Parallel Compression – what’s really going on?

[MassiveSoundStudios]

I remember hearing/experiencing something weird with the Spider Audio Meger/Splitter. It had something to do with using it outside of a mixerchannel insert. Phasing or a delay of sorts, I think. I don't really remember what the bug actually did. Is this the same bug or is this a different bug?

[Marco Raaphorst]

I remember hearing/experiencing something weird with the Spider Audio Meger/Splitter. It had something to do with using it outside of a mixerchannel insert. Phasing or a delay of sorts, I think. I don't really remember what the bug actually did. Is this the same bug or is this a different bug?

Not sure. Here's an example of the bug:

[Marco Raaphorst]

That's why I love listening tests Just listen and your ears will guide you.

WRT the spider bug that is certainly a long-standing issue that the Props have been made aware of several times. We've got plenty of 3rd party RE spiders now though that don't suffer from the same issue.

Why isn't it fixed then yet?

[Ostermilk]

WRT the spider bug that is certainly a long-standing issue that the Props have been made aware of several times. We've got plenty of 3rd party RE spiders now though that don't suffer from the same issue.

Why isn't it fixed then yet?

Good question...

I just use one of the others,, JiggeryPokery's mostly.

[Ahornberg]

I remember hearing/experiencing something weird with the Spider Audio Meger/Splitter. It had something to do with using it outside of a mixerchannel insert. Phasing or a delay of sorts, I think. I don't really remember what the bug actually did. Is this the same bug or is this a different bug?

Not sure. Here's an example of the bug:

In the 6:2 mixer you have soloed channel 1, so channel 2 is muted ... maybe that's the problem?

[Marco Raaphorst]

Not sure. Here's an example of the bug:

In the 6:2 mixer you have soloed channel 1, so channel 2 is muted ... maybe that's the problem?

When channel 2 is muted it shouldn't change the sound when something is plugged into that muted channel right?

[Ahornberg]

In the 6:2 mixer you have soloed channel 1, so channel 2 is muted ... maybe that's the problem?

When channel 2 is muted it shouldn't change the sound when something is plugged into that muted channel right?

Yes, you're right ... I downloaded your spider-bug-song and replaced the spider by Blamsoft's audio splitter ... it seems that there's something strange going on inside the spider ... maybe use Blamsoft's audio splitter instead.

[selig]

In the 6:2 mixer you have soloed channel 1, so channel 2 is muted ... maybe that's the problem?

When channel 2 is muted it shouldn't change the sound when something is plugged into that muted channel right?

If it's the old Spider bug, what is going on is a one frame delay in one channel. The way to test this would be to run a mono sine wave through the combi, then merge the output to mono first flipping the polarity of one channel. If it's working, you'll get a PERFECT null. If not, you won't, especially if you tune the sine to a frequency related to 1/64th of the sample rate (roughly 689 Hz or 345 Hz).


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Marco Raaphorst]

Getting ever stranger, this added mix channel won't null. even without a Spider.

Check this file:

Wont-null.reason.zip

(32.72 KiB) Downloaded 133 times

[selig]

Getting ever stranger, this added mix channel won't null. even without a Spider.

Check this file:
Wont-null.reason.zip

It won't null because the polarity button you used is "pre" the insert return that you're using, so it won't affect the audio and thus no null.
To "fix" the setup, use a Thor or RE to flip polarity instead.

[Marco Raaphorst]

Getting ever stranger, this added mix channel won't null. even without a Spider.

Check this file:
Wont-null.reason.zip

It won't null because the polarity button you used is "pre" the insert return that you're using, so it won't affect the audio and thus no null.
To "fix" the setup, use a Thor or RE to flip polarity instead.

thanks.

yes my combi won't null when flipping the phase on one of its output using a mono sine as input. I guess it is caused by the Spider. hope it will be fixed. maybe via Spider MKII or something like that.

[selig]

While creating a Dry/Mix combinator to compare both settings I discovered a Spider bug.

Download this file:
Spider Bug.reason.zip

open the Reason song
press play
listen to the sound
now connect Spider Output 2 Left to Line Mixer 1 Channel 2 Left input
connect Spider Output 2 Right 1 to Line Mixer 1 Channel 2 Right input

Listen to how only the left channel is effected! flip the rack and see that Line Mixer 1 Channel 2 is even muted!

I reported the bug to the Props. I am afraid it will not be fixed because they are afraid it will affect people using such a config in old songs...

Just checked with the test I outlined above, and I can confirm it's the one frame delay bug as expected.

[selig]

It won't null because the polarity button you used is "pre" the insert return that you're using, so it won't affect the audio and thus no null.
To "fix" the setup, use a Thor or RE to flip polarity instead.

thanks.

yes my combi won't null when flipping the phase on one of its output using a mono sine as input. I guess it is caused by the Spider. hope it will be fixed. maybe via Spider MKII or something like that.

I would hope they would simply add a "compatible" switch like on the ReMix EQ - wish they would do the same for Scream!

[Ostermilk]

As always, I’m open to suggestions as to how to improve this test or reasons why my test is not valid – let the conversation begin!

To get back to the actual topic, this is why the test isn't valid. I'm going to use the illustrations from the SOS article (so acknowledgements to Hugh Robjohns and the SOS website for those) to show what is going on if both compressed and uncompressed channels are set to unity gain to avoid being skewed on the subject by variable gain relationships between the two signals and just talk about only about compression make-up gain from an identical starting point from both channels.

Remember that the original test didn't start from a perfect null anyway, and just to illustrate the small amount of deviation when no make up gain is applied to the compressed channel and the threshold is set to -23 db at a ratio of 50:1 we see this curve from the SOS article.



The straight diagonal plot is of course the unprocessed signal and the purple dotted line is showing the compressed channel, the green line is just demonstrating a compressor on an insert but it's the red line that is is starting to show 'what's really going on'. It's showing the 6 db of gain added as a result of adding the two signals together below the threshold as we would expect and it's showing a gentle deviation from the straight compressed insert which has 6 db of make-up gain applied.

This is where I believe the test in the RT article is invalid. The deviation is so slight that given a not so perfect null at the start you can achieve as bad a null as before just by altering the ratio on the non-parallel compressor used for the comparison. Not only that the article implies that all parallel compression does is equate to changing the ration on an inline compressor yet it doesn't show how you'd use a parallel setup to change ratio in any meaningful way, nor does it demonstrate at all anything of 'what is really going on'

So now we move on to adjusting the make-up gain on the parallel compressor and we see that the gentle curve when no make-up is applied start to accentuate into a form that more resembles upward compression and will also largely retain the transients.

So this graph shows what happens when extra make-up gain is applied to the compressed channel, set with a threshold of -40db and a ratio of 50:1, this plot was originally done with extra identical parallel compressors, the green lines (which was later found to be unnecessary as adjusting the make-up gain on a single instance produced an identical result the dotted red lines).



The plots here show 3,6,9.5,12,14,15,17,18 db of make-up gain respectively.

Points to note are that whilst the noise floor is still going to be raised it will be considerably less than it would be using an insert compressor provided it is setup properly, there is a clear form of upward compression occuring even if not in the strict meaning of upward compression and most definitely the transient peaks are much less affected than they would be by using inline compression.

I would say however if it is true upward compression you are after the Selig's Leveller RE is excellent and I've certainly never found another device like it, but if you are a fan of the NY Compression sound there is certainly more going for it than a simple ratio adjustment.

I'd recommend using a specific compressor for it too, it seems to work best for me with a comp that doesn't mind beomg set up for a very low threshold and high ratio, so something 1176 ish but with a threshold control like the Softube FET (although I genarally use the Stilwell Rocket) is ideal, and don't forget that it is only above that threshold where the characteristic 'upward compression' transfer curve occurs. Personally the best result I've got out of using it is with pre-mixed drum material say where I want to protect a nice and delicate hi-hat pattern over monstrous pumping and breathing kicks and snares, but I'm sure many of you have found plenty of other uses for it as well.

[selig]

Not sure if you read my original post - you cannot get two parallel channels to null with the original single channel even without ANY compression or processing whatsoever. Go back and read why it's not possible - has absolutely NOTHING to do with compression, parallel or otherwise.

The reason it won't ever null is a limitation of Reason, the fact you need more resolution on the fader to hit the exact value that would be required to match gains for a perfect null.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Ostermilk]

Not sure if you read my original post - you cannot get two parallel channels to null with the original single channel even without ANY compression or processing whatsoever. Go back and read why it's not possible - has absolutely NOTHING to do with compression, parallel or otherwise.

The reason it won't ever null is a limitation of Reason, the fact you need more resolution on the fader to hit the exact value that would be required to match gains for a perfect null.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I understood very well why it wouldn't completely null without any compression because there a small margin in level differnce due to the resolution of Reason's controls without any compression on any of the channels. I got that and wasn't overlooking it in the slightest. I'm also showing (and explaining) why you can get an equally bad approximation of null just by altering the ratio on the inline compressor and comparing it with the parallel compressed pair when no make-up gain is applied.. See the first picture graph.

That part is something YOU didn't get not me. Let alone the rest of the elephant sized information I've just highlighted above which you still don't seem to get but yet seem to manage to ignore. It clearly shows that in your questionairre indeed A and B are somewhat correct and C is close but alas no cigar at all as opposed to C being the only correct answer as you asserted. C is only ever 'almost' correct partially to pretty much the same degree as setting a correct level in the SSL is, and is only ever correct in that one single circumstance where no make-up gain is applied to the parallel comressor channel.

I suggest YOU do some re-reading, start with the post above where I outline what is actually happening then refer to the original SOS article if you need further clarification.

Pehaps that's why you are inviting people to point out where your test is invalid, becuase you know full well you ain't going take a blind bit of notice of any evidence put in front of you that clearly contradicts your orignal premise. There's enough information up there to test and confirm for yourself that you are completely wide of the mark to suggest that parallel compression is merely a means to affect ratio. You're not seeing the trees here, because you are right up close to the wood.

Try it the other way round as you clearly seem to have some difficulty in reflecting on the fact that something you put out maybe subject to being flawed. So say, just for shit's and giggles to humour me, I put the original article up in the form of my last post here. Now be the great all-knowing Selig and pull it apart so everyone can see where I'm misunderstanding or have it all wrong.

Why this is worse than any of the garbage that used to go up over Learn Reason is that people are more likely to be taking notice of stuff you put up, including myself, so it's blown me away to find you've put up this article that is so wide of the mark and let it stand.

[selig]

Not sure if you read my original post - you cannot get two parallel channels to null with the original single channel even without ANY compression or processing whatsoever. Go back and read why it's not possible - has absolutely NOTHING to do with compression, parallel or otherwise.

The reason it won't ever null is a limitation of Reason, the fact you need more resolution on the fader to hit the exact value that would be required to match gains for a perfect null.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I understood very well why it wouldn't completely null without any compression because there a small margin in level differnce due to the resolution of Reason's controls without any compression on any of the channels. I got that and wasn't overlooking it in the slightest. I'm also showing (and explaining) why you can get an equally bad approximation of null just by altering the ratio on the inline compressor and comparing it with the parallel compressed pair when no make-up gain is applied.. See the first picture graph.

That part is something YOU didn't get not me. Let alone the rest of the elephant sized information I've just highlighted above which you still don't seem to get but yet seem to manage to ignore. It clearly shows that in your questionairre indeed A and B are somewhat correct and C is close but alas no cigar at all as opposed to C being the only correct answer as you asserted. C is only correct an as partially as setting a correct level in the SSL is, and is only correct in that one single circumstance where no make-up gain is applied to the parallel comressor channel.

I suggest you do some re-reading, start with the post above where I outline what is actually happening then refer to the original SOS article if you need further clarification.

Pehaps that's why you are inviting people to point out where your test is invalid, becuase you know full well you ain't going take a blind bit of notice of any evidence put in front of you that clearly contradicts your orignal premise. There's enough information up there to test and confirm for yourself that you are completely wide of the mark to suggest that parallel compression is merely a means to affect ratio. You're not seeing the trees here, because you are right up close to the wood.

Try it the other way round as you clearly seem to have some difficulty in reflecting on the fact that something you put out maybe subject to being flawed. So say, just for shit's and giggles to humour me, I put the original article up in the form of my last post here. Now be the great all-knowing Selig and pull it apart so everyone can see where I'm misunderstanding or have it all wrong.

Why this is worse than any of the garbage that used to go up over Learn Reason is that people are more likely to be taking notice of stuff you put up, including myself, so it's blown me away to find you've put up this article that is so wide of the mark and let it stand.

OK, I get it, you don't like me for some reason. But you REALLY don't have to keep being such a total dick about it. Seriously. Stop.
Ad hominem attacks only make it look like you have no footing to stand on.

Consider this a warning, possibly your final warning. If you can't express your opinion in a way that DOESN'T include trying to take someone else down, then you have no place here.

[Ostermilk]

I understood very well why it wouldn't completely null without any compression because there a small margin in level differnce due to the resolution of Reason's controls without any compression on any of the channels. I got that and wasn't overlooking it in the slightest. I'm also showing (and explaining) why you can get an equally bad approximation of null just by altering the ratio on the inline compressor and comparing it with the parallel compressed pair when no make-up gain is applied.. See the first picture graph.

That part is something YOU didn't get not me. Let alone the rest of the elephant sized information I've just highlighted above which you still don't seem to get but yet seem to manage to ignore. It clearly shows that in your questionairre indeed A and B are somewhat correct and C is close but alas no cigar at all as opposed to C being the only correct answer as you asserted. C is only correct an as partially as setting a correct level in the SSL is, and is only correct in that one single circumstance where no make-up gain is applied to the parallel comressor channel.

I suggest you do some re-reading, start with the post above where I outline what is actually happening then refer to the original SOS article if you need further clarification.

Pehaps that's why you are inviting people to point out where your test is invalid, becuase you know full well you ain't going take a blind bit of notice of any evidence put in front of you that clearly contradicts your orignal premise. There's enough information up there to test and confirm for yourself that you are completely wide of the mark to suggest that parallel compression is merely a means to affect ratio. You're not seeing the trees here, because you are right up close to the wood.

Try it the other way round as you clearly seem to have some difficulty in reflecting on the fact that something you put out maybe subject to being flawed. So say, just for shit's and giggles to humour me, I put the original article up in the form of my last post here. Now be the great all-knowing Selig and pull it apart so everyone can see where I'm misunderstanding or have it all wrong.

Why this is worse than any of the garbage that used to go up over Learn Reason is that people are more likely to be taking notice of stuff you put up, including myself, so it's blown me away to find you've put up this article that is so wide of the mark and let it stand.

OK, I get it, you don't like me for some reason. But you REALLY don't have to keep being such a total dick about it. Seriously. Stop.

Eh?

Check it out, seriously. It's all there in front of you. Liking or dislike anyone hasn't got any place in this debate. You're misleading people about the legitimate use of paralled compression and then stating you can achieve the same thing with an inline compressor and changing the ratio. WTF is going on here!

[EdGrip]

Hello!
I would like Ostermilk to be less of a dick about this, and I would also like Selig to ponder why the SOS article is wrong.
Selig - could you use two (or more) Gain REs in series to get the required fader resolution?

As for the parallel compression equivalent of changing compression ratio - presumably this is just changing the volume ratio of the two channels?
So, if you can exactly replicate the effect of a parallel compression setting with an insert compressor - you should be able to change the volume ratio of the parallel compression pair, and then adjust the insert compressor to match it.
Or, if you like, you should be able to change the ratio knob on the insert compressor, and then match it to null by adjusting the volume ratio of the parallel compression channels. Right?

[selig]

Hello!
I would like Ostermilk to be less of a dick about this, and I would also like Selig to ponder why the SOS article is wrong.
Selig - could you use two (or more) Gain REs in series to get the required fader resolution?

As for the parallel compression equivalent of changing compression ratio - presumably this is just changing the volume ratio of the two channels?
So, if you can exactly replicate the effect of a parallel compression setting with an insert compressor - you should be able to change the volume ratio of the parallel compression pair, and then adjust the insert compressor to match it.
Or, if you like, you should be able to change the ratio knob on the insert compressor, and then match it to null by adjusting the volume ratio of the parallel compression channels. Right?

This may come as a shock to some, but I thoroughly read the SOS article in preparation for this one. The ONLY point I disputed from that article, having built an upwards compressor myself, is that parallel compression using downwards compression has anything in common with upwards compression. My upwards compressor also uses parallel compression via the Blend control - does that somehow make it a "double- upwards compressor?".
But seriously, so far the only thing I can see is that you CAN get a different compression curve using parallel compression. This is obvious when trying to get a perfect null with anything but equal gain on both channels.
So no, while you can get extremely close to canceling with gains at different levels, it's not going to cancel at any setting I've found like it does when they are equal level.

That being said, in listening tests, it sounds VERY VERY similar once you get as close as you can using the null approach. I would encourage anyone interested to do a comparison test to see if they can pick the parallel compression from the insert compression. What was surprising to me, and why I wrote this article in the first place, was that you COULD null so effectively at ANY setting!

Knowing that the two approaches are SO similar (once you understand the relationship of 2:1 insert = ∞:1 parallel), you can use this knowledge to your advantage IMO.

The thing I like about parallel compression, and why I use it myself, is the flexibility to add other processes such as saturation or EQ. For MANY years my parallel channel in Pro Tools was Massey Tape and various compressors over the years (compression first, fwiw). I always use high ratios and fast time constants for parallel compression, more like brick wall limiting than compression. This was because I was told years ago about the ratio thing, and realized you could totally crush the signal on the parallel channel (I often labeled it "Drum Crush" or similar!), and blend it in with the original and get much more subtle overall compression.

