I use a Manley ELOP. Very happy with it.

Usually my re-issue 1176, but also the Valley People 2-610, RNC, or DBX 160XT. What would be examples of the "American" sound you are interested in? David

American vocal sound? right now I'm thinking of artists like Next, or Jaheim (producer Kay gee) or Blackstreet/Guy (producer Teddy Riley) - these have the vocal sound I mean.

The Waves Rennaisance compressor plugin is one of the best sounding vocal compressors on the market..

I also like the UA plugins.

I do not use outboard compressors anymore since 24 bit ADC's make them completely unnecessary except as an effect.

Steve

To each his own but unlike Steve, I prefer to compress on the way into the DAW, even at 24 bit. IMO hardware comps still sound better than software counterparts. Also, if I do not compress on the way in I find myself having to do it "in the box", while I mix in order to get a good volume level. The more processing done at mix, the more ragged the sound is. If I can just put up a couple of verbs and maybe a bit of 2-bus compression, I think that sounds much better. The comps I use and would recommend for that "American Sound" are the Manley EL OP (or LA2a), UREI 1178 (or 1176) and Blackface LA4s ... I also have a Valley People Dynamite, for when I want that VCA compression sound. But as Steve pointed out, that's more done for effect rather than dynamic control..

-------------------------------------
Nope never used it! Never heard it! I don't know nothin' about it.. It could be the best thing since sliced bacon! (really!) :D

Tube Tech CL1B, 1176, Distressor or ADL CL1000. Depends on the singer and the vibe. If the singer is even the Tube Tech sounds great though it's input can clip if the singer has huge dynamics.
Sometimes I'll record with the 1176 then mixdown with the Tube Tech. The 1176 has the most presence and the Distressor can take the most abuse.. Sometimes you can get away with over 10db+ of gain reduction without any nasty artifacts.

Yeah, but for a beginner there is no reason to compress on the way in, and it is hard to correct mistakes.

If a seasoned pro wants to compress for effect, that's a style choice. But a newbie ought to spend a bunch of time using plugin compressors until they understand them very well IMO.

Steve

Originally posted by sdevino:
Yeah, but for a beginner there is no reason to compress on the way in, and it is hard to correct mistakes.

If a seasoned pro wants to compress for effect, that's a style choice. But a newbie ought to spend a bunch of time using plugin compressors until they understand them very well IMO.

Steve

I personally feel that compressing on the way in is something all recordists should learn at the beginning. I don't feel it is providence only for the seasoned pro. The trick is to use mild compression settings, so as you pointed out, you are not put in a position of having something you can't use at mix. I like a ratio of between 2 and 4 to 1, a fast attack and release and I only apply 2 to 4 dB of gain reduction. I have learned that if I use my legacy comps like this going in, I can use the cheap factory plugs in my recording software to finish up the job at mix and it sounds like I had all great comps throughout the whole project.In pop and rock music, so much of what we have all become accustomed to hearing, the sounds we associate with popular recordings, are reliant on the front end.. Mics, pres, compression. Rather than spend a lot of time, energy and money on plugs that will be obsolete in a few years or months and don’t sound as good, get some real (good) comps and learn to use them.

The EL OP and the LA2a are great comps to start with because they are “one knob squeezers”, with only a reduction and a make up gain control. Not much to mess up there but they can yield the “sound” you have been searching for. Most records ever made, used these pieces.. LA2a’s, LA3s, LA4’s (the LA 4 is more complicated, more knobs to screw it up with but still a great piece). Also high on my list is the Manley EL OP, basically a LA2 style comp with improvements in the output stages, the UREI 1176 / 1178 and the DBX 160.

I have to agree with Kurt on this one.
Beginners should learn to get a great sound going IN to whatever they are recording on.
Treat ProTools like a tape machine and learn to make it sound good FIRST.
That 'head', that ProTools encourages, of fixing everything AFTER the fact is not conducive to really good recording technique.
And I have to agree that if you spend your money on really high quality outboard, it will never be obsolete.
You can buy an entire HD system for what a Fairchild 670 compressor sells for, 40 years after it was made.
Plug Ins are a last resort, or good for effects that don't exist in the hardware world.
But the first thing I do when I get a session to mix is replace all the compressor and EQplug-inswith 'real' ones.
The less processing you ask the machine to do, the better it always sounds.
And for your own good, in the long term, you are much better off learning what a compressor really does by playing with one (and even making mistakes or misusing it) than with a software emulation of one, which has already decided what it "should" do.

meanwhile, on vocals I like either a Fairchild or an API 525. Sometimes both.
in some cases when i cannot get a Fairchild I have used an RCA Ba6a just for its amp sound.

OK lets move on to the 21st century guys. Here is my point:

1. Compression used to be an important part of getting the level and sound you needed for tape.

2. Compression is 100% unnecessary for tracking in 24 digital systems.

3. When you track in a digital system you should be monitoring the output 2-bus. If compression is needed for the mix or for the sake of the performer, then a plugin (or external) compressor can be used while tracking. So you are getting the final high quality sound as you track anyway,

Most people who do not record for a living have cannot possibly justify spending $3k on a "vintage" compressor just for the sake of getting an old school sound.

If you are a pro and earn a living doing recording then please buy all the compressors you want but please realize that they are optional and only needed if they are a part of your recording style.

I sold all mine because they were not getting used any longer. I track to a TDM mixer that is setup with compression, FX etc per a rough mix in the mixer. If you guys want to fill your room with eye candy FX and it fits your style then I am all for it. I want my studio to have the absolute minimum of hardware.

Again printing compression is a style option. It is no longer necessary. Therefor I think a beginner is safer using a plugin because they can always change it later if they screw up.

I am a very strong advocate of "the record it so it sounds great to begin with" camp (i.e. get as close to final sound as you can). My mixes use very few plugins. I compress where needed and I EQ very very little. Maybe thats why I can do 64 channel mixes on an HD2 system with DSP left over.

Plugins are the future you might as well learn to use them and learn who makes the good stuff.

Steve

The best comps for vocals period is:
Cranesong Trakker
ADL 1600

Steve,
Some very fine points and I can agree with much of it. I too prefer to see a minimum of gear in a studio these days. I like that clean uncluttered look. I also agree that the novice can misuse a compressor.. it's a steep learning curve. That's why I suggest a low ratio and a minimum of gain reduction.

However, I have found that I can achieve better results by taking small bites out of the apple when it comes to compression. By compressing lightly going in and then again while I mix, I have found that I can get much more gain reduction without the unpleasant artifacts.. I think that much of what makes CDs these days sound over compressed is the approach of compressing in the box only at mix down. IMO part of the pop sound we have all become accustomed to is compression. As I said before if I use a EL-OP or a LA 4 when I track, I can get that "sound" of the higher end compressor rather than relying on the stock plugs that come with my audio software, which IMO do not sound anywhere as good. Also I can avoid purchasing software plugs or audio cards that will be useless and worthless in months or years. The hardware comps will always hold their value..

I also use analog gates when I am recording rather than relying on the gates in my software which do not work as well as my Drawmer 404’s…
:eek:

Steve,
I agree with your bottom line assessment that outboard compressors are not an absolute requirement for recording. I have done a couple of projects myself without hardware, and they turned out fine.
However, I have noticed that the less processing I do the better my mixes sound. I love my hardware comps and do everything through them (gone full circle). I also think that style is an extraodinarily important aspect of the business, and a true pro will have as much style as technical proficiency. In fact, the technical knowledge required to get THE SOUND that is heard in one's head is the toughest job.
Hey, I dig that you can get your SOUND with using software comps. That's pro. David

Good stuff everyone!

So Kurt why do you use gates at all other than as an effect?

