I seem to be continually on the steepest part of the learning curve. Everytime I think its a parabola and I can't possibly learn something obvious I prove myself wrong.

Anyway. For a time now I have been trying to use a lighter touch with compression. Well, there are always exceptions, but I will go back to using compressors a bunch.

A big lesson was this week. I was mixing a female singer/songwriter who has a voice that is pretty, but has a little grit in it. A little air. No matter which vocal mic I chose there was always a significant problem with the vocal sound.

So, I started on one of my keyplayer-ish trips where I tell myself I need a new vocal mic. Mind you I already have some real killer mics. I am also cursing the low ceilings. But a good engineer should still get something out of all this.

So I have all the mix working but her voice is not sitting out in front like it should. I try all kinds of EQing, but it still either sounds thin or muddy or just plain wrong.

So, when I eventually try just compressing a lot (like 12 dB GR) the sound I have been wanting to hear the whole time, exceeding my expectations, comes popping out of the speakers. I take off all my EQ leaving only a high pass and it gets significantly better.

The client's enthusiasm at this point was obvious. I got a back rub out of it.

The voice was full in the low mids, the presence was gorgeous (don't even know how to characterize it), full of detail and intimacy. The only EQ happening was the mic!

How does a compressor do this?

Someone tell me. I want to be a know-it-all.

I am guessing the reason we need to do this in digital is because we are used to hearing the compression from tape and analog circuitry. But, that is old news.

JM

Jack,
In all probability, the very artifacts (like grit) that you find most objectionable, are the very ones that stick out most (though briefly) past the RMS of the signal, therefore you compress and viola! the ratio of those artifacts to the desired sound is significantly reduced. That's how compressors can be used as de-essers simply by making them more sensitive the frequencies of sibilants (by keying them to the same signal with the "esses" boosted by EQ). Hope that clears it up a bit.

In addition to evening out the sound and sometimes smoothing out the transients, compression has the effect of bringing up the lower-level components in a sound, so you're probably hearing more of what you were trying to bring out with eq. That's also a big part of the reason it's so important to find the right settings and even the right compressor, if you have a choice, for the application: if you get it wrong, the ugly stuff comes forward.

Whenever I review comps, the first thing I try them on is acoustic guitar. Good ones let you smooth out the sound without bringing up the pick noise so it's really annoying.

That's my guess without hearing it, anyway.

I'll second Nicks response, find the right comp. dbx 160 or 1176 are two that a lot of producers use for vox, of ocurse the LA2.

The soft 'nice' voice is really enhanced by compression, it can bring out the agressiveness that sleeps in the background threrof. Just don't suck the life out of it.

"The client's enthusiasm at this point was obvious. I got a back rub out of it."

Uh , Jack ? You need to get out more dude ! Sorry , I couldn't pass on that... Really though, you don't mention the ratio of the compression you're using - generally speaking as long as you keep the ratio down under 3:1 or so ( I usually don't use anymore than 2:1 ) you can get away with a 12db reduction without sounding too squashed.

Regards

One thing about the "numbers"....
When I adjust a pot on an analog coppressor, I really never care what the dial reads, more what is the sound I need. That knob might point at 2:1 but with all the slop in the values in components, who knows really where you are at. I have had a stack of 160's and set each one to the sound I wanted, inserting one at a time. No two were alike. They sounded the same but did not read the same.
Then going to digital, I always felt the numbers were wrong for what I liked. I finally asked a friend of mine who is a "major" in the mixing world about this. He agreed with me. Always go with your ears. You can note levels but dont worry if you think they are wrong. In the digital world, to me it seems all the numbers are too high compared to analog.

Mehali ,
I agree..... We all know in audio that our eyes ( or the meters ) and the numbers decieve us. It (should) always come down to what we hear. That being said , it's kind of difficult to quantify things like "turn the ratio knob until it sounds good". Anyway , I guess what I meant to say was - if you stick with rather low compression ratios , you can get away with larger reductions without sounding too squashed.......

Mehali,

when you say in digital the #'s are too high, you're saying in digital it might be 16 db of gain reduction, sounding about the same as 12 or 10 db of gain reduction on an old analog compressor?

fyi, I love the empiracal labs el8 distressor or the crane song trakker. great outboard compressors if you want to give it some juice on the way in.

Sean

I just picked up a couple of dbx 118's and you have 1 knob and you turn it till it sounds good.And it sounds just like its big brother the 160 VU.

Mehali,

I've been sayn that for years after many years of analog then converting to digi about a decade ago. I mix to my ears then see what the meters and dials say, in digital the meters and dials are always higher, and I think to myself, oh, I have to dig in more with digi gear. It is ok though, I love my digital stuff.

Wanta get rid of any of those 160's? Or 62's?