# Compressors for orchestral/soundtrack music



## bluejay (Jan 14, 2008)

Hi everyone,

Just really looking for suggestions for good compressors for orchestral and soundtrack music.

Really looking to keep control of my brass section and perhaps compress the cello/basses a little. 

At the moment I have nothing more than the free stuff that comes with Cubase and Voxengo Elephant 2 (which is really a mastering limiter anyway).

All advice welcome!


----------



## Daryl (Jan 14, 2008)

bluejay @ Mon Jan 14 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Just really looking for suggestions for good compressors for orchestral and soundtrack music.
> 
> ...


Try the demo of Sonnox.

D


----------



## bluejay (Jan 14, 2008)

Thanks Daryl,

I'm currently using Sonnox Inflator and I have a problem where I'm unable to save (Cubase 4.1) projects if Inflator is loaded as a plugin. As a result I wasn't sure whether or not to keep using Sonnox products.

I will check it out though.


----------



## Daryl (Jan 14, 2008)

I don't have Inflator, but I can save EQ and Dynamics within N4.1, so that ought to be the same with C4.1.

D


----------



## bluejay (Jan 14, 2008)

Hi there, I've tried out the Sonnox Dynamics demo plugin but I'm having the same problem again.

Not sure what is causing this but whenever I try to save the Cubase project it simply hangs with the cursor in egg-timer mode and never completes. 

Might be a conflict with something else but I'm not sure what.


----------



## Bruce Richardson (Jan 14, 2008)

Waves...can't go wrong.


----------



## Mahlon (Jan 15, 2008)

What's the wup? Waves Ugrade Policy, I assume? I couldn't find information on it.

Thanks,
Mahlon


----------



## JohnG (Jan 15, 2008)

just saw an article in Sound On Sound that strongly recommends NO compression on classical recordings and just using fader rides (automated) to boost the low stuff and, if necessary ride down any really loud ambient bits. If you must, use at most 1.1:1 ratio, according to the article.

Also urges that the lows be boosted by no more than 6 dB.


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 15, 2008)

I have tried various mic techniques to get the most realistic reproduction of the orchestral/band soundstage through speakers and can say that one CAN get a panoramic full sound but it is NOT a trivial matter and tends to involve multiple microphones and careful placement. It is not "real", it is merely intended to SOUND "real".

So even at the point of capturing the sound, what mics you use and how you set up the mics to craft a particular sound is ALREADY "creating a work of art".

When working with samples, the sample developers have already left their mark on the sound by their recording techniques, distances, and even whether the samples are isolated-mono or stereo-in-place-with-reverb. You're already acting as mix engineer in combining samples from various sources. _It's a composite work of art._

So I wouldn't worry so much about amounts of compression and EQ from the Sound-On-Sound perspective of "keeping it exactly real" -- the question is, _in creating that "work of art", what you would like the listener to experience._

If the recording needs a bit more bass or treble, so be it. You may well NEED that EQ to compensate for microphone/signalchain frequency response and room modes.

If you use compression, consider multiband compression.

-Peter


----------



## Stephen Rees (Jan 15, 2008)

Another thumbs up for the Sonnox plugs. I have used the EQ, Dynamics and Mastering Limiter on everything I've done since I got them about 6 months ago.


----------



## JohnG (Jan 15, 2008)

re-peat @ 15th January 2008 said:


> John,
> 
> With all due respect - and certainly not wanting to question yours or SOS's expertise in the matter - but most of us here are not in the business of making classical recordings. Even if some of us hope that their music eventually will sound more or less like an orchestral recording, in reality it still is _electronic_ music. And as such, it can benefit greatly from the skillful use of good compressors.
> 
> _



Nice tone. I didn't say anything about what you or I do, just classical recordings. Sheesh


----------



## misterbee (Jan 16, 2008)

[Disclaimer: I'm certainly not claiming to be an expert on this... very far from it, but its just the way I see it.]

I can't imagine the compressor that comes with Cubase is colourful enough to make it useless in these situations (or any number of other freeware compressors if you don't like the Cubase one). 

