Comments on: Don’t Buy A Hardware Compressor…Unless

By: A. Dorian

A. Dorian — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 16:46:36 +0000

I am pretty much with all the seasoned pros on this one - you can compress after the tracking in the mixing stages. It would be nice if your audio interface had a compressor/limiter on the input stages so that way you can feed a hotter signal but if you don’t know how to feed this it could be detrimental instead of an asset to your session.
I personally when working in the studio set limiters on all channels to prevent digital overs (or more commonly known as “clipping”) and maybe some mild compression on the tracks that require it. On the other hand, at home, I record straight from the interface and watch the levels. Once in a while you’ll overload it and have to redo a part but more you record the better you get at it.

By: Johnnwaud

Johnnwaud — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 05:25:23 +0000

I agree with the point of not using a hardware compressor during tracking unless you know how, but I believe that if one wants to be a proficient recordist, they need to understand compression and how to use it at every phaze of the project. I personally use compression at tracking(”printed”), on the independant track and on the stereo buss of all projects I do. Transparent compresson technique takes many years of practice and one can never really stop learning it, as each waveform affects the unit differently.

By: Brandon Drury

Brandon Drury — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 21:22:21 +0000

Never use a hardware compressor unless…..you buy a really great one, have multiple outputs, an extra input, have super sick D/A converters, and can feed the proper signal to the compressor and back in again.

Dude, you hit the nail on the head. I’ll definitely check out the PSP Audioware Mixpressor. I’ve been eyeballing the Focusrite Liquidmix for some time now, but if I could get a super musical sounding EQ and compressor for less, I’d do it!

Brandon

By: yeahimsteve

yeahimsteve — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 09:56:18 +0000

Of course, another good way to do it is to have the singer sing the quiet parts only on one track, then adjust your levels for the loud stuff, then record the louder/screamo stuff a separate take on another track. Then, not only are you getting more even levels, but you are also maximizing your bit depth (assuming of course it’s a digital setup). Third, you get more pronunciation from the singer, because he has time to finish words and also start new sentences because of the time break.

“Well, what if the singer doesn’t feel it as much, or loses their feel, and blah blah blah..”
All I can say for this, is use reverse psychology on the guy (or girl). Boost their ego up way huge and then quickly shoot them down by saying, “What, do I need to come in there and sing it good for you?” Then they feel the need to prove themself and will say, “pfft, whatever dude, hit record..” and then their agression is a lot more even keeled.
Actually, I’m totally kidding (sort of). All jokes aside, The vocalist should be able to pull it off, especially because the singing style is changing, therefore, the voice will naturally be different anyway. It shouldn’t be an issue.
If I could recommend a really bitchin software compressor, it’s the PSP Audioware Mixpressor (comes in the mixpack for $150). I seriously, seriously recommend this compressor. Why? Because it’s very musical sounding, and it does a great job of replicating analog. Brandon is totally right, most people wouldn’t hear the hardware anyway.
The one thing I could say that’s good about the hardware compressor is if you have multiple outputs, you could probably save yourself some CPU cycles by using it as an insert…at the expense of taking up another input track as the signal returns to the computer.

So….”Never use a hardware compressor unless…..you buy a really great one, have multiple outputs, an extra input, have super sick D/A converters, and can feed the proper signal to the compressor and back in again.” Then you can use it during mixdown…but don’t even think about tracking with one.

P.S. Brandon, I love the site dude. You are funny as hell.

By: brandondrury

brandondrury — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 05:05:48 +0000

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the purpose of a hardware compressor is to eliminate clipping, necessarily, although it can do this.

I’ve recorded well over 500 songs without a hardware compressor. There is no need to jack up levels so high that they would clip without compression or limiting.

A compressor is used as a tool to improve tone. To use it to make up for poor gain structure is not really the point. Does that make sense?

If I’m recording a very dynamic vocalist, I’d set the gain so that they are just under clipping at their loudest parts (maybe a scream or something). Then, I’ll use a software plugin to crush the vocal pretty hard when it gets up to that point so that the mix in the headphones is about right. Of course, this compressor plugin can be removed at any time.

Brandon Drury

By: Tom R.

Tom R. — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 19:12:36 +0000

…but, isn’t one of the functions of the hardware compressor to ensure that the input isn’t clipped before the digital conversion process? I’ve been told that, once a clipped signal gets into your computer, it can’t be “un-clipped” by a software compressor.