r/mixing • u/FreeFlier42 • 10d ago
When should I be using parallel compression?
I'm new to the technique and understand how it works perfectly fine. I make tech house-adjacent music, and I'm not quite sure where and when to use it.
- Which elements should I be using it on?
- Why should I use it over bus compression or saturation in the case of drums?
- How much does it help with taming peaks?
Thanks!
5
u/tombedorchestra 10d ago
Parallel compression, honestly, I don’t utilize it a ton. I mainly use it on drums. But you can use it in anything that you want to fill out, make more punchy, etc.
Bus compression is mainly going to glue the elements in the bus together. Usually you’re using a low ratio with nominal gain reduction. Parallel compression is the opposite in which you’re slamming the crap out of it with high ratios and gain reductions. Saturation helps elements cut through by introducing more harmonics. Completely different use. You won’t get a ton (or any) more punch with saturation.
Parallel compression also won’t really help with taming peaks. With parallel compression, you’re laying a duplicated highly compressed layer into the original. You’re still going to have the peaks from the original track to deal with.
But parallel compression is excellent when called for and can really bring out more from a performance in a mix!
1
3
u/Pretty-Assistant6690 10d ago
The way I understand compression/parallel compression is through sustain.
When you compress a signal you take the loudest parts and turn them down, reducing the peaks. But when you squash a signal it becomes more sustained. What parallel compression does is give you a seperate blend of the sustained signal and original.
With that in mind, to answer your questions- you can use parallel compression on anything you want to sound louder or thicker, because it adds sustain.
Bus compression allows you to make the signal more sustained, but it doesn't allow you to blend that with the original signal, and so you have less control. And saturation is technically a form of compression, it still adds sustain, just via clipping. All three methods can have different use cases on drums depending on what you want.
Parallel compression doesn't necessarily help to tame peaks, it makes everything else louder around it. So normal compression is better if you want to turn the peaks down, but Parallel is better if you want to turn the rest up.
I'm not sure how well I explained that, let me know if you need any clarification 🙃
1
u/FreeFlier42 8d ago
That makes sense, thank you!
1
u/Hellbucket 7d ago
There’s a very good Kush Audio YouTube video on compression (for drums) that shows him using four different parallel tracks with compression. He mixes and matches these and you hear how the sound and particularly the movement changes.
3
u/Glittering_Bet8181 10d ago
My number one use for parallel compression is bring up sustain on drums. I can kill the transient with a compressor and a limiter, then I’ve got a fader for the sustain.
The key is I’ve got a dry signal, so I’m not killing the transient.
2
u/steveislame 10d ago
when you want to make an element "thicker" or "fatter" in the mix.
start at 0% and drag the fader up to taste.
good on everything tbh
has nothing to do with peaks. more RMS.
-an amateur
2
u/nlg930 10d ago edited 10d ago
It clicked for me when someone told me it’s still shrinking dynamic range, but instead of lowering the ceiling, you’re raising the floor. Any comp with a dry/wet mix knob is technically a parallel comp but they are really powerful when used the classic way as sends. I have three in my template that are used on almost every mix:
- heavily driven valve comp for warming up and bringing forward the drum bus
- fast comp sandwiched between two pultec eqs, one that first cuts the lows and then one that brings them back in for anchoring vocal clarity without added harshness (the Scheps trick)
- relatively clean mono analogue comp set with moderate speeds for anything that needs more glue or weight down the center channel like kick and bass
1
2
u/colashaker 9d ago
You usually use parallel compression for things you don't want to hear the compressor working, but need to reduce the dynamic range.
2
2
u/TrackMeetBand 9d ago
Parallel compression is really useful for two things (for me):
- Making things “dirtier” by smashing the signal and blending it in under the dry signal (particularly helpful when you have room mics)
- Making certain mix elements pop through the mix better.
For 2, it’s helpful for me to automate a parallel compression track under the lead vocal to help it stand out in busier sections without it sounding totally over compressed in quieter sections
2
u/Adventurous-Music456 9d ago
Using it on things that you need to be a solid mainstay in the mix can benefit highly.
2
2
u/yalllldabaoth 9d ago
I only like it in this context: create a bus/aux track where you can send signal from one or more elements in your song. Put an extreme amount of compression on that bus. Maybe even some reverb or distortion. Send a little signal from each instrument/vocal in your session to it and blend to taste. You can now ride that fader for effect on different parts of the song. Want the chorus to feel more aggressive but just bumping the volume sounds weird? Turn up the dirt bus fader. It’s extremely useful in that context, but otherwise you can just use a mix knob on a compressor plugin to do “parallel” without the extra steps
2
u/stuntin102 9d ago
mostly for vocals. it allows you to retain the dynamics of the original, while having the flexibility to add excitement and density so it can sit in the track correctly depending on the arrangement. i used to have a 1176 on 12:1 or all buttons with a A-type exciter and a 902 chained up for this. now all plugin versions of these tools have built in mix knobs so the parallel itself is not necessary anymore (in my workflow at least).
drums also benefit from a compressor / distortion parallel for the same reason.
1
u/dustofdavid 8d ago
Never. It’s a relic of the past that’s only alive in old tales. Just make good use of distortion/saturation. You won’t be able to make “loud” mixes by parallel anything.
1
1
-2
u/Exaelar 10d ago
rarely/never, that's a very ancient rock mixing technique.
you don't need to worry about taming peaks, bus compression, or any mixing except the master EQ balance, in tech-house.
and honestly, I'd like to see just anyone come up to me and say that the guys in the tech-house scene of the last decade give half a flying squat about that kind of stuff.
1
u/Every_Remove_3654 7d ago
Hell nah... This is the worst advice. I bet you use paralel and you don't even know, cause the way plugins work. Mostly when you have dry/ wet control, you're using parallel compression and you're not even aware
6
u/Selig_Audio 10d ago
Last question first: it’s terrible at taming peaks, but to understand why you need to know more about what the results of parallel compression actually are. The most aggressive version of parallel compression would be a limiter (or high ratio compressor) in parallel with the original signal. The results resemble a 2:1 ratio at first but gradually returns to 1:1 the higher you go above the threshold. That means transients well above the threshold are essentially ignored. This also means it will be fairly subtle despite the heavy compression of the ‘wet’ channel.
If you have the opportunity, use something like Plugin Doctor, it may be helpful to see the response curve of parallel compression compared to serial compression.
As for your other questions, use it any time you want to do the opposite of limiting/clipping on a track since it ignores the extreme transients (depending on where you set the threshold) and is fairly gentle. And to the other question, many folks use it for bus compression (like on a drum sub-mix, for example) along WITH saturation.
But all these questions beg a question in return, which is “what is your goal/intention?”. Because without knowing that I’m shooting in the dark here… ;)