Really interesting in-the-box technique based on Andrew Scheps original use of the extra master buss (rear buss) on his desk.
 

you know,
if you mix correctly,
why would you ever need parallel on the WHOLE MIX?
 
that means, you missed something while you were tracking.
 
there are certain sub busses that to me, makes perfect sense for parallel compression,
like the drum bus.

The effect can be very useful at blending the tracks together and is different from parallel compressing single tracks.  Putting a send on every single non-drum track is kind of insane and prone to errors though.  It would be better to route every track(or group of tracks) down to a number of intermediate buses(say one for drums, one for everything else) and then have a single send from the everything else bus to a parallel compression bus.  This way when you add a track as long as you route it to the right drum/non-drum bus it will be included in the parallel rear bus.

exactly matt..
 
you can clownphuck the sh!t out of your tracks putting something like parallel compression on AFTER the fact,
that's something you have to do from the get go.
 

OK, STILL CHEWING ON THIS...
 
i've been using parallel compression for years,
but typically i use it to boost the drums in terms of 'excitement', and occasionally i'll add it to certain sub busses to bring them up , such as acoustic guitars, or lead vox...
 
but now i dawned on me, watching this video for the 4th time, that using this technique, this idea of 'auto-mixing' a sub that is heavily compressing everything (but drums) and mixing it back in,
is taking ALL of the dynamics of the song away.
 
in otherwords, 
whenever there would be some 'breathing room' in the mix when loud things back off, gets brought right back up using this technique.
 
it's like the opposite of what i'm trying to learn to do right now.
 

@msorrels & Rob: You guys are right. Andrew Scheps is hack.

well, i'm not saying he can't pull it off,
but i can't!
LOL
 
again, he's mixing in a way i don't like...
 
i don't like super saturated mixes, with no dynamics, that go for maximum volume.
and that seems to be his thing.
 
maybe not, point me to something where he mixed with this, and left dynamics in the mix?
for example, green day's 'revolution' only has a dynamic range of 05!!!
 
\christ
 

Different tool/techniques for different tastes, no doubt.

With over 100 album credits to his name with such diverse talent, besides Green Day, there's Beyonce, Kenny Loggins, Michael Jackson, Robbie Robertson & Red Hot Chili Peppers. I'll assume he doesn't use the technique on ONLY harder rock. If he does then he must be smart enough to know when to use it and when not to in order please his clients.
 
I get that you don't want to work that way Rob, and I say KUDOS to you. As you know, I've praised your mixing more than once.
 

bapu,
it's not that i don't want to work THAT WAY>>>>>>>>>>
heheh,
i'm just trying to figure out what ways there are.
 
guys like this, that have been at it a long time, and have access to the best equipment,
and great artists,
they dial in their thing really well, and even when they 'share' their particulars,
i don't believe you are ever getting the total story.
 
but anyway, i tried this technique, i'm still searching for techniques, you know...
 
and i think with a much gentler hand, i could use it for my stuff....
but i experimented with some other options,
and i found other ways to get there.
 
and i don't dig listening to many albums that sit at 5DR.
it is fatiguing
 
it sounds brickwalled to me,
even the song the guy was doing in the video, just made it seem that everything was at one level.
 
apparently, the folks that buy the current crop of modern pop, really dig that sound.
 
my opinion, is that it's the only thing they've ever really heard, and don't know any different.
 
they put something like DSOTM on their playlist, and can't figure out why they can't hear it.
LOL