Dylan here. Make sure to stick around to the end of the video to see my completely unscripted meltdown that my editor decided to leave in for laughs. 😬😬😬
This is such high-quality advice. Straight to the point, not too simple/beginner, not too complicated. BTW for my FL Studio gang : you can duplicate the plugin you are using for the initial track's volume automation, put it onto the parallel compression track's insert and link the gain knob to the same initial automation!
I was looking for this! I usually add a DCA channel to any processed one that I am going to automate to avoid the pre-fader problem. So, just to make sure I get your point right. If I set the compressor output gain on the bus channel to the same automation clip created for the DCA channel fader, will that be okay?
honestly this is a production topic that keeps me up at night because its so specific and enigmatic but also so real. Thanks for talking about it in so much detail!
Can you explain if you route multiple vocals to a vocal bus how would apply reverb or delays individually ie some doubles or adlibs you want to have a specific delay but each time you change the reverb or delay for doubles or adlibs or harmonies can you use the same vocal bus and use send on track pre vocal bus?
The Studio One "splitter tool" in the insert path can get all your parallel compression, saturations and crushing done ahead of the panner and fader. You keep the "clean" signal feeding through and the split allows a parallel channel of plugins to operate on the signal then mix with the clean at the output of the splitter.
Would you effectively be doing the same thing if your compressor has a "mix" knob that lets you adjust how much signal is compressed and how much isn't?
I'd argue the #1 mistake when dealing with parallel compression is actually low cutting the parallel bus which introduces nasty phase issues and results in less bass because of cancelation. A lot of people don't notice that and just mix against this problem.
Dead on. EQ-ing the parallel without understanding it will introduce phasing (and that can work for you or against you). That's for sure the most common
Thank you SO MUCH for this tutorial! This is pure gold. Question… now (in 2023) that Logic Pro offers “Track Stacks,” could the same be achieved by nesting the original vocal track within a track stack, and doing the volume automation (and reverb, etc.) there? (Assuming that the parallel send from the original track also gets nested into that same track stack.) If so, is it still important to switch to pre-fader versus post pan/fader? Does it make a difference if you’re not touching the automation of the original track any more? Many thanks again!
Apologies if this notion has already been discussed (I'm late to this thread, it just having surfaced in my YT home)... but if the dry track needed level adjustment word-by-word wasn't it already messing with the compression threshold? (assuming that the adjustment was to normalize the level, as opposed to de-normalizing to intentionally make parts louder than others). Logically it seems that the adjusted dry track might *fix* the threshold variations instead of corrupting them. Awareness of the issue, though, will allow the competent mix engineer to employ the appropriate strategy to keep the parallel compression coordinated with the dry track.
This is the best parallel comp video out there because you addressed the pre/post send issue. That’s what I’ve been looking for. Every other video just explains what para comp is, which I think most people searching it would already know. 🤘 Thanks
I wanted to thank you for your explanation of compression parallel compression and volume busing. Whereas compression in and of itself can be confusing to say the least parallel compression can be even a bit more difficult to understand. And then to throw volume automation into a separate bus can completely confuse the thought process of how an instrument or vocals are processed. My mind very much wanted to get lost in this whole process but your explanation was very concise and understandable. Also a great workaround between pre and post fader. Thank you so much.
Hi, great video and tip But, wouldn't You get the same result assigning the audio vox and the parallel comp tracks to a VCA track (since the latter is meant to control the volumen of various tracks)? Best regards
Yes it's the same if you only care about the volume. On the aux track you can also add effects for the group if necessary, you normally have nothing to loose by using an aux track instead of a VCA.
when making the volume send where does it happen in the signal path is it : original signal-> volume send-> effects --- or---: original signal-> effects-> volume send? surely this difference could effect the result that the plugins on the original track have? Also surely in lieu of patching the original and parallel compressed tracks to a volume send couldn't I just copy the volume automation from the original track and paste it onto the parallel track and then mix it in using the master fader (which would keep the automation detail the same)?
Just curious... Would it be an idea to just include both tracks, main and compressed, into a summed track stack? That way, you'd keep all the tracks together on the mixing board and, when the track stack is closed, have only one channel strip showing on the board, saving space and the trouble of having to navigate between three channel strips. Open the summed track stack, make some adjustments, then close the track stack. Wa Laaaa... Everything is together. You could then, easily automate both the main and compressed tracks using a gain plugin on the summed track.
I was just working on a mix, and had this exact question.... I searched for awhile and couldn’t find a clear answer until I found this video! Thank you so much!
I think the term you're looking for is "group fader". I typically do automation for intelligibility/enhancement on on the track and level automation on the group fader. Since we have almost unlimited bus faders in DAWs, there's no reason NOT to bus everything before putting it into the master bus fader.
I can appreciate your tip with extremely dynamic tracks/songs. I guess my perspective is that with a post fader send, as Andrew uses does, you have an exact copy of track A going to your parallel compressor...I prefer a post fader send myself. My 1st thought is that if you are needing to change the level of a track so much that a couple of db going to your parallel compressor is affected that much you may want to address that prior to the automation of the song, but if the song you are working on is that dynamic, extreme volume changes, this is a good way to address those obstacles and create a nice wet/dry balance between the tracks. In my experience if a vocal, specifically, is getting so lost at certain parts of a song during the automation process-which I try and leave until the end-the issue is, for me, more of a frequency thing than a level thing. Certain frequencies are stepping on the vocal causing it to not cut through and be articulate enough. another thought is that when you adjust the dry volume going into the parallel comp it can help act as an energy boost for an instrument. So if I want more snare drum for a particular part of a song and increase the level of the dry track and the send is post fader, it can give you more energy making the snare sound as though it is being hit harder... creating a dynamic that is pleasing...so many ways to do this stuff...I absolutely love it!