Given that you can edit a perfect gate if needed.
and.. I have never heard a hardware gate sound as good as even a basic plugin gate (including my Drawmer which I sold).

...just trying to incite a little discussion

I have a couple of comments here:

Kurt and wwittman make a strong push to compress the signal going to tape, without really explaining why this is a better way to go (other than the sound quality of the gear).

Kurt does make the comment that the outboard gear he has sounds better in his opinion than hisplug-ins but I wonder what type ofplug-inshe is using, and if they are the highest quality ones that you can buy.

I would contend that if you are comparing the top-of-the-line vintage outboard compressors to the bottom-of-the-lineplug-ins you are sure to see a *huge* difference, and it is probably not a fair comparison. I would also contend that a *GREAT* plug-in compressor(like a UA or Waves) would sound better than a stock Alesis 3630 or a Behringer Autocom.

Now back to the "why" of it all...

If you think that the outboard compression sounds better, isn't it also possible to add the outboard compression later to an unaltered pre-recorded original track? This is something that I am stuggling with right now.

I have been recording the original track on one track, then play it back through the outboard gear and record it back onto another track. The problem I see here is the D/A then the A/D back into the DAW...not something that I want to do if I can avoid it.

After reading another thread here on de-essing, I just went out and bought an dbx 263A de-esser. Should I use this pre- or post-recording? (As an insert while tracking?) The D/A and A/D concerns me here, and it seems to make more sense to use it pre-recording to avoid the conversions, but for a de-esser, that seems difficult. I want to be able to audition different settings, and this is easiest *post* recording.

Now I also have the TC Helicon VoiceWorks, which has digital S/PDIF i/o. Here I won't have to worry about the conversions, and I am more apt to want to add the effects *post* recording.

As I said, I am struggling with this very issue right now, and I am not sure of the best solution for my needs.

Howdy

I use a compressor on the way in if its necessary. I've been known to use it when its unecessary too. Decompressing is harder than not compressing in the first place.

As far as hardware vs. software, I chose both. They're tools, not rules.

Hey, that rhymes!

"I have been known to use it when it's unnecessary too." (Quote from Nate).

LOL

Doublehelix,
I agree that a good sofware comp can sound better than the worst hardware comps. When I compare a Bomb Factory 1176 to my hardware 1176, or to my Valley People 2-610 or DBX 160xts (good comps) I find more pleasureable results from the hardware, however. I find the less processing I have to perform the better my stuff sounds.
I would use the de-esser going to tape. David

I do both - I record a stereo track, compressing to tape as I go and leaving the signal untouched.

This way I leave my option open, and am able to send a compressed signal to the vocalist's cans.

Furthermore, and this doesn necessarily require compressing to tape: blending the compressed and uncompressed signal can give you sounds that are better than compression alone - it's different than just reducing the ratio and threshold.

I don't mind comping to tape. My rule is if you can't hear what the compressor is doing, you're monitoring too loud.

However, I do like using, of all things, the Waves L1 to squash vocals. It reminds me of the old leveling amps. It's not subtle though... This is, of course, when tracking to pro tools...

I suppose it does depend upon the music. I like 1176's. the Manley VoxBox is very good too. Now, with my two cents this thread is up to $9.54.

later
ejm

Originally posted by sdevino:
Compression is 100% unnecessary for tracking in 24 digital systems.

I don't want to start a "compression war" here :) ... but I couldn't disagree more strongly with this comment. Even at 24 or 32 bit depths, a good analog compressor before the A/D's is still one of the most useful tools in the engineer's toolbox, since it's the best way to take advantage of the higher bit depths. Of course, this is not to say that software compressors sound worst than their hardware counterpats, they're just different tools with different uses: If you're compressing to make the performance's level more consistent, then hardware before sampling is better. If you're trying to control fast transients on a synth bass or snare track, there's nothing like the Waves' plugs. It's fair to point out, though, that different producers/engineers use different approaches when recording and mixing. Some of them (with WAAAAYY more money than me) do it the "wrong" way.......

