1. Dear Guest, if you haven't already... enter to WIN Samplitude Pro X4!
    Dismiss Notice

Dynamic use of a compressor

Discussion in 'Compressors / Limiters (analog)' started by pcrecord, Sep 2, 2015.

  • AT5047

    The New AT5047 Premier Studio Microphone Purity Transformed

  1. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    I should have explain it like that at the begining lol ! ;)
     
  2. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    exactly, which is why I always create groups and stems regardless of what my mixdown process is. I always do this because its easier to blend musical parts that were created in steps or that need precisely what you are wanting to do.

    Samplitude educates us in a way that you no longer look at mixing music like Pro Tools and friends (DSP hogs).
    Object based editing ( or audio clips) are very similar to stems. The object (again... the clip of an audio segment) are very similar to stems but now in the channel lanes (can be manipulated ITB or sent OTB there as well).
    Example: You can make an entire chorus into an object. Done.

    (EDIT) NOTE:
    You don't need Samplitude to do what I am suggesting.
    However, the brilliant code makes mixing (alternative approaches) on any platform, easier. Which may be what you might want to do the next time you want to better isolate, adjust volumes, manipulate parts of a song using compression and so on.

    I bet you will return less and less to the complicated processing other (DSP hogs) platforms create for us.

    Never the less, please keep us up to date. Its all fun!
     
  3. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    In samplitude, could this be done with multiple tracks becoming an object ?
     
    audiokid likes this.
  4. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Oh ya!
    for that matter... not that you would ever need to but hundreds of objects for that matter.

    Now do I have your attention! ;)
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  5. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Once you start looking at audio lanes like objects, the entire concept of mixing and breaking tracks all up into workable sections becomes more logical. Object editing is really hard to understand (because no other DAW does it). You actually have it, and can get past the way other DAW's are coded.
    Example, Pro Tools is designed to keep you using plug-ins and needing more DSP. Its a trap and a marketing system to sell software. UAD, same thing. They are traps and bloated systems.

    Samplitude was created to optimize the music production system on older computers. Smart people learned how to make it work at a mastering level before the software trap all started.
    Samplitude allows us to manipulate audio on the clip (loop etc), with full edit, bus, aux, master, process, tune etc etc etc.... at the audio clip the same way we would on a bus or master section of an entire song at the end of it.
    Object is another name for an audio clip. But, Samplitude is basically a full blown mixing and mastering solution anywhere you want to edit.

    Does this make more sense?

    I'll post a video and when you watch it, try looking at it without thinking about Sonar.
     
  6. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Sean G, kmetal and pcrecord like this.
  7. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    To confirm, and I'll retire my contribution to this thread because I'm not intending this to turn into a Samplitude thread... (but how can I help it lol!)
    You can take this approach to any DAW. I would go back to where Chris Perra and I were discussing the groups and where I mention how I would turn your groups into workable sections to where you can adjust volumes or process them without effecting other sections of the song.
    I would do that by bouncing groups into stems and assigning them to individual lanes. Then put a 2-bus comp etc on that and mix it to the other sections.

    This avoids using one plugin and unnecessary automation to do it all; imho, a really awkward (if not badly noticeable) way to get what you want done.
     
  8. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    Yes you do !! ;) It open a tons of creative possibilities.. :)
    But selecting the tracks to create multiple group objects for the different parts of the song seems like a longer journey than just automate a treashold knob isn't it ??
     
  9. Chris Perra

    Chris Perra Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Location:
    Toronto
    Home Page:
    That feature in samplitude is cool.... most people do the same thing.. just moving the different clips to separate lines.. it's does clean up stuff better visually with samplitude though. As far as plug in hogs. The plug ins in samplitude using that approach appear to be active till you freeze them. Is that correct?
     
  10. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    I can freese tracks in sonar too.. Althought I only do it with Vsti and tracks with Amp sims.
    I don't suffer from having too much plugins (dropouts or artifcats or latency). I just got the habit of using less as possible since a few converstions we had here that unveiled the possibility that the more the computer works, the quality could suffer. I have no proof of that but I'm not taking any chances.. ;)
     
  11. ChrisH

    ChrisH Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Location:
    Iowa
    Good thinking!
    Manny Marroquin actually does exactly that.
    Ride the threshold at your own risk.. haha
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  12. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Possibly yes, possibly no. I suppose its whatever produces the best outcome.

    If I can fix or apply something permanently apposed to using automation, I will always go that route. Object editing has changed my way to use automation on say, vocals and instruments. I find its easier to get it right at the object apposed to riding something all the way through a session. In your case, it sounds like you need to ride it though.

    I used to automate like it was a necessary sugar. I use automation more for effects like delay tails, nature sounds, audience, ambiance effects, fades or rises and so on.

    yes,
    I usually use OBE for things I know I will eventually freeze or that have no added impact on CPU.
    Common things I do at the object are: De-essing, level editing, tuning, EQing to match punch-in from later dates and so on. In fact, most of all my edits are things I know I would not regret later. Then again, I will save the session so I have a restore point.
    The only time I actually use plug-ins that remain on to the end of a session are effects, sidechain compression or spacial tools that I may need to tweak at final mixdown . Everything else is done at the object and /or saved for the Master section on DAW 2.
     
