I highly suggest a trick I call "parallel upward midrange compression." You put an upward compressor on an aux. In front of it, you put a parametric EQ. I use the Fab Filter Pro Q3, but anything will work. Using this EQ, you bandpass everything but the midrange (usually from about 800hz to 8kHz). So now only the midrange on this aux is getting upwardly compressed. Then you send different elements of the mix to this aux. I find most instruments can benefit from having their midrange upwardly compressed. This has the effect of making the mix way more present and louder without adding much extra volume.
This makes a lot of sense. I use a lot of parallel compression, but it didn't occur to me to eq it (unless, of course, you're using a multiband compressor, but those eat up a lot of CPU). I like your idea. Gonna try it. Thanks for the tip.
I do the same thing on my masters using an aux and I compress the midrange using a fab pro c with the sidechain eq in it focusing on that midrange in way so that im getting a less dynamic and louder sound and blending it into everything else being careful not to go over my original peaks
I did a completely empirical experiment. I recorded a single note (C2) on a MIDI Steinway at a velocity of 80 for a length of five seconds to a MIDI track. Then I played that back and printed it directly to an audio track. Then I added a 'downward' compressor with a ratio of 12 to 1, zero attack, a 2.5-second-long release, and printed the MIDI track again with otherwise identical settings on it, to another audio track, also with identical settings. The threshold was set to give exactly 10 dB of compression. To make the peak levels identical, I normalized each of the audio recordings. Then I measured both of them at the two-second mark. On the recording with the compressor invoked, the level at that point was exactly 6 dB higher than on the recording without the compressor. So the change in the level of sustain was significant. Dramatically so when I listened back to them. Then I repeated the process with 'upward' compression invoked, normalized that, and again, the level at the two-second mark was at the exact same level as the recording with 'downward' compression. Then I took those two audio recordings and subtracted one from the other. The result was essentially a flat line, implying that those two waveforms are audibly identical. The only difference might be the amount of normalization applied. So the conclusion that I draw here is that upward compression is actually identical to downward compression plus raising the makeup gain. Other than that, there is no physical difference between them as to the envelope of the sound, meaning there can be no audible difference. "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" It seems Toto has just pulled that curtain back. It appears that what a compressor that claims to do upward compression is likely doing is using the identical algorithm for downward compression and then raising the makeup gain after the fact, or at the very least is using an algorithm with an identical effect. This experiment kind of proves that. The result is the functional equivalent of that. If so, then the only actual difference between upward compression and downward compression is the arbitrary choice of terminology-what one decides to label it as. They actually do the very same thing to the envelope of a sound. Imagining that they sound different is probably only due to the placebo effect. They are the same. Am I wrong? I'm no more perfect than anyone else. Did I screw up my empirical experiment? Does it not hold water? If you think so, explain to me exactly why. And I do mean exactly. No BS fluff.
as soon as he explained what upward compression means I thought exactly this by myself "isn't it the same just without actively raising the makeup-gain?". Thanks for your experiment, would be cool if you demonstrate it in a short video.
Very interesting experiment! By definition upwards and downwards are actually different because their transfer functions are different, so I'm not sure what's going on with your experiment. Upwards compression can sound very close to parallel compression (and the transfer functions look visibly similar) but again, they are different and offer some nuance to them - especially when pushed harder. The differences I would have expected you to see would be in the transient information because downward compression would react to that, whereas upwards compression, by definition, would NOT (at least until it drops below the set threshold). I don't doubt that your experiment showed a perfect null, but there must be another factor here. Perhaps with the attack times of the compressors you chose? Maybe it's too long for the envelope to respond to the transient in the downward example you tested. I would suggest repeating your experiment with other compressors to verify (no pressure haha!). Regardless, thanks for taking the time to mention this! It's very interesting and something worth discussing. Cheers!
I started using upward compression a while back and I found it very useful for bringing up the overall loudness of a track without messing up the transient information, particularly on bass and drums, also on aggressive vocals. I would describe it as adding presence. Whenever a track is kind of lost in the mix, I use it to bring it forward. Having said that, as you correctly state here, it may introduce noise. I've found a solution for that is to use it in parallel and mix it back in with the original uncompressed signal. Some compressors provide a balance function between dry and wet signal so you don't have to create a compression bus. This is extremely useful.