And while one COULD say my approach is my way of "preserving the transients", that is only true because of my using copious amounts of saturation on the parallel channel (which of course totally destroys transients), rather than because of the compression in any way.

With this thread, my point was only to get a conversation going, and to provide insight into the parallel process - Knowledge is key!

Oh yea, your question about resolution with Selig Gain - you can't get more resolution by using two of the same resolution devices together. But you CAN use one to generate a CV, and use the CV trim on the back to reduce that CV signal to a lower level. I DID try that but was never able to get a perfect null when using ONLY parallel channels (let alone compressors!). If anyone else can do this with parallel channels in Reason I'd be interested in learning how!


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Ostermilk]

Hello!
I would like Ostermilk to be less of a dick about this, and I would also like Selig to ponder why the SOS article is wrong.
Selig - could you use two (or more) Gain REs in series to get the required fader resolution?

As for the parallel compression equivalent of changing compression ratio - presumably this is just changing the volume ratio of the two channels?
So, if you can exactly replicate the effect of a parallel compression setting with an insert compressor - you should be able to change the volume ratio of the parallel compression pair, and then adjust the insert compressor to match it.
Or, if you like, you should be able to change the ratio knob on the insert compressor, and then match it to null by adjusting the volume ratio of the parallel compression channels. Right?

So where exactly was I being a dick?

For that matter where are there any ad hominem attacks aside from me being called a dick just for the sake of negating any and all of the valid points I'd made throughout the thread?

You can read the comments I made about the SUBJECT included where I actually stated that leveller is a better device to achieve 'upward compression' but the transfer curves are undeniably showing a far more distinct variation from an inline 2:1 ratio as soon as you adjust make-up gain on the parallel compressor.

Creating a null at the outset is a non-issue on anything other than Reason where the gain resolution isn't sufficient so you may want to test that out on another DAW where you can get a perfect null. So given that you've got a null in a DAW that is capable of matching the parallel levels to the inline comparison the 2:1 ratio on the inline compressor will not null (perfectly) against the parallel tracks. (See the first graph I showed above from the SOS article.) It's close yes, but remember this is only when no make-up gain is appled to the parallel compressor. In other words a setting you wouldn't even be using in any useful parallel scenario.

Look again at the graph when different amounts of make up gain ARE applied and you'll see that there the curve becomes totally distinct from any linear ratio you will see on any in-line compressor.

So yes you can't say that parallel compression is the BEST way of preserving transients or creating upward compression but as a distinct effect that will give you aspects of both transient preservation and a faux kind of upward compression then you can understand the reasoning behind studios during the 60's, only being equipped with downward compressors, adopting this method. Not only that you will produce results that have a different character to just using inline compression, whether upward or downward.

I was going to let this thread stand as I felt the points I made were clear enough, but if people including a moderator here keep resorting to personal insults I will stand my corner! If that makes me a dick then so be it.

I'll say it again, given the questionairre, C (Another way to affect the compression ratio) is the only option that with any certainty is incorrect as it isn't a practical way of altering ratio, A and B whilst not being accurate either do contribute something of transient preservation (heck if you just reduce the level of the compressed channel, the transients in the original signal remain completely unaffected aside from the relative level) and a kind of loosely termed upward compression, especially when compared to an inline downward compressor. Regardless of whether you can say A or B are accurate one thing is for sure, by using parallel compression you will end up with a result that will be different to using a straight inline compression.

[Ostermilk]

That being said, in listening tests, it sounds VERY VERY similar once you get as close as you can using the null approach. I would encourage anyone interested to do a comparison test to see if they can pick the parallel compression from the insert compression. What was surprising to me, and why I wrote this article in the first place, was that you COULD null so effectively at ANY setting!

Rather than a listening test a better test for this would be for someone to provide a parallel compressed track and for you to obtain a null* from it using the same compressor inline. Otherwise you know what'll happen you'll get the inevitable 'this one has more 3 dimensional warmth somehow than the other') type comments which don't demonstrate anything one way or another.

*Reason's limitations in being able to produce a perfect null notwithstanding.

I've done it before by the way in another DAW with a stock compressor, and yes if might be surprising to some how close it can be and call into question whether it's even worth doing as opposed to just using an inline compressor, two things are interesting though, one is the remaindered signal even when you've got close to producing a null (it normally contains some good punchy stuff) the second is that when you alter the relative levels in the parallel path is where you start to notice that all bets are off.

