Scenario 1: "As little as possible." A lot of times this comes from guys who track to analog tape. They'll peg the meters out on all the tracks, then say "don't use compression". Yeah, well, you already did by saturating the tape... DOH!

Scenario 2: "As little as possible." In 16 bit days, it was desireable to compress/limit in order to prevent digital overs. Now that we have 24+ bits to play with, you can bring it down to a civilized level and not worry as much about s/n ratio or digital overs. Too much compression on the recorded track can never be removed, so no compression at all is desireable.

Scenario 3: "Gimme more comps!" Forget #2! Digital inputs still sound digital (sterile/lifeless) unless you put some tubes or something before it.

Scenario 4: "Gimme more comps!" You are competing with other records in clubs and on the radio that have a rms dynamic range of +/- 1dB. Everything has to be louder than everything else, and compression is something you can never have enough of, regardless of how crappy it makes your record sound.

Summary: Use compressors when they are needed, and don't use them when they are not needed. Figure out any step in the recording/mixing process that might be done differently in order to avoid comps or eq's or any other effect (eg. mic placement). Capture your sounds the way you want them to be in the mix and your job will be infinitely easier.

And don't forget to have fun.

------------------
--------------
Angelo Quaglia
AQ Productions

To compress or Not to compress, that is the question! Or something like that.

To me it's kind of a black art that no matter how much I read I still didn't understand until I just started experimenting with different gear and ratios. Digital just seems to have so much definition anyway that you just have to adjust to taste. Like Angelo said, I put some tubes and transformers in it even though sometimes I don't really do any reduction (to tape) and if I do its only a db or 2, just to get "the sound".

The other thing is the style of music your working with and the trends (did I say trends??). I would not attempt to squash any bluegrass but would some rock, etc.

I can listed to some of the work that I did last year and at that time I had this thing about drum sounds. To me if the drums suck the whole recording suffers so what I hear now is the drums sound great, but by strapping a vari-mu across the drum bus they now sound just too close to the front and a little out of place. Where as then that was what I was after. Oh Well! I guess MY trend has changed.

(Dead Link Removed)

Experiment and Listen,
Good Luck

------------------
David L. Black
Owner, Engineer , Producer
Old House Recording Studio - Gastonia, NC
http://
dbeng@bellsouth.net

Capture your sounds the way you want them to be in the mix and your job will be infinitely easier.

And don't forget to have fun.

Truer words have not been uttered on the internet.

I've seen and heard too many people use compressors for the wrong tasks. Let me say that I believe a compressor is not a performance rider nor is it a leveler. It is more a handy tool to knock off peaks of around 2 to 3 db. Gain reduction meters on compressors are handy for this as they show you the amount of db's you are knocking off. Get a compressor with a gain reduction meter for god's sake. It will allow you to know more about what your actually doing to the signal than you would believe.

My theory is that if you start to knock off more than 2 or 3 db then something is wrong. Either the singer is just jumping all over the place with volumes or you want to achieve a more squashed sound on purpose?!?!. In the case of the singer jumping all over the place you should never use a compressor to "even" out the average leaps/phrases and dips because you will definitely be colouring the sound and introduce pumping making ess sounds alot more pronounced and causing other undesirable harsh sounds no matter what compressor you use. Over compressing sounds bad even on the best compressors in the world. Instead use automation to ride the faders of the softer and louder vocal/guitar/whatever phrases. This is basically correcting bad microphone techniques due to the singer/performer not being experienced enough to get a nice and even performance. The only real/ideal cure to get a nice-and-even vocal sound which doesn't need compression or fader riding is to make the singer redo the whole performace until he/she cuts the appropriate take eliminating the need for post work fixing and riding. This would be the most natural sounding solution.

However we don't always get singers who can totally control their volume by moving in and out of the microphone like they should so we tend to try to correct these performances in the studio but let me say that we approach it naturally and the less processing, the better the result. I don't think riding faders up and down is harmfull at all as all your doing is exactly what the singer should have done, "been alot more accurate in levels to begin with" = good singer. Fader Automation Riding does it nice and simple and naturally compared to compressors which can if used harshly follow/attenuate the actual waveform sample-for-sample attenuating all the samples individually making the waveform change shape. This usually creates a fake/unatural sound. The aim is to keep the vocal/guitar/etc recordings as original as possible without destroying the natural sound which compressors will definitely do if more gain reduction is applied than necessary.

Compression is just not the alternative to evening out bad performances. The sooner you realize this then the sooner you'll understand why most say they only use light settings with appropriate thresholds and ratios according to what signal you feed in. Surely a compressor gives you the option to do major squashing but it doesn't mean you need to.

People often ask "what threshold should I set it at?, what ratio should I use? etc etc. It all depends on what the signal amplitude is of what is going IN the compressor to begin with and what purpose you need the compression at all. Threshold settings should be unique to every song. As should other compressor settings (ratio etc). I stress this because different signals with different recorded amplitudes and variations call upon different tweaking and settings. Gain reduction meters should give you a good example of where to put your threshold. Decide before you touch the compressor how much reduction should take place. 1,2 or 3 db of reduction and then slowly bring your threshold down keeping your eyes on the reduction meter making sure your desired gain reduction isn't exceded unless it sounds like it needs to be. You need to have a ratio active (4:1 or 3:1 etc) to be able to see/hear gain reduction occuring.

Most importantly try to understand why you "need" the compressor as you might conclude that you don't at all.

Good Luck and yes definitely "have fun"

Antonio E

[QUOTE]Originally posted by antonio:
>

Except that knocking '2 or 3 dB may be way too much compression for a given circumstance, or it may be way too little. And while I agree with the concept that you should have a compressor with a meter, I'm damned if I can think of one that doesn't. But I would never assume that the miters have ANYTHING to do with reality - not on a $200 compressors, and not on a $2000 compressor. You have to depend on your ears, not on the meter.

>

Again, it depends on the singer, the mic, the compressor, the pre, the song, and for all I know, the phase of the moon. I've learned that there are very few absolutes in my world. Apparently, you're luckier than I am. It happens, that in many cases, I find automated gain riding, especially of single words and syllables, as you suggest, to be more un-natural than a high quality compressor, even hit into the 5-7dB range. Your tastes obviously differ. You also seem to be lucky enough to be able to 'make the singer re-do the whole performance'; it must be nice...

>

And I'll ask singers who try to 'work the mic' like they do in a live situation stand still - when they move, things like the room sound and the proximity effect cause those changes to be far more drastic (to my ears) than a compressor.

>

There's very little that's natural sounding about contemporary reccordings. You haven't mentioned that the tone change imparted my a particular compressor may be benificial to the signal. I find that to be true more often than not (and if not, I choose another compressor that does enhance the original signal). Or perhaps, you simply haven't heard really, really good compressors...

>

No, but some times the song is enhanced by what you would apparently call major squashing. It's not uncommon for me to be hitting 5-7 dB of gain reduction on any given instrument, but it's also not uncommon for me to be using less than 1dB, sometimes on the same instrument in another song, effectively using the compressor only for the tonal change, which can be very pleasing.

>

How about because I like the change in the sound of the signal when using a particular compressor? Or because despite what the meters say, I want to make the overall track sound as good as I can, and therefore have to do that using my ears, disregarding what the meter may say? Or how about because to my ears, a compressor sounds more natural than heavy gain riding via automation?

Remember that in audio, the more certain you are, the more likely it is that you're wrong...

"Remember that in audio, the more certain you are, the more likely it is that you're wrong..."

so true... so true.

And while I agree with the concept that you should have a compressor with a meter, I'm damned if I can think of one that doesn't

Strange. I thought most compressors left out this important and in my book "crutial" feature.

You have to depend on your ears, not on the meter.

Yes it is all about how it sounds but visual assistance is just as important to me. It's just a matter of personal taste. I believe that it depends on your monitoring. The human ear is not always capable of detecting overs and such often unnoticable distortion which compressors often cause. If you were to rely fully on your ears you might just get surprised with what harsh sounds can then creep out of another venue's monitoring system not to mention possibly due to people insisting on fatigued ears to have the final say at times. It just isn't as practical to "only" rely on ears.

I've learned that there are very few absolutes in my world. Apparently, you're luckier than I am. It happens, that in many cases, I find automated gain riding, especially of single words and syllables, as you suggest, to be more un-natural than a high quality compressor, even hit into the 5-7dB range

I never once mentioned the use of gain riding for the purpose of adjusting syllables and words. That is obviously the way you perceived my clear word "phrase". I did however mention that I don't believe in fixing syllables and words and that I would prefer re-doing the entire "phrase" or "performance" again as I don't believe in tuning into such small edit regions as single syllables and words. Obviously you do hence the use of compression to the great degree you mentioned using it. Please read the post again and hopefully you'll find my mention of the word "phrases" to be a totally different word to "syllables and words" I'm sure you can distinguish the 2. No harm here. :)

It is known physics that compression applies audible processing no matter what. In what audible way do you propose compression is a more "natural" solution compared to automation? You could definitely say it is more "desireable" for "you". It certainly doesn't sound as transparent as not using it at all which falls in the same category as automation. Riding really cannot be classified as a process in that it's just like manually turning up/down the level of the performance AS naturally as the singer doing it for real and will yield a much more natural sound because it simply doesn't "change" the original sound of the vocal as compression does. You obviously desire the coloration of compression but you have no argument that "coloration = more natural" compared to "transparent = more natural" and if you are after transparency then you don't USE compression at all or you use very little. Tell me how automated fader riding sacrifices transparency more than compression please as I would love to know.

You also seem to be lucky enough to be able to 'make the singer re-do the whole performance'; it must be nice...

If the singer is serious about his/her career he/she would know the best option for "their" sake would be to do themselves a favour and redo redo redo. I don't have to "make" the singer redo anything. It shouldn't come as a surprise to you that good/talented singers take it upon themselves to apply extra hard work if it is required to achieve the better sounding product. No one argues the having to redo a take unless they don't really feel like doing it = a singer with no motivation nor a care of what their voice will sound like. Instead, I've seen singers be more than happy to try again. Producers if anyone, often stop the singer from re-doing what the singer might feel will be a better performance if they are given the chance to go again.

And I'll ask singers who try to 'work the mic' like they do in a live situation stand still - when they move, things like the room sound and the proximity effect cause those changes to be far more drastic (to my ears) than a compressor.

Well then my friend you've just given yourself every reason in the world to use processing if you ask singers to stand still (your choice). Also I cannot see how you are not trying to change the singers natural singing behaviour by asking them not to move. Don't you think this might inhibit them to what might usually allow them to get "their" sound "they're" happy with?. I think this topic falls heavily under "creature comforts", allowing singers to be more comfortable therefore more artistically involved in singing how their used to singing. I've worked with the likes of Gladys Night, Ray Charles, Dionne Warwick, All 4 one and Az Yet etc, and you would not like to ask any of these artists to stand still. They would just get on up and walk on out. Please don't let it surprise you that vocal microphone manoeuvring is indeed a studio vocal technique as well as live.

I believe working in the studio requires a comprehensive effort and requires the song to be appointed by the singer as much as the producer. If the singer doesn't know how to comprehend with levels then it is no wander why most of todays songs vocals sound totally over-compressed. Everybody involved in the song needs to know what's going on and I just don't like the way it sounds to ask a singer to "stand still" How is this going to provide the best possible performace by the singer? Isn't performance rated higher than quality anymore?

You haven't mentioned that the tone change imparted by a particular compressor may be benificial to the signal. I find that to be true more often than not (and if not, I choose another compressor that does enhance the original signal). Or perhaps, you simply haven't heard really, really good compressors.

The intention of my post was not to raise issues of the benefits and disadvantages of compressors. I sent my post clearly to answer to zod's original post. He inquired why many use as "little as possible" and I believed I had sufficient reasons why producers follow that method. I was more on the topic of nature and transparency in signals than the likes of coloration. Coloration has it's advantages if "effect" is desired. I have no doubt that many people use compression to achieve the "colour" their looking for. But that does not allow an argument that "colour = more natural" like you are trying to stress.

There's very little that's natural sounding about contemporary reccordings

That's a tough call if you will. As long as such a call makes you sleep at night I have no doubt in believing that you don't "desire" to achieve natural sounds for whatever reason. I must say that it is a pitty if your call is correct. It seems as though you've admitted that you wish to follow this trend just because music appears to sound un-natural to you.
I beg to differ as I believe there are many many natural sounding contemporary songs out there and sure hope it stays that way. I don't think THAT was a harsh call.

my other quote:
Most importantly try to understand why you "need" the compressor as you might conclude that you don't at all

I don't think there was any misleading information about this line. I think it gives a message to many people out there who "think" they "need" a compressor just because such a device exists. It also helps people out there to realize that recordings CAN be made without the use of one. Many people are under the mistaken impression that you've GOTTA use one. This simply is not true. When I first entered the recording scene I used to use one for the hell of it and slowly i began to figure out other ways of achieving a better sound so I limited the use of it and it's no wander why I now agree with "less is more' which all the pro's used to and still say to this day.

I still believe there are "better" ways of "attenuating signals" as I have mentioned in my my last post and in this one. "Better" meaning if all you want to do is "attenuate" then just "attenuate". But if you're after the coloration from compressors than use a compressor.

Originally posted by antonio:
I've seen and heard too many people use compressors for the wrong tasks. Let me say that I believe a compressor is not a performance rider nor is it a leveler.

You may feel free to believe in 'creationism' as well...but you ain't gonna change my beliefs :roll: ...kidz

Get a compressor with a gain reduction meter for god's sake.

You know what they say when you 'assume'...

My theory is that if you start to knock off more than 2 or 3 db then something is wrong. Either the singer is just jumping all over the place with volumes or you want to achieve a more squashed sound on purpose?!?!. In the case of the singer jumping all over the place you should never use a compressor to "even" out the average leaps/phrases and dips because you will definitely be colouring the sound and introduce pumping making ess sounds alot more pronounced and causing other undesirable harsh sounds no matter what compressor you use. Over compressing sounds bad even on the best compressors in the world. Instead use automation to ride the faders of the softer and louder vocal/guitar/whatever phrases.

Geez...20+ years, and millions of units later he tells me...shit. FWIW, I really hate sitting there with automation and riding/writing levels. I'm not as fast, good nor accurate as some good compressors. When I want a lot of compression, I'll often chain 2, 3, sometimes 4 compressors in a row and have each of them working to the greatest extent of their capabilities before I back them off a tad and add another.

This isn't the beginners class...it's wonderful that you have your idea of how this is to be done, and I sincerely hope your clients are pleased with your work. It's the speaking in 'absolutes' that irks me.

This is basically correcting bad microphone techniques due to the singer/performer not being experienced enough to get a nice and even performance.

...or...you're letting the singer worry about shit like "emotion", "presentation", "performance" and you'll worry about the 'technical' crap. Call me old fashion, but I'm of the misguided opinion that it's the singer's job to give up the best performance they are capable of giving up. It's my job to capture and translate that performance.

Now, I've worked with some pretty heavy singers in my day...people who've sold millions and millions of albums on the strength of their vocal abilities. The only thing they have in common is that they all like to work differently. They each require different signal paths, different 'creature comforts', different processes for recording.

One of my favorite singers sings a song until he feels good about the performance on his end, comes in, listens to it, makes a list of fixes...does the fixes in order, and will tell me from his end when he hit the fix and when he didn't...guess what? He's always right.

Another lays down 3 tracks, we do a 'compilation' from the 3...he goes back and does any sections that still need to be done 3 more times, we lay it in...repeat as necessary.

One female I work with regularly relies on me to decide when she has and when she hasn't lived up to her potential. As long as there is Gin, she doesn't give a fuck. She'll sing the same phrase all night long, in as many different ways as humanly possible. She'll do whatever I want done [vocally...don't be a jerk], with amazing technique and style.

They're all "big time", they're all different.

The only real/ideal cure to get a nice-and-even vocal sound which doesn't need compression or fader riding is to make the singer redo the whole performace until he/she cuts the appropriate take eliminating the need for post work fixing and riding. This would be the most natural sounding solution.

I love it when people speak in 'absolute terms'. It shows they 'absolutely' have no idea what they're babbling about.

Compression is just not the alternative to evening out bad performances. The sooner you realize this then the sooner you'll understand why most say they only use light settings with appropriate thresholds and ratios according to what signal you feed in. Surely a compressor gives you the option to do major squashing but it doesn't mean you need to.

You're very passionate about this, you've said the same thing, in a *very* longwinded diatribe 3 times so far. You're probably correct, in your case compression would look like "Don't compress-Automate", "Don't compress-Automate", "Don't compress-Automate". See that would be an appropriate use of compression. Not if you could get rid of the 'sample and repeat' function, you might have relayed a cohesive point for discussion. The longwinded, redundant preachy stuff doesn't convey the point.

People often ask "what threshold should I set it at?, what ratio should I use? etc etc. It all depends on what the signal amplitude is of what is going IN the compressor to begin with and what purpose you need the compression at all. Threshold settings should be unique to every song. As should other compressor settings (ratio etc).

Yippee...a new thought!! And golly yes!! Each sound should be setup differently, and setup so it fits. The purpose of the entire excercize is to get all the little sounds to work and play well with each other. I like to keep my sounds corralled with compression, how you keep your little sounds in order is your business. Talking about *anything* in audio engineering in 'absolutes' is the only thing I can think of that is 'absolutely wrong'.

Most importantly try to understand why you "need" the compressor as you might conclude that you don't at all.

...or you might end up trying good compressors and finding a whole new and exciting world right before your eyes. :roll:

There are some units that you can easily do obscene amounts of compression without it getting in the way. A couple of them aren't on the market yet, and frankly may never be (long story, lack of funding), but they exist.

It very much depends on the 'style' of music you're doing. The manner with which you present that music can be extremely important. I can not imagine something along the lines of Mariah or Whitney Houston without gobs of mediocre sounding compression. Just like Aretha Franklin sounds better with a tad of mic-amp distortion. It's not "proper" engineering, but it's what make things sound appropriate.

By the same token, I have often found that "too much" automation, too many automated moves in a mix can 'polish' all the life and energy out of a song without any prior notice. Some music doesn't want everything neatly wrapped up in pretty package. Some music has rough edges. There is a 'country' record I did a few years ago where no matter how many times, nor who redid the "mix" nothing could beat an 'after session' rough mix.

This was a 'put all the faders to -10 and hit play' rough mix...entirely "recreatable", but not improvable. Adding *any* piece of equipment would fuck it up in a heartbeat. The vocals were the only overdub on the rough, and when those were recorded, enough compression was applied to choke a horse...but funny, it's not all that noticable.

Heroin isn't evil, it's the misapplication of Heroin that's evil. Heroin itself is a good thing. Same with compression, EQ, or firearms. If you use them inappropriately, you're going to net inappropriate results.

"It's a fine line between stupid and clever" David St. Hubbins

You may feel free to believe in 'creationism' as well...but you ain't gonna change my beliefs

Never intented to change anybody's beliefs m8. Just replied to Zod's question. There's no need to get all defensive and rant on about how YOU beg to differ! :)

I like to keep my sounds corralled with compression, how you keep your little sounds in order is your business. Talking about *anything* in audio engineering in 'absolutes' is the only thing I can think of that is 'absolutely wrong'.

Well good for you. This has turned out to be a little lesson your trying to teach me and I think the fact has escaped you that this is a forum and portrayal of opinions can be expressed in the fashion that the WRITER wants. Where do you get off slamming your text trying to teach me how to repeat and not to repeat? I might have been "absolute" in my advice but that is my business and preference. I choose to advise however I like just like you want to "compress" the way you like. Do you know what I think is wrong? People like you continuously babbling on about how "it depends" "audio engineering is non-absolute" "every application is different" blah blah blah....Like as if a new person to audio engineering wants to hear that unhelpfull garbage. How about giving them a little hands-on-type help so that they know where to start? Maybe what they need as a reply is some sort of physical experiment? If it doesn't work for them then they don't need to use my "absolute" methods. Atleast they've tried. What are they gonna accomplish with a simple unhelpful reply such as "every application is different" and that sort of ranting? When I started out in this scene all I got was that babbling and it got me nowhere because it wasn't as helpful as someone actually telling me little tricks of the trade. I know the message we need to give newbies is that "it's all about what sounds good etc" but sometimes you need to break some rules by giving them some experimental advice with EXPLANATION. You would sit there forever with someone trying to constantly explain to them with your "helpfull" techniques. They will eventually begin to realize this for themselves. They don't need people constantly reminding them about how audio is not an "absolute" thing.

I'm of the misguided opinion that it's the singer's job to give up the best performance they are capable of giving up. It's my job to capture and translate that performance.

How have I ever disagreed or shown disbelief to this? If I'm not mistaken I'm sure I've already agreed how it is more important for the performance to be top notch because shit-in = shit-out no matter what studio process you try (sorry for the absolution here but isn't it true?). I backed that up by stating how I liked to use as little processing as possible to preserve the nuance of the original performance. What was wrong with that? I think that is great advice for the curious don't you? If anything you seem to be getting extrememly technical if you use more equipement (your business, but just an example). I strive a decent explanation as to why you class me "black and white"

I love it when people speak in 'absolute terms'. It shows they 'absolutely' have no idea what they're babbling about.

Assumptions Assumption Assumptions. You've repeated yourself about "absolution" endlessly throughout your post. I will not comment further on what I think about that because it's not really relevent to the topic is it Fletcher? Will it do readers justice? Nor do I feel like bagging out someone like you have. I have more constructive things to do and advise.

There are some units that you can easily do obscene amounts of compression without it getting in the way. A couple of them aren't on the market yet, and frankly may never be (long story, lack of funding), but they exist.

Hehehe what was the point in mentioning compressors that don't exist in the market? Better still why even bother to dig your own grave and say "and frankly may never be"? Umm Yeah whatever.

compression, EQ, or firearms. If you use them inappropriately, you're going to net inappropriate results

Thankyou for re-advertising my point :)

(Dave wrote):
Remember that in audio, the more certain you are, the more likely it is that you're wrong...

Dave,
Are you *sure* about that?
:p

Dan

You guys have got it all wrong. Compressors are there to fool your brain into thinking a track is loud and powerful even when the volume is way down low.

(Dave wrote):
Remember that in audio, the more certain you are, the more likely it is that you're wrong...

I know for a fact that this is not true! ;)

Originally posted by Dan Popp:
(Dave wrote):
Remember that in audio, the more certain you are, the more likely it is that you're wrong...

Dan

I dunno - what do you think? (Alternatively, "I dunno - I was alone when I heard it."

i try to do things the same way only the first time. as different compressor settings [well ANY setting for that matter] are exclusive to the project, so is the entire approach. the only thing absolute in life is death... you can actually live without paying taxes [just dont make any money]

why does a compressed sound seem louder? because our ears are the original compressors and we simply fool our senses with compressed sounds meaning louder sounds.

so has anyone ever worn blue tinted sunglasses? ever notice how the world turns pink when you take them off after wearing them for a while?

Antonio:

I'll weigh in as a supporter of your general mistrust/ dislike of compression. While I was reading your original post, I was thinking: "ahh, finally another engineer who does a lot of this stuff with fader moves like I do!".

While it's clear you've ruffled some feathers-- and I'll tell you, I don't agree with everything you said/ advised either, I'm glad your point of view is represented here, if only to remind beginners that not every track needs this particular process.

WOE

Originally posted by West Of Essex:
Antonio:

WOE

I dunno about 'ruffling any feathers' - mine, at least, don't get ruffled by folks who work in different ways than I do - that's what makes this fun. I don't believe that there is any single approach that works for everything; I've mixed projects with no compression at all, and I've mixed projects with an average of 30 channels of compressors across a 48 track mix. It depends on the song.

My original comments were simply to point out that different folks have different work methods. Take it personally if you wish - I've got better things to do.

I have suspicions that pop radio is using more compression. You can hear a big difference between the radio versions & album versions. And don't get me started on the music video stations. It leaves you scratching your head going "did my mix REALLY sound like that?!" I actually print 2 versions at the end of my mixes, one with modest compression & one without any. I print to both dat & 1/2" & I usually prefer the flat version on 1/2" which has a cool tape compression anyway.

Originally posted by dbeng@bellsouth.net:
I would not attempt to squash any bluegrass but would some rock, etc.

An interesting exception is the Steve Earle/Del McCoury Band collaboration of a couple years ago...that thing is fucking slammed. (1176s all the way around, I've heard).
If you told me of a bluegrass project where you can hear the compressors pumping, I would say in advance that it should sound like shit, and yet, I have a soft spot in my head for that recording...it really sounds cool.

Originally posted by Dave Martin:
I dunno - what do you think? (Alternatively, "I dunno - I was alone when I heard it."

Is this akin to: "If a man speaks in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?"?

:D :D :D Just kidding, ladies!

I'm thinking of having a bumper sticker made: "Objective Reality - What Does It Mean To You?"

;)

Dan

I like compressors, I have, and use, a bunch of them. The broadcast world has gone a bit over the edge on the use of compression. I don't know the motivation behind it, other than maybe 2 things. (1) loudness (2) convienience. If you are new to compression, and think you are squashing things too much, an A/B comparison is going to show extremes, remember, you are chopping up the dynamic range, compress it, take a break, come back and listen. A neccessary thing, IMO, or all kinds of other conditions would have to be ideal.

--Rick :cool:

So they're hitting harder now than the 20:1 they've been using for so many years? Or is it a result of modern mashtering practices?

"Reality... what a concept."

....

somebody must have set my threshold way too low and my ratio must be set way too high because after reading all this my head is spinning. i have to say i'm with Fletcher.
the only absolute i know is that there is no absolute. hell, i can mix something i think is great and the next thing i know it makes the dog bark. then's there's my bad work....... :roll: