How To Use Compression on Your Mix
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лис 2023
- In this episode I directly compare different types of analog and digital compressors on the 2-bus.
Here’s the track on Bandcamp: 
ourwildlove.bandcamp.com/trac...
📚The Beato Ultimate Bundle - $99 FOR ALL OF Rick's Courses. Get it here: ⇢ rickbeato.com
👂- The Beato Ear Training Program - $99.00 value
📘- The Beato Book Interactive - $99.00 value
🎸 - Beato Beginner Guitar - $159.00 value
🎸- The Quick Lessons Pro Guitar Course - $79.00 value
… all for just $99.00
Get it here: rickbeato.com
The physical SSL comp was surprising in how much more "like a record" it sounded, with the imaging, and the way it pushed the vocal forward a little. You can do more of these Rick, but if you're going to do them, you need to compare the same sections of the songs, and not have different processing on different densities of arrangement.
"You need to compare the same sections of the songs, and not have different processing on different densities of arrangement" - I came on here to say the same. Pointless comparing an open verse to a dense chorus
I was ready to provide same feedback regarding song section were not the same during comparisons. However it was a good topic as always in this channel.
I can definitely hear the differences. It’s subtle, but if you know what to listen for it’s obvious. I like how the analog SSL kept the mix open and gave it that sound like it’s a record. The only thing I didn’t like was how it made the vocal a little more pokey. Over all I think it was the best though, so I’d probably just go back into the mix and attenuate what needs to be attenuated to tame the vocal back down. I should note that I listened to this in the car while eating Chick-Fil-A. So I could be wrong.
@@cbrooks0905 😂😂😂👍👍
@@WrestleTheDecibel I didn’t mean to comment that here. Oops! 😂
For the final comparison it would have been very helpful to loop the chorus and hear the different compressors in the same part of the song 😊
I agree. This comparison was not very good because the song sounds different in different sections.
I was thinking about this too. I've only sparingly done some mixing, but from my PoV I can see where both are valid. Doing back to back means you compare most to what was before it rather than how it individually sounds. But mixing it up this way, you're having to be more discerning about the comp on its own.
Even learning *how* to listen to things (like Rick said even careful level matching is crucially important to A/B testing) is such a skill to amateur audio productions.
Yeah, the compressors changing with the song parts makes this useless.
I agree. It was hard to hear a difference throughout the different bars, and how melodic his singing is. If we were hearing the same part over and over again through each compressor, I think I would have noticed more. The analog SSL was about the only one where I heard a distinct difference. But I'm hard of hearing.
Totally agree
What I hear is amazing vocals that it almost doesn't matter what you do with it. The performance outshines anything you are doing with it. Of course you made it amazing in the first place on the recording end. This just proves to me the performance is the key. I can appreciate the addition of buss compression as demonstrated, but it is hard to get past the performance.
Yes... I agree. This kinda' stuff makes me think of people comparing salt on cooking shows. I'm sure they feel there's a difference. But to most, there just isn't.
"What matters what you do with it" here is reaching the goal of producing a radio-friendly mix that readily inhabits a cultural landscape and technical standards. It is quite specific, albeit in the midst of hundreds of possible variables.
Naturally, talent is _always_ going to be the most important ingredient in making a fine recording. No getting around that!
The greater the talent involved in the recording stage, the less doctoring-work (usually) needs to be done in post-production. It does NOT mean, however, that you can just "record them and that's enough work to make a hit record".
TL;DR: _All audio format concerns regarding channel count, final EQ , dynamics and bandwidth limitations must always addressed by the MASTER mix._
Yes, a good vocalist makes a huge difference, but It takes alot of work and experimentation to get the right fx and processing working with the singer's voice and then having that sit properly in a mix .It's an art form that some producers choose to specialize in. As an example: Rob Squire (Pendulum, Knife Party) is an amazing producer but even he sends his vocals to someone else for processing. What you're hearing in this video has alot of processing going on beyond just the compression. The engineering and producing aspect are just as much a part of the artistry of the writing process as the composition and slapping any compressor on because "whatever, it works" is a lack of the attention to detail that results in great music.
