Compressing the stereo master...

[buzzcycle]

I'm new to this, and my use of terms is probably way off.

I'm using logic pro, motu 828mkII, 8pre, and a macbook to record between 10-16 tracks of audio. We use no MIDI.

I'm looking to buy a stereo tube compressor, so my question to you is, can anyone provide sound samples of the difference between an outboard analog compressor, and a software compressor? I'm planning on doing everything in the box until this last step.

Opinions and comments are welcome.

Thanks.

[davedempsey]

Unless you're prepared to pay big bucks for the very best in outboard you'd be much better off staying ITB with plug-ins. An example of high-end compression is the Tube-Tech multi-band mastering compressor. there are, of course, quite a few more - I personally really like the Tube-Tech stuff, which is basically all Pultec design anyway.



if you do go the way of outboard you'd probably also need a high-end stereo eq prior to compression, once again Tube-Tech (these are mono channels, so you'd need two):



But this sort of gear is serious dollars - for most people staying ITB is the best choice and then taking the mix to a good mastering house where all of this type of hardware is available.

cheers,
Dave

[monkey man]

Bugger. Hard to argue with Dave's advice. Bugger.

[James Steele]

Unless you're prepared to pay big bucks for the very best in outboard you'd be much better off staying ITB with plug-ins. An example of high-end compression is the Tube-Tech multi-band mastering compressor. there are, of course, quite a few more - I personally really like the Tube-Tech stuff, which is basically all Pultec design anyway.



if you do go the way of outboard you'd probably also need a high-end stereo eq prior to compression, once again Tube-Tech (these are mono channels, so you'd need two):



But this sort of gear is serious dollars - for most people staying ITB is the best choice and then taking the mix to a good mastering house where all of this type of hardware is available.

cheers,
Dave

Drool... drool... drool!!

[monkey man]

Oh no! Save some of that saliva or we'll have nought between us, Jimbo. LOL

[Tries to drool but finds reserves still fully depleted. Decides to have a go again tomorrow...]

[resolectric]

...can anyone provide sound samples of the difference between an outboard analog compressor, and a software compressor?...

It's useless to compare.
Some outboard (read: analog) copressors are better than some software compressors.
On the other hand, some software ones are better than some analog ones.

It depends a lot on what you are comparing in each of those two worlds.

You can definitely obtain good quality compression with software comps. Or not.
The same for hardware/analog ones.

Then again, if you go with these awesome Tube Tech comps suggested by davedempsey you may well obtain poor results as well.
You'd do better if you start by understanding how to properly apply compression, than, later, select the best Compressor for the sound you want.
And it may well be a Tube Tech.

[buzzcycle]

Awesome advice, all of you.

I have to admit, it's hard to wrap my head around compression. I've used it in small doses to clear up some muddy drums and bass, but compressing the final mix's dynamics into oblivion (as is done these days) escapes me. I get awful results, and I know it's 100% operator error. Part of me enjoys having an actual, physical object to manipulate as a means of learning "on the job". For some reason, I just can't grasp the process.

I'm not necessarily a fan of "hot" cd's, but I just joined a "metal" band, and loud seems to be the goal.

I was looking at this compressor:

[conleycd]

Well if it's rock music that youre doing you could consider some light compression with a SSL like buss compressor. It's not tube but it is the sound of rock. You could consider UADs buss compressor (even if I think the graphics look a little boring), SSLs duende, or Waves SSL. I guess there's tons of options really thst try to do the SSL thing. Outboard you could rent a SSL or Allen Smart buss compressor. You could build a GSSL if you're into DIY.

I think the key to master buss compression is slow attack fast release and no more than 1db squish.

Of course you could do all sorts of fun stuff with paralell compression. If you're a beginner less is always more with the buss.

For gentle tube compression stuff Id sooner let the mastering engineer do it. His/her gear probably costs more than a real nice sports car.

CC

[therealbigd]

if you just want a loud CD, send it off for mastering. it'll cost you less than a compressor, and the engineer will have spent hours on end making things loud without messing up the sound (too badly). if you just jump in with your brand new compressor, where you don't know how it works / sounds (this takes time) you'll probably ruin your mix completely. furthermore, its good to get some fresh ears on your record, hear it on some different speakers to your studio monitors, hear it in a good acoustic room, and generally prepare it to go onto a domestic sound system.

and if you must do it yourself, it's a brickwall limiter you need to make it loud, not just a compressor. though you may wish to compress first.

and i hate to stereotype, but with metal I think the wonderful-ness of a valve compressor may slightly dissappear in the mix. Metal is generally quite harsh, valve compressors smooth and warm... is that really the sound you want??? or do you just want valve because you hear everyone saying "valves are better" blindly. one of the most famous mix compressors of all time (the SSL buss compressor) isn't valve....

[conleycd]

Therealbigd has some really good words on this one. I think whether your choose to compress your stereo master or not mastering is really essential. Even good (cheaper mastering) is going to cost a little bit of coin though - but it is worth it.

You can't learn to mix with a stereo compressor and learn to master in the time that you have (I suspect). You can play around. I'd maybe suggest trying some plugin compressions which will cost you less, give you an idea of what you're getting into, and can easily be shut off from the mix. If you have some relationship or arrangement with the mastering engineer you could send two files. One with your compression and one without. Tell him/her to master the one they think sounds better.

The compression road is a long one. People do all sorts of different stuff. I was just watching a video by Shane D Wilson who mixes in Nashville - really nice sounding mixes - super nice guy (at least on the video). What he does is takes 4 stereo busses of his mix (from Protools) out to a Trident console (drums/bass, guitars, keys, and vocals). He then uses auxes to send to 3 different units (Neve-like 3 band EQ with a big smiley curve, Tube-Tech compressor (light on the compression), DBX 160x compressors (heavey compression) and then sums these together with the original stereo mix and sends the whole thing to an Allen Smart C2. He blends the three units gently underneath the original mix. This is pretty New York style parallel everything mixing. He finds it adds a lot meat to the mixes without being overpowering and loosing dynamic feel. I've fiddled around that way too and I would agree - but despite how neat I think it is - you can see my point that there is sooo much you can end up doing (not that one way is necessarily right or wrong) but just vast. You really need to spend time figuring out what works for you with whatever particular unit you choose.

If you don't have the time (because of a particular project) you're best to keep it simple and use lots of other people's ears to get feedback on the sound.

CC