Originally posted by sdevino:
Most people who do not record for a living have cannot possibly justify spending $3k on a "vintage" compressor

Very true, but most people who do not record for a living also cannot possibly justify spending a similar amount on good software compressors... Plus you can build your own LA2a for about 5 or 600 bucks! :D

...Which takes me to the original point of the post: I like LA2a's. They sound good on most vocals. The Summit Audio stuff comes in at a close second in my book. If you're really broke, the RNC is a great little box.

Nice forum you guys got here, BTW!

Peace,
Al.

$9.56 :p

Originally posted by alk509:

Originally posted by sdevino:
Compression is 100% unnecessary for tracking in 24 digital systems.

I don't want to start a "compression war" here :) ... but I couldn't disagree more strongly with this comment. Even at 24 or 32 bit depths, a good analog compressor before the A/D's is still one of the most useful tools in the engineer's toolbox, since it's the best way to take advantage of the higher bit depths Al, while I think all your tips that followed this statement were very useful and well put, you missed my point on the quote above.

With 24 bit converters there is no reason to use a compressor in order to maximize signal. The reason I say that is simple gain stage management. 24 bits gives you 144 dB s/n (theoretically) and about 110dB s/n for real on a well setup system. If you track at 0VU on the analog signal chain (its sweet spot) you will have about 18 to 20 dB of headroom and 90 dB of S/N. It doesn't get much better than that!

There is a myth that circulates in pro and semi pro circles alike that says you lose resolution or detail if you track at less then full scale. This just isn't true. It is far better to track at what ever level the analog signal path going into the converter sounds best (whether it is -20dBFs or -5 dBFs) and take advantage of the 24 bit converters ability to resolve 1/24millionth of the full scale value no matter what the input level is.

There is nothing wrong with using HW compressors to track , and many of you have offered some great tips on doing so, but there is no reason why it is a requirement. It is purely an elective style.

Steve

Hey Clique,

IMO I have had great results with a Summit leveler and or a LA2A.

I had read that if you can't hear the compressor working your monitoring to loud.

I say if you can hear the compressor then you are doing it all wrong.

Now I realise there are times when you want certain effects that can be done by over compressing etc.

But in this day and age with the dynamic range of the DAWs etc you can get a really good signal without a compressor on the input. But then again the way todays CDs sound there is almost absolutely NO DYNAMIC RANGE. Everything is so friggin hot in the mix not very many things have room to breathe.

Best wishes,

JD( o}===;;;

Kurt, I agree with you that all beginners should learn how to use compressors, but I also agree with Steve that you don't HAVE to compress on the way into a 24 bit recorder.

From experience, I can tell you that I've destroyed my share of vocal tracks from inexperienced use of a compressor to tape (Tascam DA88). Of course, that's a 16 bit recorder, and compressing to tape was more needed than with a 24 bit rec.

However, in defense of Kurt's point, I learned immensely from these initial mistakes, and isn't that an important lesson? We sometimes learn more from our screw ups than our successes.

So newbies, compress to tape if it's part of your learning time. Important stuff shouldn't be compressed or gated or even heavily eq'd unless you want to risk a totally useless take.

Learn.

Good stuff folks we are learning a lot.

To add another perspective:
If you are recording your own stuff and have time to play, using the comp to tape (or HD) will certainly be a trial by fire and may accelerate the learning process for some folks.

BUT, if you are an assistant or junior engineer working for a paying client, and you mung up a vocal take with inappropriate compression then you need a good firm kick in the pants. This is bad because as the studio owner I have to either make sure I have baby sitting available for you or I have to refund money to the client to do it again.

So in my commercial studio all compression on studio booked dates will be done as a plugin. Independent engineers who bring in their own work are free to do it anyway they like.

And yes I think the Waves Ren Comp, L2 and McDSP comps and the UA plugins sound amazing. Not the same as hardware but certainly in the same quality league.