Short version: use parallell compression/processing on initial audio, then output the signal to a new aux for volume control without messing with the processing, just like with a VCA.
Yeah,... I was also thinking VCA. An using clipgain at specific points with the vocal and I always assumed that would turn down de sendlevel of the parallel compressor down aswell. I am gonna check now, just to make sure :-) // a few minutes laterrr // yep - works like a charm ! :-)
So let's say for my bus sends I usually have a couple delays and a couple reverbs. With the para comp on a new bus track, i would just route my reverb and delays to the send of the para and comp? and not separate sends on the track itself?
Ive got ableton live with internal glue compressor which has a blend (wet/dry) controller. Is it the same thing as a parallel compression made with aux channel? And why not if the answer is no? Thank you!
question: can I group the parallel compression bus channel with the origin channel like you showed in your 10h course instead of making another volume bus output? thanks!
I'm pleased with my own progress in mixing , I was able to intuit what your solution was going to be before you got there. I'm learning in FL , so this particular problem has some other solutions there depending on how someone wanted to go about it. But in this DAW your solution certainly made sense and I'm just proud of myself I was able to think of it when posed with the conundrum! Woo hoo! This stuff used to be like sign language to me when I was younger. Persistence is paying off. Great video!
Great tip! Thank you so much. I nearly always use parallel compression on vocals but bever thought about it once doing volume automation on vocals. Amazing tip. Just have one question. Once I have my vocals on 'normal' dry track and parallel compressed vocals, once I want to add some reverb on the send, is it better to do it the same way as you did on the video or just send the dry track to the reverb only? So basically is it better to send both dry and compressed signal to the reverb or just dry? Thanks
Thanks for the tip, it`s a important idea that I don`t thought about! Buuuuut... Isn`t easy just copy the automation on original track? It`s fast using automation select tool (T+Q) + drag mouse on track area + ctrl C + ctrl V on the compression bus track + ajust position draging the automation. Any technical problem making this?
Great Tip (file under: makes total sense, yet I didn't even think of this until you pointed it out)! I opted to modify your approach by creating a channel strip for my parallel comp aux and then dragging that up next to my vocal track; next I selected both the vocal track and aux in the main window and created a summing stack, which is where I did my volume automation. Worked like a charm. Love your channel--thanks for all the great videos!
Thank you for the insightful video. I was wondering if the same problem can be solved by using sidechain compression as a pre fader send on the parallel channel. I mean, use post fader send to the parallel channel and use pre fader send as sidechain on the compressor. Will this approach cause any problem? Thank you again.
THANK YOU!! need to wrap my head around it by trying it out on Logic and do some test runs. I have been using 'post' for everything and now I get why my compressor is not working well on the bus. Total rookie mistake and thank you for explaining for us beginners. All the best to you and your family, keep safe. Your fan from Barcelona Spain!
LIFE SAVER!!!! never understood WHY I had so much inconsistency in my vocal mix despite getting a nice sound!! SOOOOO COOOOOL!!!!!!!pre feder INTO a volume bus!!!
Do we need add reverb on that parallel compressed track？I was only add reverb on dry signal so will be ：dry signal+compressed signal+ reverb（dry). Yours add 1 （compressed + reverb）？
There is something I wasn't able to understand. Do I need to have 1 individual return track for each track/group I want to have this parallel compression style working, considering it goes together with the original track to a volume track? I hope you can understand the question.
Can someone explain to me why one can't just put a compressor into the original audio channel and use the dry/wet setting to apply the parallel compression? (Ableton Live)
How about because many classic compressors emulations don't have a dry/ wet setting. If you noted the UAD 1176 in the video you'd see there is no 'mix knob.'
@@dftweedie3021 don't use those plugins for wet/dry compression then....or maybe stop getting hung up on gear and just use what you need for the situation
@@Notinserviceij you seem to have a lot to say, but perhaps you should read more carefully. I answered Aaron's question. You can't parallel compress with a compressor inserted that doesn't have a mix control. Perhaps you should stop getting hung up on presenting yourself as more knowledgeable than you are?
Why duplicate the track and create sends if you can just apply a Compressor to the original track and adjust the wet/dry ratio to dial in some compression? Is there a benefit?
Great tutorial as always! Quick question btw. Could you just use the mix nob built in to the compressor and just automate that one track? Or is there a difference between doing that and this way of parallel compression?
Good skills to have. In this case automating the fader solves this more easily. Plus running one clean and clear leveler/compressor into the character compressor is also easier and what most studio professionals have done going back decades.
To avoid issues with volume automation wouldn’t it make sense to go with pre fade , and then send Both your compressed and uncompressed signal to a master vocal bus and do your automation on that master vocal bus? That way the ratio relationship between effected and unaffected channel remains consistent ?
Normala the group feature is maybe specific to some daws, so he’s explaining the workflow that works with any daw or even with hardware so everyone can follow. If you use Logic, then yes, creating a track stack would be faster
Wow brilliant solution! I always create Summing Stacks and use these group Buses for each group of instruments/vocals and put all automation there as you describe (not just volume automation) because it gives me independent control of automation when I'm moving elements around - arranging and mixing at the same time - but I never thought of using them to fix this issue with parallel compression. Great idea - subscribed!
