i fifth that! :D for the EQ - i find it especially interesting to EQ the compressed channel alike the aurally correct volume. That way a pleasing "loudness-button" is realized but in a dynamic manner. That is with a kind of proximity effect the closer we come to whispering so then it's like really close to your ear. :)
Thank you for demonstrating not only how to execute the technique, but also for providing a very clear example of the effect and application of parallel compression. I can hear it in my mind's ear. Nice work! 👍🏼
I experiment with it. So when u process the individual vocal channel with subtractive eq, compression, saturation, deEssing and additive Eq it all sounds great. And guess what, to add a bit of air into it, i place an API 560 eq after the compressor on the parallel Aux . i then add 1db at 16k for some air. It sound richer and the vocals had that air/sparkel sound to it.. Try it for your self next time u will love it..👍
Am back again, folks this is very brilliant. I Experiment further with the Aux-Channel. I kept both release and attack times on the compressor at 7ms, i use a 20.1 ratio, output set to 24db, and the input set to -30. U can also play around with the input set to -27.1 and pay attention to your gain reduction meter. I went for 5 to 7 db of gain. Finally since its a parallel chain, i bring the Aux Fader all the way down to -23 db, and kept the return fader to unity with prefader on.. You dont want to much, just season to blend/ taste. Awesome video.👍
Waves has a cool compressor you can do this with called the MV2 and it's really solid and smooth; using this technique you can get a nice present sound. Nice video sir!!! 🔥🔥🔥 💎
Hey man thank you so much your the only one i understood everyone alse had a million things going on in there daws but you made it clear and neat appreciate you god bless you! and happy holidays! :)
I was about to say (when you said it was like someone whispering ) it’s like the person went from looking a lil away from the mic to dead on center catching mouth smacking and all 😂 but love its the sound you want when you’re doing podcasts or explainer videos
Thank you so much ! very clear. One question though, can we use parallel compression while already having a compressor on the voice ? So that we can reduce highs and work on the low part afterward. thanks !
Yes you can do that. There are options though - You can parallel compress, then compress. Or compress then parallel compress. Or compress, but send the uncompressed signal to parallel compression then mix back in. I don't have a definitive recommendation right now so you would have to experiment. It might be a good topic for a future video though. DM
Assuming you mean auxiliary sends, I don't really see any problems. Pre is best for cue mixes for performers, post is best for reverb or delay. If you're finding problems let me know what they are and I'll see if I can help in a video. DM
Nice video! I didn't know this was a thing, sadly this is not very practical with a mixing console on live events - definitely possible but uses an additional, valuable channel. Could you do a video with tips on mixing for live online events? I'm used to having spare head room with the speaker and amp system, but In this dire times, I'm struggling a bit with keeping the levels high enough without clipping them, keeping the peak at a more manageable level may render it too low on some devices such as smartphones or notebooks. I'm currently fixing it by aggressive compression, but it muddies the sound.
thanks so much! what is the difference between applying compression on the track directly vs parallel compression like this? couldn't you also achieve the same result by changing the attack/release values?
Normal compression works on the peaks. Parallel compression also works on the peaks, but because of the compression they are lower in level and are masked by the peaks in the uncompressed version. The result is that the lower levels can be raised. DM
When using parallel compression, how heavy do you compress the original vocal? My understanding is that the original mix channel has some light compression on it while the aux send has heavy. I know there's no golden numbers here but would the attack and release still be very fast on the original? Would the threshold just be cutting the loudest parts of the vocal, or still compressing the whole thing but at a very low ratio, perhaps 1.5:1 or 2:1?
This is just a personal opinion but I'd start with conventional compression and get that sounding nice. Then consider parallel compression and perhaps try it out. If it's good, then the conventional compression may benefit from a tweak or two. How hard you compress is really up to you but don't forget that the gain reduction meter should be close to zero on quiet parts, otherwise you'll slam every entry. DM
Use normal compression to reduce the dynamic range. Use parallel compression to bring up low-level details. Use them both at the same time if you wish. DM
Yes am in class now, awesome content. One great question for you now, since u did the parallel chain on a aux. Would u then process further compression onto the vocal channel itself. Or would u stop at the parallel chain..? That's my question.! Thank you.👍
There's no reason why you couldn't use normal compression as well. Whether you then apply parallel compression to the raw vocal, or to the compressed vocal, would be a matter for experiment.