Steve

Originally posted by sdevino:
Good stuff everyone!

So Kurt why do you use gates at all other than as an effect?

Given that you can edit a perfect gate if needed.
and.. I have never heard a hardware gate sound as good as even a basic plugin gate (including my Drawmer which I sold).

...just trying to incite a little discussion

Steve,
I use a lot of 5K and 120 eq on my tom tones. This brings up a lot of cymbal wash. I like to get it out at the time of tracking. It's one less thing I have to deal with at mix. I suppose if I wanted to milk a client, I could do this at mix but I just find it more efficent to do it when I track. I am pretty old school and new tricks don't come easy to me. I use gates on toms usually and also on noisey high gain distortion guitars. I have a bad attitude when it comes to editing. I personally think that is one of the things that is turning performance into a lost art but I digress. I am simply reticent to open that can of worms.

I have never been able to get the gates in my recording software to behave as well as my Drawmer 404s. They either don't open or fail to close when I want them to. False triggers are also an issue. Also with the 404s I can expand rather than hard gate, the amount of quieting can be controled.

Originally posted by Doublehelix:
I have a couple of comments here:

Kurt does make the comment that the outboard gear he has sounds better in his opinion than hisplug-ins but I wonder what type ofplug-inshe is using, and if they are the highest quality ones that you can buy.

I would contend that if you are comparing the top-of-the-line vintage outboard compressors to the bottom-of-the-lineplug-ins you are sure to see a *huge* difference, and it is probably not a fair comparison. I would also contend that a *GREAT* plug-in compressor(like a UA or Waves) would sound better than a stock Alesis 3630 or a Behringer Autocom ....... Now back to the "why" of it all ....... If you think that the outboard compression sounds better, isn't it also possible to add the outboard compression later to an unaltered pre-recorded original track? This is something that I am stuggling with right now ........ The problem I see here is the D/A then the A/D back into the DAW...not something that I want to do if I can avoid it.

After reading another thread here on de-essing, I just went out and bought an dbx 263A de-esser. Should I use this pre- or post-recording? (As an insert while tracking?) The D/A and A/D concerns me here, and it seems to make more sense to use it pre-recording to avoid the conversions, but for a de-esser, that seems difficult. I want to be able to audition different settings, and this is easiest *post* recording.

DH!
Great to see ya! You make an excellent point about the quality of my recording software plugs. As you know, I use Cubase VST 5.1. The comps and other plugs are pretty good but not the quality of an EL OP, LA 4 or an 1178. The reasons I choose not to upgrade to the UAD card are threefold. The first has to do with comments I have read by others saying while they sound good it still is no cigar. General consensus is the hardware is still better. Also, my experience has shown me that all the computer stuff becomes worthless in a few months or at best years. I have had my compressor collection now for 10 + years and they are worth more now than when I bought them. Any one out there have any software, computer or a Pro Tools system that is ten years old that is still worth squat? I rest my case. The last has to do with how much processing it taking place at mix. The more plugs used the more ragged the sound gets. In DAW I like to use as little processing at mix as I can. This entails getting it into the box the way I want it in the first place. IMO the best records ever made were done this way in the days when everything was going to one, two or three tracks. The "producer power trip" as I call it where unending tweaking at mix is performed, for me is a pissing contest where the engineer and the producer are saying "look what I can do to this performance". If the song, the talent and the performance is there in my eye it is unnecessary and actually does more harm than good. But that is pure opinion, not fact.

I dee ess (with a 263) on the way in also. This is not rocket science. Either there are ess problems or there aren't. It's pretty black and white. Find the offending frequency and attenuate it 6dB or so.. I feel that once it's in the box, (digital land) that's where it should stay. I would use a software dee esser if I had one, provided it works as good as my old DBX 263. ( I love that thing, cheapo as it is. I traded an hour of studio time for it 3 years ago) ….. Kurt

I just want to add a somewhat funny aside here if I may.I really don't have much else to add to this great thread that hasnt been said already.