Was about to say the same thing. And that the drums were excellently recorded and edited. You might as well leave them in without any further processing, it will do just fine in most listening environments.
@@rbrianharrisYou can hear differences but it would take a lot to convince me that they matter. It’s just slight tonal differences to me. Maybe I’ll try a again later with serious headphone listening but not sure I will 🤣
Can we just take a moment to recognize how great the song and the vocalist is? Wow!
Wish I could find the song and artist...
Song: North South North
Artist: Our Wild Love
@@enispenvy9174 Thank you very much!!
Sounds a bit like Keane.
heavy jeff buckley vibes
It’s almost a vibe thing, and the Chandler has it in spades. Really breathes life into the sound.
I think it's doing something to the high end. I wasn't paying attention to the piano in the mix at all until the Chandler popped on.
Transformer creaminess, as also in the earlier LTD2.
I just thought the Chandler sounded really distorted. It was kind of irritating to listen to.
Yep, the Chandler is gold on vocals.
It is increasing relative volume of all 2nd order harmonics up into the higher overtones and air-band = i.e. more "sizzle"
The SSL G hardware compressor opens up the stereo image in a very particular way. Sounds amazing. Also the way the Chandler brings out the character of the vocal is very nice!
I absolutely hear that too. I thought I might be imagining it.
I only hear a clear difference on this one too. The mix is more « airy » than the others. The difference between all the others is maybe a kick drum more or less muddy.
Chandler the winner for me on this mix, too! Brings the vocal upfront and has a mid forward sound I like
the real is real
The chandler feels like it's the most gentle to how the vocal track ends up sounding - the SSL (real or digital) has a stronger edge to the top end of the sound that the Chandler rounds off in a very musically pleasing way that I prefer for this specific track. It's subtle, but I am feeling the same vibe you are.
One thing was very clear, the Burl Vancouver added A LOT of character and depth. Loved that. Also, the real SSL sounded alive vs the plugin, which sounded thinner and more brittle.
The Burl at the end sounded best to me. I thought the vocal and synth were badly recorded though. The vocal sounds like it was recorded with a cheap mic.
I honestly thought the plugin sounded more open in the top-end / more transparant. Maybe I'm losing it though.
That was my favorite as well.
@@vvessel_ I hate to be the one to tell you…
@@vvessel_ hardware had a little top end rolloff that would benefit from a db of EQ at 10k. but man hardware also sounded a lot bigger and more natural.
I think its important to loop the same piece of music when doing comparisons. If you play though a track continuously while switching out gear its not a real comparison because the song is sonically evolving as it plays through as is the stereo image with different instrument parts coming and going. If a 2-4 bar section is looped for the comparison I feel its much clearer how the equipment is interacting with the audio. Big fan of the channel and excited to see content like this finally on the channel Rick!
The differences are very subtle IMHO. I’ve never properly got my head around it, even after 35 years as a bass player, and numerous years as a “producer / engineer”. It’s so subjective. It’s why we have amazing people like you in the world. You help us make sense of it all. Thank you for all you do. What a talent, and what engaging entertainment and enthusiasm you bring to this world of music. Much respect always 🫡🙏🏻
A good way to learn the basics is to take some loops and vocal lines and go NUTS with pushing compression too far.
I didn't understand compression until I had abused it - and then in response I overcompensated with restraint - and then eventually realized that in some situations a little goes a long way, and in others smashing things is just the ticket.
- ESSENTIAL to intermediate compression: knowing when and how to use Vari-Mu vs FET vs VCA _[EDIT: vs Optical],_ the benefits of serial compression vs parallel and groups/bussing, anything concerning sidechain and feed-forward vs feed-back, crest vs RMS, and on and on.
- The more advanced compression-obsessed mix-nerds are well beyond drooling over _mere Fairchilds,_ and have already gotten into ancient Dept of Commerce (some aka 'Maxson') and/or old Altec and Neve units etc; originals and recreations....while often keeping the other eye on any tools useful in the digital domain. There is simply no substitute for experience and 1st-hand know-how.
Keep in mind that 99% of home recording artists will never even see any of the analog compressors. With that beiung said, I feel I could hear subtle differences, but nothing that made me think, "I have got to get that compressor to have my songs in the same game as the "big boys". I need to write good songs. Bless you Rick.
99% will NEVER see. Haha bit overly dramatic are we? Jesus
@@machineagevoodoo2106 he is right. 99% of the musicians are ordinary people. since every year some comp stuff is getting better, we will not go to the studios. nobody will need original thing.
@@domgirard4095 what electronic stuff? "analog warm up" is nonsense by people who listen with their eyes, not ears.
Chandler TG1 gave life to the mix, it is so clean and opens up the entire mix. Gr8 work
I've never heard of a Burl Vancouver but it blew everything out of the water. The difference was so deep and obvious. It does something to the harmonic bed of the song.
Transformers compress with level and respond to bass differently to higher frequencies, so you will get them saturating earlier in the low end. All compression is 'wave shaping' aka saturation/distortion, so add some form of harmonic distortion. The difference with transformers is how the time constants work. As they are magnetic in how they operate and so have something called hysteresis which can be thought of a bit like having a degree of lag or 'memory' in how they change state. In that it takes a certain amount of energy to get them into a certain state and another different level of energy to get back to their previous initial state. Tape compression offers the same type of response. You can think of them as acting like limiters but with a near instantaneous attack and release time. So their action is very much 'invisible' to hear unlike a 'normal' compressor with it's very obvious at times changes in audio level due to the amount of time taken for them to operate.
@@ferociousmullet9287That’s great and all but the most important factor which is audio quality and a distinctive “color” is what Burl impressed the most.
@@ferociousmullet9287 Compression has nothing to do with "saturation/distortion". Any "saturation/distortion" or harmonic distortion added to the sound would be a side effect of the specific compressor being used.
The Burl truly brought it from mix to master more than any of the comps imo. I really liked how the real SSL softened sibilance on vox and reverb trails. TBH, stereo image was kind of a toss up, but that's likely bc of streaming through yt even at 2k.
Also - the pre-bus mix felt really unpolished to me when I first heard it, so I was surprised by how much you rely on those final two pieces of gear to basically transform it into a record. Like it almost felt like cheating especially through the Burl. This is reminding me to hold back on prematurely turning on Ozone since that really eliminates an opportunity to draw more character out of the mix through other (more expensive) means. Unintentional mix lesson. Always great stuff!
Yeah, the Burl was the only one that stood out from the rest for me. Just sounded thicker on the low end.
I like the uncompressed mix- the vocals are superbly recorded! The compressors *do* bring out subtleties in the background, which even out the soundscape and individual voices. I particularly liked the Chandler- it brought out the bass and piano lines, to more closely enhance the vocal. Overall- I liked the Vancouver and the analog SSL G-comp- they enhanced and balanced the overall mix, and brought it to life. However- I still appreciate the good recording, uncompressed!
Yes- please do more technical videos! Thank you, Rick!
I love how much compression on the entire track brings the time based effects forward in the mix. It really makes the string pads and piano staccato stuff shine without being too loud in the mix. The real SSL is my favorite but the Chandler is a close 2nd and probably my favorite depending on the day.
What a great vocal performance, buss compression is very secondary to that!
After the Chandler TG-1 and the Burl I seemed to hear the drum kick more and a more differentiated sound, ie, more separation. In addition, some of the real high frequencies were gone and the vocal seemed clearer. Very nice! Rick. Love it!❤👍🏼
Would love to see more content like this! I can definitely hear a noticeable difference in the way certain compressors colored the tone, especially between the digital ssl and the real ssl.
Please do more of mixing tutorials. I love the way you explain things.
So I appreciate that you allowed us to listen to these compressors without coloring our impressions. I would definitely love to see more comparisons like this.