Hooray! A burning question has been answered >> I have never used upward compression and can definitley see the advantage of the use cases you mentioned >> perfect thank you and subscribed for sure 👌💯🎧🎶😎🌟
UPDATE 11/11/22: I MADE A MISTAKE! What you hear in the demonstration part of this video is actually upwards AND downwards compression! I made a correction video here that explains the mix up and gives you two examples of ONLY upward compression: 👉ua-cam.com/video/MYUw_2-IOHg/v-deo.html👈 I'm so sorry for missing this when I first released the video. BIG THANK YOU to the viewers that identified the mistake and reached out!
superb video, with very clear explanations. The effect of upward compression raising the noise level was very obvious here . Great demonstration. Thank you so much.
Cool video! I’m definitely guilty of usually just using downward compression and turning the output up. I always forget that upward compression is a thing that exists.
Upward compression works flawlessly on Slap Bass, for example. Usually, downward compression sucks up a lot of high end from the bass when catching and reducing the peaks from the slapped and plucked notes, and you always have to add some high frequencies to bring back some of that sparkle after compressing which can cause to be too bright and feel artificial, depending on the eq used. With upward compression is the complete opposite and the high end of the bass feels way more natural. Totally recommended!
For MB compression in both directions, I like to use IK Multimedia T-Racks Quad-Comp, it sounds clean and is easy to adjust the bands and the levels and parameters quickly. Plus, it offers M/S along with Stereo! Thanks for the video and the guide!
Outstanding demonstration. I've been producing for 10 years and now I have a much better understanding of when to use upwards compression. Great explanation of the subjective acoustical properties that result as well!
Great video! couple questions, why would you use upward compression on a track if your just gonna downward compress the master anyway? ALSO, have you ever used upward compression on a master? Is there any point to doing that?
Thanks for the useful information and the great demo, but no, when you say "dynamic range," you actually mean "dynamics." A compressor changes they dynamics of a signal, not that dynamic range. Dynamic range is a property if a storage format or a communication channel. For example, 16-bit PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB. Your music--before and after compression--has dynamics. A compressor changes dynamics. It's important to know the terms of your art and use them correctly.
Recently I tried to do an upward sidechain compression where I sidechain the bass to the percs(snare, clap, hats,...). Then I added a compressor (FL Limiter, I use FL studio) then applied upward side chain compression to the bass to make my percs stand out. Is this technique correct ?
Interesting thought! I think it would make the bass pump/swell a lot which could make it stand out. I've actually never tried this! Thanks for the idea haha 💡
I use a different Waves plugin for this. It's the Waves MV2, which does BOTH together, up and down compression. I use it mostly on Vocals as you described, for Upwards compression. I'll give it a try on Bass. This plugin only has three sliders....for Low, High, and then Output Gain. Question though....I've seen other Vids on Compression, with a "before and after" waveforms showing the results of compression. If you have use of that so you can actually SEE the results of compression, which Waveform Analyzers have you used for that? I've also been told that whatever one you use, that it's placed right after the compressor. Only reason I'm asking this, is that I asked "another presenter" how he got the waveform to change, and he said to "use a waveform analyzer" but never gave any examples of which ones worked best, by various plugin vendors. THANKS!
The only thing I don’t like about mv2 is that you can’t control attack and release. I think mv2 is great if you need a quick solution for delay trails getting lost in the mix.
The MV2 is amazing on bass and guitars. I also highly suggest using it for a trick I call "parallel upward midrange compression." You put the MV2 on an aux. In front of it, you put a parametric EQ. I use the Fab Filter Pro Q3, but anything will work. I use the EQ to bandpass everything but the midrange (usually from about 800hz to 8kHz). Then I send different elements of my mix to this aux. I find most instruments can benefit from having their midrange upwardly compressed. This has the effect of making the mix way more present and louder without adding much extra volume.
@@rome8180 wow, thanks for the tip! I'll definitely give it a try and see what I think. I can see how that could give the track more energy without having to try and force it elsewhere in the mix.
Do You know Neodimum vst ? No more available and unique as well, It Is a multiband compressor, but the band are not about frequency ranges but DYNAMIC ones, I mean about the levels ! Is there any alternative vst and wich the benefits about when and how to use It ?
No I'm not aware but waves c1 (the one I used in the video) has a way to do that as well. Might be worth check out the manual from the link in the description to see if it does a similar thing. Hope that helps!
@@boimesa8190 free demo @ eventide... Trust me. its a rippa... notthng like it as far as im concerned.. just has some "Magic". Theres some great vids explaining what makes it so different. Go play with it, and let me know !
I always thought it was cool how many different processing techniques are based on manipulating volume. Even an EQ is just band selected volume. So I was just thinking. Is there anything that compresses “sideways”? If you figure panning is the epitome of sideways volume manipulating. And if that’s the premises we are going by, then a sideways compressor fluctuates back and fourth between the left and right channels. Maybe you could even consider an unlinked stereo compressor slightly sideways. Lol😂 oh man. It’s too early for ridiculous thoughts like these.. 😊
Should be easy enough. Separate mid and side to separate tracks and put a compressor on only one of them, or to both but with different settings to get them to move differently. You could even use a multiband to control only a part of the spectrum. I use this sometimes to make the sound of busses more wide on slower parts and vice versa when I want focus. A breakdown as an example of former and blastbeat for latter. Or, when vocals are present so guitars don't overwhelm them, but once the track is instrumental it sounds huge. You can go pretty drastic with this (+-5db) if you steer clear of sub ~120hz
You killed off attacks in your examples with attack 0.01, did you? And with ratio 25 it is practically limiter mode not compressor..🤔 and gain reduction 24 db looks really strange, like it is marked in the comment above
Hi Bobby. Thank you for explaining the concept. So how would you go about setting up a compressor to do this ie, determining the values for tbreshold, ratio, gain and release?
I recommend using very aggressive settings to HEAR the compression and movement. Then adjust to taste. But unless you go hard at first, it's hard to pick out what the compressor is doing...
@@RaytownProductions I often use downward compression to shape the transients for sounds (using attack and release). How do these parameters act using upward compression?
I don't want to sound like a wiseacre, since I appreciate the information and work people like you put into these videos. The concept of upward compression, it's effects and fields of use are correctly described in this video. But you're not showing upward compression, and I don't think there's an audible change in the compression characteristics (even though it looks like it on the display). Changing C1 to PeakRef is just changing the behaviour of the make up gain. From the manual: "This has no effect on the sound but affects the output level and how the makeup control works [...]" In fact C1 is not capable of upward compression - otherwise we should achieve a flater dynamic slope below the threshold, not still above it.
The question is not WHAT IS, but HOW I think. Instead of using only C1 Waves plugin, it would be nicer if a few more plugins like UAD or similar standard compressors were also shown and explained. Because the terms "downward" or "upward" compression is a bit confusing when the parameter changes cannot be applied to other compressors other than C1. Thanks.
Not all plugins offer this upward compression mode unfortunately. The only other one that comes to my head is waves MV2. Maybe other people can comment on some that offer it.
The difference is in the transient information. It's not changed at all with upward compression. Your transients are changed when using downward compression. They can have a similar sound, but definitely not the same!
I don't know any analog upward compressors off the top of my head. But what people tend to do that gives a similar (but not the exact same) result is do the compression in parallel with an analog compressor. Hope that helps a little!.
Hey Bobby? Have you ever investigated that plugin from MAAT called FiDef (jen2). It supposedly uses psychoacoustic “dithering” i(the best description). It’s supposed to be generated from the existing audio to create a sense of space and fullness that technically doesn’t alter the actual music. But instead affects your subconscious ( I can’t believe I’m even writing this woo woo). Anyway. Have you seen it? Have you tried it? Any thoughts or experiences. I have my own experiences but I’ll save them incase you do want to check it out it’s called FiDeF by MAAT audio.
