Originally posted by Beatflux
You could put in less elements or choose instruments with thinner timbres.
less elements yeah, thats what i strive for
thinner timbres??? not a fan
evo8
quote:
Originally posted by derail
For the sonic character it imparts. Some compressors add character when applying very little or no compression.
no compression - well thats different then isnt it, i was talking about actually compressing (getting some gain reduction)
Storyteller
quote:
Originally posted by Raphie
:D you're too impatient, let it cook a bit more..... Get KitPhilips all worked up first 'n stuff, (i bet he'll mention again that he wants to suck my dick). and THEN blow up the topic :p
I've got nothing to blow up when it comes to male to male fantasies. female to male/female works quite effectively though. But maybe I'm spilling my load here. :rolleyes:
evo8
quote:
Originally posted by MSZ
check out the transient dynamics in this track, someone correct me if im wrong, but this is optimum compression at work imo.
will listen to this track later but my question is...
why would you think that the reason for the transient dynamics in this track is the optimum compression?
anytime i hear compression it sounds squashed, like theres no room
its like everytime theres a "how to get that pro-sound" question, inevitably one of the answers is "compression" - but ive never understood why that is! educate me please!
jupiterone
i push that bitch through a preamp too
MSZ
quote:
Originally posted by evo8
will listen to this track later but my question is...
why would you think that the reason for the transient dynamics in this track is the optimum compression?
anytime i hear compression it sounds squashed, like theres no room
its like everytime theres a "how to get that pro-sound" question, inevitably one of the answers is "compression" - but ive never understood why that is! educate me please!
lol educate you? most of the time u hear compression this forum its because of abuse, and blatant use. what about NY style, and subtle but strong shaping, you know thats what the compressor is for(for me, because i dont use it color). do you know what it does other than squash? i never said how to get the pro sound via compression if thats what you're insinuating. the compression is just the icing to the marvelous sound design in that track, someone correct me if im wrong like i said, my words here are never set in stone most of the time, ya i know im not a great producer and probably will never be.
derail
quote:
Originally posted by evo8
anytime i hear compression it sounds squashed, like theres no room
If this is the case, then you're either only listening to a small subset of songs, which all contain "squash" compression. But much more likely is that you're simply not hearing the more subtle compression.
Have you tried a transparent compressor with a very small ratio, high threshold, and medium attack and release? Those settings will do very very little to a given sound. Does it still sound squashed to you?
You can get on an anti-compression crusade if you'd like to. Whatever works for your music. But don't try to justify it by saying that everyone else who uses a compressor has sounds which sound "squashed".
If you go down that path you're setting yourself up to be discredited - people can post songs which have very transparent compression, ask you if you think it sounds good, you may say yes, they tell you it has a compressor on it, then you say "wait a minute...yeah...I'm hearing the compression now...it's a bit squashed...it'd sound better without it". Then they tell you they were lying, there's no compression.
There are subtle and extreme ways to use any tool. A compressor has a number of parameters. They don't have to be set in a way that noticeably squashes sounds.
evo8
quote:
Originally posted by MSZ
lol educate you? most of the time u hear compression this forum its because of abuse, and blatant use. what about NY style, and subtle but strong shaping, you know thats what the compressor is for(for me, because i dont use it color). do you know what it does other than squash? i never said how to get the pro sound via compression if thats what you're insinuating. the compression is just the icing to the marvelous sound design in that track, someone correct me if im wrong like i said, my words here are never set in stone most of the time, ya i know im not a great producer and probably will never be.
woah woah, wasnt having a go at you at all, apologies if that what you thought, it was more a question to the forum
Parallel compression/sidechaining i get, what i was looking for someone to explain further how its "part of the pro sound"
evo8
quote:
Originally posted by derail
If this is the case, then you're either only listening to a small subset of songs, which all contain "squash" compression. But much more likely is that you're simply not hearing the more subtle compression.
Have you tried a transparent compressor with a very small ratio, high threshold, and medium attack and release? Those settings will do very very little to a given sound. Does it still sound squashed to you?
You can get on an anti-compression crusade if you'd like to. Whatever works for your music. But don't try to justify it by saying that everyone else who uses a compressor has sounds which sound "squashed".
If you go down that path you're setting yourself up to be discredited - people can post songs which have very transparent compression, ask you if you think it sounds good, you may say yes, they tell you it has a compressor on it, then you say "wait a minute...yeah...I'm hearing the compression now...it's a bit squashed...it'd sound better without it". Then they tell you they were lying, there's no compression.
There are subtle and extreme ways to use any tool. A compressor has a number of parameters. They don't have to be set in a way that noticeably squashes sounds.
Ok first of all, im not on any anti-compression crusade, not at all.
quote:
Have you tried a transparent compressor with a very small ratio, high threshold, and medium attack and release? Those settings will do very very little to a given sound. Does it still sound squashed to you?
No, why would it??? dont understand your point here :conf:
youve actually hit my point elsewhere - what do you mean by transparent compression? Compression thats not really noticeable?
How can transparent compression make it sound that much better if its not really noticeable, you see what im getting at here?
not out to be stubborn or awkward, just trying to get a better understanding of this...time for sleep......
derail
quote:
Originally posted by evo8
How can transparent compression make it sound that much better if its not really noticeable, you see what im getting at here?