So two thing are important in achieving a worthwhile effect with parallel compression (aside from having an extremely low threshold and a ratio set to limit or close to) is to apply worthwhile amounts of make up gain to the compressed signal and the other is to alter the relative levels between the two signals to taste.

I gave an example earlier where I would (and do) use it and that is where I've got a pre-mixed acoustic drum loop and I want to make the kick, snares and toms to pump and breathe like a beast, but a compressor at this setting would normally wipe out the cymbal swishes and any distinct hi-hat patterns too during the slow release I'd want for this effect, but by reducing the relative level of the compressed signal you are often able to get both things happening nicely.

[selig]

That being said, in listening tests, it sounds VERY VERY similar once you get as close as you can using the null approach. I would encourage anyone interested to do a comparison test to see if they can pick the parallel compression from the insert compression. What was surprising to me, and why I wrote this article in the first place, was that you COULD null so effectively at ANY setting!

Rather than a listening test a better test for this would be for someone to provide a parallel compressed track and for you to obtain a null* from it using the same compressor inline. Otherwise you know what'll happen you'll get the inevitable 'this one has more 3 dimensional warmth somehow than the other') type comments which don't demonstrate anything one way or another.

*Reason's limitations in being able to produce a perfect null notwithstanding.

I've done it before by the way in another DAW with a stock compressor, and yes if might be surprising to some how close it can be and call into question whether it's even worth doing as opposed to just using an inline compressor, two things are interesting though, one is the remaindered signal even when you've got close to producing a null (it normally contains some good punchy stuff) the second is that when you alter the relative levels in the parallel path is where you start to notice that all bets are off.

So two thing are important in achieving a worthwhile effect with parallel compression (aside from having an extremely low threshold and a ratio set to limit or close to) is to apply worthwhile amounts of make up gain to the compressed signal and the other is to alter the relative levels between the two signals to taste.

I gave an example earlier where I would (and do) use it and that is where I've got a pre-mixed acoustic drum loop and I want to make the kick, snares and toms to pump and breathe like a beast, but a compressor at this setting would normally wipe out the cymbal swishes and any distinct hi-hat patterns too during the slow release I'd want for this effect, but by reducing the relative level of the compressed signal you are often able to get both things happening nicely.

If you had quoted just a tiny bit more of what I said you would have answered your own question.

The line before what you quoted said this:
"So no, while you can get extremely close to canceling with gains at different levels, it's not going to cancel at any setting I've found like it does when they are equal level."

So I just specifically said you cannot null at any other setting than equal levels, and yet you ask me to try to null a file I just said cannot be nulled.

I'm not sure why you keep on with this approach here…

You are creating a straw man argument, suggesting I've said something I have not (that you can null at any parallel level) and then arguing against that point (saying you can't, which is EXACTLY what I've already said).

And it sounds like you're trying to 'sell' me on the idea of parallel compression, something I've been using since 1984. I "get" it. I use it.

Unless you've got something more to add to this conversation, we're done here OK?

[selig]

Hello!
I would like Ostermilk to be less of a dick about this, and I would also like Selig to ponder why the SOS article is wrong.
Selig - could you use two (or more) Gain REs in series to get the required fader resolution?

As for the parallel compression equivalent of changing compression ratio - presumably this is just changing the volume ratio of the two channels?
So, if you can exactly replicate the effect of a parallel compression setting with an insert compressor - you should be able to change the volume ratio of the parallel compression pair, and then adjust the insert compressor to match it.
Or, if you like, you should be able to change the ratio knob on the insert compressor, and then match it to null by adjusting the volume ratio of the parallel compression channels. Right?

So where exactly was I being a dick?

I believe Kenni already covered everything on this subject in his PM to you.
Discuss it further with him if you are still not clear on this issue.

[Ostermilk]

I'm discussing the SUBJECT as I have all along.

I've had no problem with you personally all the way through, it is NOT a strawman argument when the article that is inviting discussion, shows a questionaire where you are clearly asserting Parallel Compression is a means of altering ratio, nothing more.

I'm not trying to sell anyone anything ratherr to inform against misinformation, and I'm certainly not calling people names or pulling rank because I don't like the person that's countering my arguments, and adding to the discussion.

You'll notice also all the way along I've been agreeing with many of your points as well as advocating one of your devices as being more useful for transient preservation and upward compression than parallel compression.

I am honestly lost as to where your current hostility is coming from, as I've already discussed with Kenni.