Well you still need to automate the volume AFTER the compressor, otherwise you still influence the level that goes into the compressor, therefore the compression amount. But indeed, using the dry/wet knob is basically parallel compression, although, I guess the downside for some would be that the knob is basically a balance between uncompressed/compressed, so by introducing the compressed signal, you decrease the volume of the uncompressed one. Many like keeping the same level as mixed, and just introduce the compressed one on top. Or even process the compressed one some more. So I guess it depends on what you want to do...
@@AlexLapugean I automate the volume before the compressor so the compressor acts more evenly. If the level needs to be structurally changed, I automate the volume after the compressor as well. The compressor I use has separate dry and wet sliders so it's exactly like parallel compression.
Cue Zephyr oh, did not see the separate dry/wet sliders in a compressor before, sure, that works, minus if you want effects on the compressed signal. But about automating volume before compressing, I am not sure. The threshold is set according to input volume, so if you lower the volume you get less compression, and vice versa. I see it being too unpredictable. But if it works for you, that’s what matters. In the end is about what your years tell you.
just for clarification, in logic you can copy and paste automation to another track by selecting the whole track automation and copy, select track you want to paste, then paste. Just in case someone needs that bit of info.
Or of course you could just choose a compressor with a wet/dry mix control like, er, Logic’s stock compressor? The Studio FET option will even emulate that black face ‘76.
topkek yes, you understand it perfectly well ;) Dry/wet will not be the same as using a send. The more you increase the Wet signal, the lower the original sound, unlike using a send where the original sound remains the same
Is there a reason the parallel compression can’t be post send and link the main track and parallel track together and when u automate the main track the parallel track can go down? Seems simpler and the same unless I’m missing something.
1. Just use the gain plugin at the end of each channel for volume automations? no? 2. Just use the mix knob on a sophisticated compressor plugin? no? 3. Great video anyway.
if the snare and the kick shares the same compressor, i have 2 problems: 1. if u want both to hit the compressor with similar level but have a different Dry/Wet balance on each, how would u do it? and 2. if u want to lower the level of the snare for example in the mix, how would u do it while keeping the wet/dry balance, and also without effecting the kick?
hey musician on a mission, your explanation is amazing but one thing I want to know is, how can I do the delay with this process? do I have to put another bus in the volume Vox for a delay ?
The reason for the busses was pretty clear. The explanation of the track cluster was pretty vague. Maybe that is because I'm not used to looking at Ableton, and he didn't explain it very well.
For some reason I feel like I'm in a scene of Sherlock Holmes when Dylan is explaining the real solution versus the one that creates another problem lol
Hi, I have a question about the pre fader problem that you mentioned, what if, instead of automating the fader and creating that problem of changing the amount of dry signal being send, you make the send pre fader and add a gain plugin at the top of the original track and automating that so the fader isn't moving and thus the dry signal doesn't change. I hope my idea was expressed well, cheers.
No! It's the same. I mean, to automate the fader or the gain plugin gives the same result to the parallel comp / parallel bus. Try it out! The only way to handle with it is the declaration in the video. Or, especially, it`s possible in Studio One in every channel with the splitter or in HOFA SYSTEM with the parallel plugin. Very handy!
Control freaks have been doing this from the start, no names given, just the natural urge to control everything lol. I find that in the audio engineering world, things with complex explanations or fancy names are often done without thought to high detail oriented people, it's just a natural instinct to organize and control. I guess that's why they say certain people gravitate towards things that fit their personality. Awesome vid by the way, looking forward to more.
By "Flow/Flowing" he means changing the output of the track/groups/bus to another bus (group track). Thanks man, really demystifying the parallel compression problem!
What if i using one parallel compressor for a two or more different tracks(busses) ? Which volume bus i should use for this pcomp then ? May be i should to create Pcompressor for every single bus, right ?
Thanks for this! what if we want to have more than one Vox Volume channels for different parallel processes? Do we simply use Sends from the original signal, instead of Stereo Out?
Andrew Scheps uses a lot of parallel compression but he doesn’t use pre fader sends in his workflow AT ALL... go watch any oh his masterclasses, all his sends are post fader. In Reaper and Studio One professional any plugin can be routed in a parallel chain... so no problem at all. Basically he solves the issue that logic has) also I don’t see any problem in post fader sends to parallel compressor. It’s rather natural for parallel compressor to relax a bit when the dry signal goes down in volume. In parallel chains we usually want to slam the compressor really hard, mush harder than in series mode... in this case 2-3 dB doesn’t change the tone dramatically. So I don’t see any problem at all. Also I don’t see any need to feed the reverb with compressed signal... but this may be debatable.
Couldnt you also group the volume fader of the dry signal with the parallel compression signal? That way when you automate the dry signal lower or higher, the parallel compression will follow what the fader is doing..
No. but if you already have your vocal tracks inside a stack, you cannot create another level, meaning you cannot have a stack inside a stack. While you can have an aux track with several tracks routed to it, in the same stack as the original tracks.
It seems to me that when using a VCA, you'd still need to create an AUX channel anyway if you wanted to apply reverb/delay to the combined result of the parallel compression in the same proportion you established with the individual channel faders. Sure, you could do it with VCAs by using sends on each channel to the same AUX but you'd just run into the original problem the Sends cause in the first place. Using an AUX channel (Bus) is less work and more flexible if further effects are desired.
And regarding track stacks, yous you can, a summing stack is identical in function with an aux track to which the tracks are routed to. However, If you already have a stack for vocals, you cannot have a stack inside a stack. But you can have an aux track inside the same stack as the vocals.
Great in depth tutorial. But does this also apply to a drum sub mix, for instance? How could we automate individual parts of the drum kit while maintaining the same exact ratio with the same parallel comp for everything?
Could you not bounce the compressed track in place, with compression then already added in the audio file, mix in with the original as normal and then do volume automation on the bus, which wouldn't change the amount of compression, etc no matter what the volume? Just a thought.
the only thing that would create is handcuffing you if you did want to change the balance of your dry/wet tracks...if you have decided a particular balance is what you want to have 100% then your thought will work. With that said in modern daws you have virtually unlimited tracks and busses so it doesn't really make any difference to keep the 2 initial tracks in place, unless you are having cpu overload and need to bounce for that reason...just a thought
If your compressor has a mix knob, could you put it on the vocal track and blend the mix knob in to taste? Would this achieve the same thing and bypass all the addition routing or am I missing something?
For everyone saying just to copy the automation data from the dry signal to the wet aux, this will still yield the same inconsistencies warned about. The reason being that the threshold of the compressor is still receiving automated signal and would (from how I understand) still be yielding varying gain reduction
I get comparable results by simply adding a compressor with a dry/wet mix knob, slamming the signal, and then backing off on the 'wetness' to taste. I get parallel compression in seconds.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Not every compressor comes with a mix knob. Admittingly most of them do now but in principle you make yourself dependant on specific plugins. The tip in the video works with everything and in every DAW environment. Also, you have more control with a bus/send concept. Independent panning for example. Or more specific tasks like emulating a drum room mic.
@3ple Correct, not exactly the same. But I prefer finding a nice balance of the "hot/"cold" and simply readdressing the overall volume, versus setting up the traditional parallel routing -- just for convenience's sake.
Zachary Dufrene I was wondering the same... why not use a wet/dry function? Much easier. Someone said that not every compressor has a wet/dry function... in these cases, at least in Ableton, there’s a way around it :)
Another approach in Logic is to create a track for the bus, then put the original track and the bus track into a folder track stack, which provides a volume fader for the entire stack. You can even put summing track stacks into the folder track stack. The bussing method in this video may be the best DAW-agnostic approach, though.
akibakemono not all daws have tracks stacks. This is a tutorial about general mistakes that apply to any daw, so he’s teaching the process, not the features in Logic ;)
dang how do I do this in ABLETON when I have multiple vocals? would it just be me grouping all the vocals and then adding the parallel compression, compressor to that group track? Thanks!
What about just doing the parallel compression through the input/output mix on the compressor itself? Most stock compressors in logic have this knob. What affect does that have on the volume automation for the track?
Dylan here. Make sure to stick around to the end of the video to see my completely unscripted meltdown that my editor decided to leave in for laughs. 😬😬😬
its a tongue twister for sure! :-)
😂
This is such high-quality advice. Straight to the point, not too simple/beginner, not too complicated.
BTW for my FL Studio gang : you can duplicate the plugin you are using for the initial track's volume automation, put it onto the parallel compression track's insert and link the gain knob to the same initial automation!
I was looking for this! I usually add a DCA channel to any processed one that I am going to automate to avoid the pre-fader problem. So, just to make sure I get your point right. If I set the compressor output gain on the bus channel to the same automation clip created for the DCA channel fader, will that be okay?
One of the best, helpful, clear, simply explained presentations I have watched. THANK you.
No problem!
honestly this is a production topic that keeps me up at night because its so specific and enigmatic but also so real. Thanks for talking about it in so much detail!
Happy to help!
dude it literally does.
Great explanation. I just wished even more examples, but you definitely gave plenty already.
Can you explain if you route multiple vocals to a vocal bus how would apply reverb or delays individually ie some doubles or adlibs you want to have a specific delay but each time you change the reverb or delay for doubles or adlibs or harmonies can you use the same vocal bus and use send on track pre vocal bus?
In Logic: Holding down option while clicking the fader/ Buss volume send control, automatically moves them to unity.
The Studio One "splitter tool" in the insert path can get all your parallel compression, saturations and crushing done ahead of the panner and fader. You keep the "clean" signal feeding through and the split allows a parallel channel of plugins to operate on the signal then mix with the clean at the output of the splitter.
Excellent video, I finally understand. Thank you!!
Would you effectively be doing the same thing if your compressor has a "mix" knob that lets you adjust how much signal is compressed and how much isn't?
I'd argue the #1 mistake when dealing with parallel compression is actually low cutting the parallel bus which introduces nasty phase issues and results in less bass because of cancelation. A lot of people don't notice that and just mix against this problem.
never hi-pass more than the original signal feeding the compressor.
Wow I never thought of this
Dead on. EQ-ing the parallel without understanding it will introduce phasing (and that can work for you or against you). That's for sure the most common
If the track does not have tight transients, you can get away with a linear phase EQ if you need to EQ.
Mmm. Would love to see a video about this problem. Thanks for pointing out!
so if you’re not using a send and simply duplicating the track there’s no problems to begin with right ?
