I don't want highly compressed, and I like to keep attack more organic, not boosted, but also not overly loud if I switch fingers to slap once in a while. I'm still learning the Cali76 but at the moment dry is ~10:00 and I like it. I've been reading about the settings from someone who knows them more exactly, and realizing I need more time tweaking and listening.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
Welcome to TalkBass! Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Parallel/NY Style Compression: Who uses the blend knob on their compressor pedal?
- Thread starter PineappleOwl
- Start date
Yes, I'm aware how the side-chain HPF works, it was one of the bigger selling points of the Empress for me.
I was a little confused by the way Johno described the HPF on his first Fermata. I didn't realize the Zio HPF he was describing was an actual HPF and not the SC on a separate compressor. The wording of it all is a lot more clear once I realized what the Zio actual was.
- Oct 13, 2022
- 1,198
- 3,499
- 2,036
- Disclosures
- Audio/Music software developer, contracted with a company you've heard of and deving my own stuff.
If we want to be pedantic (and who doesn't want to be pedantic on the internet, especially on TB?), there's a subtle but distinct difference between NY Bus Compression & regular ol' Parallel Compression. NY Compression is a type of parallel compression with some specific EQ and compression settings. It's an "All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares" type thing.
Basic Parallel Compression is exactly as it sounds: Dry signal blended with a compressed signal.
NY Compression, the signal splits, and on the processed channel, before the compressor is an EQ with a low shelf and a high shelf boosted generously, and a healthy cut across the mids. (Some even notch-filter out the mids completely, but that's not required.) Then EQed signal is run through the compressor that's fairly SLAMMED, usually between 6:1 to 10:1 (10:1 is just about limiting), and then the EQed & Compressed signal are blended back in with the dry signal.
Can't really do NY Compression with just a blend knob unless there's also an EQ on your compressor that can be set pre-compressor and doesn't affect the dry signal. You need a splitter and then a mixer in your chain.
Basic Parallel Compression is exactly as it sounds: Dry signal blended with a compressed signal.
NY Compression, the signal splits, and on the processed channel, before the compressor is an EQ with a low shelf and a high shelf boosted generously, and a healthy cut across the mids. (Some even notch-filter out the mids completely, but that's not required.) Then EQed signal is run through the compressor that's fairly SLAMMED, usually between 6:1 to 10:1 (10:1 is just about limiting), and then the EQed & Compressed signal are blended back in with the dry signal.
Can't really do NY Compression with just a blend knob unless there's also an EQ on your compressor that can be set pre-compressor and doesn't affect the dry signal. You need a splitter and then a mixer in your chain.
Last edited:
- Oct 13, 2022
- 1,198
- 3,499
- 2,036
- Disclosures
- Audio/Music software developer, contracted with a company you've heard of and deving my own stuff.
Thanks!
And i should add, when producers & engineers first started using what became called NY Compression, the buss with the slammed compression had both the drums & bass sent to it, or the kick, snare, and bass sent to it.
These days NY Compression refers more to the EQ & Compression technique used on any instrument or subgroup, but in the early days it was used on the drums & bass at the same time. Such deliciously BIG BASSY rhythm section type stuff. Was a huge part of pushing the bass and drums right up to the forefront of modern music.
Yes. I blend a gently compressed tone with my uncompressed tone, and it is a great way to accentuate and tweak the sound without going full-on one way or another. Not really 'NY style' compression since it's not blending extremely compressed signal with dry but still... I use the Seymour Duncan Studio Bass compressor, which is a VCA stompbox style compressor. It also has a multiband feature that lets you select which area gets the emphasis in the blend - top end, full range, or the low end.
The beauty is in the subtlety though. Blending a modestly compressed signal with a dry signal allows you find a sweet spot where all the best things are emphasized, without losing the overall room to play expressively with the compressor getting too heavy handed. When you turn the compressor off with these settings, you notice it. I think people are too hung up on 'it has to be extreme for me to hear and appreciate (and validate) the effect' versus aiming for subtlety in the first place. The studio sessions I've done with this type of moderate setup have yielded wonderful, natural, punchy results that required little post production work in mixing.
How much gain reduction do you aim for in your gently compressed signal? I'm curious to mess around with this approach more. I've mostly experimented with slamming the compressed signal and blending in small amounts of it. It seems this more moderate approach could suit me better, as I don't really pick or slap.
I found it’s nice to have for certain situations. But I don’t find myself using a blend all that often when I’m using a compressor that has one. Probably because I use light to very moderate settings whenever I do one. So it’s seldom necessary for what I do or the way I play.
But that’s just me. All I want from a compressor is a little smoothing and lag plus some thickening like you get with a vintage tube amp with a 15 cab. Others will likely have different tastes and requirements.