Upward compression sounds like what happens when you just set the attack longer and increase the output gain though. Seems like the upward compression settings on these plugins just help people who aren't as familiar with how to effectively use the settings on a compresser
Nice video overall, but dude... Of course your downward compression is going to sound bad when you're squishing it at 24+ dB of gain reduction! I assume you were trying to make a point for the sake of the video (and for untrained ears to be able to follow along), but just about anything will sound terrible when squashed that hard. You said mix busses are good for downward compression. Go try to squeeze it to 24 dB of gain reduction on your mix bus and tell me how it sounds. :) All in all, I dig your presentation and your vibe. Keep it up, man!
They are similar! But definitely NOT the same. And in my opinion, they have some nuanced differences to them. The basic differences are that with upwards compression, anything above the threshold is not changed at all. Whereas parallel downwards compression, you get changes to the transient information so the sound of the transients will be different. Maybe I can do a video on this at some point 🙂
I highly suggest a trick I call "parallel upward midrange compression." You put an upward compressor on an aux. In front of it, you put a parametric EQ. I use the Fab Filter Pro Q3, but anything will work. Using this EQ, you bandpass everything but the midrange (usually from about 800hz to 8kHz). So now only the midrange on this aux is getting upwardly compressed. Then you send different elements of the mix to this aux. I find most instruments can benefit from having their midrange upwardly compressed. This has the effect of making the mix way more present and louder without adding much extra volume.
Sounds super wise.
This makes a lot of sense. I use a lot of parallel compression, but it didn't occur to me to eq it (unless, of course, you're using a multiband compressor, but those eat up a lot of CPU). I like your idea. Gonna try it. Thanks for the tip.
I believe FL Studio Maxmius has a preset called New York Compression that does exactly this
Makes sense since bass and higher frequencies can more easily go through walls
I do the same thing on my masters using an aux and I compress the midrange using a fab pro c with the sidechain eq in it focusing on that midrange in way so that im getting a less dynamic and louder sound and blending it into everything else being careful not to go over my original peaks
I did a completely empirical experiment. I recorded a single note (C2) on a MIDI Steinway at a velocity of 80 for a length of five seconds to a MIDI track. Then I played that back and printed it directly to an audio track. Then I added a 'downward' compressor with a ratio of 12 to 1, zero attack, a 2.5-second-long release, and printed the MIDI track again with otherwise identical settings on it, to another audio track, also with identical settings. The threshold was set to give exactly 10 dB of compression.
To make the peak levels identical, I normalized each of the audio recordings. Then I measured both of them at the two-second mark. On the recording with the compressor invoked, the level at that point was exactly 6 dB higher than on the recording without the compressor. So the change in the level of sustain was significant. Dramatically so when I listened back to them.
Then I repeated the process with 'upward' compression invoked, normalized that, and again, the level at the two-second mark was at the exact same level as the recording with 'downward' compression. Then I took those two audio recordings and subtracted one from the other.
The result was essentially a flat line, implying that those two waveforms are audibly identical. The only difference might be the amount of normalization applied.
So the conclusion that I draw here is that upward compression is actually identical to downward compression plus raising the makeup gain. Other than that, there is no physical difference between them as to the envelope of the sound, meaning there can be no audible difference.
"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" It seems Toto has just pulled that curtain back.
It appears that what a compressor that claims to do upward compression is likely doing is using the identical algorithm for downward compression and then raising the makeup gain after the fact, or at the very least is using an algorithm with an identical effect. This experiment kind of proves that. The result is the functional equivalent of that.
If so, then the only actual difference between upward compression and downward compression is the arbitrary choice of terminology-what one decides to label it as. They actually do the very same thing to the envelope of a sound.
Imagining that they sound different is probably only due to the placebo effect. They are the same.
Am I wrong? I'm no more perfect than anyone else. Did I screw up my empirical experiment? Does it not hold water? If you think so, explain to me exactly why. And I do mean exactly. No BS fluff.
as soon as he explained what upward compression means I thought exactly this by myself "isn't it the same just without actively raising the makeup-gain?". Thanks for your experiment, would be cool if you demonstrate it in a short video.
Very interesting experiment! By definition upwards and downwards are actually different because their transfer functions are different, so I'm not sure what's going on with your experiment.
Upwards compression can sound very close to parallel compression (and the transfer functions look visibly similar) but again, they are different and offer some nuance to them - especially when pushed harder.