Thank you SO MUCH for this tutorial! This is pure gold. Question… now (in 2023) that Logic Pro offers “Track Stacks,” could the same be achieved by nesting the original vocal track within a track stack, and doing the volume automation (and reverb, etc.) there? (Assuming that the parallel send from the original track also gets nested into that same track stack.) If so, is it still important to switch to pre-fader versus post pan/fader? Does it make a difference if you’re not touching the automation of the original track any more? Many thanks again!
you can also assign any faders to VCA masters and have even better control
Apologies if this notion has already been discussed (I'm late to this thread, it just having surfaced in my YT home)... but if the dry track needed level adjustment word-by-word wasn't it already messing with the compression threshold? (assuming that the adjustment was to normalize the level, as opposed to de-normalizing to intentionally make parts louder than others). Logically it seems that the adjusted dry track might *fix* the threshold variations instead of corrupting them. Awareness of the issue, though, will allow the competent mix engineer to employ the appropriate strategy to keep the parallel compression coordinated with the dry track.
This is the best parallel comp video out there because you addressed the pre/post send issue. That’s what I’ve been looking for. Every other video just explains what para comp is, which I think most people searching it would already know. 🤘 Thanks
This has made my mixes SO much better. Thanks man
I wanted to thank you for your explanation of compression parallel compression and volume busing. Whereas compression in and of itself can be confusing to say the least parallel compression can be even a bit more difficult to understand. And then to throw volume automation into a separate bus can completely confuse the thought process of how an instrument or vocals are processed. My mind very much wanted to get lost in this whole process but your explanation was very concise and understandable. Also a great workaround between pre and post fader. Thank you so much.
Hi, great video and tip
But, wouldn't You get the same result assigning the audio vox and the parallel comp tracks to a VCA track (since the latter is meant to control the volumen of various tracks)? Best regards
Yes it's the same if you only care about the volume. On the aux track you can also add effects for the group if necessary, you normally have nothing to loose by using an aux track instead of a VCA.
Can someone explain this for protools I did the parallel compression part but it’s the volume bus part I don’t understand
I send my vocals to a verse bus and from there to a submix so I’m kinda confused on what should the I/O of my tracks be
when making the volume send where does it happen in the signal path is it : original signal-> volume send-> effects --- or---: original signal-> effects-> volume send? surely this difference could effect the result that the plugins on the original track have? Also surely in lieu of patching the original and parallel compressed tracks to a volume send couldn't I just copy the volume automation from the original track and paste it onto the parallel track and then mix it in using the master fader (which would keep the automation detail the same)?
Yup, got me! Thanks for the tips
Just curious... Would it be an idea to just include both tracks, main and compressed, into a summed track stack? That way, you'd keep all the tracks together on the mixing board and, when the track stack is closed, have only one channel strip showing on the board, saving space and the trouble of having to navigate between three channel strips. Open the summed track stack, make some adjustments, then close the track stack. Wa Laaaa... Everything is together. You could then, easily automate both the main and compressed tracks using a gain plugin on the summed track.
Great tutorial!
I was just working on a mix, and had this exact question.... I searched for awhile and couldn’t find a clear answer until I found this video! Thank you so much!
I think the term you're looking for is "group fader". I typically do automation for intelligibility/enhancement on on the track and level automation on the group fader. Since we have almost unlimited bus faders in DAWs, there's no reason NOT to bus everything before putting it into the master bus fader.
Would it be the same thing to make a summing stack of the dry and compressed vox tracks and apply your automation to that?
I can appreciate your tip with extremely dynamic tracks/songs. I guess my perspective is that with a post fader send, as Andrew uses does, you have an exact copy of track A going to your parallel compressor...I prefer a post fader send myself. My 1st thought is that if you are needing to change the level of a track so much that a couple of db going to your parallel compressor is affected that much you may want to address that prior to the automation of the song, but if the song you are working on is that dynamic, extreme volume changes, this is a good way to address those obstacles and create a nice wet/dry balance between the tracks. In my experience if a vocal, specifically, is getting so lost at certain parts of a song during the automation process-which I try and leave until the end-the issue is, for me, more of a frequency thing than a level thing. Certain frequencies are stepping on the vocal causing it to not cut through and be articulate enough. another thought is that when you adjust the dry volume going into the parallel comp it can help act as an energy boost for an instrument. So if I want more snare drum for a particular part of a song and increase the level of the dry track and the send is post fader, it can give you more energy making the snare sound as though it is being hit harder... creating a dynamic that is pleasing...so many ways to do this stuff...I absolutely love it!
Short version: use parallell compression/processing on initial audio, then output the signal to a new aux for volume control without messing with the processing, just like with a VCA.
Yeah,... I was also thinking VCA.
An using clipgain at specific points with the vocal
and I always assumed that would turn down de sendlevel of the parallel compressor down aswell.
I am gonna check now, just to make sure :-) // a few minutes laterrr // yep - works like a charm ! :-)
God is here 🙏🏻♥️😹
Nice! but if you are using a compressor with Parallel Compression option you can just play with the automations right?
This vid and info is gold! Thank you!
So let's say for my bus sends I usually have a couple delays and a couple reverbs. With the para comp on a new bus track, i would just route my reverb and delays to the send of the para and comp? and not separate sends on the track itself?
Ive got ableton live with internal glue compressor which has a blend (wet/dry) controller. Is it the same thing as a parallel compression made with aux channel? And why not if the answer is no?
Thank you!
question: can I group the parallel compression bus channel with the origin channel like you showed in your 10h course instead of making another volume bus output? thanks!
Thank you, I am a newbie and didn't know I was making these mistakes! This is a great help.