Chandler does something I really like to the sound, the SSL hardware sounds very polished as you'd expect, and the UBK seems to add that little bit of mojo that the others don't have
The Chandler does a great job of opening up the mix. More like this please!
I agree. The Chandler just sounds better overall.
Would make my listening experience pleasurable.
I think what’s interesting is that each of these options affect everything in the track, especially the loudest elements (kick, vocal, bass). These are situational tools and it’s cool how mix bus processing can make a global impact to the track to accomplish a goal. Love seeing this kind of creative passion for these types of nuances.
Chandler was by far my favorite for this particular song. It didn't hurt that the vocalist was amazing and the song was sooo damn good....
Rick--1) Yes, more of this content and 2) that Chandler was AMAZING! For me, it really pulled it all together..vocal, snare and kick all sounded great!
Ugh, mix professionally for 10+ years, and still I could talk comps ALL DAY, what a gem Ricky!
Must be nice! I literally can't tell the difference between any of them haha
@@NONE2NONE keep listening and you will, first train you ear to hear compression in general, then diferente settings, and then different compressors
Most beneficial aspect of this video was showing how subtle the color of a bus compressor really is when level matched.
Thanks so much for this vid and yes I would love to see more of content like this!! I run a small recording studio full time and always love to hear Ricks amazing expertise and deconstruction of mixes, and improve mine🙂
The Chandler does an incredible job of emphasizing the spaces in the music, and the drums sound amazing and organic. That version just jumped out at me.
agreed.
To me, the UBK sounded the most natural, it just seemed to get rid of the stray frequencies/distortion and seemed to enhance the track and give it more body. I heard more of the frequencies, especially in the vocals. The emulated compressors were not as natural sounding. This was a really good lesson, thank you again Rick for another great music video and learning experience.
SSL G absolutely is clearly the winner. Definitely do more of these. I'd love to see you do some preamp shootouts vs plugins (Plugin Alliance, UA etc...)
really great to see you do a video showing the differences in recording gear and compression! love it, more please
I use the Chandler as my main parallel buss for drums, like Rick mentioned. I love that sound, but the Burl, wow. I was more impressed with that then I thought I would be. That said, it's all through YT's algorithm. Love this stuff, Rick!
Something in the Analog SSL G really makes the mix shine. All the squish or the movement in the low mid freq really stand out and feel smooth. I think a lot of compression is based more in feeling than what is apparent audibly and for newer producers or people just learning to mix that can be easily misunderstood or even noticed. This was a super cool video, thank you Rick
Yeah, I liked the crunchiness of the analog G-comp best on this mix. They're all pretty subtle, though.
I think uncompressed could be cool for e.g., a more organic-sounding bridge.
in a word, buss compression is GLUE
...and _pssst! you can get better results than this by using more than one comp in series; check Joe Chiccarelli's technique._
Rick, I have to say the compression examples are very subtle to my ear. What is more obvious is that the final mix before the compression is exceptionally well done.
totally agree. It sounds so clean and clear. Doesn't need any help.
Yeah all these people saying this one or that one was better. The difference between most of them was so subtle any would have done just as a good a job as far as I could hear. Maybe my ear's bad? i dunno.
Hey Rick, I heard the entire album it is amazing!
The differences are subtle but discernable. I felt the glue most from the Burl. I liked the Analog SSL the best as I really heard everything open up with it, the piano especially. Yes please for more content like this Rick!
The Chandler was pure aural pleasure. Since I prefer openness and clarity in a mix, the Chandler seemed to add space and reduce clutter while providing definition, especially in the well-recorded vocal track. I listened only once (pre-planned) to avoid the inevitable clouding of the ears that seems to occur all-too-quickly when overconcentrating (especially on mixes of our own music!)
Wow, I was literally researching and playing around with this very thing all day yesterday. You couldn't have dropped this video at a better time!
