Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Greg_Cameron]

It seems to me that the only reason to use bus compression is because you don't have enough compressors to compress channels individually as you should.  Why would you want a peak in one channel of a bus to compress all the channels in that bus?  With compression on every channel, you don't need bus compression.

A combination of the 2 give you a lot more control.

http://www.ratsound.com/cblog/archives/2006/11.html

[Jason Lucas]

A combination of the 2 give you a lot more control.

http://www.ratsound.com/cblog/archives/2006/11.html

+1

[Noah D Mitchell]

It seems to me that the only reason to use bus compression is because you don't have enough compressors to compress channels individually as you should.  Why would you want a peak in one channel of a bus to compress all the channels in that bus?  With compression on every channel, you don't need bus compression.

On the Si Expression the channel compressors are all pre-aux - so using bus compression helps you avoid compressing your monitor sends (if that's what you want).


Hopefully a future (soon) firmware update will let us set dynamics and/or eq to post aux.

[Bob Leonard]

I thought it strange at first that on the Compact and Performer the buttons are labeled BUS, and on the Expression they are labeled MIX. It wasn't until after a couple of tips from Samual that I opened my eyes and realized that BUS or MIX were all one and the same on these boards.

So using old school technique I am using/mix for monitors. assigning 4 monitors to a group, and each vocalist has been assigned their own group allowing that vocalist to control the other vocalist levels within his group and from his or her monitor(s).

I see no need for group compression, which in my book tends to defeat my intent to have control over each instrument or vocal. It's simple enough to apply effects to single channels prior to the mix with this board. The beauty of that is being able to apply any of the effects to the channel, combining the channels, recalling the levels, and controlling the group/mix/bus levels with a single fader. I tend to think my initial hangup was based on verbiage more than anything else. This is a very easy to use board.

[Chuck Simon]

On the Si Expression the channel compressors are all pre-aux - so using bus compression helps you avoid compressing your monitor sends (if that's what you want).


Hopefully a future (soon) firmware update will let us set dynamics and/or eq to post aux.

Ahh, that makes a huge difference!  Personally, I have no problems adding compression to the monitors, but it's nice to have the choice.

[Jason Lucas]

I like having both channel comps and bus comps, like in Dave Rat's blog post Greg linked.

Options are a good thing, IMO.

[George Dougherty]

It was my understanding that the compact 24 will do 40 channels of input processing. While it would make things potentially confusing, I thought the typical approach would be to double up channels for FOH/Monitor duty so you can compress FOH and leave monitors untouched.

Am I mistaken in my assumption of the abilities on the compact Andy expression, or does that just cause more brain damage than its worth?

[Samuel Rees]

Subgroup compression helps me to mange bigger than channel goals. For example, compressing a series of background vocals together  via a subgroup can make them sound glued together as all their dynamics rise and fall together. This can help keep lots of background vocals under control sitting under a lead vocal. Conversely, compressing leads and backgrounds together can create more of a unified chorus effect as they go from light compression into heavy compression when everyone is goin. It's also a workflow tool, as the channel fader now become pre compression you can ride it into compression or out of it without digging into compressor parameters.

[Samuel Rees]

It was my understanding that the compact 24 will do 40 channels of input processing. While it would make things potentially confusing, I thought the typical approach would be to double up channels for FOH/Monitor duty so you can compress FOH and leave monitors untouched.

Am I mistaken in my assumption of the abilities on the compact Andy expression, or does that just cause more brain damage than its worth?

After 24 channels and 4 stereo FX returns, that leaves room for 8 virtual channels. Yes, I definitely have done this many times and it is a good alternative if your only goal is separating compression from the monitors. I course you also get a whole dedicated monitor EQ of course which is great.

[Bob Leonard]

After 24 channels and 4 stereo FX returns, that leaves room for 8 virtual channels. Yes, I definitely have done this many times and it is a good alternative if your only goal is separating compression from the monitors. I course you also get a whole dedicated monitor EQ of course which is great.

The dedicated EQ is a feature I like very much. even better is the ease setting it up. This is an example of where fader glow and simplistic work flow show their value. I have heard a number of people complain about other boards EQ not being intuitive or easy to set up without a PC or tablet. Not the case with the expression.
 
I can agree with the group compression in certain cases, just not the way I was taught as a young pup.
 

[ProSoundWeb Community]