Compression on classical recordings is typically very mild, if there at all - and for good reason - classical ensembles balance themselves. Timbre has a lot to do with composition and dynamic markings. With sample technology the same rules apply - if trumpets are playing ff, they're going to blast the hell out of the violins, just like in real life. If you want to hear the violins, you need to write quieter parts for the trumpets. Sound intensity has a lot to do with the volume at which notes are played. If you want a really bright, brash tone from the trumpets, mark the parts ff - or don't mark anything - trumpets will assume they're ff unless told otherwise  but don't expect the quieter members of the orchestra to be heard over them. Recordings of classical ensembles are generally intended to be a realistic interpretation of the sound stage. Therefore, getting an ff timbre at a pp volume is just going to sound wrong.

Compression on sound tracks might ultimately be much greater than a classical recording in its own right, but I don't see why that is your problem. Surely the final mix, and final compression needs to be applied in the mastering stage - that is when the foley and dialog tracks are there. So, again, you might want to apply a really tiny bit of compression to just give a balance, but the final mix (whether you like it or not) is down to the movie people.


----------



## aeneas (Jan 16, 2008)

misterbee @ Wed 16 Jan said:


> Compression on classical recordings is typically very mild, if there at all - and for good reason - classical ensembles balance themselves.


That is one reason. Another reason for not using compression in classical mixes would be: dynamic contrast is very important in classical music. Compression is a means to flatten the sound intensity of an instrument, or of an ensemble. Contrary to the myth, compression does not increase loudness but REDUCES it. Loudness is a relative thing, is a matter of proportion: A is louder than B, B is softer than A. No such things as 'loud' and 'soft', only 'louder' and 'softer'. Compression decreases the louder sounds (A) so that they become less louder than the softer sounds (B) - making everything more or less flat. Classical music is not supposed to be flat - that might be the main reason against the use of compression in classical mixes.

However, compression is an aesthetic tool that can be used for departing from classical standards. Who said that the only desirable sound to achieve is the classical sound? Who said that the classical sound is better than the hip-hop sound? Better for who? So what if I choose to mix a heavy compressed string quartet with a non-compressed voice? When it comes to creativity, there is only one rule: No rules!


----------



## re-peat (Jan 16, 2008)

Every recording on earth is compressed to some extent. The simple act of recording is already a form of compression. Every microphone is a compressor. Furthermore, there are to my knowledge no 'popular' media commercialy available that can faithfully reproduce the full dynamics of a real, live orchestra (provided those dynamics can be recorded, to begin with). Hence the need for more compression.
But even so, none of this has any relevance whatsoever to Bluejay's original question, inquiring about a decent compressor so that he can improve the sound of his virtual orchestra. It's a perfectly sensible question and the answer, I think, lies not in the wisdom that classical recordings usually see far less use of compressors than is customary for many other types of music.

_


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Jan 16, 2008)

Composerdude, good post. Like to hear more of your experiences and thoughts on the art (as in artificially creating) compelling soundstages. 

Like Aenaes said, no rules. Only objectives: if you want to sound like Hans Zimmer, EQ, compress, limit, inflate, and re-amp your strings through an AC30.  If you want to sound like Deutsche Gramaphone, maybe a little 1.1:1.

Think you have to know your audience. Listening to so many soundtracks, I'm a little startled these days putting on a pukka classical release and walking away, then having to run back to turn it down when they reach a double forte. Classical aficianados allow for that dynamic range, the rest do not these days. 

To be honest, a more limited dynamic range is kind of a convenience at times, because to accomodate the loud bits at a volume that doesn't disturb others you've got to have a pretty low noise floor to hear the pianissimo passages! I've found myself "riding the fader" when listening to a classical release with the a/c on and somebody in the next room to consider...


----------



## rayinstirling (Jan 16, 2008)

re-peat @ Wed Jan 16 said:


> Every recording on earth is compressed to some extent. The simple act of recording is already a form of compression. Every microphone is a compressor. Furthermore, there are to my knowledge no 'popular' media commercialy available that can faithfully reproduce the full dynamics of a real, live orchestra (provided those dynamics can be recorded, to begin with). Hence the need for more compression.
> _


I'm not following this, I must be missing something here.

How do you solve or correct compression with more compression.


