necessary compression

[William]

I was just wondering what people thought in general were instruments/instrument groups that need compression. What I've decided is this: (strictly in a large symphonic setting)

all woodwinds
violas
basses

No others should be compressed, because ---

the violins and cellos are far more numerous and therefore more powerful than basses or violas, so given the equal treatment of the original sample recording, the violas and basses are actually distorted by having the same dynamic range.

The brass should not be compressed ever, because of their extreme dynamic range (likewise percussion).

I noticed how when applying a 1.5 to 1 compression on these selected groups, the sound almost instantly became much more natural. Of course you can compensate for differences in the midi performance, but if you don't these seem reasonable. Or do they?

[Dietz]

Coming from a not necessarily "puristic" sound-engineering background, I have little reservations against dynamic compression, especially when I have access to one (or more) of those "magic" hardware-pieces like an Urei 1176/1178, TubeTech, Massenburg or the like, or analogue tape.

Sometimes the subtle "distortion" generated by many of them actually enhances the technically perfect samples of the Library. In other cases, the compression itself is means to achieve more realistic "breathing" or pumping of very loud instruments in a room (small rooms tend to "compress" a signal by themselves). A forte Timpany, for example, gains much impact by a healthy amount of compression.

OTOH, there are cases where the very defined transients during the attack-phase of (percussive) instruments detract a little bit from an otherwise conclusive spatial image of an virtual stage; limit these sharp transients, and the instrument will "sit" better within the arrangement.

But as always: your milage may vary! ;-]

****

... eager to hear/read other opinions ...

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[William]

Dietz,

I just noticed the exact thing you're talking about with attack transients - but it was on a very violent violin marcato (a VVVM) - a Miraslav one in this case (sorry!) that immediately sounded extremely odd because it leaped out of the reverb before being "set back" within the rest of the mix. Obviously it should either be softer compared to the sustain, or the reverb should be adjusted, but that is a very interesting point that you wouldn't normally think of - that percussive sounds can also have too little of the instantaneous effects of whatever reverb you're using.

[NG1]

I've been doing a bit of thinking about these initially transients as well lately, having been recording in some large spaces and comparing that sound to my recordings in small rooms that have convolution reverb applied. There is a piece of hardware made by SPL called "Transient Designer" (I think) that is supposed to be able to tame these initial bursts. It is also availabe as a Creamware card plug-in. The demo clips I've heard of it seem to show that it can make a great difference it pushing an instrument back in the virtual sound stage. Anyone had any experience with this hardware/plugin? Particularly in an orchestral context?

It seems like it might be the missing element that is needed after convolution reverb.

[Dietz]

Shhhh! The Transient Designer is on of my secret weapons! ;-]

/Dietzzzzz

[Peter Roos]

@William said:

I was just wondering what people thought in general were instruments/instrument groups that need compression. What I've decided is this: (strictly in a large symphonic setting)

all woodwinds
violas
basses

No others should be compressed, because ---

the violins and cellos are far more numerous and therefore more powerful than basses or violas, so given the equal treatment of the original sample recording, the violas and basses are actually distorted by having the same dynamic range.

The brass should not be compressed ever, because of their extreme dynamic range (likewise percussion).

I noticed how when applying a 1.5 to 1 compression on these selected groups, the sound almost instantly became much more natural. Of course you can compensate for differences in the midi performance, but if you don't these seem reasonable. Or do they?

May I ask what dynamic range you were using the compressor on (peak level to threshold range)?

I find this very interesting stuff. If you want to apply gentle compression, would it help to use a multi-band compressor on individual tracks or submixes (stems)? Would this also give more control over the transients, as you you can use different attack settings per band? Dietz?

Regards,
Peter

[William]

The threshold was at -24 db.

I've decided what I posted before is a little too definite - this only seemed to work on the particular piece I was doing, but on a lot of others wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. So I'm not sure you can ever use a "generic" setting even as a starting point.

[Dietz]

@William said:

The threshold was at -24 db.

I've decided what I posted before is a little too definite - this only seemed to work on the particular piece I was doing, but on a lot of others wouldn't necessarily be a good idea. So I'm not sure you can ever use a "generic" setting even as a starting point.

Very true.

/Dietz

[Dietz]

@Peter Roos said:

[...]
I find this very interesting stuff. If you want to apply gentle compression, would it help to use a multi-band compressor on individual tracks or submixes (stems)? Would this also give more control over the transients, as you you can use different attack settings per band? Dietz?

Regards,
Peter

No, not necessarily. A good dynamic processor is what I'd look for (... you can "soften" single attacks nicely with a good expander, for example, or tame hard transients with a look-ahead limiter, if you are aware of the possible side-effects to the timing).

Multiband-compression is an extremely powerfull, versatile tool - but nothing for the faint-of-heart. You have to know to listen for EQ-like changes within the signals as well as for the overall effect to loudness and envelope, all at the same time, and all signal-dependent on the top of it.

While I use MB-compression a lot on single tracks, I tend to see it as a dynamic EQ more than as a means to control the amplitude per se, in these cases. OTOH, I use MB-compression for the main output in almost every mix I do, not only for dynamic "tightness", but also as a way to control the tonal colour of the whole mix (... as I said before, I'm no purist ... 8-] ...)

HTH,

/Dietz - Vienna Symphonic Library

[Peter Roos]

@William said:

The threshold was at -24 db.
I'm not sure you can ever use a "generic" setting even as a starting point.

[:)] Well, I was not looking for a generic approach, just checking how much compression you effectively applied. If the ratio 1.5:1 was applied over a range of 24 dB that's quite a lot, IMHO. But you didn't say if the -24 was relative to the peak in the signal [;)]

Cheers,

[William]

I'm convinced this is one of the reasons Dietz's mixes sound so great - not being a purist. (Not to mention being an expert on the subject!)

Peter, yes it was relative to peak. Also I guess I am trying to find a generic approach, that's what I meant, but it's probably not going to work. Like recently on a smaller chamber orchestra style mix, I applied the same compression to the string basses that worked perfectly on a large orchestration --- and they dropped off the map. No bass. Oh well...