194,415 users have contributed to 42,920 threads and 257,965 posts.
In the past 24 hours, we have 4 new thread(s), 10 new post(s) and 82 new user(s).
@jasensmith said:
I realize that you are not suggesting to use parallel cmpression as an effect
Hello again
As I remeber so far I never used "Parallel-Compression" until now in connection with samples and their mixes.
Beat
edit: (Probably) never compress orchestral music. The most extreme dynamic range is to be found with the symphony orchestra and this principle must be adhered to with VSL samples. Though many people use them in a "quickie" way and then use tricks of mixing. Vienna Instruments has the tools needed for realism, if you take the time to use them. You can adjust dynamic range of every instrument separately, and adjust overall levels. Those two factors eliminate the need for compression - unless it becomes an issue of "fixing it in the mix."
I've seen, heard and done both extremes (and everything in-between): Recordings without any dynamic processing, and recordings with lots (and I mean: LOTS) of processing in any respect. I can assure you that the quality of the result has no corellation with the use or the absence of compression. ;-)
Kind regards,
no, maybe I will comment more - I did overstate it earlier. However I like at least in principle the idea of not using compression because it is the reverse of what the symphony orchestra has, which is the most extreme dynamic range of any musical ensemble.
Also, I have thought about (but not yet seriously done) using compression in a somewhat "artistic" way, that is by applying it to instruments that tend to be more accompaniment, and NOT applying it to instruments that are playing more main lines. So with strings for example, you might use compression on basses and violas, and flatten their dynamic range, but not use it on violins and cellos, which would make them appear and disappear more noticeably in comparison and "sing out" more prominently. Also, it would stop basses from disappearing in a mix which can sometimes happen. Likewise, with woodwinds, using compression to keep them audible, but NOT using it with brass or percussion since they always have enough volume to be heard. I haven't really done much with this approach though...
What we have to keep in mind that there is a HUGE difference between an orchestra playing live in a hall and a recording of the same piece of music.
Look at it that way: Listening to the live orchestra is like attending a theatrical perfomance. Listening to a recording is like watching a movie. Film and theatre have convergences, but I hope that we all agree that they are _not_ the same art form. Not many people would watch a movie which has been made with only one single camera shot, from one single perspective without changing angles, without additional light, without color correction, without edits, and so on. For many genres it is common to use CGI. ... I think you get the point.
The same is true for recorded music, no matter whether it was played live or created virtually. Most of the time, a "pure" recording is actually quite boring. We have to create points of interest for the ear which wouldn't appear in the "real world". Artificial changes in the acoustic "perspective", the "colors", the "lighting", and so on.
Sometimes a simple rebalancing is all that's needed. But more often than not, we have to recourse to additional methods and tools, like edits, EQs, filters, dynamic processing, articficial reverb, modulation, synthetic sound sources, ... Compression is just one of them. I wouldn't say that you can't make a good recording without it, but I wouldn't hesitate a second to use it whenever I get the feeling that the result will benefit from it.
Kind regards,
That is a fantastic comparison Dietz! I love that concept which is very complex if you continue to think about it. It is really true and also a great way to give one ideas about how to work. Also, bachrules has a good point about the artistic reasons.
Jasen smith mentioned the old classical orchestral recordings - an example of something that is similar to compression, but not actually compression, can be found in later great classical recordings which are exemplified by the London FFFR recordings of Mahler done in the 70s. This includes the recording which has been the "greatest recording of the greatest performance of the greatest composition" of all time - Mahler's 8th conducted by Solti and played by Chicago symphony, recorded by London. I have the LP album, also a CD reissue. That recording is really great, and has a lot of individual miking which is somewhat similar to compression in that a flute solo will certainly be louder when heard alone and the engineer adjusts that track upward, compared to its level in the whole ensemble, but is not actually compression. It is a form of "manual " compression. But the overall impression of such a recording is really great and exactly the kind of thing Dietz is talking about.
Riding the levels has been a conventional, every-day task for an audio engineer since the earliest days of (orchestral) recording. An important part of the whole "compression"-concept we got used to goes back to this exercise. The other influential factor was the need for taming - read: limiting - the occasional loud hit which would destroy an otherwise perfect take. - All the ideas of coloring individual tracks and/or "glueing" them together by means of compression became popular much later.
Kind regards,
