Hey guys,

I would like to get some more pointers from those of you who mix
through 2-buss compression and/or those of you who can honestly say you
are achieving a top 40 sounding pop and/or rock mix or pretty damn
close to it.

As my ears have developed more over the past few years, it has become
more and more evident to me that almost every mix I hear on commercial
CD's has about 3 to 4db of stereo compression added seperate to actual
limiting. I can tell that this compression is happening on the 2-buss
because I've become familiar with the process of doing this myself and
hearing almost the same results in my own mixes. I like what 2-buss
compression does for my mixes when I strap the comp on from the start
of the mix. I've done this for a while because I hate the sound of
"professionally mastered" tracks I've mixed which come back with more
reverb and whacky balances. My mastering engineer no longer applies
compression to my mixes as I've requested him not to.

I employed this method a while back and got the tip from "Mixerman" who
swears by it. I just wish I could have picked it ages ago on like a
million commercial releases which had it but I could never pick it. I
basically get my drums sounding great with EQ and individual leveling
compression, compress them on the 2-buss and blend all the other
instruments with the drums. Of course all these other instruments are
being squeezed into the stereo compressor on the master but this is the
thing I love and can't get enough of. By the time I'm done, everything
sounds like 1 mix and I still get an open sound even though my
compressor might read 4db of gain reduction. It's still open because
I've mixed as per normal and applied the appropriate amount of reverb
to tracks while pretending the stereo compressor isn't there. The
compressor sounds more invisible to me when I've mixed through it than
what I'd get back from a mastering facility that compressed it.

What I am after are specific and common settings from people on this
board who work in this manner. I think it would be great to compare
different working methods and to see the reasons behind it. I find
myself always using a 0.1ms attack and a really fast release for most
pop stuff with about 4db of reduction. This setting is the closest
thing I have found to getting me the sound I hear on big records put
out by majors. I have tried longer attack and release times to not be
so drastic but it creates larger peaks and dips which are hard to limit
later on in mastering. Using a good quality compressor, the fast attack
and release can be a very transparent thing. I also find that longer
settings make the compression more audible since the mix starts to
fluctuate and breathe in and out on every beat. I guess what I'm doing
is more like half limiting and half compressing, only difference is
limiting doesn't change the balances because it acts like a brickwall
to only the peak. The kind of compression I am using keeps the balances
intact so long as it is in the chain from the start. It holds the
bottom together and makes the mix sound BIG.

Guys I really don't want any responses like "commercial records sound
crap" or "why so much compression?". I've posted questions like this
before and got smart-ass replies when I am sincerely asking genuine
questions I have discussed for hours with well known producer/engineers
in the past. My point is, if I can get practical examples from the
talented people I've met then there's no reason I can't get practical
and specific discussions going on in this group. After all It's all for
the purpose of learning and experimenting and it's enjoyable.

This kind of topic will probably annoy many who have a more "pure"
approach to music and mixing which I know exist on this board. I am
after technical approaches simply because I am trying to achieve what I
hear on commercial CDs. Even though many of these commercial recordings
might not be mixed in a musical fashion, I still want to know what goes
on for learning purposes. I'm sure it intrigues many people who are
trying to get a grasp of it like I am.

Thanks,
David