Mix compression tutorial now uploaded at Samplecraze

hey,

sorry, i don't mean to bash your work or take anything away from how you work like you do.


im just trying to tell everyone that sometimes being too anal about something is just too much hassle. me, I like to keep things simple.

that compressor designs are dependent on transient processing and sub circuits are built specifically for this. You also claim that ears are the only thing that counts.
Fine by me.

im sorry, english is not my mother language, so correct me if im wrong or if I understood you wrong. can you explain what you mean by sub-sircuits?

I claim ears are the only thing that counts, when mixing. if something doesn't need compression, i don't compress it. how do i know? i listen to the material. same rule applies to everything in the process, like eq'ing.

you are right on the different types of compressors and physics and all that. some types of compressors just simply can't process stuff based on the topology. (opto elements can't react to fast transients because of the physics of the opto element). or did I understand you wrong?

Zukan wrote:

Eemo1 wrote:

You can drive into the headroom of an analogue mixer and have harmonic distortion (depending on the build and design).
You can't do that with tape.

you think the tape deck doesn't have an amp before the actual tape head? come on....

Different process and it's called saturation. Usually, the decks are driven at the mixer source and it's the opamps that process the signal along with the VU amps.

look, on the signal chain, it really doesn't matter on which amp you drive stuff on. it can be from the mic -> preamp -> mixer in -> mixer out -> compressor in -> compressor out -> tape deck in -> tape deck out.... you name it. you can generate harmonic distortion on a tape deck. insert a 1k sine wave and check the levels coming out? fiddle the tape controls, do you see the generated harmonics...

VU amps doesn't process the signal chain. the signal is feeded to the VU's but it doesn't go to the output. so the VU's don't process the signal. or did I misunderstand that?



this topic makes me want to do a video on mix compression...

I'm a beginner, so I find Zukan's tutorials very helpful. Saying I should only use my ears is fine, except I don't know what I'm listening for as my ears aren't trained, and I'm not going to get the best results. If there's another source of information, like looking at the waveform, then why shouldn't I use it?

I don't think Zukan's writing his tutorials for experienced sound engineers who already know what they're doing!

you just about made my case, what are you supposed to be listening for when controlling dynamics/transients...


steps towards to train the ears and taking steps towards listening should be the step you're taking.



by all means, take every piece of information you possibly can.

damn, if I ever need help getting to sleep, imma come back and read this thread again


wow guys

Paul_Caruso wrote:My question to you over and over again, which you don't seem to be answering is that if you can't hear a 2db boost or cut at 2.6khz - why are you doing it? If you can't hear it, who can? And if no one can hear it, what's the point. Music is to be heard not looked at on a screen.

Let me see if i get all of this. if u record a sound into pro tools or w/e and u see that on the meter its jumpin into the red at certain peaks but u dnt hear the clipping. Your saying that u would not bring the level down 1.1db or so just becuase u cant hear it clipping in the first place?

you wouldnt be able to hear the difference by ear but u would be able to see it... just my 2 cent

good stuff Zukan!

A100Drumz wrote:

Paul_Caruso wrote:My question to you over and over again, which you don't seem to be answering is that if you can't hear a 2db boost or cut at 2.6khz - why are you doing it? If you can't hear it, who can? And if no one can hear it, what's the point. Music is to be heard not looked at on a screen.

Let me see if i get all of this. if u record a sound into pro tools or w/e and u see that on the meter its jumpin into the red at certain peaks but u dnt hear the clipping. Your saying that u would not bring the level down 1.1db or so just becuase u cant hear it clipping in the first place?

you wouldnt be able to hear the difference by ear but u would be able to see it... just my 2 cent

You forgot to quote my other post:

Paul_Caruso wrote:
If I don't hear it clip - who else will?
...
I definitely recommend accurate metering, checking your levels going into tape or A/D converter on a VU meter is invaluable so that you know you're leaving enough headroom (or overdriving it to the required level, as the case may be). Clip indicators too, if you hear something crunch and you then think "why is that sounding like that, is something overloading" then you can check your meters to see where it's happening.

However, I don't see looking at a waveform to decide what needs to be done as being in the same ballpark.

I check that my input and output levels are correct all the time using VUs or the PT meters. Using metering to check that signals are at a level that's acceptable is crucial for appropriate gain staging but I certainly wouldn't watch the meters while mixing a track and think "oh the bass is really loud in the chorus I'll put a compressor on it or automate it" any more than I would look at the waveform and make a decision. I listen to the track and adjust according to what I'm hearing.