The differences I would have expected you to see would be in the transient information because downward compression would react to that, whereas upwards compression, by definition, would NOT (at least until it drops below the set threshold).
I don't doubt that your experiment showed a perfect null, but there must be another factor here. Perhaps with the attack times of the compressors you chose? Maybe it's too long for the envelope to respond to the transient in the downward example you tested. I would suggest repeating your experiment with other compressors to verify (no pressure haha!).
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to mention this! It's very interesting and something worth discussing. Cheers!
even though i am not using this program.. what you showed help me understand the compression.. THANK YOU
I started using upward compression a while back and I found it very useful for bringing up the overall loudness of a track without messing up the transient information, particularly on bass and drums, also on aggressive vocals. I would describe it as adding presence. Whenever a track is kind of lost in the mix, I use it to bring it forward. Having said that, as you correctly state here, it may introduce noise. I've found a solution for that is to use it in parallel and mix it back in with the original uncompressed signal. Some compressors provide a balance function between dry and wet signal so you don't have to create a compression bus. This is extremely useful.
Hooray! A burning question has been answered >> I have never used upward compression and can definitley see the advantage of the use cases you mentioned >> perfect thank you and subscribed for sure 👌💯🎧🎶😎🌟
awesome information 👌
UPDATE 11/11/22: I MADE A MISTAKE! What you hear in the demonstration part of this video is actually upwards AND downwards compression!
I made a correction video here that explains the mix up and gives you two examples of ONLY upward compression: 👉ua-cam.com/video/MYUw_2-IOHg/v-deo.html👈
I'm so sorry for missing this when I first released the video. BIG THANK YOU to the viewers that identified the mistake and reached out!
Never heard of upwards compression before, but live the concept, and will try it out on everything to check out the results. Thank you!
superb video, with very clear explanations. The effect of upward compression raising the noise level was very obvious here . Great demonstration. Thank you so much.
Ive only done this using Waves MV2, I use C1 for all my side-chained compression, never thought to use it for upwards compression, but now I will.
Cool video! I’m definitely guilty of usually just using downward compression and turning the output up. I always forget that upward compression is a thing that exists.
This was an excellent explanation ! Keep up the good work 💯
Very well explained and presented - well done
This is excellent. Thank you for making this!
Your compressor pdf is informative. But I wish there was a section specifically on upward compression in there as well 😅 the video helped though
I should add an update! Thanks for the suggestion!
Toneboosters compressor 4 is great for this
Upward compression works flawlessly on Slap Bass, for example. Usually, downward compression sucks up a lot of high end from the bass when catching and reducing the peaks from the slapped and plucked notes, and you always have to add some high frequencies to bring back some of that sparkle after compressing which can cause to be too bright and feel artificial, depending on the eq used. With upward compression is the complete opposite and the high end of the bass feels way more natural. Totally recommended!
Wow, pro tip, thank you very much for this demonstration
Thank you for your time!
Great Video! Gave me a reason to use it again with some focus
This is new information too me dam I liked it a lot very much looking for this information I had no idea the C1 could do that iv had it forever lol
Wow, how on earth have I not heard of upward compression before.
Please add voice examples to see how a master uses this two types of compression. On the future
For MB compression in both directions, I like to use IK Multimedia T-Racks Quad-Comp, it sounds clean and is easy to adjust the bands and the levels and parameters quickly. Plus, it offers M/S along with Stereo! Thanks for the video and the guide!
I have that one! I had no idea it did that. Thanks for the comment 🙂
" Nice Presentation, informative !! "
Outstanding demonstration. I've been producing for 10 years and now I have a much better understanding of when to use upwards compression. Great explanation of the subjective acoustical properties that result as well!
Hey Bobby, great video! Sometimes I struggle with the right balance in my mixes. I think upward compression is a nice option to improve this. thnx!
Great video! couple questions, why would you use upward compression on a track if your just gonna downward compress the master anyway? ALSO, have you ever used upward compression on a master? Is there any point to doing that?
Ni sabía que el C1 podía hacer upward compresion.
