Just want to make sure I'm not going crazy
![Shocked :shock:](./images/smilies/icon_eek.gif)
You got it exactly right. The lowest segment lighting means it's already 3 dB GR. I find for many things I like to "just" light the first LED, and use RMS (not Peak) mode.xRwu8 wrote:I'm a newbie mixing with the SSL (which is pretty enjoyable) but I'm a bit confused about the meter in the dynamics section. Supposedly the meter lights up when the compressor is actively applying compression, but it I can hear it working well before the lowest yellow light is lit. Is that correct? Is the lowest yellow light like 3db compression or something, and it's already working before that lights up?
Just want to make sure I'm not going crazy
Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…scifunk wrote:Run the dynamics section post EQ and Inserts, crank the ratio fully clockwise, the release fully anti clockwise and then slowly dial in the threshold for a very nice final touch of compression - #1 light or less is enough.
There is a form of "auto makeup gain" with that compressor, but it's not always going to get it right (just like every other auto-gain system I'm aware of that works in real time).xRwu8 wrote:This is a huge help, thanks! And the make-up gain is not editable, correct? If not I'll just insert an instance of Selig Gain to get levels where I need them
I know this is a subjective question, but is it more common for Compression to happen after EQ?selig wrote:Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…scifunk wrote:Run the dynamics section post EQ and Inserts, crank the ratio fully clockwise, the release fully anti clockwise and then slowly dial in the threshold for a very nice final touch of compression - #1 light or less is enough.
It can be very subjective, and in fact there are those who claim one or the other is better. Personally, I'm more of a "use the one that sounds best" type, and frequently audition both options before deciding.Abstrax wrote:I know this is a subjective question, but is it more common for Compression to happen after EQ?selig wrote:Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…scifunk wrote:Run the dynamics section post EQ and Inserts, crank the ratio fully clockwise, the release fully anti clockwise and then slowly dial in the threshold for a very nice final touch of compression - #1 light or less is enough.
Word. I did some googles on it for a little bit. I like this approach from softube's website...selig wrote: One thing's for sure, and that is that the difference is most evident when there's a greater amount of processing begin done on both EQ and compression end. If one or the other isn't that intense, the difference is less intense as well. Makes sense when you think about it!
This is what I like to do. Precise cuts and HP/LP as inserts along with FX before the SSL dynamics section, going into the SSL EQ last to make tracks sit right in the mix.xRwu8 wrote:I've always heard that a common method is 1) EQ (cut) > 2) Compression > 3) EQ (boost/shape/cut) with #1 being optional and used to prevent unwanted frequencies from triggering the compressor and being amplified by it.
Putting EQ before the dynamics will change the compressiom each time you change the EQ, putting the compressor before the EQ leaves both uncorrelated. Dynamics before EQ is kind of the standard, definitely for live desks.Aikmofobi wrote:This is what I like to do. Precise cuts and HP/LP as inserts along with FX before the SSL dynamics section, going into the SSL EQ last to make tracks sit right in the mix.xRwu8 wrote:I've always heard that a common method is 1) EQ (cut) > 2) Compression > 3) EQ (boost/shape/cut) with #1 being optional and used to prevent unwanted frequencies from triggering the compressor and being amplified by it.
Always did find dynamics -> eq -> inserts strange.
Am I the strange one?
That approach may indeed work well for mastering when you don't necessarily want to hear either the effects of the compression or the EQ.Abstrax wrote:Word. I did some googles on it for a little bit. I like this approach from softube's website...selig wrote: One thing's for sure, and that is that the difference is most evident when there's a greater amount of processing begin done on both EQ and compression end. If one or the other isn't that intense, the difference is less intense as well. Makes sense when you think about it!
http://www.softube.com/index.php?id=eq_ ... compressor
"Placing an EQ after a compressor you can often attain more audible results with less EQ, (and therefor fewer EQ artifacts), producing results that often do not "sound EQ'ed". Most mastering engineers EQ post compression in order to enact the most change with the least EQ.
To understand this technically, think of a compressor and EQ as one integrated unit. Placing the EQ before the compression in this view is like a having a compressor with a frequency dependent threshold. An EQ boost (for example) will send more signal at that frequency to the compressor, which in turn will react to this increase in level and try to control the output level by compressing more, often thwarting the intention of the knob-turner."
Users browsing this forum: deigm and 9 guests