ChuckC


I have no idea what he means but he said he was upgrading his Daw because his wouldn't allow it. So I do doubt it was that simple.

The only thing I can imagine is that his DAW doesn't have input channels, so he cannot record the wet tracks. Personally, I wouldn't bother for compression, because I believe it's preferable to compress and EQ in context, when you're mixing. But for other things, like amp sims and cab impulses, I love having input channels. 


Most of the time these days, I'll record guitar tracks using my POD, bypassing the cab simulation and using a software impulse loader. Once I'm set up and have worked out a sound I dig, I record it as is via an input channel. Also has the advantage of cutting back the number of plug-ins I have to run in real time - one instance on the input vs one on each guitar track.

I RUN ALMOST ALL OF MY TRACKS THRU AN EXTERNAL COMPRESSOR before it hits my convertor, before it hits my DAW.

i guess this could be construed as 'direct compression', though the usage of that term is kinda dumb.

there is an already-established terminology in place.

I suppose one could decipher the phrase by asking the opposite question: what is indirect compression?

I think that's when you send your song out to one of those $20-a-song online mastering services and it comes back pegged like a lightswitch. You can always claim "I didn't do that!" - it was indirect compression.

Nice one Bit.

Surely ya don't think he was talking about manually riding a fader to raise levels in low spots do you?  That would be very "direct".

HAHA BIT..... That was funny sir

I spoke with him again... I guess his phone auto corrected the word sidechain to direct, pretty weird.