dudermn

it's very hard to create an artifact that shows the negative effects of compression on frequencies that lack being perceived by the Human Ear

That's because if it's not affecting how it's perceived, it's not a negative effect.

What makes you think that glitch is caused by compression?

I'm not really seeing how this 'blog' worthy
If you're trying to debate the practical use(s) of compression, you don't have much of a basis here to your argument. Care to elaborate?

Sounds to me like an effect and no compression effect...even if there is probably compression going on...

Compression can be used as an effect or a tool. It's apparent that the engineer used the compression along with other effects to make the sound as an effect in this case. There are a lot of ways to use a compressor.

I think this may be a case of editing 2 different takes together, if it's not an intentional applied effect.

Originally Posted by rook2c4

I think this may be a case of editing 2 different takes together, if it's not an intentional applied effect.

Very possible.

I think its tuning plus an edit. I can hear the terrible tunning job through the entire song.

So, yep, compression is bad:P

That's definitely a glitch, but I don't have any compressors that do that. Not plugins. Not hardware. I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's not compression at all.

What I think is most interesting is it's safe to say that compression is used, at least subtly, on 95% of the tracks on this production and we are fast forwarding to 2:50 to say, "See, compression sucks."

If compression sucked across the board, it should suck starting 0:01 of every song. No one is saying the vocal sounds suck on this production (although the pitch stuff is a little bit odd for a big boy production). So that automatically rules out compression being a bad tool across the board.

Compression doesn't do everything. It won't wash your car. It won't save all voices and tracks. However, when a dynamic tracks needs to sit in a dense mix, it's THE tool to use in most cases.

Brandon

Well than I'll keep looking for some more concrete proof than. And post it here when I find it.
And it actually is a sliced segment of a good note covering up a bad note.
But
The compressors attack didn't leave room for dynamics, so the copy pasted note ends up behaving in a bad way. You can of course cancel this affect out pretty easy, though it might take 5-10 minutes.
I really like the sonic artifacts that can be created with a bunch of 'toys'...For example to generate a synth like tone from an acoustic guitar and a 5 dollar logitech mic, using some heavy reverb which eventually carries the 'tone' note.
So yea, Didn't manage to fool anyone

The compressors attack didn't leave room for dynamics, so the copy pasted note ends up behaving in a bad way.

I'm not hearing this compression you are talking about, I guess. All I hear is the bad edit.

I'm up for learning something and I'm well aware of bad uses of compression.

However, if you are gonna convince me that compression sucks across the board ALL the time, you are gonna have to explain why the vocal sounds in this clip are so good. There's no need to look at any other clips.

You won't have too much trouble finding little flubs that could have been dealt with. Engineering glitches are nothing new. Michael Jordan tripping and falling once doesn't take his 6 Championships away.

Never said compression sucks. I agree that it has to be handled with care.

Originally Posted by dudermn

compression is bad

Originally Posted by dudermn

Never said compression sucks. I agree that it has to be handled with care.

Hello, Bill Clinton! Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky or not?

Hello, Bill Clinton! Did you have sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky or not?

Define "is".

My fault. I misquoted you.

Originally Posted by dudermn

Never said compression sucks. I agree that it has to be handled with care.

No, but you said "I have a policy of not using compression"... but like I was saying, I'd be curious to know what drove you to such an extreme position. There's a big difference between a 'practice' and a 'policy'. Policy implies that you wouldn't use it under any circumstances. It implies that you believe it sucks, or is at least is something that is far below your skill level to touch or something.
I'm not trying to be a turd about it or anything. I really would like to know why you take that view. What do you do instead of compression? I just find it puzzling. Perhaps you didn't mean to say 'policy'

The policy is: I do everything possible to avoid having to use it.

This seems to be a perfect example of drawing extreme ideological conclusions from unrelated data.

Every instrument has dynamics. And when you add a compressor to your track every little dynamic has just been raped.
I can't imagine a jazz album having compressed tracks that would just be f$kkd up.

I am curious to know which kind of music or artist do you enjoy listenning to....I can think of any Jazz, rock, whatever album that hasn't compression running somewhere, at least even a slight of it in the mastering process....Maybe there are some, but I'm pretty sure it is a infinitely small part of the today production.