Gracias por la info. Con grabaciones en home estudio está el problema del ruido 🤦🏻
Thanks for the useful information and the great demo, but no, when you say "dynamic range," you actually mean "dynamics." A compressor changes they dynamics of a signal, not that dynamic range. Dynamic range is a property if a storage format or a communication channel. For example, 16-bit PCM has a dynamic range of 96dB. Your music--before and after compression--has dynamics. A compressor changes dynamics. It's important to know the terms of your art and use them correctly.
Recently I tried to do an upward sidechain compression where I sidechain the bass to the percs(snare, clap, hats,...). Then I added a compressor (FL Limiter, I use FL studio) then applied upward side chain compression to the bass to make my percs stand out. Is this technique correct ?
Interesting thought! I think it would make the bass pump/swell a lot which could make it stand out. I've actually never tried this! Thanks for the idea haha 💡
Everything is "correct" if it sounds good.
@@rome8180 sounds good to me 👍🏽
I use MV2 (M2V? I never know which) a lot for vocals and bass guitar.
Is upwards compression the same as expansion?
yo people what are your fav plugins for upward compression?
but you didnt level match at all so of course the upwards compression (i.e. the louder one) sounded much better
I use a different Waves plugin for this. It's the Waves MV2, which does BOTH together, up and down compression. I use it mostly on Vocals as you described, for Upwards compression. I'll give it a try on Bass. This plugin only has three sliders....for Low, High, and then Output Gain. Question though....I've seen other Vids on Compression, with a "before and after" waveforms showing the results of compression. If you have use of that so you can actually SEE the results of compression, which Waveform Analyzers have you used for that? I've also been told that whatever one you use, that it's placed right after the compressor. Only reason I'm asking this, is that I asked "another presenter" how he got the waveform to change, and he said to "use a waveform analyzer" but never gave any examples of which ones worked best, by various plugin vendors. THANKS!
The only thing I don’t like about mv2 is that you can’t control attack and release. I think mv2 is great if you need a quick solution for delay trails getting lost in the mix.
The MV2 is amazing on bass and guitars. I also highly suggest using it for a trick I call "parallel upward midrange compression." You put the MV2 on an aux. In front of it, you put a parametric EQ. I use the Fab Filter Pro Q3, but anything will work. I use the EQ to bandpass everything but the midrange (usually from about 800hz to 8kHz). Then I send different elements of my mix to this aux. I find most instruments can benefit from having their midrange upwardly compressed. This has the effect of making the mix way more present and louder without adding much extra volume.
@@rome8180 wow, thanks for the tip! I'll definitely give it a try and see what I think. I can see how that could give the track more energy without having to try and force it elsewhere in the mix.
Do You know Neodimum vst ? No more available and unique as well, It Is a multiband compressor, but the band are not about frequency ranges but DYNAMIC ones, I mean about the levels ! Is there any alternative vst and wich the benefits about when and how to use It ?
No I'm not aware but waves c1 (the one I used in the video) has a way to do that as well. Might be worth check out the manual from the link in the description to see if it does a similar thing. Hope that helps!
Omnipressor does its own type of magic. Its in every project for me.
how so?
@@boimesa8190 free demo @ eventide... Trust me. its a rippa... notthng like it as far as im concerned.. just has some "Magic".
Theres some great vids explaining what makes it so different.
Go play with it, and let me know !
@@Rhythmattica great explanation...
I always thought it was cool how many different processing techniques are based on manipulating volume. Even an EQ is just band selected volume. So I was just thinking. Is there anything that compresses “sideways”? If you figure panning is the epitome of sideways volume manipulating. And if that’s the premises we are going by, then a sideways compressor fluctuates back and fourth between the left and right channels. Maybe you could even consider an unlinked stereo compressor slightly sideways. Lol😂 oh man. It’s too early for ridiculous thoughts like these.. 😊
Should be easy enough. Separate mid and side to separate tracks and put a compressor on only one of them, or to both but with different settings to get them to move differently. You could even use a multiband to control only a part of the spectrum.
I use this sometimes to make the sound of busses more wide on slower parts and vice versa when I want focus. A breakdown as an example of former and blastbeat for latter. Or, when vocals are present so guitars don't overwhelm them, but once the track is instrumental it sounds huge. You can go pretty drastic with this (+-5db) if you steer clear of sub ~120hz
Love it hahaha
Energy panner I think it's called
You killed off attacks in your examples with attack 0.01, did you? And with ratio 25 it is practically limiter mode not compressor..🤔 and gain reduction 24 db looks really strange, like it is marked in the comment above
Hi Bobby. Thank you for explaining the concept. So how would you go about setting up a compressor to do this ie, determining the values for tbreshold, ratio, gain and release?