My comment: Its kinda telling when the basic phrase "compressing to tape" is being used and then you all talk aboutplug-ins Ain't noplug-inson TAPE..!! Its funny in that even going to a drive, we still all refer to it in short terms as TAPE. Aint no tape in that drive!!

I snicker!

Now this comment: When I was working a lot with real tape, the decision to compress going in was always made according to two factors.1.Was the signal to be recorded going to have a LOAD of dynamic range both above and below the level being set to hit the tape with....
2.Was the source to be recorded needing that in-yer-face-upfront hugeness....

Answering yes to either of those, brought out the compressor(s) and each source was dealt with accordingly.
Thses days, the choice of outboard or even plug-in compression seems to be more of an effect than a necessary tool to bring input into line with output.
Me personally...I compress when ever I want to... :c:

I'm admittedly comparing REALLY high quality compressors to really high qualityplug-ins. that's the world i tend to operate it.
And in that A-B the hardware always wins.
But i also find that the more processing done in the "DAW" the worse things sound.

i don't know anyone since about 1965 who uses compression to control level to tape OR computer.
We use it for the SOUND. as an artistic choice.
And recording to a computer or other digital format in no way changes that.
Modern pop music features compressed vocals 99.99% of the time, maybe more.
that's not "wrong"... that's just the way it is.
Telling people they don't "need" compression is a losing point of view in my opinion.
To make competitive records they DO.
So the discussion becomes, or more accurately, returns to, whether to compress going IN or not.
And again I think if nothing else it's good recording technique to get the sounds right BEFORE you record them no matter what the issue or the format.

There's just no reason t put off until later something that you CAN lock in now.
If you are unsure that's different.
But again, we're not talking about recording the London Philharmonic and the attendant expense in rehiring 120 people and doing it over should you bugger the recording.. we are talking about people experimenting on their own and LEARNING.

It's been my observation that people who learned on hardware and then play withplug-inshave a much more solid grounding, clearer expectations, and acheive better results than people who have ONLY seen the pretty on-screen picture of an La2a.

Originally posted by Kurt Foster:
I dee ess (with a 263) on the way in also.

I am assuming that you are using it in an insert? (The 263 has unbalanced i/o)

Hardware is still better - no doubt, but....
how much better? and most imortantly for what purpose are we using it? I have hardware LA2A and Avalon 737SP (I use it's opto-compressor). I also have UAD-1 card. I must tell you with all honesty that I do not hear almost any difference between hardware LA2A and UAD-1's LA2A when used on vocals and the instruments are playing at the same time. You can hear slight difference only when you solo the track and that difference I wouldn't even say is greater than 5%. So it is all about money now...if you have money, go and get the hardware compressors. If you don't have money get UAD-1. You'll be able to use couple of LA2As on your project at a fraction of a price with almost identical results. If you do rock/pop/alternative stuff I gurarantee you won't hear any difference in the end. If you do jazz/classical that's a whole different story. I think the money you'd spend on hardware compressor would be better spent on a great preamp and/or micropone(s).
Now there is also another trick you can do if you notice that extensive use of plugins makes your recording sound worse (I think this is due to processor's unability to make real-time too complex calculations). Set up the plugin the way you like it in the mix, save the preset. Open Wavelab or Sound Forge...apply that plugin with the saved preset to the wave you're using. Save the wave with preset. Then disable the plugin in the software. I know it's not too practical and takes time but it saves a lots of computer power for your automation etc. and it makes your processor happy. Remember to copy all "original" waves to the safe place before printing any FX to them. Have fun!

chris

Davedog,

I suppose it's just old studio blabber. I still call my computer workstation my 'rig' I still call recording stuff 'going to tape' I still call 'keeping a take' burning it to tape. I stilll call that event that happens each morning 'sunrise' although I know it's really just our portion of the earth spinning around into its light.

oh well. I'm old and I don't change much.