In the same way that a small, very narrow EQ cut can deflate a resonant frequency and clean up a sound immensely while not altering it's overall character.
Or the same way a room reverb can add character to a sound without calling attention to itself. We'd notice the reverb if it was taken away, but we don't really notice it as an effect when it's there.
The same with compression - a compressor can be set up to reduce the dynamic range of a sound while retaining very pleasing microdynamics. We won't notice the compressor working on the sound, but we'd notice that the sound isn't quite as solid in the mix when the compressor is turned off.
Sometimes a little bit of treatment goes a long way. If we start with a set of sounds which work really well together, it's unlikely we'll need to apply extreme treatment to any particular sound to get it to where we want it.
Regarding your comment above, you're correct - in most cases we shouldn't be looking to effects to dramatically improve our sounds. Transparent compression won't make any sound "sound that much better".
hmmm..I (and many others) have said a very similar thing about mastering...I can just change the wording above to say "we shouldn't be looking to mastering to dramatically improve our sound"...
This isn't aimed at you, evo8 - we can look for "magic bullets" - the perfect plugin, perfect synth etc, all we want, to instantly take us to the next level. And yes, we will find that there are certain synths, tools etc which we regularly use and which have become a major part of our production process. So it's not like we shouldn't look at what's out there. But the most fundamental improvement comes from becoming more familiar with our vision of what we want and becoming more familiar with the tools we have to work with. It takes time.
With regard to the original post - we all go through phases. I started off producing without compressors, since I didn't really know what to use them for. Then I started using them to "make my sounds louder", to "compete with the pro records". At the time, my sound selection was quite poor, so I could push the compressors as hard as I liked and still not achieve the sound I was after (and I still didn't really know how to use compressors effectively). So I went off compressors for a while, since I equated them with "squashing sounds". After a while I'd developed a clearer idea of when and how I wanted to use compression. The parameters can vary quite a lot depending on the sound/s I want to treat. Sometimes the usage will be extreme, for a certain effect, other times it will be hardly noticeable. In the future I could well change my usage drastically again. I'm always open to learning new and improved ways of doing things!
fuxzz
quote:
Originally posted by derail
Very well written derail.
I think many new producers spend to much time asking questions and watching tutorials about how to make this sound and that sound and etc. and forgetting about the big picture, which is the mix.
Personally I have never tried to copy sounds and stuff like that, what I have done is make tons of (crappy ) tunes, and spending alot of time in my DAW. It has been frustrating many times because the learning curve is so long, and that is what people who are new to production have to face. It takes time, alot of time, there is no shortcuts and to get a good Mix you need to master every element thats needed. Im not saying that you shouldn't try to reproduce sounds at all if that is something you think will work for you, but if you instead sits down and just fool around with your favorite synth you will learn how to make many sounds instead of gettin crazy about that you can't get that Deadmou5 sound or whatever.
It's the same with compression, eq, reverb and so on, nothing beats experience. Compression is hard to get, but are also very useful under the right circumstances.
Not saying Im a pro or so, but this can be worth thinking about.
evo8
quote:
Originally posted by derail
In the same way that a small, very narrow EQ cut can deflate a resonant frequency and clean up a sound immensely while not altering it's overall character.
Or the same way a room reverb can add character to a sound without calling attention to itself. We'd notice the reverb if it was taken away, but we don't really notice it as an effect when it's there.
The same with compression - a compressor can be set up to reduce the dynamic range of a sound while retaining very pleasing microdynamics. We won't notice the compressor working on the sound, but we'd notice that the sound isn't quite as solid in the mix when the compressor is turned off.
Sometimes a little bit of treatment goes a long way. If we start with a set of sounds which work really well together, it's unlikely we'll need to apply extreme treatment to any particular sound to get it to where we want it.
Regarding your comment above, you're correct - in most cases we shouldn't be looking to effects to dramatically improve our sounds. Transparent compression won't make any sound "sound that much better".
hmmm..I (and many others) have said a very similar thing about mastering...I can just change the wording above to say "we shouldn't be looking to mastering to dramatically improve our sound"...
This isn't aimed at you, evo8 - we can look for "magic bullets" - the perfect plugin, perfect synth etc, all we want, to instantly take us to the next level. And yes, we will find that there are certain synths, tools etc which we regularly use and which have become a major part of our production process. So it's not like we shouldn't look at what's out there. But the most fundamental improvement comes from becoming more familiar with our vision of what we want and becoming more familiar with the tools we have to work with. It takes time.
With regard to the original post - we all go through phases. I started off producing without compressors, since I didn't really know what to use them for. Then I started using them to "make my sounds louder", to "compete with the pro records". At the time, my sound selection was quite poor, so I could push the compressors as hard as I liked and still not achieve the sound I was after (and I still didn't really know how to use compressors effectively). So I went off compressors for a while, since I equated them with "squashing sounds". After a while I'd developed a clearer idea of when and how I wanted to use compression. The parameters can vary quite a lot depending on the sound/s I want to treat. Sometimes the usage will be extreme, for a certain effect, other times it will be hardly noticeable. In the future I could well change my usage drastically again. I'm always open to learning new and improved ways of doing things!
appreciate the response mate, i hear you about using compressors in different extreme ways, to smash stuff, soft-clipping etc i still use compression just not so much anymore in the straight forward way of reducing dynamic range
anyways, something ive been thinking about for a while, thanks