Hi, Rick! First at all, thank you very much for sharing a lot of meaningful practical knowledge with all of us. I really love videos like this and I learn a lot with them. It`s amazing to hear this comparison. The differences are subtle, but they make it clear that each bus compressor has it`s own personality. That's where the magic is. More than hearing, it is possible to feel the differences. For example, the SSL G-Comp's digital emulation makes the sound less dense, and the reverbs become more evident.
My personal preference is for the uncompressed mix. I generally prefer a more "live" sound and I find playback systems with more inherent resolution and capability tend to sound best with the least compression. With that said, I can see how that hot kick drum could be a real problem on a playback system with poor LF performance or drive a crappy car stereo headunit amp into clipping.
My least favorite was the Burl. I'm sure on certain tracks or instruments it's magical -- just not here. It felt veiled -- like it was smudging the music -- "vintagey" in a bad way. If I had to go with a compressor, I liked the UBK the best. It didn't do anything particularly well, but it provided the best all-around, balanced sound. I'd imagine it would sound pretty good everywhere. The other compression units seemed to add a thinness and flatness to the top-end. Might have been a UA-cam byproduct, but it made the music sound "cheap."
Ideologically, I think the producer and engineers should work to make the best-sounding record they can, and let the playback equipment manufacturers deal with modifying the music to make it sound better. IE: Don't dumb down your mix to sound good on crappy car stereos. Let AC Delco put in a 2nd order high-pass filter at 80hz to keep their underpowered headunits from clipping trying to produce bass the speakers don't even stand a chance of playing. The rest of us should get to enjoy the concussive, visceral impact from a well-recorded kick drum.
I really like these types of videos, but I'm a super nerd.
I do hear a difference but I don't understand the difference, I couldn't adequately describe it. I DO want more content like this.
I’ve been looking for a video like this forever! Rick, you have never disappointed us
We need more stuff like this please, Rick. This (and music theory) were how I came to your channel in the first place years ago. I loved the sound of the Burl - and I was surprised how much better the hardware SSL bus compressor sounded compared to the plugin.
Regarding the bus compression, all I can say is through my desktop speakers, lacking compression did absolutely nothing negative to my listening experience. I'd enjoy the music exactly the same with or without it.
The Burl sounds teally nice to my ears. Love this kind of content (as well as anything else ;) )
Loooove this kind of videos! Please keep doing them! Your main channel is the GOAT for musicians. Let this second be the GOAT for sound engineers, mixer/mastering, guitar/electronics builders to put tribute to heroes like Eddie Offord, Andy Wallace, Quincy Jones, Joe Meck, etc. The Teletronik LA 2A on your back could easily be included as a bus compressor too!
Yes absolutely please Rick please keep making vids like this. I really enjoyed the comparisons between each compressor.
I was a bit surprised how much better the real SSL sounds than the Waves plugin. Out of all you demonstrated I put the Waves plugin clear last. More videos like this please Rick. One suggestion I have is best uses of sidechaining.
In my opinion - the burl Vancouver and the chandler TG1 did the best for this very type of song. I definitely can hear the harmonics added to the mix and it is very ear pleasing and in tact.
Love the comparisons - yes do more. What jumped out at me / surprised me was the "amount of space" that was generated between instruments and vocals - could drive a car between them all - fab! The objective compression outcomes of all was clear - however the warmth and clarity of the Analogue compressors demonstrated their power and value in the final mix. Also learnt something about the value of adding compression bus to a stereo out mix.
Wow, the Burl Vancouver version sounds perfect to me. It’s magical. Very warm and clear.
Rick, as an untrained ear, for me there's a subtle difference between each compressor. It's not a huge difference, but it's more like a colour, a texture.
Love to see more of this technical videos. Thanks.
Nice! I would love to hear the same part of the song looped through each signal chain thus giving us the most accurate comparison. When the songs dynamics change from part to part the compressors are working differently. Therefore the a/b comparisons fluctuate.
More vids like this Rick!!! I can definitely hear the differences. Plugin sounded pretty good. All 3 analog comps had different vibes but they all had the air and solidity too.
Definitely hear a difference, they all emphasize something different in the mix. Awesome how the waves ssl gbus actually holds its own. Definitely want to see more thanks Rick
I think UA-cam compression may have annihilated all the subleties of these mixes, cause they all sound veeeery similar to me. Much more similar than the mixes I've done myself when I was comparing buss compressors.
Thats a good point. Also, pro mixers tend to run these compressors less hot and way more subtle than non-pros do. It's more about tone than actual comression for them, especially at that point in the mix. I think that, and that we have to deal with Tube compression makes it hard to hear the subtleties.
That might be true, but also quite relevant, because most music is listened to through streaming services.
I experienced the biggest difference between no bus comp and the other clips in my listening environment. Beyond that I have to admit my ears aren't trained enough to a) know what to focus on and b) notice a difference.
This. I started my career in a 24 track NYC studio...massive klipsch monitors, 24 track studer revox machine...life long musician...I struggled to hear the diff over UA-cam. Oh, l listening on Mackie HR824 monitors. Like my ears, they're not awesome but they don't suck.
So glad I'm not the only one, was starting to question my hearing abilities and see a doctor ;-)
Awesome video! Love the engineering side of this channel. :D The plugin isn't even close to the hardware SSL compressor. The Chandler has a specific color/saturation that's absolutely perfect for the song. The Fatso's great for improving the crest factor.
if you hit Saturation it is
@@pisceswater...6998 Not sure what you're referring to.
@@aleksamrkela831 ssl plug
Nice Rick! This is terrific. A nice summation of different tools. The tune is great too! Thx!
love this kind of video - exercises in subtlety - the Vancouver and TG1 are my favorite!
The Waves plugin has spitty treble (mind you the source was quite harsh) which the transformers don't have. Most Waves plugins have a muddled midrange too but in this case its pretty good - especially given the price! The Burl is really good while the Chandler was a bit flabby - but thats great for certain things. The real SSL was superb, and we've heard it on so so many records. All these tools have their uses and the Waves deficiencies could make it shine in a signal chain that needed that.
Good comment. You seem knowledgeable. Have you tried U-HE presswerk?
To me the actual SSL G made the highs less brittle, still really present but nicer (I don't know how to explain it). The Chandler seemed to pump a bit more, sounding more heavily compressed, at least on that last pass where you were comparing all of them in a row. All of the bus compression, including the digital, made the mix's mids seem to get more balanced and smooshed together the entire mix so that the transients were less loud and the attacks were fatter. But yes, it still is a bit of cork sniffing. The average listener will probably have a hard time discerning this, since as an audio mixer I know the sound of compression.
Word!
This video was shared with me today and let me take a moment and say thank you to everyone for the amazing comments and compliments on my vocal performance. Obviously working with Rick and GL is a large part of the finished product but having a supportive producer and engineer cheering you on whilst in the vocal booth brings out the best performance.
Duke,
Our Wild Love
Plain Jane Automobile
Do you know the album by smog (Bill Callahan) called wild love? It’s in my top 5 ever
Can’t say that I do but I will check it out!
Not until you pointed it out. Fantastic information, thank you for what you do day in and day out.
I thought the second one, the one right after no processing, was best. It is hard to judge with so much time and talking separating each example. Perhaps if you switched directly from example to example the differences might be clearer.
I hear very little difference, It's there, but very minimal. If asked based on what I heard, I'd say yes, it's a cork-sniffer situation. However, UA-cam compression could be squishing the nuance between them down a lot. As an aside, I would love to see a pure-recorded tracks -> mixed process -> mastered process video explaining general ideas for why you use TYPES of plugins/gear (not brands and specific compressors etc as much, just basics of WHY on everything) as I dont really understand where you're supposed to put compressors, limiters, de-essers, eq etc and in which orders/busses.
I think I hear a difference, but I don't really know which I'd prefer. Seems like marginal right now. also youtube compression could be ruining it.
Same - I'm surprised by how tight the band is between the different devices/methods - but there are differences. In my opinion the Chandler ends up feeling the best for this specific track and as mentioned in a comment by @noyolamusic it feels like it specifically does the best on the vocal in the mix. To my ear it's shaving off a tiny bit more high end or simply having rounder peaks/Qs on the top end frequencies that gives it a slightly mellower feel.
If it were a different track it might be a different compressor, and it might largely be cork sniffing, but hey, once you get to being able to hear that last 5% of difference it's neat to hear how the selection can matter.
More please. Definitely hearing a difference. Really love what the burl transformers were doing.
Love these type of videos!! Wish there was an endless supply of them haha. Thanks Rick!!
Question for Rick - do you hear as much of a difference once the audio is on UA-cam as you do in real life?
Thanks, wanted to ask the same. My middle aged ears and my laptop's tinny speakers are doing me no favours
I think, when I upload my own videos, UA-cam compresses the audio, but I don't know if that is what actually happens.
I agree that there must be some loss via UA-cam the differences are subtle to nonexistent.
Ditto! No 24-96 here!
There’s allegedly no audio quality loss (to our ears), according to I think it was Benn Jordan.
The real SSL definitely sounds more open compared to the waves version, that was probably the largest difference to me. I would've loved to hear a few more in-the-box comparisons though! That openness that many seek out in hardware can (maybe) be found in some more recent plugins, especially brainworx's TMT stuff in my opinion. I'd like to see that be put to the test!
I agree, but I'm also amazed by how close the roughly $20 waves version compares to the physical device. There are some differences and I like the physical SSL and the Chandler summing mixer more... but the distance between them is narrower than I would have anticipated.
Agreed, but the reall SSL is being fed by the Burl, so it's not a fair fight. I wonder how the Waves SSL would sound with the Burl before it? It would require a D/A > A/D loop. On an SSL tangent, I'm not a fan of not using the HPF on the detector and sometimes the auto-repease isn't great. The Waves SSL doesn't have a HPF, so that's that, but I would have lovedf to have heard the hardware SSL with HPF up at 60Hz and the release on a manual 200. Even the attack could come back to 10, but it depends if we are looking for control or bounce. The track was pretty controlled in the raw mix, so I'd be looking for some movement with a slower attack.and quicker manual release.
Always a resounding ‘yes, please!’ to more production / engineering vids, Rick!
Love it Rick! More of this type of stuff please.
This is not a How To video. At all.
For my ears, the Analog SSL G-Comp is such an absolute winner by a surprisingly margin.
Not just the profound stereo image and the gluing, but the sound signature was superb, quite a lot of air and spaciness to the vocal and everything just felt right.
Wow, I love these kinds of videos! Overall impression is that the mix sounds better w the buss compression. My favorite is the Burl, the mix seemed to really come alive and soar, w all the ambience coming out to really support the program material in a cool way. I liked the SSLs, too. Maybe I'm old school, but the hardware compressors seemed more effective. The caveat is that I'm listening to this on my M1 Macbook Air (which sounds pretty dern good, but lacking on the low umph). I hope you do more of these Rick!
I love this kind of content. I'll confess I'm still early in my journey as a mixer and if the compressor name didn't come up I'd not notice any change. I'm very much still trying to learn to hear compression in it's subtlest forms. What I'd tend to do with a video like this is take approximate settings I see on screen into a compressor I'm familiar with and use them on one of my own tracks, that I know well. Then push the settings too hard to try and get a clearer idea of what they're doing. But I'm only now getting to grips with what attack and release do to a kick or a snare, never mind the different textures different compressors can offer. At the very least, videos like this are a lesson in where my ears need to be, especially looking at comments from people who hear it very clearly.
Love this!
I can definitely hear differences. I love the real Stereo SSL for the way it gives the base more space.
Excellent, insightful and very educational - as always! Thank you, Rick! Please continue these. Personally, I would like to see a "Part 2: Takeaways and General Thoughts", that sums (no pun Intended!) what Rick and the others on this channel, generally feel about the different types, circuits, styles, combinations, etc presented - and why. I would like to learn from everyone here by understanding what Rick and others "hear" or explanations of what "better-ness" each option adds to our sonic toolbelts. Cheers!
The Analog SSL brings out a brilliance in the mix that is lovely. Just enough bump without losing the piano.
Love this type of content. As for hearing the differences in these examples, yes, but definitely very slight, and most likely only heard by the most discerning ears in a perfect listening environment. Thing I noticed the most was the timbre of the snare when the digital SSL kicked in. The UBK had the most warm and balanced sound to my ears.
I like this content. Differences were subtle but the Chandler definitely added clarity and punch.
Yes please more videos like this it's a nice addition to your already great content:)
Really interesting to hear the difference between the emulation SSL and the hardware unit. The emulation still has some of that glue but it sounds a bit thinner to my ears. Love the sound of the Burl and the Chandler in particular. Would love to see more of these videos Rick, especially the emulation vs hardware. I’ve recently purchased a big UAD plugin bundle it would be interesting to hear these reputable (and great sounding) plugins A-B’d with their hardware counterparts.
Definitely a yes on more Contant like this!!! I have been obsessed with compression and how to use it both live and in the studio ever since I purchased ( in the 90s) a trace Elliot bass amp with dual compression - it was a total game changer! In fact I have Ashdown’s petal version of the dual compressor and quite often I take it to the studio and run through it for a nice clean & even tone
The Burl B32 Vancouver was the surprise hit for me. Loved the video!
The Chandler on the Strophe is fantastic: the voice is right in front of you, the bass has something I would call like a nice saturation, the Claps feel alive; the UBK-1 on the strophe glues everything together and even if I love a lot glueing I prefer the Chandler there. The Stereo Compressor SSL G-Comp on the Chorus opens everything wide and deep, as if the organ keys would be the horizon and everything else would be right in front of you as a beach of sounds.
I really would like to compare the all of it in the same frame of the song, to be able to listen to the individual art of compression in the same spot. Thank you, Rick, it is always a great pleasure! Roberto
I can hear the differences, but they are subtle. The largest difference is between the uncompressed (no buss compression)and the other processed examples.
Also, would love to see more of this kind of content! It’s really great.
I like the tune used in this video as well. Thanks!
Thanks for this video Rick. If I heard any difference the Burl was the one that shined for me. Seemed to jump to a “warmer tone” that my ears love to hear on recordings. Thanks From the mountains of NC
Please, more content like this. Great comparison. Thank you.
I’m listening to this comparison through apple Max headphones and the difference between compression is very subtle. However, when I was listening to the UBK-1 there was a vast improvement on the overall sound. Amazing work 👍🏼
The SSL G Console has the best low end, the Chandler has very beautiful, punchy low mids and the UBK has fantastic stereo image and air. Absolutely yes, we want more of your production tipps!-))) Thank you so much, Rick!
There’s something very tangible about the Analog SSL G-comp.
Yes - more content like this. But I think you might consider a blind test. Play what is being compared labeled A, B. C, etc - then provide the crowd results in a later episode.
You’re awesome, Rick!
Yes, yes ,yes please do more of this stuff. They all sound different which is a surprise to me. 👍
Please more content like this. Deffinitly hear the difference. Amazing
Thx Rick easy to hear the differences , great content !
This is actually exactly what I was looking for! Thanks!
I would like to see some more content LIKE THIS please. Way interesting and a good presentation by you. I like the actual SSL the best. The Burl is cork-sniffingly intoxicating, but I must say Greg's UBK had the most pleasing high end to my ears. More of this stuff please...
I’m a big proponent of mixing in the box. But I can’t deny what I’m hearing. I closed my eyes during the last part and marked down my favorite sections. The Burl sounded more rich and three dimensional, that Chandler had a sweetness on the top end. Love stuff like this
I think it would be even more noticeable if the same part of the song always played on all compressors! You're the best! regards from south Brasil!!
To my ears, I prefer the analog SSL-Buss compressor, the highs, the openness of the sound, the "it sounds like a record" X-factor qualities are all there! Good sounding song by the way!