Meter in SSL mixer's Dynamics section

[xRwu8]

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

[selig]

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

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.

FWIW, the meters are calibrated thusly:
#1 = 3 dB
#2 = 6 dB
#3 = 10 dB
#4 = 14 dB
#5 = 20 dB

[scifunk]

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.

[xRwu8]

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

[selig]

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.

Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…

[selig]

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

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).

[Abstrax]

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.

Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…

I know this is a subjective question, but is it more common for Compression to happen after EQ?

[selig]

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.

Probably the way I've used the SSL dynamics the most for the past few decades…

I know this is a subjective question, but is it more common for Compression to happen after EQ?

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.

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!

[Abstrax]

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!

Word. I did some googles on it for a little bit. I like this approach from softube's website...

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."

[xRwu8]

Great info @Abstrax, thanks for including that link and excerpt.

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.

[Aikmofobi]

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.

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.

Always did find dynamics -> eq -> inserts strange.
Am I the strange one?

[normen]

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.

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.

Always did find dynamics -> eq -> inserts strange.
Am I the strange one?

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.

I personally only do it the other way around when I do severe cutting (and the compressor still reacts mainly to what I cut) and obviously for bus and master compression (where you always have EQing before).

[Aikmofobi]

Exactly. It depends on what you're after.

Why would I want to put the compressor on a crap signal? Fix it with inserts, compress it, then mix it. With the exception being, as you say, the master bus comp. I don't want the compressor to react to frequencies which will be cut anyway, though I guess that could be used as a form of ghetto sidechaining.

What I don't get is why inserts would be last.

[selig]

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!

Word. I did some googles on it for a little bit. I like this approach from softube's website...

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."

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.

But I find exactly the opposite to work for me more often on individual tracks: putting the EQ first can help drive the compressor harder by reinforcing the key frequencies of the sound source (and thus achieving a more obviously "compressed" sound). To be clear, this is something I more often do when trying to INCREASE dynamic range with a compressor rather than decrease it (as one is more likely to be doing during mastering). By using a longer attack and shorter release, you can add attack and bring up sustain, which can increase rather than decrease dynamics.

In the end, BOTH approaches work but give different results, and are both are very dependent on not only the source, the amount of EQ/Dynamics being applied, but also on the desired outcome.

The BEST advice I ever got on the subject was to always compare the processing order, and choose the one that best achieved your specific goals using the specific settings on the specific source material. Best advice ever!

[scifunk]

I feel you need to shape the sound with HP and LP filters and EQ before running it in to compressor so unwanted frequencies arent affecting the compressors function adversely. I might then add a touch of EQ to get a sound sitting right. I dont tend to use send and return fx for 'static' affect, and use individual reverbs/delay on every sound so that I can then compress them in one with the SSL as previously mentioned.