But that’s just me. All I want from a compressor is a little smoothing and lag plus some thickening like you get with a vintage tube amp with a 15 cab. Others will likely have different tastes and requirements.
Last edited:
I can't give an accurate number really. I'm using my Seymour Duncan Studio Bass stompbox compressor, which doesn't give specific numbers in terms of ratios or gain reduction. That said, after consulting the manual and comparing my settings, I'd say I'm sitting around 3:1 for a ratio (compressor knob at 10:30 or so), with an 'attack' setting that probably lives somewhere around 12ms (Attack knob also set around 10:00-ish)? I set the gain to first match my signal with the pedal bypassed (usually 'noon'), then after engaging it, I add a small amount of gain, to about 1:00. From there, I adjust the wet/dry blend and multiband/EQ switch till I get the mix I desire. What I notice most is that the un-affected signal retains that fullness way down low (especially on 5-string) and when blended with the compressed full range signal, I can get the best of everything, subtly. If I want to tighten/clean up the low end, I make sure the 'full range' EQ/multiband switch is selected, and dial in more wet signal. I'm sure it incorporates some sort of HPF in there to some degree. Hope that helps?
Edit: I've also found this little compressor to be VERY useful with my double bass in reining in some issues when amplified.... the ability to blend/select the affected EQ range is super helpful, when combined with my DB preamp.
Last edited:
I tend to use 4:1 compression with 50% blend as well, and I actually use two compressors these days. One is at the beginning of my signal chain, and one in the middle after octave, dirt, and ring modulator and before delay, reverb, boost and looper. THe pedal board does not make to all the gigs though. If I am playing mainstream jazz, for instance, it is just plug into the amp and play with nothing in between.
Yes, via my Helix, but a little more complex, but it works for me...
I have an Ampeg Optocomp model in my main signal path after distortions (which sit in a crossover split). This particular model has a smooth action that retains more low end than the other compressors, much like having an hpf sidechain. I've got it on "gentle to medium" settings, with a little clean blend, just to reign the dynamic range in slightly and fatten things up (I have to guess, as I'm at work, but I think it's around 70:30 wet/dry).
Then further down the signal path I have another split that's mixed 50:50. One half goes through an amp and cab model (SVT4PRO and dual Ampeg 4x10 cabs with different mics) and the other half goes through heavier compression (deluxe comp) and the excellent Noble DI model.
After that it all goes though an eq block for hpf/lpf and the LA2A compressor model. This is set to limit and barely hits 1 or 2db gain reduction. TBH, I could probably get rid of this block - I think it's more of placebo!
I have an Ampeg Optocomp model in my main signal path after distortions (which sit in a crossover split). This particular model has a smooth action that retains more low end than the other compressors, much like having an hpf sidechain. I've got it on "gentle to medium" settings, with a little clean blend, just to reign the dynamic range in slightly and fatten things up (I have to guess, as I'm at work, but I think it's around 70:30 wet/dry).
Then further down the signal path I have another split that's mixed 50:50. One half goes through an amp and cab model (SVT4PRO and dual Ampeg 4x10 cabs with different mics) and the other half goes through heavier compression (deluxe comp) and the excellent Noble DI model.
After that it all goes though an eq block for hpf/lpf and the LA2A compressor model. This is set to limit and barely hits 1 or 2db gain reduction. TBH, I could probably get rid of this block - I think it's more of placebo!
I think I’m mostly in-line with you;
Compression by its own is; in my opinion, a way to compensate for some flaw in the signal. And it baffles me when some find it so fantastic when it does not take away dynamics.. but the whole purpose of compression is to even an overly dynamic signal, way to speak.
Parallel compression is more of an effect rather than a correction tool. once you add it through means of a parallel buss your treating it like a time based effect.
It’s definitely a trend in live mixing. When the main focus is trying to make space for everyone to be hear, I’m not sure why is everybody so hyped to go that route. Tuning a spot on compression can be very tricky, just by its own, let alone turning it into an effect. FOH I rarely use it, and if I do I mainly do it on vocals.
On bass, I’d rather push the gain stages on my chain, than waste money on an expensive piece of equipment, that in the end isn’t doing its primary job.
Just for fun (and science!), created a preset with 3 parallel paths on an ML10X:
- Clean
- SA Bass ZIO (bumped up the bass and treble, mid scoop turned on) into a heavily compressed Cali76
- Mix previous 2 paths into Doc Lloyd DLA-2A with light compression
I think I’m mostly in-line with you;
Compression by its own is; in my opinion, a way to compensate for some flaw in the signal. And it baffles me when some find it so fantastic when it does not take away dynamics.. but the whole purpose of compression is to even an overly dynamic signal, way to speak.