Pax!
out
ejm

Originally posted by Davedog:
I just want to add a somewhat funny aside here if I may.I really don't have much else to add to this great thread that hasnt been said already.

My comment: Its kinda telling when the basic phrase "compressing to tape" is being used and then you all talk aboutplug-ins Ain't noplug-inson TAPE..!! Its funny in that even going to a drive, we still all refer to it in short terms as TAPE. Aint no tape in that drive!!

I snicker!

Now this comment: When I was working a lot with real tape, the decision to compress going in was always made according to two factors.1.Was the signal to be recorded going to have a LOAD of dynamic range both above and below the level being set to hit the tape with....
2.Was the source to be recorded needing that in-yer-face-upfront hugeness....

Answering yes to either of those, brought out the compressor(s) and each source was dealt with accordingly.
Thses days, the choice of outboard or even plug-in compression seems to be more of an effect than a necessary tool to bring input into line with output.
Me personally...I compress when ever I want to... :c:

Wow, lots of different opinions here!
I am getting rid of my dbx hardware gates. The drawmer TDM plugin is much better. But hey, why not edit and let the toms breathe?
Sometimes, depending in the way you miked or pre-equalized at tracking, toms tracks leakage is not bad at all, but it is rare for sure!

Keep it coming folks!

OK so....

1. you don't need a comp to get level: True.

2. Using a compressor to get close to final result up front and minimize the need for plugin processing is a useful and popular artistic choice: True

3. Hardware compressors sound better than plugins: generally agreed on native systems, some questions on UAD based systems and I also want to add my reservations on digidesign HD TDM systems. There is no hardware compressor that sounds like a Waves Ren comp, and the UA LA-2A/1176 plugs sound damn good on TDM hardware.

4. Kurt likes to gate his Toms, but many of us have taken to leaving the Tom mics open and blending them for ambience (i.e that big Keith Moon sound).

Anything else???

Steve

Howdy

A few points...

1. I don't useplug-insbecause they emulate something, I use them on their own merit. Some for hardware, I wouldn't use a Distressor because it can sound _like_ an 1176, I use if because it sounds like a Distressor.

That being said, I like the UAplug-insfor what _they_ sound like. They're useful tools. Who cares if they sound "just like" it or not? If I want "just like", I'll use the real thing.

2. Not to pick on Kurt but I've never found anything easier than gating with a DAW. I never do it with a plugin, just "Strip Silence" (or equivalent) and be done. Its as easy as using a real gate and usually, much more accurate to control.

I have "old dog new tricks" (ODNT) syndrome too. Like certain bugs in Logic that I've developed work arounds for due to necessity. Then they fix it but I can't be bothered to learn the fix 'cos I've got the old way under my fingers.

3. I'm totally with Kurt on the way computer and digital stuff "obsoletes" itself. I think that sucks. I just sold an O2r, Meterbridge and 3 ADAT cards for $1750...paid around $8000 a few years ago. And I was happy to get that much!

So, from now on I'll only be investing in good front end gear and necessary digitalia. That is, the recorder and converters. Good analog gear and mics will hold its value.

4. Finally, the problem with a lot of home studios (and I have one) is that you're mainly doing overdubs. I think overdubbing one thing at a time causes a build up of "too much" (and "too much" can be lows, highs, presence, whatever) because you hear only the overdub against existing tracks without the context of other musicians compensating to "let it in".

When you record an entire band playing together, you hear the whole thing. Even better, the musicians hear the whole thing. Good musicians will mix themselves and prevent an overlap in the "too much" zone.

They'll also make the engineer look like a genius which, may or may not be true.