I don't want to go over this too much but at the same time I don't want my views misrepresented.

Eemo 1, sorry I only saw this now.

I should have put a comma before VU amps. What I was trying to say was that there are a number of different amps in the signal path. However, op-amps are rated and there variances determine how a sound will be expressed.

In regards to watching meters while mixing etc. That's up to the individual and how they like to work. Metering is there for a reason but not the meat of the points I am trying to get across to some of you.

Metering has been around forever and there are good reasons for it. If you choose to use them or not is up to you.
I only brought metering into the equation when someone stated that all they needed was their ears. I responded by stating that this is not the case when we are dealing with detail and metering and monitoring are two crucial factors. hearing and watching are better than just one or the other. That's common sense.

However, what some of you don't seem to be able to grasp here is the design and build implementation of compressors and their sub circuits. They rely solely on transients and not just peak transients. Low level transients are as important as peak transients and you will have to be a bat to determine where they lie aurally. You need to check the waveform data to understand where the peak and low level transients lie and you need the peak transients to be able to reference the process that will be applied.

Now, some of you have bat hearing and I applaud you for that but when it comes to the physics of how we process, and even more importantly, choose which sub circuit to use then the only way is using peak referencing. I cannot seem to get that across to some of you.

My latest tutorial uses the Sonalkisis 315 MK2, which uses sub circuits much like the Logic channel compressor, URS, Waves and a number of other manufacturer designs which incorporate the same technology. In my tutorial I demonstrate that you would have to be a bat or a dog to determine which process to use and the only way to do this is with peak referencing. I constantly A/B between the circuits and I can barely hear the differences even though they are completely different circuits. I then render the data to show what each circuit does to the sound.

The differences are so subtle and I would be amiss as a tutor to not to incorporate them in my tutorials.

The 315 also uses crush technology along with a funky hold function on the auto release. Now, as I said earlier, you'd need to be a bat to hear what each parameter does to the sound. It is extremely subtle although a huge difference is shown when you look at the rendered waveform. The auto release hold function is entirely dependent on where the release transients lie and it uses this as referencing to be able to decide how long to hold the auto release. This has a huge impact on the ensuing attack transients. I demonstrate this visually as aurally it is extremely subtle.

I really didn't want to get drawn back into this debate especially when one or two of you are really not trying to accept, or even comprehend, that compression, or rather the detailed and advanced uses of, are not dependent entirely on hearing. This is why we have certain design concepts incorporated into compressors, be it FET, variable-mu, VCA, opto and so on. The components and path determine how the compressor behaves and how it will sound. These are then encoded into software algorithmically. By understanding these paths and how they affect the waveform helps us to choose the right process. Invariably, ears are not alwaysenough and we rely on the visual approach in conjunction with the aural approach.

Sure, a simple mix compressor with a limiter on your master bus can be sorted out aurally but as a tutor I have to show the detail involved in other uses of more advanced compressors, and I also have to explain the physics and the processes involved.
If I didn't then I would be a poor tutor.

Now, if some of you are still deflecting the data I have provided into a simple 2 channel ARTR compression process then that's fine by me. It is a shame though as you are missing out on some useful technical information.

All the best

Zukan

Zukan wrote:
However, what some of you don't seem to be able to grasp here is the design and build implementation of compressors and their sub circuits. They rely solely on transients and not just peak transients. Low level transients are as important as peak transients and you will have to be a bat to determine where they lie aurally. You need to check the waveform data to understand where the peak and low level transients lie and you need the peak transients to be able to reference the process that will be applied.

TYPING IN CAPITALS TO BE CLEAR IM NOT SURE HOW TO BREAK UP QUOTATIONS...
I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME ('UNHEARABLE?') SUBTLETIES OF THE SOUND WILL AFFECT HOW COMPRESSORS WORK, ESPECIALLY 'COMPLICATED' ONES, BUT IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO SETTINGS IS ALMOST INAUDIBLE, WHY DO IT? CHECKING YOUR METERS AS A REFERENCE IF YOURE NOT SURE OF YOUR DECISION I UNDERSTAND.

YOU SEEM TO ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHATS HAPPENING INSIDE THE COMPRESSOR TO MAKE ANY MEANINGFUL USE OF IT
IM SURE THAT WILL BE MAKING YOU A LOT FASTER, BUT IF YOURE WILLING TO FIDDLE AROUND, YOULL GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE, NO?


Now, some of you have bat hearing and I applaud you for that but when it comes to the physics of how we process, and even more importantly, choose which sub circuit to use then the only way is using peak referencing. I cannot seem to get that across to some of you.

My latest tutorial uses the Sonalkisis 315 MK2, which uses sub circuits much like the Logic channel compressor, URS, Waves and a number of other manufacturer designs which incorporate the same technology. In my tutorial I demonstrate that you would have to be a bat or a dog to determine which process to use and the only way to do this is with peak referencing. I constantly A/B between the circuits and I can barely hear the differences even though they are completely different circuits. I then render the data to show what each circuit does to the sound.

The differences are so subtle and I would be amiss as a tutor to not to incorporate them in my tutorials.

OK, BUT DOES THAT REALLY IMPLY YOU ALWAYS NEED TO CHECK METERING?

The 315 also uses crush technology along with a funky hold function on the auto release. Now, as I said earlier, you'd need to be a bat to hear what each parameter does to the sound. It is extremely subtle although a huge difference is shown when you look at the rendered waveform. The auto release hold function is entirely dependent on where the release transients lie and it uses this as referencing to be able to decide how long to hold the auto release. This has a huge impact on the ensuing attack transients. I demonstrate this visually as aurally it is extremely subtle.

I really didn't want to get drawn back into this debate especially when one or two of you are really not trying to accept, or even comprehend, that compression, or rather the detailed and advanced uses of, are not dependent entirely on hearing. This is why we have certain design concepts incorporated into compressors, be it FET, variable-mu, VCA, opto and so on. The components and path determine how the compressor behaves and how it will sound. These are then encoded into software algorithmically. By understanding these paths and how they affect the waveform helps us to choose the right process. Invariably, ears are not alwaysenough and we rely on the visual approach in conjunction with the aural approach.

Sure, a simple mix compressor with a limiter on your master bus can be sorted out aurally but as a tutor I have to show the detail involved in other uses of more advanced compressors, and I also have to explain the physics and the processes involved.
If I didn't then I would be a poor tutor.

Now, if some of you are still deflecting the data I have provided into a simple 2 channel ARTR compression process then that's fine by me. It is a shame though as you are missing out on some useful technical information.

All the best

Zukan

i typed some stuff inside the quotation!

AntonPD wrote: IM NOT SURE HOW TO BREAK UP QUOTATIONS...

it's not hard.

you close the quote markup, with [ / quote ] (without spaces) then re-open it when you want to continue quoting, with [ quote="the other person's user name" ] (again, without spaces)

AntonPD wrote:SUBTLETIES OF THE SOUND WILL AFFECT HOW COMPRESSORS WORK, ESPECIALLY 'COMPLICATED' ONES, BUT IF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO SETTINGS IS ALMOST INAUDIBLE, WHY DO IT? CHECKING YOUR METERS AS A REFERENCE IF YOURE NOT SURE OF YOUR DECISION I UNDERSTAND.

YOU SEEM TO ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHATS HAPPENING INSIDE THE COMPRESSOR TO MAKE ANY MEANINGFUL USE OF IT
IM SURE THAT WILL BE MAKING YOU A LOT FASTER, BUT IF YOURE WILLING TO FIDDLE AROUND, YOULL GET WHERE YOU WANT TO BE, NO?

Hi Anton.

It makes a huge difference as one circuit can take all the transients and yet sound similar to another circuit that has kept all the peak transients high. This then allows headroom for the ME or any further dynamic processing.

Additionally, this is meant to be a detailed tutorial which tries to pass on useful technical information that one day you might need to know and use.

I am happy to create quick tutorials only using a compressor's ARTR and leaving it at that, but that wouldn't be too useful for people who want to understand the ins and outs and what types of compressors, circuits and how they affect the rendered file etc.

Surely you would like to know the differences between the different types of compressors and how to use them, what their features are and how they affect the sound? But if not then ignore my tutorial and do whatever suits you.

I thought I was passing on some useful knowledge.
I had no idea there would be so much resistance to it.

Zukan wrote:Now, some of you have bat hearing and I applaud you for that but when it comes to the physics of how we process, and even more importantly, choose which sub circuit to use then the only way is using peak referencing. I cannot seem to get that across to some of you.

I just think that taking the processing this far, i just too much to hassle. You should be able to record, mix AND master audio without looking at any waveform on a screen.

My latest tutorial uses the Sonalkisis 315 MK2, which uses sub circuits much like the Logic channel compressor, URS, Waves and a number of other manufacturer designs which incorporate the same technology. In my tutorial I demonstrate that you would have to be a bat or a dog to determine which process to use and the only way to do this is with peak referencing. I constantly A/B between the circuits and I can barely hear the differences even though they are completely different circuits. I then render the data to show what each circuit does to the sound.

how do you then make the desicion on which sub-yeehaa to use if the difference is so subtle? looking at the waveform on how the track sounds? demonstrating for learning purposes is cool I guess, but still... it's all about how it sounds. doesn't need it? don't use it. move on to the next mix.

The 315 also uses crush technology along with a funky hold function on the auto release. Now, as I said earlier, you'd need to be a bat to hear what each parameter does to the sound. It is extremely subtle although a huge difference is shown when you look at the rendered waveform. The auto release hold function is entirely dependent on where the release transients lie and it uses this as referencing to be able to decide how long to hold the auto release. This has a huge impact on the ensuing attack transients. I demonstrate this visually as aurally it is extremely subtle.

heh, in hw world, the auto-release and hold functions are just setting for time-constants (basically attack and release). doesn't read the signal coming in any different than using lets say 30ms release vs. auto release. at least on the hw units i use/service/build.



to me, using plugins with all the different odd-special controls is just too much. of course you can use them, by all means. All of the classic pieces however, do not have them. All of the better pieces just have simple controls and they sound great. that's all that matters. look at the massey ct4 compressor, 2 controls and maybe a switch or two. nothing but praise. la2, nothing but butter... i can go on and on. above all, they sound great. doesn't matter how the waveform looks. i've done some stuff on hw compressors and the waveforms look simply weird, but who cares if it sounds right. right?

Eemo1 wrote:
how do you then make the desicion on which sub-yeehaa to use if the difference is so subtle? looking at the waveform on how the track sounds? demonstrating for learning purposes is cool I guess, but still... it's all about how it sounds. doesn't need it? don't use it. move on to the next mix.

Because it has a dramatic effect on the transients and, if you could quote my entire passage, that has a bearing when the ME gets hold of the material and requires headroom to work his/her magic.

The 315 also uses crush technology along with a funky hold function on the auto release. Now, as I said earlier, you'd need to be a bat to hear what each parameter does to the sound. It is extremely subtle although a huge difference is shown when you look at the rendered waveform. The auto release hold function is entirely dependent on where the release transients lie and it uses this as referencing to be able to decide how long to hold the auto release. This has a huge impact on the ensuing attack transients. I demonstrate this visually as aurally it is extremely subtle.

Eemo1 wrote: heh, in hw world, the auto-release and hold functions are just setting for time-constants (basically attack and release). doesn't read the signal coming in any different than using lets say 30ms release vs. auto release. at least on the hw units i use/service/build.

This has a huge bearing on the way the attacks move towards the release. Additionally, the hold function and sub circuit selection have impacts on all the transients which vary the release values.
Surely, as a person who builds circuits, you should know this?

Eemo1 wrote:to me, using plugins with all the different odd-special controls is just too much. of course you can use them, by all means. All of the classic pieces however, do not have them. All of the better pieces just have simple controls and they sound great. that's all that matters. look at the massey ct4 compressor, 2 controls and maybe a switch or two. nothing but praise. la2, nothing but butter... i can go on and on. above all, they sound great. doesn't matter how the waveform looks. i've done some stuff on hw compressors and the waveforms look simply weird, but who cares if it sounds right. right?

That's the whole point. The plugins are meant to emulate the classic pieces and this is why they provide sub circuits.
How do you think all the plugin manufacturers create vca, opto, electro, fet and so on processing in software form?

If you are happy with the way you work then good on you and I am not here to change that.

My tutorials are exactly that: tutorials. I am meant to provide technical and detailed information so that people can understand and utilize the tools as best they can.

I offer ways to process data and to use the tools available to best achieve this.
Whether you require this information is solely up to the individual, but to argue against physical facts and processes simply because you don't understand them, or want to stick to your working methods, is not what this is about.

I, for one, love to have additional information and as much technical data as possible because I like to know how other professionals work and why they work the way they do and why manufacturers build units the way they do and for which processes.

If someone here were to download some of these plugins do you not think they would want to know, at the most basic level, what the knobs and switches do, or do they just go for the ARTR?

Without a shadow of a doubt it would be short sighted to state that all you need are your ears when processes like these are involved, or TBH, any process that requires fine tuning or calibrating for the next dynamic process..

But hey, whatever rocks your boat.