06-10-2014, 10:50 PM
These days I like to set the stereo buss compressor after I have the coarse mixing done for the drums and bass, and then I start mixing the rest of the tracks in with the compressor active.
Why do this? The same reason we use global reverb sends... There's a certain sonic consistency you can achieve when compression is applied across the mix that would be impractical on a track by track level... And just as with global reverb sends, it's important to use only what you need.
For my part, I like to mix in to the processor for several reasons, but mainly because any sort of issue you might have with artifacts when compressing the master buss will show up much earlier in the mixing stage and you can adjust course as necessary. I also find that managing the dynamics of the mix solely by compressing individual tracks can force you to completely crush prominent parts like the lead vocal... And especially in the case of a rock song, it makes it all too easy to start strapping compressors on more than half the tracks in the mix. Believe it or not, that can in some styles quickly reduce the dynamic range of the whole mix more than a properly set buss compressor... The ratio of dynamic management to dynamic range is really important to consider. With a buss compressor in place, you'll invariably find yourself needing less compression on individual tracks and the automation process will be much more forgiving... Because the compression will help keep periodic level boosts from unbalancing the mix dynamics elsewhere, thus requiring more envelopes, nodes, and headaches.
Hbguitar's parallel buss compression strategy is really smart, too, if you're aiming to manage mix dynamics without blunting transients. In acoustic music that's a great way to keep dynamic range under control... But if you're applying parallel compression individually in different processors or with different settings based on the instrument in question, that's gonna hurt the mix dynamics in the end, making everything sound lumpy.
At any rate, buss compression shouldn't be about loudness wars or making the track screaming loud, and most self taught engineers don't understand that because they read a book by Bob Katz or a zillion posts on gearslutz about how compression is evil. But when you're considering buss processing, a compressor is no different than buss eq or reverb... You're going for gentle processing that is spread evenly across the mix, much as the analog mastering process compresses dynamics by driving the tape near to the point of clipping, creating a gentle dynamics roll-off toward the peaks. Call it tape saturation and nobody bats an eye, but if you use the dirty C word, folks like Bruce Sweden will start hollering about how they NEVER reduce the dynamic range of their mixes because that's just wrong... But they're not really telling the truth. They're compressing their masters too, just using a different tool with a name that inspires nostalgia rather than one that's become a dirty word, even though the result is often very similar.
Having said that, I LOVE Swediens work with Michael Jackson, and Bob Katz is of course one of the greats... And I'll never tell someone they're wrong not to compress the master if they get a great result. And of course there is a ton of great music out there ruined with over compressed masters... No disagreement there... The trend of remastering classic albums with excessive compression is particularly annoying. But like any other mix tool, proper buss compression applied tastefully and with care can really help a mix fall into place. And it can do it in a way that automation can't without great difficulty, smoothly moving all the faders in response to one another- and then you can apply automation underneath it to refine that mechanism- and THEN you can automate the compressor to accommodate the inevitably differing dynamic needs of each song section!
I'm not lecturing or trying to change your style, but you said you didn't understand master buss compression... So hopefully my explanation helps make sense of it for you
Why do this? The same reason we use global reverb sends... There's a certain sonic consistency you can achieve when compression is applied across the mix that would be impractical on a track by track level... And just as with global reverb sends, it's important to use only what you need.
For my part, I like to mix in to the processor for several reasons, but mainly because any sort of issue you might have with artifacts when compressing the master buss will show up much earlier in the mixing stage and you can adjust course as necessary. I also find that managing the dynamics of the mix solely by compressing individual tracks can force you to completely crush prominent parts like the lead vocal... And especially in the case of a rock song, it makes it all too easy to start strapping compressors on more than half the tracks in the mix. Believe it or not, that can in some styles quickly reduce the dynamic range of the whole mix more than a properly set buss compressor... The ratio of dynamic management to dynamic range is really important to consider. With a buss compressor in place, you'll invariably find yourself needing less compression on individual tracks and the automation process will be much more forgiving... Because the compression will help keep periodic level boosts from unbalancing the mix dynamics elsewhere, thus requiring more envelopes, nodes, and headaches.
Hbguitar's parallel buss compression strategy is really smart, too, if you're aiming to manage mix dynamics without blunting transients. In acoustic music that's a great way to keep dynamic range under control... But if you're applying parallel compression individually in different processors or with different settings based on the instrument in question, that's gonna hurt the mix dynamics in the end, making everything sound lumpy.
At any rate, buss compression shouldn't be about loudness wars or making the track screaming loud, and most self taught engineers don't understand that because they read a book by Bob Katz or a zillion posts on gearslutz about how compression is evil. But when you're considering buss processing, a compressor is no different than buss eq or reverb... You're going for gentle processing that is spread evenly across the mix, much as the analog mastering process compresses dynamics by driving the tape near to the point of clipping, creating a gentle dynamics roll-off toward the peaks. Call it tape saturation and nobody bats an eye, but if you use the dirty C word, folks like Bruce Sweden will start hollering about how they NEVER reduce the dynamic range of their mixes because that's just wrong... But they're not really telling the truth. They're compressing their masters too, just using a different tool with a name that inspires nostalgia rather than one that's become a dirty word, even though the result is often very similar.
Having said that, I LOVE Swediens work with Michael Jackson, and Bob Katz is of course one of the greats... And I'll never tell someone they're wrong not to compress the master if they get a great result. And of course there is a ton of great music out there ruined with over compressed masters... No disagreement there... The trend of remastering classic albums with excessive compression is particularly annoying. But like any other mix tool, proper buss compression applied tastefully and with care can really help a mix fall into place. And it can do it in a way that automation can't without great difficulty, smoothly moving all the faders in response to one another- and then you can apply automation underneath it to refine that mechanism- and THEN you can automate the compressor to accommodate the inevitably differing dynamic needs of each song section!
I'm not lecturing or trying to change your style, but you said you didn't understand master buss compression... So hopefully my explanation helps make sense of it for you
I'm grateful for comments and suggestions. Thank you for listening!