|
Squeezin the nuts out your mix (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
Ive never had a need for it, so I don't put a compressor into the master. The same way I don't shoot myself in the face.
Everything you mentioned [same everyone mentions] can be fixed before it reaches the master channel. And doing it that way is always superior to just slapping a sloppy compressor onto the master because some bloke said so. In short, the compressor on the master as you described, is an easy way to fix things that should have been fixed when you mixed and made your sounds. Because its popular in the production world doesn't make it a good thing.
Its also popular to thoroughly the music over by giving it an RMS of 0db. That doesn't mean doing it makes it right. Just listen to kitphilips..he said purposely clipping the tracks is a common practice, what does that tell you about the common producer?
Your advice about compression is why all trance after 1999 sounds like utter garbage. Anything made by Tiesto , Armin, PVD, BT and those other jackoffs sounds like . You are basically trying to justify the destruction of music. |
|
|
| Knowland |
kitphillips is right on the money. A few clips here and there will not destroy a recording. Depending on the material, the clip might not even be heard as the harmonics created are masked by whatever else is there. You can further eliminate those harmonics by using a slightly soft clipper that just barely rounds before the top. Then just limit normally after this.
And as far as getting everything in the mix exactly correct, a compressor is just a matter of taste. Sometimes it sounds good, sometimes it's not the right decision. That's why bypass buttons are so useful. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Yep. Its actually one of the ways a lot of tracks are mastered. Limiters are great and all, but sometimes clipping a sample here and there can give you an extra .03 of headroom and no one will notice. A single clipped sample here and there isn't noticable. |
I'm not sure I follow your terminology. Doesn't "headroom" just mean the dB by which you can increase the volume before it clips? So if you purposely clip your track, you've exceeded the headroom by definition, right? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
But clipping can cause your speakers to or other hardware to be damaged, even if its inaudible. Ive made sounds that had pretty much 0 perceived loudness, but when played they would cause my meters to slam the red zone hard. That can cause irregular stuff in your hardware or speakers. If you played the sound for an hour or so, it would probably destroy your stuff. I have a few tracks that clip with 0 distortion, and I used to listen to them a lot, and they are probably what has contributed to my speakers being messed up, at certain volumes my high end just turns into static.
That is the whole point of avoiding clipping.
If using compressors is a matter of taste, Id say a lot of people have bad tastes. Most of the time on my final render [when I make the master wav from my DAW] the master channel is empty. And further more I rarely use a compressor anywhere else. Use EQ a lot though... |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
It seems like a lot of people use a compressor to avoid EQing and avoid thinking about whether their sounds will fit together in the frequency spectrum. Just slam everything through a compressor and you can crush any volume spikes that result from frequency clashes I guess...
:conf: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
It seems like a lot of people use a compressor to avoid EQing and avoid thinking about whether their sounds will fit together in the frequency spectrum. Just slam everything through a compressor and you can crush any volume spikes that result from frequency clashes I guess...
:conf: |
Pretty much.
Music these days = all volume sliders on +4db, hard limiter on master, with an RMS of 0db... |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| imo, you dont need a compressor on the master channel, your only gonna take away |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I'm not sure I follow your terminology. Doesn't "headroom" just mean the dB by which you can increase the volume before it clips? So if you purposely clip your track, you've exceeded the headroom by definition, right? |
Technically yes thats right. But headroom can be PRACTICALLY defined as "The dynamic space you have before there is AUDIBLE clipping". I guess I'm not advocating audiable clipping, but paying attention to your meters to work out if your clipping or not isn't really practical. You need to get the highest levels possible without annihilating the dynamics.
The idea behind this strategy isn't to avoid EQing, its an adjunct to EQing, so that sounds that are already fitting together well can be pushed even harder. And of course, it really depends what sort of music your making as to whether this is even the right approach. Maybe you don't want the sounds to be pumpy. For more after hours style tracks it isn't appropriate.
And Crono, that has all to do with RMS, I'm talking about peak levels. And clipping shouldn't cause your speakers to be damaged, unless they're too loud to start with. So get a clue before you criticise.
Although I originally disagreed with mixing into a compressor for all the reasons crono mentioned, I do it now, because it gets me better results. I don't really know why, but it makes the mix more organic, and it makes the the levels more on par with the professional tracks I play in sets. If I want to play my original productions in sets, thye need a compressor on the master. That was why I started doing it. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
But that's the easy way out. A shortcut used to cover up the fact that the producer cannot get his mix right. If you want to use a compressor as a crutch, then by all means.
As for clipping damage has nothing to do with loudness.
From Wikipedia~
--
# Because the clipped waveform has more area underneath it than the smaller maximum unclipped waveform, the amplifier produces more output power. (See the waveform to the right for an example.) This extra power can cause damage to any part of the loudspeaker, including the woofer, tweeter, or crossover, via overheating.
# In the frequency domain, clipping produces harmonics at higher frequencies than the input signal. Extra high-frequency weighting of a signal is more likely to damage tweeters than a signal that was not clipped as higher high frequency power levels are delivered to the tweeter. However, most loudspeakers are designed to handle signals with abundant high frequencies, like cymbal crashes, which have a greater high-pitch frequency weighting than amplifier clipping could produce.[citation needed] Therefore damage attributable to this characteristic is rare.
-- |
|
|
| kitphillips |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
But that's the easy way out. A shortcut used to cover up the fact that the producer cannot get his mix right. If you want to use a compressor as a crutch, then by all means.
As for clipping damage has nothing to do with loudness.
From Wikipedia~
--
# Because the clipped waveform has more area underneath it than the smaller maximum unclipped waveform, the amplifier produces more output power. (See the waveform to the right for an example.) This extra power can cause damage to any part of the loudspeaker, including the woofer, tweeter, or crossover, via overheating.
# In the frequency domain, clipping produces harmonics at higher frequencies than the input signal. Extra high-frequency weighting of a signal is more likely to damage tweeters than a signal that was not clipped as higher high frequency power levels are delivered to the tweeter. However, most loudspeakers are designed to handle signals with abundant high frequencies, like cymbal crashes, which have a greater high-pitch frequency weighting than amplifier clipping could produce.[citation needed] Therefore damage attributable to this characteristic is rare.
-- |
I'm putting you on ignore. If you read what you just wrote, it pretty much agreed with what I just said. Area underneath wave = amplitude = volume. Therefore, if its clipping, its louder, which means it just needs to be turned down to a level where it won't damage the speakers.
Honestly, is it a month already? |
|
|
| derail |
| quote: | Originally posted by kitphillips
Honestly, is it a month already? |
It seems that Cronodevir, like many people on the forum, ignores Cronodevir's posts. At least he's a bit discerning in his reading choices, so kudos to him for that. However, it does explain the fact that he didn't read the "I'm not posting here for a month" post he posted.
Back on topic - it's surprising that so many people seem to see this issue in such black and white terms. We all make many creative decisions, we all know there are many ways to get our songs to sound the way we want them to.
There are so many great songs which have been made mixing into a compressor on the master channel. There are many great songs which have EQs or limiters on the master channel. There are many great songs which have no processing on the master channel at all.
Absolutely, there are many songs that are ruined due to poor decisions, whether those decisions relate to individual sounds or to master channel processing.
Really, do we need to deal in absolutes, such as "I NEVER do this and this" or "I ALWAYS do this and this"? In the end, if a song sounds fantastic, then whatever was done to the song in the creative process was the correct thing to do for that song. It may not be the correct thing to do for the next song, or someone else's song, but it was right for that one. |
|
|
|
|
