- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,769
- Likes
- 37,634
But now we're heading for the max. I feel the only reason can be a kind of software-driven logic that says that if the quietest parts and the loudest parts are almost identical in amplitude, then the mixing stage can be bypassed, thereby saving time and money.Well ... not really. As both a clueless artist and clueless recording engineer since the late 1970s, I suggested, in answer to @Blumlein 88's question about the entrenchment of the kind of nth degree compression we hear today, that it's being used as a panacea for unskilled and inexperienced mixers.
Heavy compression has been around a long time, but nth degree is new. Not driven by natural evolution, either, because the problems compression traditionally solved, CDs in cars and Top 40 radio etc, are long forgotten. They get zero consideration. Everything is a pretty standard streaming mix now, which needs to be competitive, sure, but as @j_j alluded, given more than a snap to judge, especially between substantially different options, more people migrate toward heavy-ish compression than subtle, but no one likes approaching the maximum, and it was never heard commercially, because it's like getting hit in the head with a fencepost. Oftentimes the preferred mix was somewhat less compressed than it could have been.
But now we're heading for the max. I feel the only reason can be a kind of software-driven logic that says that if the quietest parts and the loudest parts are almost identical in amplitude, then the mixing stage can be bypassed, thereby saving time and money.
I don't really think that is the reason. The people doing this spend considerable time compressing and limiting. It isn't a case of just jam it up tight and be done with it. I think if anything the mixing might be more involved than previously. Mastering traditionally is the final mix to two channels turned over to the mastering person. Any compression there is global. Mixing will have different amounts and types of compression done to each track that contributes to the final mix. Of course stem mastering is often done now where the mastering has more than a single stereo track to work with.
Compressors have attack and release times, different knees in how they operate and levels. It can be frequency filtered as well as level dependent. Just getting drum sound you want is almost a specialty type of using compression and limiting. Side chain compression is common now too. Side chain compression is when another track has the compression of that side chain activated by what is going on in another track. All of that is rather complex and making adjustments to all the elements and giving it a listen takes time and effort. In a sense it is amazing the people doing this can compress something so much and it not sound worse (which still doesn't mean I like the sound of it).
I'm just an amateur who records a little. I've tried doing some of this just to figure it out, and it is hard to do without a complete and total mess as a result. Maybe it is a fashion in the sense those developing these skills are just trying to out-do each other. Rather like a male peacock or fiddler crab where evolutionary competition gets out of hand. But make no mistake, there is skill in doing this even as it is something at least some of us don't want done.
If you are interested here are a couple of basic explanations of how some of this is done.
What is Sidechain Compression? - inSync
Sidechain compression is a must-have tool for every audio engineer. Sweetwater dives into this topic, explains how it works, and how and when to deploy it.
www.sweetwater.com
What Is Sidechain Compression? And How To Use It
Sidechain compression is a modern mixing technique. In this article, we’re going to share the basics of sidechain compression along with the best uses of sidechain compression to get you started with it in your mix.
www.izotope.com
Last edited: