Mix Buss Compression

[mmaustralia]

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-cha...ereo-buss.html

On that GS thread Charles put a link to this thread... http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&postid=163115

...and arghhhh that thread doesn't work. I can't seem to find any info on this here. Can someone help me out. Is there a thread here that someone knows of with this info? or where can I find info on this. I'm curious.

Thanks

P.S. Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum ever

[beyondish]

Originally Posted by mmaustralia

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/q-cha...ereo-buss.html

On that GS thread Charles put a link to this thread... http://gearslutz.com/board/showthrea...&postid=163115

...and arghhhh that thread doesn't work. I can't seem to find any info on this here. Can someone help me out. Is there a thread here that someone knows of with this info? or where can I find info on this. I'm curious.

Thanks

P.S. Hi everyone, this is my first post on this forum ever

Welcome!

[Charles Dye]

Welcome!

Here's the thread I think you were looking for...

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/so-mu...ereo-buss.html

My post below is essentially all the info from the original, with additional info about other approaches to buss compression.

And I retitled the thread to open the topic up a bit wider. Hope ya don't mind.

[Charles Dye]

Compressing the Stereo Mix Buss

There are essentially 3 ways to use buss compression on your mix.

1. Put it on near the end of the mix.
2. Put it on from the beginning of the mix.
3. Don't put it on @ all.

Near the End of the Mix

The first is an approach I used for a number of years. When I insert a compressor near the end of a mix, I will first work to make my mix sound as big and powerful as possible without it, and then once I put it in, at about 4/5's of the way through, the mix will become even bigger. I usually use a softer less aggressive style of compression this way, because the individual tracks might have a bit more compression on them.

From the Beginning of the Mix

The second approach is to insert the compressor at the beginning and mix into it. It can have a number of advantages over placing the compressor on near the end. I tried mixing through a compressor when I was a younger engineer, but @ the time I wasn't very satisfied with the results. So, a few years ago I tried it again, + this time I decided to stick with it for awhile to really get a handle on it. And after a few mixes I really liked both the sound + the process of mixing thru a compressor.

If you're used to mixing without a compressor across the buss it takes some getting used to. The dynamics of the mix don't react the way you would normally expect them to, so you can't just try it once. You need to do a number of mixes, so you can familiarize yourself with this new limited dynamic response.

I've found it has a few advantages. One, it helps bring the mix together much quicker. Two, I find myself not needing as much compression on individual tracks to get the sound I want. Three, the mix requires less automation to bring out all the elements. Four, and most of all, mixing though a compressor changes the way I approach a mix. I'm able to get a very big + powerful sound very quickly with just the kick, snare, bass + hat. Then I just begin to fill the other instruments in around them.

To establish my starting levels for the mix, I first set my kick + snare level peaking around -10 dB on my DAW's stereo buss meters without the compressor, but from that point on the compressors goes in + never comes out. I generally use a Ratio = 2:1, Attack = 4-10 ms, Release = approx. 250-300 ms (set about to 8th note). I've used many different plugz for this, including RenComp, Impact, + Waves SSL, but I'm currently using URS Channel Strip Pro.

With most of the music I've been mixing lately (rock or other aggressive styles) 4 dB of compression has been sounding really good. It may sound like a lot, previously when placing the compressor over buss towards the end I would hit it only 2 to 2.5 dB, but I also had more compression on the individual tracks. Since I now use less individual compression, it probably works out to about the same amount of overall, just a different way to apply it.

Mixing this way gives me a sound that's very different than the more controlled sound of individual compression, a lot of automation, and light compression on the bus. It really sounds much more exciting. Explosive. As if things are at the brink of popping through the speakers. I love it.

I should also add that this really isn't considered mastering compression. Compression across the stereo buss while mixing is done all the time on most of the records you own. Whether inserted at the beginning or towards the end it's been a pretty standard technique for decades done by engineers all over the globe. If you need anymore proof, I have three letters: S - S - L.

None @ All

Mixing with compression is not the only way to go, another way is to use no mix buss compression @ all. This can be more work, but the results can be amazing, creating a very open + airy sound. I just recently mixed an entire album where I wanted a more dynamic sound than I usually go for, so I didn't use any mix buss compression. It required more automation, but the end result had a lot of depth + subtlety that would have been lost if I compressed it more aggressively.

Hope this helps.

[salonrouge]

Hi Charles, would be nice if you would like to share some URS Strip Pro Settings that worked well on your Stereo Master Bus. As a beginner, I would very appreciate to get insight into your Pro approach and at least figure out a good starting oint ith this amazin plug-in. Many thanks in advance!

[otek]

How about posting it in the preset thread?


otek

[neilio]

another method thats not another, yet it is, is to do both of charles 1 or 2 AND 3, that is have a compressed mix and a non compressed mix.

there is million ways to accomplish that, and it depends on your board too,or even in alsihad(nostalgic to write that) with an extra master fader. some consoles have auxillary stereo buss's that usually have less stuff in the signal path,so perhaps that would be the one for the non-compressed mix,or whatever.

there was an article in tape-op awhile back,and i forget the guys name but he had done alot of stuff that i like and that was approach to have an effected 2-buss blended with a non-effected one.

now that i am thinking about it, i think most of the time i would have the non-compressed mix as the prevalent one,and tuck the compressed one into that.

of course maybe the vicodin is really kicking in right now.

[otek]

Originally Posted by neilio

there was an article in tape-op awhile back,and i forget the guys name but he had done alot of stuff that i like and that was approach to have an effected 2-buss blended with a non-effected one.

This method is commonly referred to as Parallel Compression.

