How do we feel about compression here?

Personally I feel down to DR 8 is totally fine as long as it’s done well, and the Queen SACDs are a perfect example of compression done well. They’re compressed, yes, but they’re not muddy or harsh to listen to.

 

It’s essential in the recording and mastering process. It’s just got a bad rep from brickwalled masterings.

 

I think there’s a sweet spot - used respectfully it adds a bit of pep to a recording. I still like it when there’s no compression used at all, though! Plus, it depends on the mix, and how busy the instrumentation is to start with.

 

I love ZIP but also occasionally use RAR.

 

Ayo

 

Totally necessary after any major accident.

 

Nowadays it's like sugar--it's in everything.

 

Are we talking about recording or mastering? Obviously some compression is needed for recording vocals and some instruments. I’ve never mastered anything or studied the process so I don’t know how essential compression is there. Obviously it can be and often is overdone at both stages to the point of losing too much dynamics, though that is often subjective to different listeners. Personally, I prefer much more dynamics and less compression than most modern masterings have. I know DR scale isn’t everything, but in general I prefer rock recordings with DR values of 11-13. Any less usually would sound better with less compression in my opinion.

 

Good question. I assumed the OP meant mastering.

 

You can’t forget the mixing either. Mastering as a term only applies to changes made to the master bus. Lol.

 

HATE

 

I also think there's a sweet spot to be had. There's a point were some well applied compression will bring the instrumentation together and "solidify" the track (my own wording, it's hard to describe). But it's so easily overused to a track's detriment.

 

It's brick wall compression I don't like.

 

Is this meant to be directed towards people who make and record their own music?

 

This pretty much expresses my feelings as well, and I haven't voted in the poll, because it isn't clear whether the first or second answer is meant to express this sort of position: that is, acknowledging that some compression has always been used in recording/mixing, but the only kinds I personally find acceptable are the kinds and amounts that were used up through the very early '90s (when the loudness war began). So it isn't hating all compression (as the first poll option suggests) or being OK with DR numbers as low as 8 (the OP's position and what I assume is meant by the second poll option).

Recordings with dynamic ranges between 11 and 13 sound the most natural to my ears and are generally preferable to recordings/masterings with less dynamic range, though other factors like EQ and careful transfers of source material are also crucial to getting good sound. I don't think I've ever heard a recording with less than DR11 sound really great, though there are obviously lots of them with higher DR numbers that don't sound great either, because of other factors. So to me, a double digit DR number is necessary, but not sufficient, for great sound.

 

I think it's fine if used carefully. The problem is the overuse. Seems to me that some recording and mastering engineers overdo such things as if it was the only possible way of working.

 

I have no preference because it depends on the project and the material and the room and the performers and the gear and the deadline and and and...

It's certainly easier to get an 'okay' mix with gobs of it on everything. But then you'll be chasing that last 15% to get it 'great' forever... start with none and add where needed

 

Fairly essential to the recording and mixing process (for rock & pop stuff). Over compression, especially at the mastering stage, is definitely not good. Many a record ruined.

 

It may be a necessity, but I prefer it to be hidden as well as possible. If I can tell it's there, it's too much.

Some compressors that sound "fat" to the sound engineering crowd, sound like they're removing information to me.

But the some producers seem to think that's their job - the engineers will lay down some beautiful sounding tracks using the best stuff in the studio's mic locker, then at mixdown so much information gets removed by the producer's requests that they might as well have recorded it all onto cassette with SM57s.

 

You’re not even wrong this is exactly how it is

 

There are lots of varying opinions on this. For example, Jimmy Iovine has said that he would never release a recording with any compression. Same with Bruce Springsteen.

 

Well, it's needed during mixing to make sure everything stays at the same level.

Compression during mastering is a case by case basis but it seems most cases are treated the same way.

 

This sums it up. A useful, even necessary tool that people just went way overboard with.

 

I once worked on a morning show where half my appearances were "studio cartoons": little vignettes produced on-the-fly in an adjoining production room, as if I were "out somewhere doing a live broadcast in a ridiculous setting". I might do four of them in the same broadcast, different stages of, "what's gonna happen to him next". I got very good at sorting-through how realistic I needed my backgrounds and FX to be, compared with how it had to jump-out at the listener driving to work. Compression just to get some subtle sounds heard, was a part of the process. And you don't want the listener thinking you're faking it, until the punchlines come up, so that's a balancing act.

I also did a lot of my "reports" over cellphone (this was mid-'80s tech!), taped over the studio phone with the rest of the morning show reacting to it, then they'd play back segments during the live show, as if they were happening that moment. In these cases, "compression" is more about my being far enough away from the mouthpiece for the ambience to be clearly heard...and sometimes people I'm on-site talking to, would have to accentuate their "lines" and other sounds, just enough for decent audibility. And then, playing it back over the air in the main studio, the station's own processing chain has to help make it all sound real (again, until the punchline at least).

I mean, this isn't audiophile stuff here, just trying to make things get heard to give a listener on a daily commute, enough of what's going on so he'll buy it. But, above and beyond the scripting and the acting, there was a lot of attention paid to compression in many stages; and if I do my job right, you never notice any of that.

 

It's fine and I actually prefer it most of the time. Can't stand truly brickwalled stuff but I don't get my panties in a twist.