----------



## re-peat (Jan 16, 2008)

The compression that's inherent to recording isn't 'a problem' (unless you work with very peculiar equipment) and there's no need to solve or correct it. Compression is applied for other reasons: traditionally, to control dynamics - subtly or drastically - or to introduce a certain colour or dynamic characteristic (the reason why some compressoròŠ   lŠçŠ   lŠèŠ   lŠéŠ   lŠêŠ   lŠëŠ   lŠìŠ   lŠíŠ   lŠîŠ   lŠïŠ   lŠðŠ   lŠñŠ   lŠòŠ   lŠóŠ   lŠôŠ   lŠõŠ   lŠöŠ   lŠ÷Š   lŠøŠ   lŠùŠ   lŠúŠ   lŠûŠ   lŠüŠ   lŠýŠ   lŠþŠ   lŠÿŠ   l‹ Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹	Š   l‹
Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹ Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹Š   l‹


----------



## aeneas (Jan 16, 2008)

re-peat @ Wed 16 Jan said:


> Every recording on earth is compressed to some extent. The simple act of recording is already a form of compression. Every microphone is a compressor.


That is correct, but is only a small part of the picture. Here is the big picture, as I see it: 
The string of a (say) cello resists to the friction of the bow, also its metalic texture reduces that energy, so the sound is 'compressed' from the very beginning. The body of the cello does the same as it vibrates. Furthermore, between the cello's vibrating body and the microphone, there is air, and the friction among bouncing air molecules does further reduce (compress) the sound's energy. As re-peat said, microphones do compress the sound as well. Also, the speakers, as transducers, compress the sound even further. Then the sound travels again through air molecules that, once again, do compress the sound. And that's not all: when the poor maltreated sound, panting, finally reaches to the listener, what does the listener's eardrum do? Guess - it reduces the already weakened energy of the sound even more, i.e. some more compression. Do you think that's it? No! As if all that mechanical compression was not enough, there comes the hammer of the psychological (psychoacoustic) compression embedded in humans' way of hearing. So there!

As you can see, everything about acoustics is like: compression after compression after compression after compression ... : 
string, 
instrument's body, 
air, 
microphone, 
speaker, 
air again, 
eardrum, 
internal ear. 
Now, after the sound is compressed so heavily, EIGHT TIMES, my question falls sharp as a guillotine: Why would you want to compress that so savagely abused sound THE NINTH TIME in your mix, stupid?! Answer: Because I can!!


----------



## ComposerDude (Jan 16, 2008)

Thanks JohnnyMarks, a few posts ago...in answer to your question (a thread within a thread...):

At least two general schools of thought on orchestral mixing: 1) 'you are there' vs. 2) 'they are here'.

The first method attempts to recreate to some degree the listening experience from the audience position. The second can be a synthetic mix that brings the orchestra up close to the speakers.

The typical Decca Tree mix relies on the tree tower mics (spaced-quasi-omni L and R, plus a slightly forward C that's mixed-in with the other two to fill in the "hole in the middle" and establish a solid center), and then spot mics added for detail. The spots are fairly close to the instruments (still can be 3-6 feet away for blend); the tree tower is usually at the conductor position and picks up more ambient sound. The tree mics do the heavy-lifting to establish soundstage depth and the spots add precision.

Most of my recording has been in this style with some variations.

You can also create a closer-to-the-speakers sound with a good set of spot mics panned appropriately and reverb added. I have heard a cue by Ian Livingstone that, if I recall correctly, had to be built entirely from the spots due to some acoustic problem affecting the main mics -- yet his mix was brilliantly done. Spots create a more "in your face" sound since the instrument direct sound dominates over the ambient. IIRC Michael Giacchino's soundstage engineer tends toward spot miking versus the Decca Tree, for the improved proximity with spots.

So you can get artistically useful results from various methods, the point being that in all of them, rarely is it as simple as just putting up a single microphone and pressing 'record'. Different recording techniques affect how the sound will reproduce through this amazing but artificial playback system (considering just stereo for the moment) of just two 'point sources': your speakers. It seems rather a miracle that two speakers can evoke such depth and present a soundstage in front of you, but good recordings can do precisely that.

The exact placement, distance, angle, microphone type, etc. can influence the sound and this all is part of the art of audio engineering...and why I mentioned that a recording is designed to sound "real" when reproduced via speakers, but the requisite multi-mic placement is normally quite different from just putting a mic at a seat in the audience.

There IS a whole additional discussion regarding microphones embedded in a mannequin head, designed to capture "head related transfer functions", which COULD possibly capture the experience from an audience seat, if heard through headphones. Possibly some classical recordings are done that way, but I haven't yet heard of soundstage recording using that technique. Probably film audiences expect greater crispness and clarity than you would achieve by recording in the audience area where hall acoustics heavily contribute to the sound.

Hope this helps...

-Peter


----------



## misterbee (Jan 16, 2008)

Okay, so here's another question for Bluejay. Have you tried the compressor that comes with Cubase and is there a reason you don't like it?

btw these seem to be good for free - http://antress.webng.com/download.html


----------



## bluejay (Jan 17, 2008)

Hi all,

Thanks for the answers.

To be absolutely honest one of my main reasons for wanting to use a compressor is due to that massive dynamic range that people have already brought up. The music I write is usually designed to accompany other things (such as dialog) and often doesn't have the headroom for that kind of range.

I do understand the 'riding the faders' technique but until this post I really hadn't known that's what was going on. I just assumed it was a very transparent compressor on the brass. Given the way that the brass sound changes at high levels, it's often easy enough to give the effect of very loud brass without actually needing the associated volume. I assumed that a good compressor would do this.

Anyway, thank you all for the answers here.


----------



## Peter Emanuel Roos (Jan 19, 2008)

Consider using low to moderate compression on instrument groups (busses or inputs).
For the mix, experiment with gentle upward compression. This often works nicely to control the dynamic range and to lift the softer passages with some 3-4 dB. However, a risk is (with improper settings) is that you can sometimes hear it in the reverb after tutti short notes.

I recently bought the Sonnox Inflator and find it can really add life to a mix, but I also find it quite hard to find good settings. For Remote Control "noise" you really should have it! I sometimes use PSP vintagewarmer on my string sections to add more grittyness, which can work great (the next step is indeed to run the sound through an AC30  )


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 21, 2008)

bluejay @ Thu Jan 17 said:


> Hi all,
> 
> Thanks for the answers.
> 
> To be absolutely honest one of my main reasons for wanting to use a compressor is due to that massive dynamic range that people have already brought up. The music I write is usually designed to accompany other things (such as dialog) and often doesn't have the headroom for that kind of range.



You mean your music is lacking dynamics or your music has too much dynamics?

Because if you say your music does not have headroom it means it is relatively compressed already.


----------



## bluejay (Jan 22, 2008)

Hannes, I'm saying that my music has too much dynamics.


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 22, 2008)

Hehe, I can relate.

Best thing probably is to ride the buss faders before the reverb.


----------



## bluejay (Jan 22, 2008)

Thanks Hannes. I'm often writing music that's designed to sit in the background for narration yet I'm also asked for real drama... brass swells, etc.

I've recently been listening to some old British radio shows that had a live orchestra (The Goon Show) and the orchestra is really, really loud at times. Perhaps I should simply ask for more room for the music ...


----------



## Hannes_F (Jan 22, 2008)

bluejay @ Tue Jan 22 said:


> Thanks Hannes. I'm often writing music that's designed to sit in the background for narration yet I'm also asked for real drama... brass swells, etc.
> 
> I've recently been listening to some old British radio shows that had a live orchestra (The Goon Show) and the orchestra is really, really loud at times. Perhaps I should simply ask for more room for the music ...



Jay, I think we must try to sort the things into their right order. 

Is your music really too loud in the loud places? Then you must insert downwards compression into the brass buss and/or ride the gains.

Or do you rather need to have a conference with your producer or director about what is the role of your music in the end product? If it has a major role in describing what is happening inside the protagonists then it has to be loud sometimes.

There are different schools of filmmaking and sound. People that come from documentary tend to get the things objectively. Sound will be filled with lots of details of what is going on, and then, far back, comes some music. Way down in the priority list.

People that come from narrating styles of film have a much more subjective and emotional approach. For them music can sometimes be more important than all the sound details that would be in the scene if being filmed objectively. And if it is higher in the priority list then it will be louder here and there.

So I depends on the context, and I would communicate with them intensely what exactly their approach and wish is. I have done that once and it worked wonders.

Hannes


----------



## bluejay (Jan 22, 2008)

Thanks for the advice Hannes. I will definitely chat with the guys involved.


----------



## David A (Feb 15, 2008)

Any thoughts on the quality of Waves L2/LinMB?

A lot of this depends on your monitoring setup-when mixing you'll need monitors that will give you an accurate sonic picture that will translate across audio systems.

Dave A.


----------