I recommend using very aggressive settings to HEAR the compression and movement. Then adjust to taste. But unless you go hard at first, it's hard to pick out what the compressor is doing...
@@RaytownProductions I often use downward compression to shape the transients for sounds (using attack and release). How do these parameters act using upward compression?
I don't want to sound like a wiseacre, since I appreciate the information and work people like you put into these videos. The concept of upward compression, it's effects and fields of use are correctly described in this video. But you're not showing upward compression, and I don't think there's an audible change in the compression characteristics (even though it looks like it on the display). Changing C1 to PeakRef is just changing the behaviour of the make up gain.
From the manual: "This has no effect on the sound but affects the output level and how the makeup control works [...]"
In fact C1 is not capable of upward compression - otherwise we should achieve a flater dynamic slope below the threshold, not still above it.
yeah thats expension
You should give yourself more credit, because you are 100% correct. Full response coming later today. Thank you Henning!
The question is not WHAT IS, but HOW I think. Instead of using only C1 Waves plugin, it would be nicer if a few more plugins like UAD or similar standard compressors were also shown and explained. Because the terms "downward" or "upward" compression is a bit confusing when the parameter changes cannot be applied to other compressors other than C1. Thanks.
Not all plugins offer this upward compression mode unfortunately. The only other one that comes to my head is waves MV2. Maybe other people can comment on some that offer it.
What’s the difference between upward compression and downward compression with post gain adjustment?
The difference is in the transient information. It's not changed at all with upward compression. Your transients are changed when using downward compression. They can have a similar sound, but definitely not the same!
Are there any hardware comps or even analog hardware comps that do upward compression or is this just a digital / VST thang???
Sorry, I don't do Telegram.
Not sure what you "got for me" but a simple answer to my questions would be nice.
I don't know any analog upward compressors off the top of my head. But what people tend to do that gives a similar (but not the exact same) result is do the compression in parallel with an analog compressor. Hope that helps a little!.
Hey Bobby? Have you ever investigated that plugin from MAAT called FiDef (jen2). It supposedly uses psychoacoustic “dithering” i(the best description). It’s supposed to be generated from the existing audio to create a sense of space and fullness that technically doesn’t alter the actual music. But instead affects your subconscious ( I can’t believe I’m even writing this woo woo). Anyway. Have you seen it? Have you tried it? Any thoughts or experiences. I have my own experiences but I’ll save them incase you do want to check it out it’s called FiDeF by MAAT audio.
Sounds super interesting! Looks like I need to add it to the list haha! Thanks for sharing that!
Never used upwards compression. But really great tutorial and will definitely start trying with some loops 🤗
Upward compression sounds like what happens when you just set the attack longer and increase the output gain though. Seems like the upward compression settings on these plugins just help people who aren't as familiar with how to effectively use the settings on a compresser
I still feel like the effect sounds a bit different. I think it just depends on what you’re going for. That will decide which mode you use.
Nice video overall, but dude... Of course your downward compression is going to sound bad when you're squishing it at 24+ dB of gain reduction! I assume you were trying to make a point for the sake of the video (and for untrained ears to be able to follow along), but just about anything will sound terrible when squashed that hard. You said mix busses are good for downward compression. Go try to squeeze it to 24 dB of gain reduction on your mix bus and tell me how it sounds. :) All in all, I dig your presentation and your vibe. Keep it up, man!
this video was not about what type of compression sounds better , he intentionally exaggerated the settings
24 db is crazy GR😅 other settings are also rather insane
Parallel compression is upward compression.
They are similar! But definitely NOT the same. And in my opinion, they have some nuanced differences to them.
The basic differences are that with upwards compression, anything above the threshold is not changed at all. Whereas parallel downwards compression, you get changes to the transient information so the sound of the transients will be different.
Maybe I can do a video on this at some point 🙂
@@RaytownProductions Do it please!