I think a lot of people who use or mis-use compression don't know a little secret about using compressor and/or limiters. They are not just for dynamics! Experienced pros have learned that comps and limiters not only control dynamics but are one of the best tone generators as well as another form of eq. I use comps on everything all the time, if and when I need them. I'll even use them in bypass or with the highest threshold and zero ratio if it gives me the tone I like, want or need. Before tape or DAW, After, durring mixing, drum bus, vox mults, bused guitars, 2-bus you name it. Sometimes I'll even use 2-4 of them in series. Using a few comps a with a few db of GR is often much better than one comp with 8db-20db of GR. Comps and limiters are much more flexable, offer more control and have a higher value as an audio tool to me than mic pre-amps or even most eq's.

And that's my 2-cents...

Just for the record (no pun).. i tend to leave the tom mics open unless the ringing causes a problem.
Then i either trim around them (in ProTools) or ride the faders with the console automation (in analog) .
the tom mics are a part of my overall drum sound, not JUST tom mics.
It's one kit, not separate instruments.

i hate gates in general and rarely use them, unless it's to trigger a sound from another...
(i sometimes will trigger a distant room mic to pulse, not go off ENTIRELY, from a trigger on the close snare.)

I would agree about gates. I hardly gate if I can help it. Although if you want that sound then its the only way to go.

Compressing on the way in.
Well I will insert a hardware comp in PT or a plug to get ballpark.
I do love being in the print the sound as you go camp. Its cool. Mixing is so much easier as its jsut there ready as you build teh mix as you go along.
Although it really depends if your producing or just mixing. As you cannot undo printed gates/comps if you want to go back.

I had a band who wanted me to remix a project that had very tight gated drums on the way in. So tight some of the rolls and ghosts were missing.
We re-tracked instead, as the sounds to adat were yuck.

Like everything there is no right or wrong way what ever works for you.

I use Langevein DVC pre/limiter when tracking vox. Sometimes I add a Distressor in Opto mode after that. Also had great success with Drawmer 1969 pre/compressor. Occasional good results with a Joe Meek VC1Q, but it's just doesn't have the clarity of the other two devices. Personally, I don't see how you're going to safely get anywhere near "Digital 0" without a little compression going in. I use a lot of analog gear and record to an MX-2424.

so to laugh now... Today I slightly gated the toms plus added fade-outs -lol > Bith schools of thought.

Yes, I am also with Kurt concerning digital stuff planed obsolescence.
I have just bought a sebatron VMP200VU. I will not waste so much money in digital boards and so, change PT every year with a huge bug list...

Originally posted by wwittman:
i don't know anyone since about 1965 who uses compression to control level to tape OR computer.
We use it for the SOUND. as an artistic choice.
And recording to a computer or other digital format in no way changes that.
Modern pop music features compressed vocals 99.99% of the time, maybe more.
that's not "wrong"... that's just the way it is.
Telling people they don't "need" compression is a losing point of view in my opinion.
To make competitive records they DO.
So the discussion becomes, or more accurately, returns to, whether to compress going IN or not.
And again I think if nothing else it's good recording technique to get the sounds right BEFORE you record them no matter what the issue or the format.

There's just no reason t put off until later something that you CAN lock in now.

An absoulutely excellent & true observation and this has been my experience as well. It seems the more experience you have the easier it is to commit to a sound going to tape because you pretty much know what it should sound like. I'm fearless when I get sounds, try what ever sounds good to get the results and you'll leave the band smiling. Why wait until the last possible moment (the mix) to get the sound that's in your head? Sounds like a self defeating thing. I'll never say to a band, "wait till the mix" I always say "Let's get it nailed right now!".

Mark

Originally posted by bunny:
Personally, I don't see how you're going to safely get anywhere near "Digital 0" without a little compression going in. I use a lot of analog gear and record to an MX-2424.

There is no reason to try to get to digital zero in the first place. You are better off just running the analog input chain at whatever level it sounds best at. This will usually be somewhere around 0VU maybe a little higher, maybe a little lower on some pieces. A well calibrated studio sets 0 VU to about -14 to -20dBFS. Its good to have head room. Anyone who thinks you "lose bits" when you track below digital zero simply doesn't understand digital audio.

Steve