hi
when using parallel compression to “stabilize” a sound and allow the transients to still come through, wouldnt the “doubling up” of the track create a “swell” of lower frequencies, muddying it up?
thank you
no because one track is pure compressed sound no dry signal, and one is clean.
but youre “doubling” the track. obviously the compressed track wont have as much higher freq info in it, so will mainly have lower freq info. wouldnt playing the dry track and the comp track at the same time produce an “overload” of lower frequencies? (i dont mean a clippng overload, just too much of lower freq makin it sound too loud) would filtering not come into it?
compression dosnt filter out high frequencies although there is no reason you couldnt filter the low end from the compressed signal to create a tight bottom end
[quote]phil johnston (16/05/2010)[hr]compression dosnt filter out high frequencies although there is no reason you couldnt filter the low end from the compressed signal to create a tight bottom end[/quote]
hey, the main man himself! 
ye i know the comp doesnt filter out the high freq, i just meant it reduces the transients. regarding using a filter, do you mean removing the bottom end of the UNcompressed track? :S and when you say bottom end do you mean just the sub?
thanks phil
I see what your saying but the point is that because of the compression you are boosting key areas of the track not the whole track it’ll only boost in certain ranges, so it hit’s harder and sounds beefier.
don’t forget a compressed signal can sound quite different to a dry signal, and the second track should be completely wet.
So it really comes down to how you balance out the mix between the wet and dry channels.
I always get them sounding right then group them into one channel and control the overall loudness of both tracks within the mix via that one grouping.
cool, ill try the vintage warmer plug in when i get home. ill use the mix control to do it to the one track, instead of making the two tracks. 