I'm pleased with my own progress in mixing , I was able to intuit what your solution was going to be before you got there. I'm learning in FL , so this particular problem has some other solutions there depending on how someone wanted to go about it. But in this DAW your solution certainly made sense and I'm just proud of myself I was able to think of it when posed with the conundrum! Woo hoo! This stuff used to be like sign language to me when I was younger. Persistence is paying off. Great video!
Great tip! Thank you so much. I nearly always use parallel compression on vocals but bever thought about it once doing volume automation on vocals. Amazing tip. Just have one question. Once I have my vocals on 'normal' dry track and parallel compressed vocals, once I want to add some reverb on the send, is it better to do it the same way as you did on the video or just send the dry track to the reverb only? So basically is it better to send both dry and compressed signal to the reverb or just dry? Thanks
WOW Just migrated to Logic and is incredible to be able to access to this information, THANKS! From an Argentinean guy in Berlin. I love you guys!
Thanks for the tip, it`s a important idea that I don`t thought about!
Buuuuut... Isn`t easy just copy the automation on original track? It`s fast using automation select tool (T+Q) + drag mouse on track area + ctrl C + ctrl V on the compression bus track + ajust position draging the automation. Any technical problem making this?
Depending on your daw in ableton for example your can just the audio effect rack for parallel processing and automation :)
Great Tip (file under: makes total sense, yet I didn't even think of this until you pointed it out)!
I opted to modify your approach by creating a channel strip for my parallel comp aux and then dragging that up next to my vocal track; next I selected both the vocal track and aux in the main window and created a summing stack, which is where I did my volume automation. Worked like a charm.
Love your channel--thanks for all the great videos!
Thank you for the insightful video. I was wondering if the same problem can be solved by using sidechain compression as a pre fader send on the parallel channel. I mean, use post fader send to the parallel channel and use pre fader send as sidechain on the compressor. Will this approach cause any problem? Thank you again.
THANK YOU!! need to wrap my head around it by trying it out on Logic and do some test runs. I have been using 'post' for everything and now I get why my compressor is not working well on the bus. Total rookie mistake and thank you for explaining for us beginners. All the best to you and your family, keep safe. Your fan from Barcelona Spain!
LIFE SAVER!!!!
never understood WHY I had so much inconsistency in my vocal mix despite getting a nice sound!! SOOOOO COOOOOL!!!!!!!pre feder INTO a volume bus!!!
Do we need add reverb on that parallel compressed track？I was only add reverb on dry signal so will be ：dry signal+compressed signal+ reverb（dry). Yours add 1 （compressed + reverb）？
There is something I wasn't able to understand. Do I need to have 1 individual return track for each track/group I want to have this parallel compression style working, considering it goes together with the original track to a volume track?
I hope you can understand the question.
Can someone explain to me why one can't just put a compressor into the original audio channel and use the dry/wet setting to apply the parallel compression? (Ableton Live)
How about because many classic compressors emulations don't have a dry/ wet setting. If you noted the UAD 1176 in the video you'd see there is no 'mix knob.'
compressor (50% wet) -> compressor (50% wet) will sound different than original track + aux 50% wet (compressor -> compressor)
@@izvarzone no false
@@dftweedie3021 don't use those plugins for wet/dry compression then....or maybe stop getting hung up on gear and just use what you need for the situation
@@Notinserviceij you seem to have a lot to say, but perhaps you should read more carefully. I answered Aaron's question. You can't parallel compress with a compressor inserted that doesn't have a mix control. Perhaps you should stop getting hung up on presenting yourself as more knowledgeable than you are?
Why duplicate the track and create sends if you can just apply a Compressor to the original track and adjust the wet/dry ratio to dial in some compression? Is there a benefit?
the benefit I know can add more effects to parallel track that will only affect it, or send more than one track to same compressor.
Great tutorial as always! Quick question btw. Could you just use the mix nob built in to the compressor and just automate that one track? Or is there a difference between doing that and this way of parallel compression?
I wondered the exact thing. Anyone?
Yes you can totally use the mix knob if the compressor has it. You don’t go the bus route at all in that case
Can't you use a pre-fader send and then group the two channels? Or use a VCA that controls both?
So although the volume changes with the automated bus track, our “tone” stays the same? I’m still new to this 😅
Good skills to have. In this case automating the fader solves this more easily. Plus running one clean and clear leveler/compressor into the character compressor is also easier and what most studio professionals have done going back decades.
Very interesting video ! Will try it out
Awesome!
To avoid issues with volume automation wouldn’t it make sense to go with pre fade , and then send
Both your compressed and uncompressed signal to a master vocal bus and do your automation on that master vocal bus? That way the ratio relationship between effected and unaffected channel remains consistent ?
This is a very good point. Isn't it easier to create VCA for them so you don't have to deal with busses, or use group though?
Normala the group feature is maybe specific to some daws, so he’s explaining the workflow that works with any daw or even with hardware so everyone can follow. If you use Logic, then yes, creating a track stack would be faster
@@iamdannywyatt Yeah that is true
Wow brilliant solution! I always create Summing Stacks and use these group Buses for each group of instruments/vocals and put all automation there as you describe (not just volume automation) because it gives me independent control of automation when I'm moving elements around - arranging and mixing at the same time - but I never thought of using them to fix this issue with parallel compression. Great idea - subscribed!
I have a question… if compressor it self has a mix knob, then is there any point using parallel compression?
