[MeesParticipant]

I’m definitely not experienced enough (as a sound engineer) to claim that one is by definition better than the other. I just noticed that I preferred the unlinked over the linked in my tests recently. I also did do a blind test, had it set up that two mute-group buttons switched the groups on and off, switching between a stereo group and mono groups. And then switching whilst having my eyes closed.

I think although technically the stereo image changes, the amount is marginal because the louder side is squashed (if that’s the right term) more and therefor still perceived louder than the other side.

[MeesParticipant]

Ah interesting! I agree that linked would inherently keep the stereo image intact, however upon testing this the other day I must say I preferred the sound of the unlinked setup. And I don’t think that’s because it added something that wouldn’t naturally be there. I guess maybe because it sounds more like it would without amplification is what I’m thinking? Not sure if that’s true.

In any case I’ll continue to play around with this.

[MeesParticipant]

I know that some mixers have this functionality built in to their compressors, I believe also some A&H consoles actually.

I learned about the effect a linked compressor has on the stereo image only recently (learned this from Dave Rat). But it’s makes quite a big difference I’ve noticed.
Linked compression tends to create more of a centre focused sound, that more noticeably ducks/compresses.
Unlinked retains a wider stereo image, that’s more ”open” and leaves more of the reverb intact as an example.

Surely there’s more to it, but this is what I’ve learned about it so far.

[Author]

Posts