Parallel compression vs using the "Dry" and "Wet" mix on a compressor

[armans]

Can someone clarify for me if there is any difference between these two things? When you use parallel compression you are effectively mixing the dry and wet signal using your fader so why would you even set this up in your DAW if your compressor has a "Wet" "Dry" control that allows you to adjust the signal ratio. Is there any difference?

[James Perrett]

If a compressor has a wet and dry controls then they're almost certainly intended to be used for parallel compression so there is no need to set up any fancy routing.

[Hugh Robjohns]

The wet/dry mix control was introduced specifically to enable parallel compressing simply, within the compressor itself, without all the faff of multing and extra fader strips.

[Drew Stephenson]

As to why you might want to set it up as a separate channel, apart from if you have a particular plugin that doesn't have a mix control, I find it a bit easier to work by adding parallel processing to a dry signal rather than blending it.
For example, if I have a vocal that I want to add parallel compression on (to bring up the low-volume elements), I'd generally have them on separate faders. I'd set my basic level on the dry channel then add in a heavily compressed track by just pushing up the other fader. I find it an easier way to work if I'm trying to add things rather than just mix in another effect.
I'm not sure I've explained that very well.

[ManFromGlass]

One might want to use a separate fader if it wasn’t possible to automate the wet/dry control on the plugin.

[The Elf]

I just find that having the compressed signal on a separate fader is an easier way to judge its contribution, than having to dip in and out of the plug-in itself. It also allows the compressor to be shared with other channels, which is sometimes useful.

I will also often be filtering the compressed signal, which requires a separate channel.

[Mixedup]

Kinda depends why/how you wish to use parallel compression and whether its only compression you want in the parallel chain.

For instance, if you're just using it to raise up low levels all the way through a track, the wet/dry knob makes good sense.

If you're mixing drums and want a denser, more energetic parallel compressed sound in a chorus, then it's easier to pull up one fader on a parallel track than to change both the wet/dry mix and raise the overall level on the first track. (A mix knob affects the level of both wet and dry signals.)

And if you wish to shape the parallel compressed sound with EQ, saturation or whatever, you have more freedom to do that on a second channel, with its own inserts. (Can sometimes be fun to send from it too...)

Horses for courses...

[Sam Inglis]

The problem I have with wet/dry mix controls on compressors is that the signal flow and gain structure can be quite opaque. For example, it's often unclear whether the wet/dry control operates before or after the compressor make-up gain. If not then to achieve a blend that is subjectively half compressed and half dry, you'd probably have to have the control most of the way towards the wet end of the dial.

[armans]

I just find that having the compressed signal on a separate fader is an easier way to judge its contribution, than having to dip in and out of the plug-in itself. It also allows the compressor to be shared with other channels, which is sometimes useful.

I will also often be filtering the compressed signal, which requires a separate channel.

Won't filtering change the phase relationship between the two tracks?

[The Elf]

All EQ changes phase relationships. I don't think about it that hard. If it sounds good I'm happy - if not I'll try something else.

[sonics]

ISTM that many plugins now include a mix control to satisfy the droves of YouTube "engineers" who will moan if there isn't one!

I would never add parallel compression in a song mix using a mix control, but the feature has been useful at times when I'm working with small projects and single tracks, or I'm in a rush to add a dash of something.

Sometimes I'll do a quick test using a mix knob, and then set up the processing on a bus if I decide to keep it.

[The Elf]

ISTM that many plugins now include a mix control to satisfy the droves of YouTube "engineers" who will moan if there isn't one!

I sense the hand of YouTube increasingly often in my teaching. Side-chaining is a favourite. Nobody seems to know how to do it, or what they want it to do, but they are all convinced that it's the key to a successful mix!

[Aaron Straley]

I'm usually setting it up on a separate channel. Mostly because the EQ I want on my parallel compression is different than I want on the track. Same goes for reverb as well.

[awjoe]

Plus, like Mixedup pointed out, you can also have an effect on the separate channel - distortion to make it ugly/gnarly, for instance.

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the send is uneffected, correct? - none of the effects you've applied as inserts on the main track are applied?

[Drew Stephenson]

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the send is uneffected, correct? - none of the effects you've applied as inserts on the main track are applied?

Depends if you set it up pre- or post-FX surely?

[sonics]

Multiple serial compressors and multiple parallel compressors seem to be getting to be a common sight, now that we don't have to spend any money at all in order to do it!

Parallel compression into parallel compression? Well, why not if it gets you what you want?!

[awjoe]

But correct me if I'm wrong, but the send is uneffected, correct? - none of the effects you've applied as inserts on the main track are applied?

Depends if you set it up pre- or post-FX surely?

I've never looked into it in my DAW x I've just gone with the default. Pre- or post- - is one more commonly used than the other?

[Drew Stephenson]

I think pre-fx tends to be the default in most DAWs but it's all about the job you want it to do.

[The Elf]

It would be worth checking to see if you're sending pre or post-fader too. Parallel compression is usually easier to set up and keep in control on a pre-fade.

[Mixedup]

Depends what I'm trying to achieve (and how flexible the DAW is!) but sometimes I'll use a post-fade send, then have both the dry and wet tracks routed to a group bus, where I'll apply any post-compression processing. Eg that works well if you want a sort of two-stage compression, with parallel compression (wet + dry channels, with whatever processing you want on the wet) running into a regular compressor on the group — it's a pretty good way to manage parts with big changes in dynamics through a song.

As ever, you can set this stuff up in any number of ways. It's all down to what you're trying to achieve, what complexity/ease of control you need and how you prefer to work.

[awjoe]

Hey, something to explore and learn - thanks.

[Mixedup]

No worries. The thing with the multiple channels approach is that (again depending on DAW) it can start to look pretty messy and cumbersome if you like to do a lot of your work in the arrange page, and use this approach on many tracks. But if you mix on the mixer and develop a good system (eg main track, with wet track to the right and group track to the right of that, colour coded) it starts to get much more intuitive than opening/closing lots of plug-ins and scrolling up and down the arrange page...

[ore_terra]

It would be worth checking to see if you're sending pre or post-fader too. Parallel compression is usually easier to set up and keep in control on a pre-fade.

I have them all post in my template, but the faders of the “dry” tracks are always at 0.

What I do touch sometimes is the send level leaving the pcomp insert plugin untouched. In Cubase you can monitor the pcomp track isolated so it’s easy to dial it.