TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- parallel compression
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »
parallel compression
so basically my understanding of it so far, is to send a group mix..such as all of ur drums to two sends...one with a dry signal..and the other without..and its suppose to fatten up ur track cus u get a nice decay and release from the compression..but im still pretty confused about it..anyone care to explain it in detail?
i have only done it in Reason (which is super easy thanks to matrix), and with good results, but usually i send one of the splits through a scream distortion to add presence and the other one through an eq to remove a little mid. it works really great. Not sure if you use Reason but if you do I could send you an example project.
parallel compression means you compress each element with its own compression settings.
serial compression means you compress all elements together.
You can apply parallel and serial to anything really.
ie.
drum 1 - drum 1 compression
..............................>>>> Drum 1 and Drum 2 compression
drum 2 - drum 2 compression
hmm interesting but i use fl studio. i bet the same ideas can be applied there though. maybe take a screeny. 
and hmm thanks for that tip J.L.
so its sorta like multi band?
Ie. if you have something on FX channel 1 and something on FX channel 2 and you put a compressor on each of the channels that is parallel compression
If you have something on FX channel 1 and something on FX channel 2 and you route them to FX channel 3 and put a compression on FX channel 3 that's serial compression
I tend to put everything on parallel, unless your computer can't handle it. It gives you more flexibility
However, sometimes you can use serial compression for specific purposes of combining 2 things together and then compressing them.
multi band splits up one sound into different frequencies and then compresses it parallel. I find multiband is useful for drums, but I just prefer maximus since it is just much more useful =P
thanks i somewhat get it now. 
isnt paralell compression when you have 2 signals : i compressed and one not compressed? Like having 2 audio tracks of your drums, one with no compression and one with compression (for example)
you know what... I probably don't know what I'm talking about... but I guess that's what I refer to when I am compressing 2 things in parallel
Parallel compression is when you have 1 signal going into 2 seperate busses. You apply compression to 1 of those two busses and merge the 2 back together in the ratio you think sounds best (50/50, 25/75 whatever). This way you can combine the beef of a compressed signal with the dynamics and transient details of the original sound.
just put your compressor on your aux send, rather than your insert and control wet/dry with your aux send level, nothing fancy, neither magical, highly overrated since the invention of sidechain 
^^^ Thats how I do it. (when I do it, which isn't very often since I don't think it adds much.)
| quote: |
| Originally posted by J.L. you know what... I probably don't know what I'm talking about... but I guess that's what I refer to when I am compressing 2 things in parallel |
I think the way it was originally used was that you sent some of your drums to the Return track which had a compressor with heavy settings i.e. fast attack and release, heavy threshold
Then when say for example your snare hits, the snare signal sent to the return track activates the compressor and hits the threshold hard pulling down the volume on the return track (i.e. heavy gain reduction)
Then as the snare decays the gain reduction will come back up on the return track and bleed in after the snare - thereby you have your snare cutting through with a sorta heavy compressed distorted sound filling in afterwards
So you have all the benefits of heavy compression and still have your transients preserved
Im trying to remember this from one of Chad Carriers Ableton Live books as he wrote a little section on it in there...its something like that anyway i think
To be honest, I find this sort of terminology overcomplicating things. Why not just call it dry/wet of a compression FX?
because you can have compressor on both splitted signals, like for example two different compressors, settings and eq - it helps alot for punch imo! babics talk about it all the time. the point is to have them side by side, and not in serie, because having them in series will sort of way up/mess up/cancel out for each other making most of the settings useless, while here each compressor doesnt affect the other, same with the EQs. watch the levels after the summing (which i do in the spider on top, also the splitting is there) cause the signal is tripled (in the example below use of 3 splits).
heres how you could do it in Reason with triple parallel and different settings on all channels:
Just remember to have the same FX chains on both channels even if they not being used, the slight delays caused by fx cause phasing issues otherwise.
Pagan-za, how about turn on Latency Compensation on your DAW?
I've never experienced good results doing parallel to all the drums including kick...
The kick looses important low dynamics and goes muddy... Sounding better here if parallel is applied only to the Hat bus...
Anyone experiencing the same?
Does latency compensation affect your fx chains as well? I was always under the impression it was only for asio inputs and audio clips?
Also, the kick drum going muddy is also probably a phasing issue. Even slight phasing can totally ruin bass or a kick or make things muddy.
Worst still is that its so subtle its hard to pick up sometimes.
One thing I've found that helps a kick drums though is layering it with a copy of itself thats been lowpassed so only the lower frequencies are coming through. Much easier to get them to sit together when its the exact same drum rather than trying to get different ones to work together.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by cristianokeller Pagan-za, how about turn on Latency Compensation on your DAW? I've never experienced good results doing parallel to all the drums including kick... The kick looses important low dynamics and goes muddy... Sounding better here if parallel is applied only to the Hat bus... Anyone experiencing the same? |
I think that parallel compression, as in splitting signal and run it through multiple processors in parallel, is really useless full stop....
think about it, splitting your full range signal in 3, processing 3 different parallel full range streams and merge them back together.