  13. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    I can but I don't need to ride it..
    I can select the part of the song and create a change for that part with 2 mouse clicks (for an equal change for many measures that's what I do)
    Of course I still need time to listen to the results and make sure it sounds good. That's the most important thing right there ;)
    See what I mean at 44sec of this video
     
  14. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    cool, that's all basic, excellent automation methods. It appears you have it sorted already and are only needing a basic time line automation?
    I call that automated riding. Its still riding the wave with additional automation using valued processing.
    This used to create an audible "zipper" effect in Pro Tools plus all sorts of "random" phasing issues when stereo tools were automated on a 2-bus. The L/R coding couldn't always keep the phase integrity while processing (especially comps) in real time. Which is only why I am mentioning this in the first place. Your OP was about comping in a stereo process. Here is my rational "shop talk" :)

    The more automation was done to a session (as track count or DSP demands increased), the more unnatural music sounded.
    I suppose they have the zipper issue silenced better today but this type of stereo processing and what it can do to stereo transient preservation, still worries me.
    Mono tracks: at least when the processing starts "randomly" chocking code, it doesn't screw the phase on the lane, but (in a very detailed discussion about phase) often there is the subject "unedited" (band/ performance bleed) in other tracks that don't get edited in the single process. Bleed Examples : drums , cymbals, voice pitch and most of all, "the room reflections and ambiance" are the worst effected from wave riding. It creates a random pumping/ phasing and nulling effect that most people don't even notice. I'm going beyond the basic thread but its one more reason how bad things accumulate in a mix, to avoid. I render to avoid random. If I do something to one track, I also follow where it could be bleeding or dropping in and out of unsuspected other channels, and duplicate the process if at all possible.

    When we are recording live music, there is a reason why the old days sounded more enjoyable. We couldn't do all this perfection to each track to music back then. Even though the sonics lacked, music sounded so much more phase natural, dynamic and imho, enjoyable. My way of avoiding random cause and effect, I make sure I do things together in steps, look for any traces of cause and effect in other tracks, then render rather than letting the random turn it all unnatural.

    Personally, I try to avoid stereo timeline riding methods whenever possible because it can add unpredictable random phase issues with some plug-ins and computers.

    I know I am going far deeper into all this, but what the heck... mixing talk is addicting. :love:
     
    pcrecord likes this.
  15. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    All very good considerations Chris that's why I like your posts ;)
     
    audiokid likes this.
  16. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Thanks.
    Now that we've dissected this discussion, it would be very interesting to have you try both processes to see which sounds better for you.
    1. Session 1 - Using one plug-in and the automation as you are describing in Sonar,
    2. Session 2 - Break and duplicate (chorus'/ verse's, bridge, etc) into sections and place them into separate lanes. I would still create groups for these sections and apply dedicated compression on the group(s), not the tracks. I may also use a final master comp and possibly a stereo reverb on the "master bus" to glue it all together.
    (Note: If you do this, keep the original version but mute it. Duplicate all the parts (chorus'/ verse's, bridge, etc) so they are lined up to your original Session 1. This will make the A/B more accurate. Yes, this may be more time consuming but imho, it will be worth it for this experiment.

    Assuming this is for more detailed results: In Samplitude (or most DAW's), I bet you would get better results finalized faster via #2 way than the time it would take you to accurately get the automation right. Compression Automation is an endless tweaking imho. You can fuss with it for hours sometimes. But that's another topic.
     
  17. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    Not so, I tried it this morning and it was a very fast and easy thing to do. I did ajust the comp for the loudest part of the song and then just automated lower treashold for the other parts. In 5 min the comp was doing 2-3db of GR on the entire song..
    But I'm open to challenges Chris, I'm gonna try the splitting lanes technic this week and let you know ;)
    After all How it sounds is far more important that how fast I can do it !!!
     
  18. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Good to hear.

    Maybe your needs for this are very subtle. I know what you are suggesting is faster, in a subtle simple step, but it really may not be that case if you are shooting for a more glued sound.
    Cool, I hope you follow my steps.

    Would you mind uploading the track in question. I suppose it would be helpful to even be hearing what you are doing to it. Maybe it's so subtle, which of course, a simple auto curve is all that's needed.
    If its an obviously noticeable,
    I would be open to share what my process would sound like too. I wouldn't do anything more than what I described above (Session 2) which would be 100% ITB on a laptop (headphone monitoring).
    Regardless of how many channels are in a song, the steps of grouping and placing a master verb on the master bus is where I hear glue-like benefits. It could be dynamic comping isn't really your answer.
     
  19. pcrecord

    pcrecord Quality recording seeker ! Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2013
    Location:
    Quebec, Canada
    Home Page:
    You know what I realise ? the first song I tried this, it was a guitar/voc intro, then soft verse, chorus, more busy verse then bridge, then chorus..
    It makes a lot of different dynamics.. so many many spliting.. lol ;)..
     
  20. audiokid

    audiokid Chris Staff

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2000
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Home Page:
    Interesting - Please explain more?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice