Compression - good or bad?

Find deals on ebay
Amazon
Advertise with us
QuadraphonicQuad

Help Support QuadraphonicQuad:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
GOS

GOS

2K Club - QQ Super Nova
QQ Supporter
Joined
Apr 23, 2013
Messages
21,604
Location
Central Illinois
We all hear a LOT about compression - just the nature of the word makes me think it's a horrible thing...but I see many making reference to it in a good way. I'd like to see some discussion about how it is used in music...why it's used, what literally is happening when they use it. I ask, because I truly don't understand it.

Now - if your explanations are going to be complex, please consider dumbing it down a bit. I'm not a music engineer, not in the business, so please keep that in mind.

Thanks!! :confused:
 
It controls the difference between the loudest and quietest parts of a signal. It makes the dynamic range smaller: it has been squashed/compressed. Vocals and have a large dynamic range, and may not sit easily in a mix (nor record - especially in analogue days - without many peaks distorted). Compression is used a lot in music recording: it can control the variance of levels in a signal to make it easier to record and/or mix, and can be used for effect too. I'm sure someone less tired and more intelligent than me can chime in with better examples.
 
Moderation is the key..

Basically EVERYTHING is compressed nowadays when recorded (in the old days , TAPE compression-that is, just recording it to tape , would add compression because of the medium limitations-was an added plus)

The problem is that people think that you need to make EVERYTHING LOUDER for it to stand out (compression DURING AND AFTER MIXDOWN), hence , the LOUDNESS war..
what most people don't seem to understand is that EVERY TRANSMITTED SIGNAL , Radio, TV IS ALREADY LIMITED (the HARDEST COMPRESSION OF ALL) , so . it really doesn't matter..

Vocals, bass, gtrs, drums usually are compressed..but just enough to make them .."even" ..and on top of that they are "ridden" with the faders , be it manually or with automation...
 
that's two sided medal. there are different types of compression and its purposes.
there are downward compression which lower the volume of loud parts of the sound, leaving quiet part untouched.
upward compression does opposite but nevertheless both are does reduce dynamic range.
also we have expander compression purpose of which to increase dynamic range of the sound.
all depends on intends of sound mastering personnel and purpose for which compression is used.
 
To refer back to the Beatles 1+ thread, careful compression on one or more mics is the 'good' kind. John's vocal on "Girl" is the one that made the concept click for me. The quiet parts are brought up more in the mix. To hear the breaths at that level, without a compressor, would make the vocals way too loud, turn the level down to balance the vocals and the breaths would be less audible. Try to ride the gain or compress after recording and the noise level would be high in the quiet parts. Compression before recording means that the quiet parts are already above the noise floor.

A little global compression on the entire mix brings it up, in-the-face. Too much and it gets fatiguing. Later Def Leppard sounded like that to me. Top 40 radio today sounds like there's a defect in the tuner. As mentioned, limiting is just squashing the peaks and a little bit can be necessary, like to avoid unwanted distortion whether analog or digital.
 
I certainly agree that there are excellent uses for compression.

My biggest problem with the "loudness war" type is not that it was applied - but that it was applied in the wrong place.

When you are in a noisy environment - say, when vacuuming, or driving a nicely"modified" Audi S4 ;-) - you NEED the more quiet parts of the music raised a bit without raising the louder parts - or you end up riding the crap out of your volume control. Highly-compressed mastering takes care of this issue beautifully. That being said, you don't want this compression applied in your "main" listening environment. So the variable is the environment - and the solution should be with the playback device in the environment, not the media. It takes very little effort to put a lightly-adjustable compression algorithm on a portable DAP or car stereo. THAT is where the compression should be applied - situationally - based on the environment in which the music is being played. Not unilaterally, which completely screws up the music for serious listening in a more controlled environment. And of course, it was the latter place that industry chose to go. Sigh...
 
Many media players have compression options these days, and I agree - that's where the additional compression should be applied.
 
Remember this thing:

3dbx.jpg

A dynamic range expander that worked wonders on many LP's. I don't know how it would do with one of today's highly compressed recordings. Mine is long gone.
 
ar surround said:
...A dynamic range expander that worked wonders on many LP's. I don't know how it would do with one of today's highly compressed recordings...
Click to expand...

The trouble is, a piece of gear like this needs at least something to work with.

Back in the day, most well-recorded LPs had a reasonable amount of dynamic range, within the limits of the medium of course. As an example, let's say the vinyl could capture maybe 75% of the dynamic range of a live orchestral performance. When adjusted correctly, the dbx and similar units were fairly successful at extrapolating from that existing dynamic range to regain some of the remaining 25%.

