do we compress too much?

[lazlominimart]

Just curious what people's feelings are on this subject.

I know for a fact that many of my favorite engineers use compression only where absolutely necessary and see it primarily as a means to fix problems (keeping that very dynamic vocal in the mix, bringing out those lagging bass notes), not a magic bullet to good sound.

However, we UAD users now have the option of an LA2A, 1176LN or Fairchild on every track if we wish, and I have a feeling that many of us slap these things on tracks that don't even really need compression. I have been trying to stay aware of how I use compression and asking myself if the track needs compression before just inserting a plug because I can.

Do you think that today's engineers are compressing their tracks too much? Is the embarrassment of compression riches in a UAD card just too much temptation to squash things that ought not be squashed?

In some ways, I see this as a corrollary discussion to the \"loudness race\" discussion... certianly, peak-limiting tracks to within 3db of their life is another way in which over-compression is damaging the quality of today's music. I think that compressing every single element in a mix is step on the path towards creating high-RMS mush.

Thoughts?

 

[MASSIVE Mastering]

Thoughts?

+1

 

[Ricky B]

Compress as 'needed', meaning to fix a dynamics problem. OR to use as an effect that you want actually heard in the mix. The 1176 'all buttons in' mode would be to use as an effect, say on drums for the Beatley squashed thing. The only other thing is that there is a nice alteration to an input with 1176, without changing settings that is pleasing.

My 2 1/2 centavos.

R

 

[cAPSLOCK]

I understand the feeling of those who feel there is too much compression in much contemporary music.

But in the end I think it's entirely about what you want to achieve.

Compression is an effect that changes dynamics, transients, and the feel of the sound. Use it more where it is merited, use it less where it gets in the way of the true sound ideal.

Just like any other tracking/mix technique it MUST be subservient to proper practices on the front of the signal chain: a good instrument, musician, and song... mic choice and placement.

You know, I remember when something dawned on me one day when I was fiddling with a few different compressors trying to get some drum overheads to sound louder, crisper, more close-up and lively without emphasizing the room too much. It would have been much much much better if the drummer had hit just a little harder, and even easier than that, I could have dropped the overheads a little closer to the kit.

The second part of this realization came almost right away. When I record a song, I have to take the time to think about what I, or the band/producer/musician wants the song to end up sounding like when we are done and start working toward that end before I ever hit record.

Not only does this approach sound much better in the end, but it's just easier to do. It's just easier to 'fix problems' when there are less of them to start with.

Also, I find if I am just using a compressor to make something louder then I might need to readdress my method. Maybe it needs a different/better EQ choice. Maybe something else needs to be out of the way.

I agree that 'putting compression of every track' is the possible first step to the rectangular block that shows up in your audio editor when you have pulled something off a modern CD.

But all this does not take away the cool sound of super-compressed piano, a wall of rhythm guitars or a cracking snare. The sound of a room mic squashed within an inch of it's usefulness and delicately mixed/panned behind a close mic can often beat the pants off any outboard or plugin reverb you could ever use. Some music beggs to be compressed, and some sounds just dont sound as cool until you reshape them with an 1176(SE!) plugin!

So I straddle the fence with all my might!

cAPS

 

[Ricky B]

Yeah, you got it, I agree. All of these tools are to have fun with! but, knowing what you're doing is first. All great records have recording techniques & engineers who have broken the rules with great results. What & why are we doing what we do? To make something sound good, different, and we can love it! Personnally, I like when things pop out, stick out here & there and aren't so controlled. Most of wat I hear on the air today in the pop are, is compressed to the limit and I don't get it. It's a game in the record industry, because if you don't make it sound like that hit, it doesn''t get noticed, but, it's simply because hte standard has adjusted to this point. The music is what should be radical, not the tech, though it plays a part. I always look to the Beatles & Beach Boys for that advanced record making. Damn!

I rant!

R

 

[John Lance]

To me, most of the stuff (current rock-n-roll roughly speaking) on the radio now is so overcompressed it just sounds like crap. It is hard to listen to. I get fatigued just trying to listen to it.

The radio stations have been compressing hard for years as a matter of course, but it didn't use to sound the way it does now.

A lot of \"Classic\" Rock-n-Roll stations still sound relatively good, so I am thinking it is the quality of material reaching the stations.

I hear music that should sound great, and have some drive and character, but it generally does not do that. The only character I hear is in-your-face distortion of everything with all of the dynamics sqaushed into mush and the instrumentation and vocals all walking into each other.

It is rare to hear something new that isn't that way anymore.

Compression is good though and is a part of the Rock-n-Roll sound. Hmmm... It's been a part of recorded sound in general since what, the fifties? It can sound great if it is appropriately applied. It is a great shaping tool. I wouldn't want to give it up: I just don't want to overuse it.

 

[audio-buddy]

Just curious what people's feelings are on this subject.

I know for a fact that many of my favorite engineers use compression only where absolutely necessary and see it primarily as a means to fix problems (keeping that very dynamic vocal in the mix, bringing out those lagging bass notes), not a magic bullet to good sound.

However, we UAD users now have the option of an LA2A, 1176LN or Fairchild on every track if we wish, and I have a feeling that many of us slap these things on tracks that don't even really need compression. I have been trying to stay aware of how I use compression and asking myself if the track needs compression before just inserting a plug because I can.

Do you think that today's engineers are compressing their tracks too much? Is the embarrassment of compression riches in a UAD card just too much temptation to squash things that ought not be squashed?

In some ways, I see this as a corrollary discussion to the "loudness race" discussion... certianly, peak-limiting tracks to within 3db of their life is another way in which over-compression is damaging the quality of today's music. I think that compressing every single element in a mix is step on the path towards creating high-RMS mush.

Thoughts?

YESSS!!! :|

....some time ago, compression was something to get the dynamic (mostly of acoustic instruments) right for recording. Then it was used the create a specific *sound*. Now, we use compression or much more limiting to make everything as loud as possible - with, in some cases, a noticable degration of sound.... lets *rewind* to the times where we used compressors for dynamic and sound *processsing*....