help but feel that credit was not given where credit is due. As I told Larry, it's tantamount to me saying that I wrote the definitive article on Pete Townshend's techniques, and that I'm well versed in his methods. I could not in good conscience say that, even though I've performed with him once, and did an interview that was widely acclaimed. I don't even know if Brian Kehew bills himself as an expert in Beatles recording techniques, after writing a book for fifteen years that might be the definitive text on the subject.
BTW, none of this is personal. I'm sorry my initial cantankerous tone made it so. But good friends of mine have publicly given me shit online when I've written something that they had a problem, and they've still been invited to my birthday dinner.
I will say that in my defense of why I draw that conclusion, I have to use your own words:
"Mike Caffrey is well versed in Michael Brauer's Multi-Buss compression methods. He's written the definitive Tape Op article on the technique and has demonstrated it with Michael Brauer at the Tape Op conference."
Knowing that, and how the party in question feels about it, I can't help but feel that credit was not given where credit is due. As I told Larry, it's tantamount to me saying that I wrote the definitive article on Pete Townshend's techniques, and that I'm well versed in his methods. I could not in good conscience say that, even though I've performed with him once, and did an interview that was widely acclaimed. I don't even know if Brian Kehew bills himself as an expert in Beatles recording techniques, after writing a book for fifteen years that might be the definitive text on the subject.
BTW, none of this is personal. I'm sorry my initial cantankerous tone made it so. But good friends of mine have publicly given me shit online when I've written something that they had a problem, and they've still been invited to my birthday dinner.
-
Skipwave
- takin' a dinner break
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 7:11 am
- Location: Chicago
- Contact:
I didn't mean to imply that this technique was limited to the same application as simply chaining two compressors. It seemed that people were having a hard time grasping the routing and execution, so I thought it would help to break it down into blocks that might appear more familiar.mcaff wrote:The last thing to address is the idea of the fast attack/slow attack compression referred to twice in this thread, both one page back and more recently a few posts up. I'm not familiar with Harvey Gerst's example as referred to here, but I'm going to guess it's the technique of using one compressor for peak limiting and one for a more average program compression.
Many thanks for the article. It literally bailed me out on a very frustrating mix that now satisfies the band, even though they still want me to fix even more of their performance f-ups. Argh..... but, yeah, thanks!
"I want to be champion of the world, or champion of something." -Duchamp
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 131 guests