Only if you want to add additional plugins e.g. EQ and compression on the parallel channel
Fantastic technique! Volume bus. Will be using this for all my major busses!
I just use pre-FX volume automation and a compressor that does dry/wet by itself. So I never even thought of these issues.
And for example, in Reaper the effects all have a wet/dry control
Well you still need to automate the volume AFTER the compressor, otherwise you still influence the level that goes into the compressor, therefore the compression amount. But indeed, using the dry/wet knob is basically parallel compression, although, I guess the downside for some would be that the knob is basically a balance between uncompressed/compressed, so by introducing the compressed signal, you decrease the volume of the uncompressed one. Many like keeping the same level as mixed, and just introduce the compressed one on top. Or even process the compressed one some more. So I guess it depends on what you want to do...
@@AlexLapugean I automate the volume before the compressor so the compressor acts more evenly. If the level needs to be structurally changed, I automate the volume after the compressor as well. The compressor I use has separate dry and wet sliders so it's exactly like parallel compression.
Cue Zephyr oh, did not see the separate dry/wet sliders in a compressor before, sure, that works, minus if you want effects on the compressed signal. But about automating volume before compressing, I am not sure. The threshold is set according to input volume, so if you lower the volume you get less compression, and vice versa. I see it being too unpredictable. But if it works for you, that’s what matters. In the end is about what your years tell you.
This is awesome. What about creating a summing stack with the two? Would that work as well? Just curious
just for clarification, in logic you can copy and paste automation to another track by selecting the whole track automation and copy, select track you want to paste, then paste. Just in case someone needs that bit of info.
Or of course you could just choose a compressor with a wet/dry mix control like, er, Logic’s stock compressor? The Studio FET option will even emulate that black face ‘76.
Thing is the dry wet knob takes away dry signal and replaces it with the wet signal and the other way around
As far as I understand it
topkek It controls the balance of the compressed and uncompressed signals, if that’s what you mean.
topkek yes, you understand it perfectly well ;) Dry/wet will not be the same as using a send. The more you increase the Wet signal, the lower the original sound, unlike using a send where the original sound remains the same
Sorry for the follow up question: Is it a rule of thumb to parallel compress every single track and/or virtual instrument? Thanks
what is about just a vca automation instead of the volume bus?
Summing Track on Logic Pro X does this for you
Thank you. Thanks helped alot
Nice video, white talk, Logic Pro, fancy plugins, etc. You just got another subscriber! 🤘🏼
Thanks dude.
Is there a reason the parallel compression can’t be post send and link the main track and parallel track together and when u automate the main track the parallel track can go down? Seems simpler and the same unless I’m missing something.
1. Just use the gain plugin at the end of each channel for volume automations? no?
2. Just use the mix knob on a sophisticated compressor plugin? no?
3. Great video anyway.
honestly I used the gain plugin again at the end of the vocal chain to make my life easier. It works
if the snare and the kick shares the same compressor, i have 2 problems: 1. if u want both to hit the compressor with similar level but have a different Dry/Wet balance on each, how would u do it? and 2. if u want to lower the level of the snare for example in the mix, how would u do it while keeping the wet/dry balance, and also without effecting the kick?
For parallel compression will be better fet or Opto?
I'm a beginner in Cubase Pro. Will VCA faders do the same thing?
Killer intro, automatically a fan. You literally make this fun like watching South Park back in 07
hey musician on a mission, your explanation is amazing but one thing I want to know is, how can I do the delay with this process? do I have to put another bus in the volume Vox for a delay ?
You should do how to do this with UAD
The reason for the busses was pretty clear. The explanation of the track cluster was pretty vague. Maybe that is because I'm not used to looking at Ableton, and he didn't explain it very well.
For some reason I feel like I'm in a scene of Sherlock Holmes when Dylan is explaining the real solution versus the one that creates another problem lol
Should this be used with reverb too?
Hi, I have a question about the pre fader problem that you mentioned, what if, instead of automating the fader and creating that problem of changing the amount of dry signal being send, you make the send pre fader and add a gain plugin at the top of the original track and automating that so the fader isn't moving and thus the dry signal doesn't change. I hope my idea was expressed well, cheers.
No! It's the same. I mean, to automate the fader or the gain plugin gives the same result to the parallel comp / parallel bus. Try it out! The only way to handle with it is the declaration in the video. Or, especially, it`s possible in Studio One in every channel with the splitter or in HOFA SYSTEM with the parallel plugin. Very handy!
gyn Splitter kills it all 😅
Control freaks have been doing this from the start, no names given, just the natural urge to control everything lol. I find that in the audio engineering world, things with complex explanations or fancy names are often done without thought to high detail oriented people, it's just a natural instinct to organize and control. I guess that's why they say certain people gravitate towards things that fit their personality. Awesome vid by the way, looking forward to more.
By "Flow/Flowing" he means changing the output of the track/groups/bus to another bus (group track). Thanks man, really demystifying the parallel compression problem!
What if i using one parallel compressor for a two or more different tracks(busses) ? Which volume bus i should use for this pcomp then ? May be i should to create Pcompressor for every single bus, right ?
AnosCapex the same thing. Always use the last aux so your volume is affecting the final sound, the combination of all the sounds
Thanks for this! what if we want to have more than one Vox Volume channels for different parallel processes? Do we simply use Sends from the original signal, instead of Stereo Out?
HA! I thought I was really smart just because I used Parallel Comp in the first place...this was pure gold
Can’t we just copy and paste the volume automation of the original track to the parallel track?