Every Radio station are compressing again all already mastered mixes....

It guess it is very painful for you to listen to any song these days....

Misused compression can ruined a lot of thing in a mix or on a mix, but it will be disrespectful to all engineer that has used compression in the last 30 years to just think compressing is just crap or a crappy "effect".

Anyway, that's what I think...

Originally Posted by dudermn

Every instrument has dynamics. And when you add a compressor to your track every little dynamic has just been raped.
I can't imagine a jazz album having compressed tracks that would just be f$kkd up.

That depends on how you set the compressor and which unit you are using. I agree that a compressor can damage the dynamics of an instrument or vocal. So does every other effect you place in the chain. Every time you add anything to a raw track, you are adding some sort of distortion and damaging the original dynamic range. So in your case of not wanting to damage any of the dynamics, track completely dry with no adjustments to EQ (flat). Mix without the use of any EQ or effects. Do not pan an instrument or vocal in any way. Keep everything flat with the faders set to unity and you will have a mix that is full of complete dynamic range.

Every adjustment you make in any way shape or form takes away some dynamic range no matter what it is. Even moving a pot on the board will change the voltage and resistance of the signal from the original signal causing the dynamic range to change.

That should make you scratch your head for a while.

Just because dynamics are more natural, doesn't mean they are better, for the same reason that eating bird poop isn't better for you than drinking gatorade.

Originally Posted by bozmillar

Just because dynamics are more natural, doesn't mean they are better, for the same reason that eating bird poop isn't better for you than drinking gatorade.

At least bird poop is more natural then gatorade.

Ken J. What your saying is also limited to the use of microphones and D.I. and A.D. converters. Something which will complicate your recording even more. First off, is the fact that every microphone and every human ear hears something completely different. For example, alot of sound engineers have a problem that our mixes sound bad.....It's a disease or something.
That said. To create a fully dynamic recording is near impossible, considering you have to kill any multi-session or editing and etc. It would be one take, 200 microphones, and some new kind of recording technology. Some kind of multi-track that combines microphones to tracks, but than you have to blend them without creating artifacts, and thats just Impossible, or is it.
Right now I'm listening to Les Paul with Chester Lester, Adam and the Ants and Live Stu. But I rarely listen to music, if anything I just pop up a britney spears or an emienem out of boredom and lack of entertainment.

Originally Posted by dudermn

Ken J. What your saying is also limited to the use of microphones and D.I. and A.D. converters. Something which will complicate your recording even more. First off, is the fact that every microphone and every human ear hears something completely different. For example, alot of sound engineers have a problem that our mixes sound bad.....It's a disease or something.
That said. To create a fully dynamic recording is near impossible, considering you have to kill any multi-session or editing and etc. It would be one take, 200 microphones, and some new kind of recording technology. Some kind of multi-track that combines microphones to tracks, but than you have to blend them without creating artifacts, and thats just Impossible, or is it.
Right now I'm listening to Les Paul with Chester Lester, Adam and the Ants and Live Stu. But I rarely listen to music, if anything I just pop up a britney spears or an emienem out of boredom and lack of entertainment.

Actually anytime you record anything you are going to color the natural sound to some degree. As soon as the natural sound hits the first electric item in the recording chain where it is transferred from natural sound to a voltage, it's over. The damage is done. It is no longer a natural sound. The same applies to any electrical amplification of any natural sound. So any electronic or electric instrument does not give a natural sound because the sound is generated by means of a voltage. Except for stringed instruments that are electric. They do have a natural sound. Just play that strat without it plugged in and you have the natural sound.

Duplication of any true natural sound through any means colors the sound to some degree. It is theoretically impossible to duplicate a natural sound perfectly. But you can get close.

Like I said, we need new technology

Originally Posted by dudermn

Like I said, we need new technology

Technology gets better every day. You just gotta wait for it to hit the market.

That reminds me of a song that was done for the movie Willa Wonka and the Chocolate Factory in 1971. The character singing the song was Veruca Salt played by a young actress by the name of Julie Dawn Cole. She indeed was a bad egg.

I Want It NOW!