If you would divide up the frequencies, in 3 zones and process them induvidually that would make sense, but we call that multiband compression, not parallel compression. 
i find value in parallel compression as in blending original signal with compressed signal, to FX while preserving dynamics, or work M/S in order to work mono harder than side signal.
But above example just has no value at all in my opinion
just like doubling identical kicks, just use EQ.....
there is a reason people do it Raphie. You can slam the drums and really bring out the transients while not loosing the overall beefiness of the group you are compressing or vice versa using compression to squash the drums killing any transients but bringing them back with the original source. Mixing 101. Every engineer does it and I would be hard pressed to find a modern album that is mixed well that doesn't. It is really hard for me to not lambast you on your incredible lack of knowledge when you speak with such authority.
the concept really can and should be used with any parameter when you want a certain effect but you don't want to loose the overall character of the source. The concept is probably invaluable with dance where you have lots of elements that will need dynamic control.
And in reply to your pm , this is why I sometimes tend to be on your case. Case in point, you hide under the veil of a mastering engineer which under normal circumstances would assume you know how to mix but you clearly lack some rather simple concepts and I would purport that your mixing is quite horrid. Combine this with the fact that you deny no opportunity to show your studio and your lovely toys you don't really know how to use makes you a tempting target. Not to mention I have a suspicion that you are polish or a pole sympathizer. You like poles I guess is the take home point. If it were printed in bullet form, it would say bullet Raphie likes big poles.
No advice is better than bad advice. Let the music do the talking or something. As long as you stop spreading misinformation i will be happy.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by J.L. To be honest, I find this sort of terminology overcomplicating things. Why not just call it dry/wet of a compression FX? |
M4B please stop putting words in my mouth, please just read, take a deep breath, read again and only then start drafting a reply.
I mention i see use in parallel compression, i just don't see any use in processing a FULL RANGE signal in triple parallel with different settings as per example above. YES we do this with a SEGMENTED signal, but we call that MULTIBAND....
You are drawing the wrong conclusions, because you don't take the time to read responses in detail, also stop the lame pedantic opportunities to ridicule.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Looney4Clooney there is a reason people do it Raphie. You can slam the drums and really bring out the transients while not loosing the overall beefiness of the group you are compressing or vice versa using compression to squash the drums killing any transients but bringing them back with the original source. Mixing 101. Every engineer does it and I would be hard pressed to find a modern album that is mixed well that doesn't. It is really hard for me to not lambast you on your incredible lack of knowledge when you speak with such authority. the concept really can and should be used with any parameter when you want a certain effect but you don't want to loose the overall character of the source. The concept is probably invaluable with dance where you have lots of elements that will need dynamic control. And in reply to your pm , this is why I sometimes tend to be on your case. Case in point, you hide under the veil of a mastering engineer which under normal circumstances would assume you know how to mix but you clearly lack some rather simple concepts and I would purport that your mixing is quite horrid. Combine this with the fact that you deny no opportunity to show your studio and your lovely toys you don't really know how to use makes you a tempting target. Not to mention I have a suspicion that you are polish or a pole sympathizer. You like poles I guess is the take home point. If it were printed in bullet form, it would say bullet Raphie likes big poles. No advice is better than bad advice. Let the music do the talking or something. As long as you stop spreading misinformation i will be happy. |
but again, even if that is what you meant, guess how people used to do multiband sidechain ? tadum. People do it and these people can safely call themselves engineers and not have half the room snicker. I don't look for opportunities, you just talk alot of nonsense about things you don't really know about. I wouldn't be so skeptical if your product showed otherwise but you don't talk the talk, certainly don't walk the walk and fuck me, I guess I just like to call you on your shit. The sad part is that I haven't mixed a thing in about 6 years. I would not call myself an engineer let alone a mastering engineer even with the amateur/hobbyist superlative added and this all seems to be common knowledge to me. The kinda stuff you would find in like those mix magazines.
And i'm not angry. Just correction your mistakes. You should be thankful, I do apologize if my interjections on simple matters seem to make you look rather incompetent which might affect your mastering business. That isn't my intention or care.
MULTIBAND implies the usage of multiple bands, thus cutting up the signal, come on M4B, you can do better than that......
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Looney4Clooney but again, even if that is what you meant, guess how people used to do multiband sidechain ? tadum. People do it and these people can safely call themselves engineers and not have half the room snicker. I don't look for opportunities, you just talk alot of nonsense about things you don't really know about. I wouldn't be so skeptical if your product showed otherwise but you don't talk the talk, certainly don't walk the walk and fuck me, I guess I just like to call you on your shit. The sad part is that I haven't mixed a thing in about 6 years. I would not call myself an engineer let alone a mastering engineer even with the amateur/hobbyist superlative added and this all seems to be common knowledge to me. The kinda stuff you would find in like those mix magazines. And i'm not angry. Just correction your mistakes. You should be thankful, I do apologize if my interjections on simple matters seem to make you look rather incompetent which might affect your mastering business. That isn't my intention or care. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.