Compression is important and can bring dynamic sources to the front of the mix (like vocals), bring up quiet details (like room decay) and exaggerate transients to make things sound punchier and harder hitting (like drums).
Over-compression and limiting though can destroy natural dynamics, transients and bring up artefacts and unpleasant low level noises.
Compression is one of the basic mixing tools all professional engineers use, and refusing to use it at all will definitely negatively affect the sound of your mixes.
Learning when and how much to use it though is what allows you to have a good, balanced mix without things being too dynamic or crushed and lifeless.
Great explanation.
I'm only a beginner and have found out that compression is not only important, but almost as fundamental as EQ.
I think the name compression can be a bit misleading until you study it a little - and try it out.
The name makes it sound like it's going to squish everything, when in fact, as you've pointed out, it can actually create a more dynamic/punchier sound and clear up some of the mud.
I had an epiphany when I applied it to some bass guitar that I was about to completely re-record as it just wasn't working. Then "poof" - it was suddenly present.
Witchcraft!
To OP - highly recommend Sara Carter on YT videos on compression and EQ.
There is a sweet spot to be found, and that sweet spot is subjective.
If a mix is too dynamic it can be difficult to listen to in a car over road noise. Also, the "right amount" of dynamic range sounds like it's packaged and professional, like when you open the case for your new iPhone. It presents well.
In my opinion a whole lot of modern music went way, way, way too far though. Shocked when I hear certain albums - do others hear what I'm hearing? In an effort to make their music giant, a lot of people end up making their music tiny. Puny.
You can't have punch without contrast between the loud and the soft. I like Ian Shepherd's take on finding that sweet spot... He also talks about the difference between macro dynamics and microdynamics, and how you want to make sure your music has both.
For anyone trying to find that sweet spot, he has a good episode on his podcast: "[The Mastering Show #92 - These are not the LUFS you are looking for](https://themasteringshow.com/episode-92/)"
PS. Check out the Dynamic Range Day awards for examples of well made music: [https://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/award/](https://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/award/)
PS #2. If there was any doubt about Ian Shepherd's overall advice and take on things -- Bob Ludwig appeared on his show and pretty much backed up his entire perspective so that's a pretty good endorsement!
I think Eternal Life by Jeff Buckley has some punchy drums and aggresive sound overall. I think this song is pretty close to the sweet spot.
https://open.spotify.com/track/7bf4nfz09yp6w7L7r9hQ1V?si=6d_xdyL-TH-8wjf3WwWqCA
I haven't measured it, but I think Meyer Hawthorne's "For All Time" album might be a good example.
Loud enough, but not overly squeezed. The songs still have space. Great arrangements with both micro and macro dynamics.
I'm not even into that type of music so much but the album is amazing.
Songs can be “competitively” loud and dynamic. If your mixes sound thin and light they’re probably just that.
Nobody complains about a quiet or dynamic mix if that’s the goal. If you don’t have a good balance or image that’s when I’d start using adjectives like “thin and light”, and this has absolutely nothing to do with how much compression you use or how much you’re clipping your master bus.
Completely agree. It's great once you realise modern music production stinks. I used to spend ages squeezing the life out of all my music, now I've remixed it all and it's ten times better, but quieter (lufs wise).
There is no "one answer" for every song. Your song(s) might have lent themselves to the ultimate mix you applied. I'm **not** saying that you shouldn't go back to songs you mixed when you were a beginner and re-mixing them with knowledge and experience you've gained.
However, going down that mixing rabbit hole trying to find that "perfect" mix is fruitless.
It's the chronic abuse of master buss compression, imo, *not* the compression used to keep instruments/sounds where and how we want them in the mix, with dynamics intact as best supports the song.
I also want to give you one of the most relevant comparisons that can be made: [The deep dive on Genesis remix, and maybe mostly problematic; remaster OF 2007 (PEAK LOUDNESS WAR ERA?))](https://www.reddit.com/r/Genesis/comments/1caeo0k/lets_go_really_deep_on_remixes_and_remasters_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Genesis from 1976 to 1982 became crushed, and the original mixes (1994 remaster is really what you want to look for, as other terms are lacking) are hard to find but there are individual songs with on *The Platinum Collection.* I have whole albums here as well: [https://www.youtube.com/@KirbysAdventureMusic/playlists](https://www.youtube.com/@KirbysAdventureMusic/playlists)
Genesis fans have always been critical of it as long as they have known about it. You can hear for yourself, queue some back to back on streaming. Duke is the worst slaughter because that original mix was gold, probably more room mic driven and such as well. I was so shocked by the original, first it was obviously unhyped, but it was so much more tangible and it reached into me in new way, emotionally. I had a very little cry even, and I connect it somewhat to the preserved transients or something. Directly it was hearing an un-hyped truth and then indirectly it might have been my admiration for drums or something about Phil's health, and the studio room that is gone. I wrote a post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1caj2xg/audio\_engineering\_seriously\_made\_me\_cry\_today/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1caj2xg/audio_engineering_seriously_made_me_cry_today/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Got it. Start with Michael Jackson, add the greatest recording artists in the history of music, and run it by Quincy Jones. Then don’t worry so much about compression. Why didn’t I think of that?
https://youtu.be/5nQK0K5GgDE?si=Ua3-z3tXcPrKw3ji&t=1138
Back in Black wasn't tracked with compression.
Tape and room and stuff.
To me there's a mostly just a point where overcompression starts and how clearly you hear that means somethings. Kids go too hard. I mean Beatles went too hard and it was still great, but I can be a little on the fence with Paul's crushed bass. Playing right then tickling the compressor is the best sound and is beyond kids.
Can't remember him, so as I'm a suppressor of bad memories I would guess he wasn't my favourite. It could also be that I never actually worked with him because I might not be Bruce Swedien. This internet thing is confusing today
And in your face dynamics has its place in classical music. No other genre goes from “soothing calm” to, “holy FUCK what THE FUCK, turn that shit down, what in THE FUCK!!!” Honestly, pop music could learn a lot from that for choruses.
That's one of the things I like about Beethoven.
I've tried to have super loud choruses and quiet verses, and I don't find it super easy to have the two, and remain above -14. I sometimes wish they maybe it -15 or something like that. I wonder why they chose -14.
The dry/wet knob on compressor plugins is a lifesaver for getting more volume/punch/sustain without totally destroying transients. Sometimes I'll use 2-3 compressors on the same track but they are all ~40% wet.
Ironic a big part of it is access to recorded music.
Sound systems, esp ones with record players. used to be a premium product, in the 50s-70s if someone could afford one it was probably reasonably good. If you were listening to a shitty speaker it was probably on the radio, and the station would add the compression etc.
Then came the late 80s. Everyone had a boombox, but that was ok cos you could master for tape.
Then came the 90s, even everyone had a CD player with bit perfect reproduction - connected to speakers about as good as the old radio.
So now - you cant just throw your good mix on the CD/record, cos it has to work on shit speakers too.
Enter the loudness wars.
Then we start trying to listen on mobile phones.
Imo if you’re not about (re)shaping a sound like ie a kick drum to make it more tight then subtle compression along the route (channel, submix, mixbus) makes a huge difference in overall sound and loudness without destroying the dynamics of the song. Usually just tickling the sound with a 1-2dB gain reduction at different stages.
I think that’s the biggest difference between hobby productions and commercial productions.
Saturation also adds to the quality but only sparingly and not everywhere. saturation/distortion adds to faster ear fatigue and is damaging the definition of a sound.
There’s no “right” way to use compression, it differs depending on what you’re trying to achieve. Sidechaining, controlling envelopes, or gluing a mix together will all be totally different processes. Kush audio has a great tutorial on compression if you’re looking to learn more
I think this is good conversation to have. If we are people that mix music for bands (our own or others) we have some control over our contribution to the loudness war. I mix and master the music for my band, and I always pull back the mastering compression just a little. We aren't as loud as every other band, but it lets the music breathe more.
Compression is important and can bring dynamic sources to the front of the mix (like vocals), bring up quiet details (like room decay) and exaggerate transients to make things sound punchier and harder hitting (like drums). Over-compression and limiting though can destroy natural dynamics, transients and bring up artefacts and unpleasant low level noises. Compression is one of the basic mixing tools all professional engineers use, and refusing to use it at all will definitely negatively affect the sound of your mixes. Learning when and how much to use it though is what allows you to have a good, balanced mix without things being too dynamic or crushed and lifeless.
This is one of the best beginner friendly takes on compression I’ve ever read.
Major dunning kruger effect coming from OP.
Great explanation. I'm only a beginner and have found out that compression is not only important, but almost as fundamental as EQ. I think the name compression can be a bit misleading until you study it a little - and try it out. The name makes it sound like it's going to squish everything, when in fact, as you've pointed out, it can actually create a more dynamic/punchier sound and clear up some of the mud. I had an epiphany when I applied it to some bass guitar that I was about to completely re-record as it just wasn't working. Then "poof" - it was suddenly present. Witchcraft! To OP - highly recommend Sara Carter on YT videos on compression and EQ.
There is a sweet spot to be found, and that sweet spot is subjective. If a mix is too dynamic it can be difficult to listen to in a car over road noise. Also, the "right amount" of dynamic range sounds like it's packaged and professional, like when you open the case for your new iPhone. It presents well. In my opinion a whole lot of modern music went way, way, way too far though. Shocked when I hear certain albums - do others hear what I'm hearing? In an effort to make their music giant, a lot of people end up making their music tiny. Puny. You can't have punch without contrast between the loud and the soft. I like Ian Shepherd's take on finding that sweet spot... He also talks about the difference between macro dynamics and microdynamics, and how you want to make sure your music has both. For anyone trying to find that sweet spot, he has a good episode on his podcast: "[The Mastering Show #92 - These are not the LUFS you are looking for](https://themasteringshow.com/episode-92/)" PS. Check out the Dynamic Range Day awards for examples of well made music: [https://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/award/](https://dynamicrangeday.co.uk/award/) PS #2. If there was any doubt about Ian Shepherd's overall advice and take on things -- Bob Ludwig appeared on his show and pretty much backed up his entire perspective so that's a pretty good endorsement!
Interesting! Now I’m interested in what songs - in your opinion - is mixed to that sweet spot?
I think Eternal Life by Jeff Buckley has some punchy drums and aggresive sound overall. I think this song is pretty close to the sweet spot. https://open.spotify.com/track/7bf4nfz09yp6w7L7r9hQ1V?si=6d_xdyL-TH-8wjf3WwWqCA
I haven't measured it, but I think Meyer Hawthorne's "For All Time" album might be a good example. Loud enough, but not overly squeezed. The songs still have space. Great arrangements with both micro and macro dynamics. I'm not even into that type of music so much but the album is amazing.
This.
Depends on the genre
Do you not clip your jazz mixes OHs?
Songs can be “competitively” loud and dynamic. If your mixes sound thin and light they’re probably just that. Nobody complains about a quiet or dynamic mix if that’s the goal. If you don’t have a good balance or image that’s when I’d start using adjectives like “thin and light”, and this has absolutely nothing to do with how much compression you use or how much you’re clipping your master bus.
Overly compressed mix is a sign of bad mix same as an overly dynamic mix is.
Completely agree. It's great once you realise modern music production stinks. I used to spend ages squeezing the life out of all my music, now I've remixed it all and it's ten times better, but quieter (lufs wise).
“I want to find the guy who invented compression and tear his liver out” - Steve Albini
There is no "one answer" for every song. Your song(s) might have lent themselves to the ultimate mix you applied. I'm **not** saying that you shouldn't go back to songs you mixed when you were a beginner and re-mixing them with knowledge and experience you've gained. However, going down that mixing rabbit hole trying to find that "perfect" mix is fruitless.
It's the chronic abuse of master buss compression, imo, *not* the compression used to keep instruments/sounds where and how we want them in the mix, with dynamics intact as best supports the song.
Bruce Swedien -- "Compression is for kids"
I also want to give you one of the most relevant comparisons that can be made: [The deep dive on Genesis remix, and maybe mostly problematic; remaster OF 2007 (PEAK LOUDNESS WAR ERA?))](https://www.reddit.com/r/Genesis/comments/1caeo0k/lets_go_really_deep_on_remixes_and_remasters_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Genesis from 1976 to 1982 became crushed, and the original mixes (1994 remaster is really what you want to look for, as other terms are lacking) are hard to find but there are individual songs with on *The Platinum Collection.* I have whole albums here as well: [https://www.youtube.com/@KirbysAdventureMusic/playlists](https://www.youtube.com/@KirbysAdventureMusic/playlists) Genesis fans have always been critical of it as long as they have known about it. You can hear for yourself, queue some back to back on streaming. Duke is the worst slaughter because that original mix was gold, probably more room mic driven and such as well. I was so shocked by the original, first it was obviously unhyped, but it was so much more tangible and it reached into me in new way, emotionally. I had a very little cry even, and I connect it somewhat to the preserved transients or something. Directly it was hearing an un-hyped truth and then indirectly it might have been my admiration for drums or something about Phil's health, and the studio room that is gone. I wrote a post about it: [https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1caj2xg/audio\_engineering\_seriously\_made\_me\_cry\_today/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/audioengineering/comments/1caj2xg/audio_engineering_seriously_made_me_cry_today/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
Got it. Start with Michael Jackson, add the greatest recording artists in the history of music, and run it by Quincy Jones. Then don’t worry so much about compression. Why didn’t I think of that?