But does the original vocal track already have a compressor on it? Or is it not compressed at all? Every video about parallel compression on UA-cam is the same..it lacks information about what's on the original vocal chain, if the parallel compression vocal is already processed similar to the original audio track..so many things left without explanation.
Thank you for your comment. There is no compression on the original vocal, although there is no reason not to do that if you want to and it sounds good.
I think the question should be how does the Aphex Compellor work differently to parallel compression? You can find a good resource at www.muzines.co.uk/articles/the-compellor/6370
When you say, "affecting the high levels making them louder", when bringing in the PComp channel, what do you mean, the compressor reading levels or the high frequency range content of the vocal?
I mean the level of the sound that I hear, and would be measured by the meter of the master track if it were shown. I only want the parallel compression to affect low levels, so I bring up PComp until it just starts to affect the high levels, then I'd probably back it off just a little. There's no reason you can't let parallel compression increase the high levels if it sounds good, but that really isn't the point. The point of parallel compression is to bring up the low levels. Setting a long release will preserve naturalness, setting a short release will add interest and texture to the sound. DM
@@AudioMasterclass OK, so what you're saying is, don't use it to make the overall volume louder, just the volume of the things that were relatively quieter before? I found your use of the phrase 'high levels' confusing too as it seems like you're referring to the level of the higher frequencies not just the louder bits in the take.
@@MonsieurVersatile Your first point is correct. As for your second point, when I say 'high level' without reference to frequency, then I mean level across the full frequency range. DM
So what I’ve been initially taught is backwards? I’ve always compressed and squashed the crap out of the original track and then duplicated the original signal except the duplicate is uncompressed and then I’d slowly add the uncompressed signal BACK into the mix to give some of the dynamic and “highs” back. Is this incorrect?
If you're creating art then nothing is incorrect as long as it sounds good. The key to this is that at any moment, the louder signal will mask the quieter. So the way I've explained it, when the level in the track is high, then you'll hear the uncompressed version. When the level is low you'll hear the compressed version. This way, parallel compression brings up the lower levels. With your method, if you use makeup gain to bring the compressed version back up, then I'd imagine you won't hear much difference when you mix in the uncompressed signal at a lower level. If you don't use makeup gain, and you bring the uncompressed signal higher in level than the compressed, then the result should be the same as the method I've described, although I'd want to have my finger on the fader of the compressed version. I would have to test your method to be sure, and I'll put it on my list of things to do. DM
@@AudioMasterclass thanks so much for your in depth explanation and response! Yes I typically leave the compressed signal where it’s at even if I lose a few db and then I just add the uncompressed signal to it in order to bring out the highs while also bringing the overall level back up. I think I like your method better though because it seems to make more sense to me. I also had another quick question that maybe you’d have the answer to. In your method, Is it also a common practice to then further “lightly” compress the original signal so that the highs don’t jump too far out when there is a dramatic change in dynamics? Or would this defeat the purpose of parallel compression altogether?
@@AllanEvansOfficial You can compress the uncompressed signal in the normal way. You can also bus the combined signals and compress in the normal way. It doesn't defeat the purpose of parallel compression at all and can be a useful option.
Mono. There's no point point in processing a mono signal as stereo unless you are adding some kind of difference between the channels for a stereo effect. DM
what difference should be in levels between original and paralell track ? i know its just numbers but just for starting point. if Vocal is playing around -9db so paralell should be like -6db or -18 ? let me know pleaase :)
I would start with the parallel track all the way down, then bring it up until I hear the effect I want, then raise it some more so it's too much, then settle on the right level. Of course, there are other things to tweak as well but that's what I would do with the level. DM
If there is headphone leakage, the first thing is to buy closed headphones for the future instead of using open-backed headphones which will leak due to their design. The second is if your singer has long hair try to get them to wear the headphones under their hair. If they don't like that, then you'll have to live with it for the benefit of the performance. Some singers like to push one earpiece to the front or back to hear some of their voice through the air. If this helps the performance then again you'll have to live with the leakage. Following recording, you can edit out the leakage when the singer isn't singing. One more thing - the worst leakage is of an instrument that you don't use in the mix, so it's best to give the singer what they need in the headphones but nothing more than that.
why can't you just put compression on the main track instead of a bus? maybe multiband compressor? don't get how this makes it sound differen than normal compression
From Google Translate - Parallel compression can increase the low volume without changing the high volume, making the sound more balanced, such as whispering in the ear
@@AudioMasterclass lol yep totally correct! I just wrote the notes for myself so that I can remember it later, that’s why I wrote them in Chinese. By the way, thanks for your video really helpful
Get your 30-day FREE TRIAL of the Audio Masterclass Music Production and Sound Engineering Course www.audiomasterclass.com/free-trial?aid=12
This is the easiest/clearest explanation/demonstration I have come across after combing UA-cam on vocal parallel compression. Thank you.
Thank you. I plan to make another where the parallel track is EQed. That's always worth experimenting with. DM
Totally agree 👍🏾
I Agree
Totally agree very easy and simple
i fifth that! :D for the EQ - i find it especially interesting to EQ the compressed channel alike the aurally correct volume. That way a pleasing "loudness-button" is realized but in a dynamic manner. That is with a kind of proximity effect the closer we come to whispering so then it's like really close to your ear. :)
Thank you for demonstrating not only how to execute the technique, but also for providing a very clear example of the effect and application of parallel compression. I can hear it in my mind's ear. Nice work! 👍🏼
I experiment with it. So when u process the individual vocal channel with subtractive eq, compression, saturation, deEssing and additive Eq it all sounds great. And guess what, to add a bit of air into it, i place an API 560 eq after the compressor on the parallel Aux . i then add 1db at 16k for some air. It sound richer and the vocals had that air/sparkel sound to it.. Try it for your self next time u will love it..👍
Can you use any eq, say Fab Filter, to add that air?
@@williams.5158wondering the same..
@@williams.5158 Pro Q3, yes
Am back again, folks this is very brilliant. I Experiment further with the Aux-Channel. I kept both release and attack times on the compressor at 7ms, i use a 20.1 ratio, output set to 24db, and the input set to -30. U can also play around with the input set to -27.1 and pay attention to your gain reduction meter. I went for 5 to 7 db of gain. Finally since its a parallel chain, i bring the Aux Fader all the way down to -23 db, and kept the return fader to unity with prefader on.. You dont want to much, just season to blend/ taste. Awesome video.👍
I love your music bro. Its dope quality but it just needs the adlibs to be turned down on the delay.
This is an excellent demonstration on parallel compression. Thank you!
Excellent ! Short, Clear and right to the point !
Put a EQ on the aux and take out the highs
This is exactly what I was looking for to help me better understand, thank you! You sound like Michael Cristofer.
You're welcome!
Thanks alot sir I have never used a parallel compression and now I know how important it is on vocals and drums.
Waves has a cool compressor you can do this with called the MV2 and it's really solid and smooth; using this technique you can get a nice present sound. Nice video sir!!! 🔥🔥🔥 💎
Das stimmt!
Hey man thank you so much your the only one i understood everyone alse had a million things going on in there daws but you made it clear and neat appreciate you god bless you! and happy holidays! :)
I'm pleased to be able to help. I have another video on this at ua-cam.com/video/GZHxfCS_RO8/v-deo.html DM
I was about to say (when you said it was like someone whispering ) it’s like the person went from looking a lil away from the mic to dead on center catching mouth smacking and all 😂 but love its the sound you want when you’re doing podcasts or explainer videos
Simple and Straight To The Point! Thank You Sir
You're welcome. DM
Thank you so much ! very clear. One question though, can we use parallel compression while already having a compressor on the voice ? So that we can reduce highs and work on the low part afterward. thanks !
Yes you can do that. There are options though - You can parallel compress, then compress. Or compress then parallel compress. Or compress, but send the uncompressed signal to parallel compression then mix back in. I don't have a definitive recommendation right now so you would have to experiment. It might be a good topic for a future video though. DM
@@AudioMasterclass oh ok! thank you very much !
Did you ever make a video explaining the individual problems of the pre and post buttons on fader?
Assuming you mean auxiliary sends, I don't really see any problems. Pre is best for cue mixes for performers, post is best for reverb or delay. If you're finding problems let me know what they are and I'll see if I can help in a video. DM
Nice video! I didn't know this was a thing, sadly this is not very practical with a mixing console on live events - definitely possible but uses an additional, valuable channel.
Could you do a video with tips on mixing for live online events? I'm used to having spare head room with the speaker and amp system, but In this dire times, I'm struggling a bit with keeping the levels high enough without clipping them, keeping the peak at a more manageable level may render it too low on some devices such as smartphones or notebooks. I'm currently fixing it by aggressive compression, but it muddies the sound.
Nice tutorial. Would have liked to have heard compressed channel soloed.
thanks so much! what is the difference between applying compression on the track directly vs parallel compression like this? couldn't you also achieve the same result by changing the attack/release values?
Normal compression works on the peaks. Parallel compression also works on the peaks, but because of the compression they are lower in level and are masked by the peaks in the uncompressed version. The result is that the lower levels can be raised. DM
When using parallel compression, how heavy do you compress the original vocal? My understanding is that the original mix channel has some light compression on it while the aux send has heavy. I know there's no golden numbers here but would the attack and release still be very fast on the original? Would the threshold just be cutting the loudest parts of the vocal, or still compressing the whole thing but at a very low ratio, perhaps 1.5:1 or 2:1?
This is just a personal opinion but I'd start with conventional compression and get that sounding nice. Then consider parallel compression and perhaps try it out. If it's good, then the conventional compression may benefit from a tweak or two. How hard you compress is really up to you but don't forget that the gain reduction meter should be close to zero on quiet parts, otherwise you'll slam every entry. DM
Brilliant! Thank you.
Thank you for your knowledge
You're welcome.
Is it better to put parallel compression before or after EQ, Reverb and Delays ? Thank you.
awesome thank you for doing this
wow so good!
When should I do parralel Conpression and when should I use normal compression?
Use normal compression to reduce the dynamic range. Use parallel compression to bring up low-level details. Use them both at the same time if you wish. DM
Thanks for sharing. Do you also have some compression on the main vocal track?
No, but there's no reason not to do that if it's what you want. DM
@@AudioMasterclass OK thanks.
Yes am in class now, awesome content. One great question for you now, since u did the parallel chain on a aux. Would u then process further compression onto the vocal channel itself. Or would u stop at the parallel chain..? That's my question.! Thank you.👍
There's no reason why you couldn't use normal compression as well. Whether you then apply parallel compression to the raw vocal, or to the compressed vocal, would be a matter for experiment.
But does the original vocal track already have a compressor on it? Or is it not compressed at all? Every video about parallel compression on UA-cam is the same..it lacks information about what's on the original vocal chain, if the parallel compression vocal is already processed similar to the original audio track..so many things left without explanation.
Thank you for your comment. There is no compression on the original vocal, although there is no reason not to do that if you want to and it sounds good.
THIS IS EXCELLENT thank you 🙏🏾
Glad it was helpful!
Use Waves MV2 if you're just doing vocals.
How does this work differently then compeller which compresses and the brings up the quiet content?
I think the question should be how does the Aphex Compellor work differently to parallel compression? You can find a good resource at www.muzines.co.uk/articles/the-compellor/6370
this is great! thanks
You're welcome. DM
When you say, "affecting the high levels making them louder", when bringing in the PComp channel, what do you mean, the compressor reading levels or the high frequency range content of the vocal?
Can you tell me the time point when I say this, to save me watching the whole video? DM
@@AudioMasterclass 2m36.
I mean the level of the sound that I hear, and would be measured by the meter of the master track if it were shown. I only want the parallel compression to affect low levels, so I bring up PComp until it just starts to affect the high levels, then I'd probably back it off just a little. There's no reason you can't let parallel compression increase the high levels if it sounds good, but that really isn't the point. The point of parallel compression is to bring up the low levels. Setting a long release will preserve naturalness, setting a short release will add interest and texture to the sound. DM
@@AudioMasterclass OK, so what you're saying is, don't use it to make the overall volume louder, just the volume of the things that were relatively quieter before? I found your use of the phrase 'high levels' confusing too as it seems like you're referring to the level of the higher frequencies not just the louder bits in the take.
@@MonsieurVersatile Your first point is correct. As for your second point, when I say 'high level' without reference to frequency, then I mean level across the full frequency range. DM
You're welcome.
good stuff
So what I’ve been initially taught is backwards? I’ve always compressed and squashed the crap out of the original track and then duplicated the original signal except the duplicate is uncompressed and then I’d slowly add the uncompressed signal BACK into the mix to give some of the dynamic and “highs” back. Is this incorrect?
If you're creating art then nothing is incorrect as long as it sounds good. The key to this is that at any moment, the louder signal will mask the quieter. So the way I've explained it, when the level in the track is high, then you'll hear the uncompressed version. When the level is low you'll hear the compressed version. This way, parallel compression brings up the lower levels. With your method, if you use makeup gain to bring the compressed version back up, then I'd imagine you won't hear much difference when you mix in the uncompressed signal at a lower level. If you don't use makeup gain, and you bring the uncompressed signal higher in level than the compressed, then the result should be the same as the method I've described, although I'd want to have my finger on the fader of the compressed version. I would have to test your method to be sure, and I'll put it on my list of things to do. DM
@@AudioMasterclass thanks so much for your in depth explanation and response! Yes I typically leave the compressed signal where it’s at even if I lose a few db and then I just add the uncompressed signal to it in order to bring out the highs while also bringing the overall level back up. I think I like your method better though because it seems to make more sense to me. I also had another quick question that maybe you’d have the answer to. In your method, Is it also a common practice to then further “lightly” compress the original signal so that the highs don’t jump too far out when there is a dramatic change in dynamics? Or would this defeat the purpose of parallel compression altogether?
@@AllanEvansOfficial You can compress the uncompressed signal in the normal way. You can also bus the combined signals and compress in the normal way. It doesn't defeat the purpose of parallel compression at all and can be a useful option.
@@AudioMasterclass thanks so much
Is it better to use a stereo bus or a mono bus for a prl. comp. to lead vocal ? 💪
Mono. There's no point point in processing a mono signal as stereo unless you are adding some kind of difference between the channels for a stereo effect. DM
@@AudioMasterclass thanks!
Does it have to be bussed? Can it just run parallel to track?
There are several ways to do this. One is to copy a track and compress the copy. No bussing needed. DM
what difference should be in levels between original and paralell track ? i know its just numbers but just for starting point. if Vocal is playing around -9db so paralell should be like -6db or -18 ? let me know pleaase :)
I would start with the parallel track all the way down, then bring it up until I hear the effect I want, then raise it some more so it's too much, then settle on the right level. Of course, there are other things to tweak as well but that's what I would do with the level. DM
@@AudioMasterclass thank you!
I always saw people duplicate the track have one normal compression and one heavy and they blend the two signals I thought that was P.C
What about the extra "noice" , mouth, leaking from headphones, that you don´t want to hear. How to ge rid of them ?
If there is headphone leakage, the first thing is to buy closed headphones for the future instead of using open-backed headphones which will leak due to their design. The second is if your singer has long hair try to get them to wear the headphones under their hair. If they don't like that, then you'll have to live with it for the benefit of the performance. Some singers like to push one earpiece to the front or back to hear some of their voice through the air. If this helps the performance then again you'll have to live with the leakage. Following recording, you can edit out the leakage when the singer isn't singing. One more thing - the worst leakage is of an instrument that you don't use in the mix, so it's best to give the singer what they need in the headphones but nothing more than that.
why can't you just put compression on the main track instead of a bus? maybe multiband compressor? don't get how this makes it sound differen than normal compression
To understand how parallel compression sounds different to regular compression I recommend you try it. There are plenty of tutorials on UA-cam.
Thank youuuuuuuuuuu
Thanks to you❤👊
You're welcome.
Thank you 🙏👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
You're welcome.
@@AudioMasterclass please vocal mix and reverb deley video🙏
is it correct to also use a limiter?
There's no reason why you shouldn't. If it sounds good then use it. DM
note：平行压缩可以在不改变大音量的情况下 提升低音量 使得声音更加平衡 如在耳边呢喃
From Google Translate - Parallel compression can increase the low volume without changing the high volume, making the sound more balanced, such as whispering in the ear
@@AudioMasterclass lol yep totally correct! I just wrote the notes for myself so that I can remember it later, that’s why I wrote them in Chinese. By the way, thanks for your video really helpful
Isnt 7 the slowest on cla
It's the fastest, for both attack and release - www.waves.com/1lib/pdf/plugins/cla-76-compressor-limiter.pdf
attack is faster at 1 not at 7
In the cla plugins it's reversed, 1 is the slowest
1176 compressor are reversed.