Been using this one too!

 

You need to stop sperging out. Parallel Compression doesn't necessarily mean "crushing" or dirty compression. There are all kinds of ways to use it to achieve different sounds. Open your mind.

 

Don't understand.

No one said it did. But the named technique involves squashing the same signal aggressively on a seperate bus and mixing that in subtley.

Yeah thanks. Can you shut your mouth and learn about parallel compression and/or just read the thread title so your first comment could've made sense relative to the technique?
I hear Wasg...I mean Gyro calling you.

 

So you recommend us to fetch some cheap or free compressor, we would never use otherwise - even though we already have some great brand - in order to get 'better results'? Wouldn't it be more in accordance with your logic, "take any you have at hand".
Also, the gist of the thread was What is your favourite... so the remark about 'over-kills' is in fact off topic.

 

but OP didnt determine for what he use ny compression

 

Not at all! Why do you think I recommend that? You misunderstand. Surprisingly.

What??

Yes. My point.

Not at all, when the point is that any comp will do; so why even bother using some super-spesh models when you don't actually need to, and why bother stating what Kotelnikov is good at when it's irrelevant to ny comp technique, imo.

Yeah. I don't know if you are an industry professional or not, trained or not. But to have a favourite compressor for such a technique is laughable to myself and the pros I have been with today. Which is why I choose to help newbs who, if they have to ask a question in such a way as the thread title, obviously have an, uh, incomplete understanding of certain things.
This is purely my professional opinion, feel free to ignore it please!
But I'd rather at least try to help newbs, even if it means repeating myself over and over, as I have been, until maybe one newb wonders why a professionally trained person might be bothering to say what he's saying.
As you were.

 

Doesn't matter. I'm pretty sure op will use it as an audio recording/mixing technique; not as a meat substitute, or to travel to work on.
A technique has a name. The technique is the technique. It does what it says on the tin. If people here had at least sounded like they understood the technique, there wouldn't be so many comments from me.

 

And how does that rule out the use of a cleaner, punchier compressor? what I'm talking about is exactly parallel compression. Honestly, if it weren't for your post count I would assume you're a troll. It seems like you don't understand what parallel compression is, or what the thread is about, if you think I missed it - and you have to be either extremely stupid or a troll to do so. In any case, your comments contribute nothing to the thread.

 

As a general rule, I'd say whatever works, works.
This can be an opto for bass/vocals/clean guitar, a clipper or a 1176 (emu) for drums or even clean guitar to add some 'dirt'.

Probably not a dbx 160 (emu), since it's an RMS compressor and let's the transients and attacks pass through. Although I must admit, due to it's specs, I've never tried it for parallel compression.

And yes, parallel compression is for squashing a signal heavily and blending it in.

 

I'm so happy you wrote that. Thank you. So that's at least maybe 4 of us here that understand! lol

Again, your logic failures you with that sentence. Yes: I think you "missed it", due to the first comment you made. Deal with that nicely without being offended and getting nasty. But you say you did read the thread title, so that now assures me you just don't 'get' the technique.

No logic there, and in fact just trolling me.

Again, you are now trolling. If you saw the misconceptions, you'd understand what my professional contribution is.
I was mainly trying to help the OP! But you and others seem to need to learn too.

Logic, anyone? Please assume whatever the fuck you want about my presence. You already assume incorrectly about techniques, and what others know and/or are thinking, so it'll be easy for you.
Yes, for you to assume I'm a troll you'd need to see 2,000 messages in a few months from me, like your bf Gyro, and I'd need to stop talking accepted facts about music and mixing. It all makes perfect sense to me now.

 

speaking of logic Logics stock compressors my go to most of the time balance out the mix between 30 to 75 depending on the track and then start switching the compressor types to find the perfect flavor

 

Parallel compression is compressing a signal on one channel while leaving it dry on another channel. OP asked what our favorite compressor for that task is. Pray tell how did my first comment not fit the title or theme of the thread?
(Not believing I actually have to ask this from someone who's apparently not a troll)

 

Using gentle compression and then blending that signal with the original signal is NOT Parallel Compression. There is absolutely no wiggle room in this discussion about that, though, one might have a favorite compressor in which to mangle the original signal to almost beyond recognition. Mine is using my 1176 clone with all buttons in which squashes the living shite out if and distorts the sound of the capture so that the original sound's dear old mother wouldn't even recognize it. Traditionally the 1176 has been used for its fast reaction and its ability to split the atom of the transients, but I guess someone could use almost anything to nuke and bludgeon, though an 1176 fits the task superlatively.

 

is the glue also rms ?

 

Nope, it's a special feature of the dbx, even if it's a VCA, too.

 

Hey... Please, keep it polite and educated.

 

Oh really? what dictionary did you take this definition from? who decided on it?
Any compression that occurs parallel to the dry signal is by definition parallel compression, doesn't matter how gentle that is.
In any case, when I used the word "clean" I didn't mean "gentle", I meant compression that doesn't distort the signal too much, and keeps a general sense of groove, unlike the "crushing" fast attack-fast release compression which just levels the signal to achieve higher RMS and density.

 

Boz manic compressor. Simple & easy.

 

Just want to add that parallel compresson and New York compression are two slightly different processes. New York adds high-shelving boost and low-shelving boost to the parallel/squashed signal.

 

I haven't decided anything, it is a technique that has been used for a couple of generations by professional engineers and producers for a means to the end of injecting excitement into the tracks that warrant it in the context of a mix.

If someone were to write the definition of Parallel Compression I guess that Hugh Robjohns would qualify as an authority on any and all things engineering, I guess that Dr. Hugh Robjohns would qualify as an authority on any and all things pertaining to sound and its manipulation. He has been the Technical Editor of Sound On Sound for what I believe the past 25 years and as an educator has recieved an Honorary Doctor of Technology from The University of West of England Bristol. He writes...

The compressor is set up with a very high ratio — in fact, limiting is often used — and the threshold adjusted so that it provides a lot of gain reduction when the input signal is at its loudest. The more gain reduction the better, in fact: 20dB is a good start, but 40dB would be better! Of course, this requires a compressor that behaves nicely when applying a lot of gain reduction and doesn't generate any distortion products, which some do. The attack and release controls are set to suit the material and the effect required, in the usual way.

Would that satisfy your curiosity on origin? Would you, could you disagree with his authority on this subject? Really?