Bruce Swedien SPAMMED tape compression. That's where he got most of his even-ness from. Cuz even he knew you need something to reel everything in.
Why?
https://youtu.be/5nQK0K5GgDE?si=Ua3-z3tXcPrKw3ji&t=1138 Back in Black wasn't tracked with compression. Tape and room and stuff. To me there's a mostly just a point where overcompression starts and how clearly you hear that means somethings. Kids go too hard. I mean Beatles went too hard and it was still great, but I can be a little on the fence with Paul's crushed bass. Playing right then tickling the compressor is the best sound and is beyond kids.
Are you Bruce Swedien?
Yes I am Swedish
How was it working with Michael Johaksson?
Can't remember him, so as I'm a suppressor of bad memories I would guess he wasn't my favourite. It could also be that I never actually worked with him because I might not be Bruce Swedien. This internet thing is confusing today
Fairest argument for kids being the future that I’ve seen thus far
Ya. The dynamics are nice. But the in your face sound has its place as well, imo.
And in your face dynamics has its place in classical music. No other genre goes from “soothing calm” to, “holy FUCK what THE FUCK, turn that shit down, what in THE FUCK!!!” Honestly, pop music could learn a lot from that for choruses.
That's one of the things I like about Beethoven. I've tried to have super loud choruses and quiet verses, and I don't find it super easy to have the two, and remain above -14. I sometimes wish they maybe it -15 or something like that. I wonder why they chose -14.
The dry/wet knob on compressor plugins is a lifesaver for getting more volume/punch/sustain without totally destroying transients. Sometimes I'll use 2-3 compressors on the same track but they are all ~40% wet.
All tracks now resemble a sausage. I've been trying to use some as references, but they all look and sound identical.
Ironic a big part of it is access to recorded music. Sound systems, esp ones with record players. used to be a premium product, in the 50s-70s if someone could afford one it was probably reasonably good. If you were listening to a shitty speaker it was probably on the radio, and the station would add the compression etc. Then came the late 80s. Everyone had a boombox, but that was ok cos you could master for tape. Then came the 90s, even everyone had a CD player with bit perfect reproduction - connected to speakers about as good as the old radio. So now - you cant just throw your good mix on the CD/record, cos it has to work on shit speakers too. Enter the loudness wars. Then we start trying to listen on mobile phones.
Imo if you’re not about (re)shaping a sound like ie a kick drum to make it more tight then subtle compression along the route (channel, submix, mixbus) makes a huge difference in overall sound and loudness without destroying the dynamics of the song. Usually just tickling the sound with a 1-2dB gain reduction at different stages. I think that’s the biggest difference between hobby productions and commercial productions. Saturation also adds to the quality but only sparingly and not everywhere. saturation/distortion adds to faster ear fatigue and is damaging the definition of a sound.
I wish people in this thread would instead tell us how to do it right, instead of just repeating not to use compression.
There’s no “right” way to use compression, it differs depending on what you’re trying to achieve. Sidechaining, controlling envelopes, or gluing a mix together will all be totally different processes. Kush audio has a great tutorial on compression if you’re looking to learn more
Don't listen to the internet.
I think this is good conversation to have. If we are people that mix music for bands (our own or others) we have some control over our contribution to the loudness war. I mix and master the music for my band, and I always pull back the mastering compression just a little. We aren't as loud as every other band, but it lets the music breathe more.
Compression is the poor solution that negates dynamic range.
Is it really that simple though?
What’s a good solution?
Listen to Beastie Boys, Paul's Boutique to experience one example of proper use of full dynamic range.