compression debate
 

Hi everyone ...
I'm mixing a song of mine and on the one hand I really love using massive compression to get a very loud overall sound ... like you here in most songs nowadays ... but on the other hand I really love the dynamics that were used before when things were less compressed ...
what do you guys prefer more compression and more volume or less compression but more dynamic sound ?

Compression has ruined today's music (imo). It causes "ear fatigue" for me. I like music that I can turn up, and still hear the dynamics, and sound stage. You can't do that with compressed music, because its already LOUD and very one-dimensional. I can put on a record (vinyl), and really enjoy music almost as it it were live, because there is depth. I made the mistake years ago of replacing many of my favorite c.d. with "remastered" versions when they came out. This was a big mistake, because they compressed the music (made it louder) and did not really remaster it from a "quality" standpoint (get a better source: "master tape"). Go to the Steve Hoffman audiophile forum (www.SteveHoffman.tv), and there are many threads addressing this bad trend.

I don't like massive compression of the whole song, but using some seems to be a good tool to even out the dynamics changes in individual tracks. Still, I wish I could get compression to work better with my sound recording program and I haven't figured out the bugs yet. And I'd be willing to use a lot of compression depending on the type of song. Yet if I had to vote, I'd say I'd want songs to have more dynamics.

Just today I was playing an orchestral piece by John Zorn that's impact is derived almost solely from the change in dynamics. If such a song were compressed, it would sound dead.

I tend to go along with Classof75 here in my thoughts regarding compression, at least generally.
But being an electronic music fan in particular, I do see the use of heavy compression. Especially side-chained compression. It actually works in a musical way in certain circumstances.
But when it comes to music that actually relies on dynamic range, heavy compression is a huge no-no. To sacrifice the musical dynamics of a song simply to be "as loud as everyone else" is moronic. We all have volume knobs at home.

Light compression has a use for getting your elements to gel a little better as a whole, or to bring out individual elements and make them more punchy, or to tame a vocal track down, etc... There are uses for compression.

The question here is whether OVERcompression is better than compressing only as much as you need to. The answer is obvious to any mixing or mastering engineer who's worth his weight. Unfortunately most of the kids today are far used to hearing overcompressed music because it's what people do now to "stand out" more than the rest and to achieve that "in your face" sound that honestly tires your ears after about track 2, and this is usually what's requested in mastering studios.

Personally, I think compression should be used when it's needed and not a moment before. And not an amount too much.

It hasn't "ruined modern music", but I really would like it if some artists (*cough metallica cough*) would realize that we have volume knobs.

Yup.
You ever looked at one of their St. Anger songs in a music program... say Audacity or something that shows the waveform? It's like a block of sound. No dynamics at all. I can't believe that album was ever released to the public. I don't even like Metallica and I thought they, and the guys they worked with on the album, could have done better.

Not sure about Death Magnetic though... didn't listen, don't care to. Though I hear it's not as horrible.

it's not 'as' brickwalled, but it's still pretty close. if you want an uncompressed version of DM you need to buy the guitar hero version.

That sucks in so many ways.

yeah but i'd be far more surprised if you weren't able to find that version up for download than to find out it only works in the game.

start with a mono mix, no effects of any kind

add stereo gradually, moving things to where they need to go and adjusting all relevant volumes accordingly

at this point it will be hopefully become clear where you really need compression, reverb, volume swells, panning, flanging etc, and where those things will detract from the recorded tones

Compression has it's place. I'd of been kneckered without it mixing a band I recorded the other week, one moment the singer would be at talking volume, the next we could hear her through the soundproof doors.

Being a fan of harsh EBM i enjoy compression on vocals in electronic music

here's the way i use compression i just use it sort of like a customizable normalizer, i want dynamics but i want the dynamics to peak exactly under 0.5 decibels (my personal standard)

Brickwall limiter is best for that.. but it's basically just a compressor with no makeup gain and a hard knee and super high ratio.

My standard is -0.5
I wouldn't recommend going over 0 in any scenario, as that's when digital clipping occurs, assuming you're using a music program or some other digital equipment.

actually i meant it negative, in my compressor the negative sign is already there

too much compression is not a good thing. its hard to listen to mixes now of different artists just because of the volume differences in the songs that are super compressed. not to mention how much it takes away from the sound of the song. between the low quality of mp3s and super compression some songs just sound horrible.

i would rather listen to a 48kps mp3 than an over-compressed wav file
and i actually i do (it's bright eyes -"Blue Christmas" even at 48kps conor still sounds awesome)