There are numerous discussions on the topic around the various fora. Though commonly applied to drums, the parallel compression technique works for just about any application. Applying it to the whole mix is, to the best of my knowledge, fairly rare but not unheard of.

As an aside, the Swedish company Vintagedesign makes an analog summing amp which has two extra parallel stereo paths in addition to the main stereo bus, each with its own level control. This allows for easy application of various parallel processing techniques.

otek

[mmaustralia]

Hey, thanks heaps for the link Charles. Very much appreciated it!

And thanks for making me feel welcome. I will be hanging around for a while now - if not forever. So much to learn on here.

peace.

[Kenny Gioia]

Kenny wuz here!!



__________________________________________________ ______

[Bob Olhsson]

Back in the '60s mixing into a compressor was common when mixing commercials or jingles where speed was everything in the eyes of the ad agency client. It was almost never used by the very same mixers for major label records who often referred to it as a "hype mix."

Why would people spend the extra time and money?

One word, translation.

Mixing into a compressor is a totally legitimate approach that I use myself but there can be a downside which is the risk of a weak underlying musical balance that sort-of works in the studio but nowhere else.

[h1studio]

Clap, clap, clap.... thank you Charles for the nice info you share, i realy appreciate it

[MarkRM]

Hey, I'm new here! I was interested in this topic, and it only took a moment to look around and see this is a great place.

This is a conversation I'm really keen to read. I've always been a little frightened about adding mix buss compression because I assumed a mastering engineer for the most part knows better than me. For my last record I compromised and mixed through some gentle compression which I then removed at mixdown. I was finding mixing with no compression was giving me an unrealistic idea of how things were going to sound once they'd been mastered.

One thing though: ever since I was a kid, sixties records (particularly from the mid sixties onwards) always sounded the best to me, and it's always been a sound I've aimed for with my own haphazard production. I particularly like when you could hear the machines working, which I guess started to happen a lot around this time. I respect the Albini 'documentary' approach to recording and mixing, but I've always loved records where the band's treated it as something else entirely, using the tools as extra instruments. I guess this is why I love Joe Meek as well ... so many rules broken with his stuff. He did what he thought sounded the best, although even now that stuff would give a lot of 'proper' engineers heart attacks.

Anyway, I was always wondering about the role of the buss compressor in sixties recording. I always assumed it was rarely done. Bob, you seem to be confirming this. But weren't The Beatles using buss compression from pretty early on? As far as I understand it, they were putting their complete mixes through the Altec (multiple times even when using reduction mixes).

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by Kenny Gioia

Kenny wuz here!!

I hear ya bro... oh, the irony.

[Brendo]

Originally Posted by MarkRM

For my last record I compromised and mixed through some gentle compression which I then removed at mixdown.

What?? No! Don't do that. Or at least I wouldnt...

Why slave over your mix for so long and then mess it up right before you bounce it? At least give the ME both versions.

[MarkRM]

Well, I was quite happy with the result, and as far as I understand it, I'm not the only one who does this. On my previous records, when I wasn't mixing through compression, I found that if anything I was too subtle on some things, in particular vocal levels and percussion. Adding some compression on the master buss while mixing gave me a better indication of how it was going to sound once it was compressed at mastering. However, I wasn't comfortable leaving that compressor plug-in on at mixdown. My feeling at the time was: it gives the ME less room to move. He can put that compression back on with his outboard anyway, which will sound better than my plug-in. I should also point out it was very minor compression (a couple of dBs), and I spent quite a bit of time getting it to sound good with the compression off as well as on.

[Tim Halligan]

Can I suggest something wacky here?


Why don't you mix using the tools you wish to use on your mixbuss and wherever else you like to use such devices...
















...and mix it until you are happy with the mix...whilst not trying to pre-emptively second-guess the mastering engineer.



I keep remembering some wise words that Bob O. posted somewhere:

The mix is the best presentation of the song.
Mastering is the best presentation of the mix.


Or is such a concept simply outdated in this day and age?


Cheers,
Tim

[Charles Dye]

Originally Posted by Tim Halligan

Mastering is the best presentation of the mix.

The current paradigm appears to be: mastering is the loudest presentation of the mix.


Which, of course, I think we can change.

[MarkRM]

What concept's outdated? Talking down to people? No, that obviously still well and truly still existsy.

That's your opinion on how you think things should be done, and fair enough. But the implication that I'm mixing for the mastering engineer (or that I'm not concerned with getting my mixes sounding as good as I can get them) is not entirely fair. What I'm saying is, I see the mastering process as part of getting a record sounding how I want it. If I want a record to sound a certain way, then I don't think it's naive of me to take into consideration the potential effect the process is going to have on the finished product. I'm going to get the ME to put a bunch of compression on my final mixes because that's how I like my records to sound. Mixing at home with that in mind, I think it's totally reasonable to hold off on applying things till the mastering stage, especially things which an ME is paid to do and which are so interrelated with the finalization of a recording.

[Tim (tarmadilo) Armstrong]

Yeah, but the compressor you're mixing into (and then removing) ISN'T the compressor(s) the ME's using. You have no idea what kind or how much compression might be used in mastering the recording.

It's probably a better idea to do what Tim Halligan is suggesting. Get your mix sounding EXACTLY how you want the recording to sound. Pretend that there is no such thing as mastering. If using a little bit of compression (or, heck, a ton of compression) gets your mix sounding exactly the way you want it to sound, fire it up. Expecting the ME to add compression to get the mix sounding the way you want it to sound means you're abdicating an important part of the mix to him. His job is to take your FINISHED mix and buff it a little, optimizing it for radio, etc.

Cheers, Tim