Topic: compressor query : what does the #'s in x:x:x (i.e. 1:3:1) stand for?

[Gutbucket]

Kirkd, it's not like an expander, for two reasons: First, it is reducing the overall dymamic range, like any compressor instead of increasing it like an expander; second (and what makes it different from normal compression or expansion) it only does it's thing on the bottom of the dynamic range it is effecting, and leaves the top of the dynamics untouched.

I started exploring parallel compression because I often felt that I wanted a different EQ setting for the quiet portions and the loud parts, and didn't want to have to keep turning up the volume to hear the details and back down for the loud parts.

The agressively compressed copy of the stereo track EQ'ed with a loudness-countour-like curve that dramatically cuts the mids and boosts the highs and lows might not sound good on it's own, but is mixed in just enough to reinforce the quiet parts.  Because the compressed copy has less dynamic range than the original, it's contribution is progressively less as the music becomes louder, blending in smoothly. Plus only a small portion of the end signal is actually passed through the compressor, instead of all of it.

[newplanet7]

^^^
Thanks GB.
That sounds like what I'm after. It sounds like it would work best for jazz.

[Patrick]

That sounds like what I'm after. It sounds like it would work best for jazz.

YES.  It is used all the time in the classical and jazz recording mixing sessions.  Material that has lots of transients and dynamics work nicely with parallel compression-- the compression just raises the volume in a much more "elegant" way than using a limiter.  It can also work well for rock n' roll audience tapes, but a little less efficiently. 

[Gutbucket]

That sounds like what I'm after. It sounds like it would work best for jazz.

YES.  It is used all the time in the classical and jazz recording mixing sessions.  Material that has lots of transients and dynamics work nicely with parallel compression-- the compression just raises the volume in a much more "elegant" way than using a limiter.  It can also work well for rock n' roll audience tapes, but a little less efficiently.

I record classical and jazz frequently and this seems to work better for me than most other forms of compression.. other than manually drawing volume envelopes.

I haven't tried it on rock aud recordings as much, which tend to have less overall dynamic range, less peaky transients and more going on at the top end of the dynamics.  So it would make sense that it would be 'doing more' with the jazz and classical stuff.  Still worth a go though.  Just keep in mind that you'll need to do other things to catch any wild transients up top.

[newplanet7]

Where's that Four Omni Stage Lip MMW tape!! 

[Gutbucket]

Still in the can.  As I recall, the guys were a good 20' back from the lip and the subs under it were massively overpowering.  Didn't get much past the initial listen, but probaly deserves a revisit.  The single pair the year before is more promissing.  Thanks for the reminder, patience my friend, timeless music never ages.

[Johnny Thunder]

I used this technique (parallel compression) on a jazz trio recording with fantastic results. I also added a twist to it. I created some tracks with the right channel only, then EQ'd each track with specific frequencies that needed a little help in the soft passages and applied compression to them to bring up what I wanted. How do those tracks I created sound? AWFUL! but mixed in a multitrack just right and bounced down to two tracks, the recording shines like a diamond now. I can't thank Lee enough for posting this technique in his thread about it. This is FIRE!

-JT