Parallel compression is more of an effect rather than a correction tool. once you add it through means of a parallel buss your treating it like a time based effect.
It’s definitely a trend in live mixing. When the main focus is trying to make space for everyone to be hear, I’m not sure why is everybody so hyped to go that route. Tuning a spot on compression can be very tricky, just by its own, let alone turning it into an effect. FOH I rarely use it, and if I do I mainly do it on vocals.
On bass, I’d rather push the gain stages on my chain, than waste money on an expensive piece of equipment, that in the end isn’t doing its primary job.
This is flawed and historically inaccurate thinking. Compression was actually developed early in the days of radio to simply help audio signals not overmodulate (distort), and to fit within the frequency/broadcast parameters of early AM radio. It was never to fix any 'flaws' - it was to control a signal output to fit within a format/medium. Sounds familiar, doesn't it? Compression allows us to work within bandwidth and format constraints for physical (and digital) recording/storage/broadcast mediums. The core purpose has not changed, and a properly set compressor can preserve the bulk of the dynamic range while musically and smoothly evening out the outliers. I think that a lot of people equate 'removing dynamics' regarding compression in a live setting with a heavy handed 'on/off' and stringent application of compression. That can be done with extreme settings, and unfortunately it is overdone.... but a compressor can also be set to do its job and preserve overall dynamics while just touching everything else, in a way that can make everything more present, without removing the WIDER range in general. That's where the person using the tool has to use their ears and their discretion. Pushing the gain stages on your chain isn't going to replace a compressor... in fact, it could introduce a lot of situations where you might actually need a compressor in the end.
https://vintageking.com/blog/2024/03/the-history-of-compressors-in-the-studio
Last edited:
I refuted it, actually. Your assertion is that compression is there to 'fix some flaw in the signal'. Dynamics are not a flaw. Adjusting a signal's dynamic range to fit within a certain restrictive 'box' like radio, or media like vinyl or a CD is not 'fixing a flaw'. A flaw in a signal would be a click, or a pop, or a buzz... all things that compression will ENHANCE rather than correct.
My assertion is way more than that. This thread is about PARALLEL compression. I may have use “flaw” in lack of a better term; but that’s pretty clear in my comment.
But since you’re insisting; I’ll insist that you should re-read the article you linked.
“They keep our mixes from clipping, smooth uneven dynamics,…”; “Peaks in the program audio could cause the radio signal to become over-modulated, distorting the broadcast.”; etc…
It lets very clear the original use of a compressor; and most of all it also puts it very upfront, the frivolous hype on parallel compression. All those legendary compressor mentioned, let very little way to justify parallel compression. Apart from compressing the signal each their on way, they also amplify the signal leaving their signature coloring to the sound.
Also, if you look closely, you will notice that many; if not most; have “Amplifier” in their names; some just yeild the suffix A. So basically we are talking about gain staging.
Also, in that detailed essay they mention a producer that I’m found of: Tchad Blake, and yes, he uses the Level-loc aggressively and in all its glory. Ironically he surely makes use of parallel busses for his purposes, still, we’re not in the subtle refined tone layering, you seem to advocate.
So, no, there is nothing wrong with complex chains, in which one can rapidly lose hand on what’s going on.
I much prefer make use of the natural compression and harmonic enhancement of a good pedal format pre-amp, and leave the compressors do their thing.
ps. The toggle switch on the Seymour Duncan SC is not a multi-band. It a band selector. Normally, when one refer to multiband it’s implicit there are at least two compressor. One for each band, and those bands are often variable.
Amplification is part and parcel of compression - i.e. makeup gain. Without makeup gain, you would get a progressively quieter signal versus what went in, and would have to amplify it again down the line for proper gain staging. Most people who use a compressor WANT some sort of signature coloring to the sound. The fact that you don't doesn't make the process (or the compressors mentioned) irrelevant, except for your purposes/tastes.
I assume that the 'natural compression and harmonic enhancement of a good pedal format pre-amp' is referring to a pedal format tube preamp where the tube actually does something - like in the EBS ValveDrive (a pedal I love and use a lot for the same reasons)? So you DO like color and compression as long as it's not a formal 'compressor' doing the job. Got it.
I really admire your attempt at being needlessly pedantic regarding the term 'multi-band', particularly when referencing a reply on this thread that didn't concern you directly at all. One of my favorite true 'multi-band' compressors is the classic Drawmer 1973 so yes - I know what I meant, and I also know what I mean when discussing formal 'multiband compressors'. And I referred to the switch on the Seymour Duncan offhandedly as a 'multi-band' switch, because it switches among MULTIple different frequency BANDS for the sake of discussion.