Ha. Never thought about this. Have you given this a try?
Very very easy to understand. GREAT tutorial. Thank you! This channel is phenomenal.
Andrew Scheps uses a lot of parallel compression but he doesn’t use pre fader sends in his workflow AT ALL... go watch any oh his masterclasses, all his sends are post fader.
In Reaper and Studio One professional any plugin can be routed in a parallel chain... so no problem at all. Basically he solves the issue that logic has) also I don’t see any problem in post fader sends to parallel compressor. It’s rather natural for parallel compressor to relax a bit when the dry signal goes down in volume. In parallel chains we usually want to slam the compressor really hard, mush harder than in series mode... in this case 2-3 dB doesn’t change the tone dramatically. So I don’t see any problem at all. Also I don’t see any need to feed the reverb with compressed signal... but this may be debatable.
Couldnt you also group the volume fader of the dry signal with the parallel compression signal? That way when you automate the dry signal lower or higher, the parallel compression will follow what the fader is doing..
Thx for the video! Quick question: Do I use the Vocal Rider on the Volume Bus or on the Main vocal (or does it matter either way)?
There would be any difference creating a track stack instead of routing the 2 signals in a new VCA track?
No. but if you already have your vocal tracks inside a stack, you cannot create another level, meaning you cannot have a stack inside a stack. While you can have an aux track with several tracks routed to it, in the same stack as the original tracks.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just use a track stack? Or even assign them both to a group (VCA)?
It seems to me that when using a VCA, you'd still need to create an AUX channel anyway if you wanted to apply reverb/delay to the combined result of the parallel compression in the same proportion you established with the individual channel faders. Sure, you could do it with VCAs by using sends on each channel to the same AUX but you'd just run into the original problem the Sends cause in the first place. Using an AUX channel (Bus) is less work and more flexible if further effects are desired.
And regarding track stacks, yous you can, a summing stack is identical in function with an aux track to which the tracks are routed to. However, If you already have a stack for vocals, you cannot have a stack inside a stack. But you can have an aux track inside the same stack as the vocals.
Great in depth tutorial. But does this also apply to a drum sub mix, for instance? How could we automate individual parts of the drum kit while maintaining the same exact ratio with the same parallel comp for everything?
I'm guessing that that you want to create a separate Master Buss for each component.Master Kick, Snare, etc.Same as this vocal was.
@@StratsRUs is that a good idea, or will that make the mix all the more convoluted and complex?
Could you not bounce the compressed track in place, with compression then already added in the audio file, mix in with the original as normal and then do volume automation on the bus, which wouldn't change the amount of compression, etc no matter what the volume? Just a thought.
the only thing that would create is handcuffing you if you did want to change the balance of your dry/wet tracks...if you have decided a particular balance is what you want to have 100% then your thought will work. With that said in modern daws you have virtually unlimited tracks and busses so it doesn't really make any difference to keep the 2 initial tracks in place, unless you are having cpu overload and need to bounce for that reason...just a thought
If your compressor has a mix knob, could you put it on the vocal track and blend the mix knob in to taste? Would this achieve the same thing and bypass all the addition routing or am I missing something?
For everyone saying just to copy the automation data from the dry signal to the wet aux, this will still yield the same inconsistencies warned about. The reason being that the threshold of the compressor is still receiving automated signal and would (from how I understand) still be yielding varying gain reduction
I get comparable results by simply adding a compressor with a dry/wet mix knob, slamming the signal, and then backing off on the 'wetness' to taste. I get parallel compression in seconds.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Not every compressor comes with a mix knob. Admittingly most of them do now but in principle you make yourself dependant on specific plugins. The tip in the video works with everything and in every DAW environment. Also, you have more control with a bus/send concept. Independent panning for example. Or more specific tasks like emulating a drum room mic.
@3ple Correct, not exactly the same. But I prefer finding a nice balance of the "hot/"cold" and simply readdressing the overall volume, versus setting up the traditional parallel routing -- just for convenience's sake.
MomoTheBellyDancer not at all. Parallel compression is not only about the compression itself, but about THE TONE OF THE ACTUAL COMPRESSOR.
Zachary Dufrene I was wondering the same... why not use a wet/dry function? Much easier. Someone said that not every compressor has a wet/dry function... in these cases, at least in Ableton, there’s a way around it :)
@@u9s0e9r good point. Modern DAWs like Reaper and Studio one professional has dry/wet function onboard
In logic won’t a summing track stack accomplish the same thing without having to create sends.
RI Rock Cumberlandite was just thinking the same thing, then just automate the stack … seems a lot less hassle
Another approach in Logic is to create a track for the bus, then put the original track and the bus track into a folder track stack, which provides a volume fader for the entire stack. You can even put summing track stacks into the folder track stack. The bussing method in this video may be the best DAW-agnostic approach, though.
akibakemono not all daws have tracks stacks. This is a tutorial about general mistakes that apply to any daw, so he’s teaching the process, not the features in Logic ;)
Thank you 😊 very nice tip for the balance! If you have Studio One you could use the splitter - a great tool for parallel compression and more ...
dang how do I do this in ABLETON when I have multiple vocals? would it just be me grouping all the vocals and then adding the parallel compression, compressor to that group track? Thanks!
What about just doing the parallel compression through the input/output mix on the compressor itself? Most stock compressors in logic have this knob. What affect does that have on the volume automation for the track?