Then came the volume wars. Nowadays, the VU meter barely moves on some of this stuff - the dynamic range only varies by maybe 10% or so. It's been so thoroughly hammered flat, there's nothing left to work with - that is, nothing there for a dynamic range expander to expand upon.

-- Jim

[EDIT] For a more concise explanation, see Frogmort's reply. :)
 
Jim the Oldbie said:
The trouble is, a piece of gear like this needs at least something to work with.

Back in the day, most well-recorded LPs had a reasonable amount of dynamic range, within the limits of the medium of course. As an example, let's say the vinyl could capture maybe 75% of the dynamic range of a live orchestral performance. When adjusted correctly, the dbx and similar units were fairly successful at extrapolating from that existing dynamic range to regain some of the remaining 25%.

Then came the volume wars. Nowadays, the VU meter barely moves on some of this stuff - the dynamic range only varies by maybe 10% or so. It's been so thoroughly hammered flat, there's nothing left to work with - that is, nothing there for a dynamic range expander to expand upon.

-- Jim

[EDIT] For a more concise explanation, see Frogmort's reply. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, I was watching the VU meters on The Beatles 1+ BluRay set. They're almost pegged all of the time...not much dynamic range at all.
 
I used to (many, many, many years ago, if not more) be the engineering director at an FM radio station. We used the least amount of audio compression possible without violating the law. The result of this was an output signal that matched the record output as close as possible.

The other result of this was that people would complain that we had no bass. It wasn't that we had no bass but that our listeners' ears were designed so that bass is not heard at low levels. Play the signal louder and the ear picks up more bass and you feel the deeper bass. So, the stations that used more compression had an advantage in that the bass sounded "fuller" even though they had less fidelity. Of course, they also sounded louder. We sounded noticeably lower in level when you went around the FM dial, which just increased everyone's impression that we had no bass signal.

For those not familiar with frequency modulation, some compression/limiting was required to prevent your signal from potentially interfering with an adjourning signal. The amplitude of the audio signal was converted to the frequency range (hence FM). Therefore if the signal overmodulated without compression/limiting your frequency range could expand into that used by the next station "up the dial". The FCC regulated how close your signal could get to the nearest FM station and failure to abide by the regulations could result in your license being revoked.

FM is an excellent example of how compression can be used for good effects and commercial (not so good) effects.

Andy
 
alk3997 said:
I used to (many, many, many years ago, if not more) be the engineering director at an FM radio station. We used the least amount of audio compression possible without violating the law. The result of this was an output signal that matched the record output as close as possible.

The other result of this was that people would complain that we had no bass. It wasn't that we had no bass but that our listeners' ears were designed so that bass is not heard at low levels. Play the signal louder and the ear picks up more bass and you feel the deeper bass. So, the stations that used more compression had an advantage in that the bass sounded "fuller" even though they had less fidelity. Of course, they also sounded louder. We sounded noticeably lower in level when you went around the FM dial, which just increased everyone's impression that we had no bass signal.

For those not familiar with frequency modulation, some compression/limiting was required to prevent your signal from potentially interfering with an adjourning signal. The amplitude of the audio signal was converted to the frequency range (hence FM). Therefore if the signal overmodulated without compression/limiting your frequency range could expand into that used by the next station "up the dial". The FCC regulated how close your signal could get to the nearest FM station and failure to abide by the regulations could result in your license being revoked.

FM is an excellent example of how compression can be used for good effects and commercial (not so good) effects.

Andy
Click to expand...

Wow, I'll be damned...sure didn't know that. Pretty interesting stuff. Since you mentioned - what format was the station you were at...just curious. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dynamic Editor
DIGITAL Editing John Mayer's *Heavier Things* 5.1 mix for greater dynamics and separation!
Replies
1
Views
120
PK
PK
TheAbsentMind
TVs (and Monitors)
Replies
7
Views
551
barfle
barfle
Quadgirl
Any way to use main-in pre-out on Sansui 9001 connected to some sort of pre-in main out on 2010 Denon 4310? Will explain. . .
Replies
16
Views
830
Quadgirl
Quadgirl
Simon A
The Hard Way: John Waite documentary (The Babys, Bad English)
Replies
13
Views
1K
splinter7
splinter7
5
Bob Ludwig, Legendary Mastering Engineer, Retires
Replies
4
Views
1K
Sal1950
Sal1950

Latest posts

Back
Top