Multi Band Compressor

[Robert D]

I like multiflavor dynamic shakes, but a lot of people abuse them and just start drinking them with everything, expecting to make a crappy hamburger taste better.

 

[EddieRay]

An observation:

One of the frequently asked questions I see here is how to get final mixes up to commercial CD volume levels. The usual answer is "have it mastered".

When pressed further about what occurs in the mastering process that accomplishes the higher volumes, the usual answer is multi-band compression.

I just picked up CD Architect which has an MBC plug-in. I really have no clear idea how to use it but I'm experimenting with it, mostly by compressing the frequency ranges which seem to be most prominent in the mix. Can anyone suggest a better approach?

 

[Robert D]

An observation:

One of the frequently asked questions I see here is how to get final mixes up to commercial CD volume levels. The usual answer is "have it mastered".

When pressed further about what occurs in the mastering process that accomplishes the higher volumes, the usual answer is multi-band compression.

I just picked up CD Architect which has an MBC plug-in. I really have no clear idea how to use it but I'm experimenting with it, mostly by compressing the frequency ranges which seem to be most prominent in the mix. Can anyone suggest a better approach?

OK, did John and Glen put you up to this to make their case?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Bob Clearmountain in a 2004 interview;

"Occasionally, a piece of gear comes along that fills a certain need that I have. An example is the BSS dynamic equalizer. I always wanted a box that would compress or limit certain frequencies, so when a frequency gets harsh, it will be sensitive to just that.
...
I'd really like Glen and Massive to speak to this.

Personally, I'd have two questions for Mr. Clearmountain (man, it'd cool if he were actually here to answer them...then we'd REALLY have a thread .) My first question would be where is that harshness coming from/how'd it get there in the first place? The second question would be, how is it that it's only harsh once it rises above a threshold; is the level changing the timbre somehow?

As to the first question, the followup is why couldn't it be nipped in the bud instead of fixed downstream? OK, I admit that not every mix is going to be 100% perfect and for practical reasons can't be re-done, and there might be times when an MBC would be just the ticket for the ME. I don't believe I ever said that MBCs were totally useless (if I did earlier in this thread somewhere, I take that part of it back. They are not entirely useless, they just come real close. And they are almost entirely misued. More on that in a minute...)

As to the second question, I'm sincerely curious to the answer to that. It's just not a common phenom in my limited experience thus far. Maybe they're be monsters off the edge of the map that I have not sailed to yet.

Again, my point is not that there is *no* place or use for MBCs (hell, I devote a whole chapter to them in my compression booklet), just that 99% of the time, if things are done right, they are unnecessary. And that 99% of the time that they ARE used, they are used for the wrong reasons and with worse results than if the need for them were avoided in the first place.

I respect each of your personel opinion that band specific compression is not for you, but I will continue to take issue with your oft stated contention that no one else should use it either

I never said that. I said that if more people would learn proper fundamental engineering technique, that the NEED to use one would be virtually non-existant.

9 out of 10 people on this board use MBCs to mix their songs after the two mix is complete and they should be mastering, instead of actually mixing their stuff when and where they are supposed to. The average 2006 HomeRecc'r's idea of "mixing" is to compress the shinola out of every track, lay the tracks on top of each other like sheets of plywood, mix down to stereo, and then use the MBC in mastering to try and fix the fact that their mixes sound like shit.

This, more often than not, is what these folks mean when they say that mastering usually involves MBC use. The fact is, traditional mastering had gotten along just fine without MBCs back when people didn't phone in the mixing stage. More than that, mastering traditionally has had next to nothing to do with fixing the mix whatsoever.

If more people would bother to take the time to learn to mix (and to lay off the compression a bit while they're at it), they just might find that they'd need to perform far less corrective surgery to their mixes in the mastering stage and that their mixes would actually come out sounding far better for it.

As long as we're tossing out quotes from Big Boys, allow me to contribute this quote from Eddy Schreyer of Oasis Mastering (Little Richard, Thin Lizzy, Earth Wind & Fire, Dwight Yoakam, Kanye West, Christina Aguilera and a hundred others) as interviewed for "The Mastering Engineer's Handbook":

Q: Do you use multiband limiting or multiband compression at all?
ES: No. I have yet to hear one that is really happening.

Or Carl Verheyen (Supertramp) in an article about mastering services:
"Remember this important fact and you'll be safe: The mastering engineer can NOT mix your record. They do not deal with individual track levels, only frequencies. But if you come in with great sounding tracks, he or she will only make them sound better!"

Any good lawyer can always come up with an expert witness to argue their side of the case

G.

 

[RAK]

My first question would be where is that harshness coming from/how'd it get there in the first place? The second question would be, how is it that it's only harsh once it rises above a threshold; is the level changing the timbre somehow?

As to the first question, the followup is why couldn't it be nipped in the bud instead of fixed downstream?
G.

Sometimes that's just the way the vocalist sings. They may have a little harshness in certain frequencies, that a dynamic EQ can help smooth out, and you can't "fix" someone's biology. (well maybe you can, but I'm not getting into that)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Sometimes that's just the way the vocalist sings. They may have a little harshness in certain frequencies, that a dynamic EQ can help smooth out, and you can't "fix" someone's biology. (well maybe you can, but I'm not getting into that)

Awww, RAK, you stopped just when it was getting good .

Ok, let's say that were the case. Is that something you'd wait until mastering to fix? I'd have to say no.

G.

 

[RAK]

Awww, RAK, you stopped just when it was getting good .

Ok, let's say that were the case. Is that something you'd wait until mastering to fix? I'd have to say no.

G.

Well the one session we brought in a dynamic EQ, we used it on a couple tracks during the mix stage. I wasn't at the mastering session (that was done in NY at Sterling Sound with Greg Calbi - note gross name dropping here please )

I agree, mastering shouldn't be used to "fix" errors in the mix.

 

[Robert D]

Thanks for your response Glen. As always, you put up a good argument. In a more perfect world we would all put out great mixes that need simple mastering and no surgury. For the self recordist who takes off their mixing hat and puts on their mastering hat, all in the same chair, there should be no reason for trying to reach into the mix with an MBC, they have the tracks right there to go back and fix the mix. For the mastering engineer who can't, the MBC is a way to reach into the mix, which I'm sure is why Clearmountain likes the BSS unit. Then there's the fact that all recording isn't necessarily seperation recording, Bluegrass being a prime example. So there are occasions where, whether a group track, or a sample set, or various other cases, one has a single or stereo pair of tracks that are spectrally and dynamically complex, and the MBC can be effective at the track level.
That's my story, and I'm stickin to it, dammit.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's my story, and I'm stickin to it, dammit.

Hahaha, and I respect you for it, Rob. (Bob? Robert? RD? Horatio? Mr. D.? )

Yeah, your bluegrass example is a good one.

I just bemoan those that try to *substitute* even trying to do the job well with skating through it by trying to use gear like an MBC to do the work for them. And if this board is any semi-accurate judge, this MBC misuse happens on an epidemic scale that'd make the threat of Avian flu sound like a head cold.

Thats MY story, and I'm sticking to THAT!

Hey, RD, if nothing else, the OP of this thread should have gotten his money's worth by now, eh?.

G.

 

[flatfinger]

In regards to using an MBC when tracking;



When they were making records in the sixties, they did'nt have automation so they had to ride the faders. What about when a individual, single track had a part of it's spectrum that would be great for quiet parts but to loud or strident during a loud cresendo? would they bounce and massage the track until they had the proportionality worked out? What if they made changes to the mix?
go back and do the bounce again??

It's seems nice to be able to use a "dynamic Equalizer" (if thats what it's doing) to just reel in the level of a focused frequency when that part goes over the threshold during the cresendo. Is'nt that going a little beyond fader levels and manipulating the spectral content in real playback time? is'nt that just progress?
Really, debating wheter people can handle the application of a tool ( which in this case seems to be the exception, not the rule) and that since the result often runs amok seems to ignore a more pertient question....... does it sound good when applied properly.?

thats whwn the opinion and taste factor come in ,....eh!

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Really, debating wheter people can handle the application of a tool ( which in this case seems to be the exception, not the rule) and that since the result often runs amok seems to ignore a more pertient question....... does it sound good when applied properly?

I think the Law Of Unintended Conesquences is the paramount issue here.

It's not so much that people can't handle the tool, it's that people are using the tool the right way for the wrong purpose. It's the total corruption of the audio production process and the resulting crapola results that are the big stories here, IMHO.

Mixing itself is disappearing. I don't know if its from lack of understanding on the part of the new batch of rookies coming along, or whether it's sloth, but for some reason in the past decade or so the belief that throwing gear at a project in the mastering stage is not only the easy way out of having to do the job in the tracking and mixing stages, but in fact how things are done and have always been done, has spread like a disease. And production quality is suffering because of it.

That to me is a far more important issue than the handful of special situatons when talented engineers including RD, CP and even Chief Clearmountain find valid occasional use for an MBC.

There was a time not that long ago when nobody needed an MBC to crank out a fantastic-sounding production as good as anything done today. Yet all of a sudden they are considered an integral part of mastering? The fact that so many people don't even see the red flags that dichotomy raises is perhaps the most pertenant story of them all.

G.

 

[cello_pudding]

Sometimes that's just the way the vocalist sings. They may have a little harshness in certain frequencies, that a dynamic EQ can help smooth out, and you can't "fix" someone's biology. (well maybe you can, but I'm not getting into that)

that's exactly what i'm saying. and sometimes its a combo of voice and mic coloration that temporary eq'ing would make more normal




yeah...i shoulda said in my one post is that i would fix these things in the mix, not the master. that would screw up the entire track in that freq range.

and, yes its better to just get the drummer to not make those high pops on his snare, but sometimes its just out of your hands. like in mastering..or if someone else tracked and they want you to mix what they did.

 

[gcapel]

Mixing itself is disappearing. I don't know if its from lack of understanding on the part of the new batch of rookies coming along, or whether it's sloth, but for some reason in the past decade or so the belief that throwing gear at a project in the mastering stage is not only the easy way out of having to do the job in the tracking and mixing stages, but in fact how things are done and have always been done, has spread like a disease. And production quality is suffering because of it.

G.

i think newbs like me (3-4years) sometimes want to be a engineer overnight and say "hey i can record your band" and push the autopilot button. So I believe it to be both sloth and lack of understanding.

I;ve learned that its a journey. There is so much to learn. I dont see myself recording professional for at least another 2-3 years (not only for learning but for gear). These type threads are probably the most important and most overlooked by students or newbs.

 

[Keiffer]

9 out of 10 people on this board use MBCs to mix their songs after the two mix is complete and they should be mastering, instead of actually mixing their stuff when and where they are supposed to. The average 2006 HomeRecc'r's idea of "mixing" is to compress the shinola out of every track, lay the tracks on top of each other like sheets of plywood, mix down to stereo, and then use the MBC in mastering to try and fix the fact that their mixes sound like shit.

How do you know this ?

You often use very wide brushes when painting pictures...

 

[Keiffer]

there are some circumstances that call for MBC... here's several that come to mind.

Helping certain instruments sit in a mix better. One can track all day long and hope the tracking is perfect, but as the mix comes together, MBC may be the perfect tool.

One is handed a set of tracks to mix and MBC will do a better job than EQ on a track

Distorted guitar bottom taming (close micing and proximity affect)... It's often virtually impossible to tame the bottom via micing w/o killing the tone

MBC is a tool like any other. The fact that one can devise instances where the tool is abused, misused or misunderstood is no reason not to consider it. I generally think in EQ terms vs compression when using MBC

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

How do you know this ?

You often use very wide brushes when painting pictures...

After almost 30 years of working with associates and clients in this racket and of doing this stuff onesself both as amateur and pro, and after over 3,000 posts in 18 months on this forum, one tends to learn a thing or two .

I'll admit that "9 out of 10" is only an educated guesstimate, but I am fairly confident that guesstimate is not very far from the truth. I am usually accused of getting picky and parsing details with too fine of a comb. When I do use a wide brush, it's because I believe it to be the appropriate tool for the job at hand.

And even if I were way off, it were only 5 out of 10, that's still a damn serious issue.

I think that gcapel hit it on the nose; too many are trying to be an engineer overnight, and are thinking that sophisticated technology will let them do that fairly automatically. Then they come on here and ask a) why their mixes suck, or b) what's the best setting for using technology X.

To a) the answer is because all the fancy gear in the world isn't going to help them if they don't know technique first, and to b) the answer is that they are asking the wrong question to begin with.

I keep repeating this, but it's just not getting through. I'm not blaming the MBC. I'm blaming the mentality behind the belief that it's a necessary tool.

G.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

there are some circumstances that call for MBC... here's several that come to mind.

Helping certain instruments sit in a mix better. One can track all day long and hope the tracking is perfect, but as the mix comes together, MBC may be the perfect tool.

One is handed a set of tracks to mix and MBC will do a better job than EQ on a track

Distorted guitar bottom taming (close micing and proximity affect)... It's often virtually impossible to tame the bottom via micing w/o killing the tone

Please explain to me how it is that people were able to get past these problems just fine long before MBCs came along?

Multiband compression as a commonly used tool is a quite recent development, and it has not solved very many problems that were not already perfectly (or at the very least, satisfactorily) solved long before the MBC came along. Including most of those you just listed.

G.

 

[leddy]

I'd like to chime in with my experience:

Let's not forget that not all recording is done in a controlled environment (studio). I record live jazz. Some rooms sound good, some do not. I am mixing a recording right now where there are some funny resonant frequencies happening in the upright bass due to being close to a corner. If you have a large boost at say, 90hz as a result, you may end up with certain notes that really jump out. Because of the bleed from the live recording situation, I can't use regular compression - I hate compression on cymbals and that is what bleeds in mostly. If I cut 90hz, the notes that don't jump out lose an important part of the sound.

The tool that absolutley makes chicken salad out of chicken poo in this case is Voxengo's Soniformer. I'm not sure how this would have been done 10 years ago. If someone knows a better way, fill me in (and please don't just tell me to move the bass away from the corner - I can't control how some nightclub designed the stage). Believe me, I would rather not use the MBC plug, but it's the only way I get good results so far in situations like this.

 

[legionserial]

too many are trying to be an engineer overnight, and are thinking that sophisticated technology will let them do that fairly automatically. Then they come on here and ask a) why their mixes suck, or b) what's the best setting for using technology X.

To a) the answer is because all the fancy gear in the world isn't going to help them if they don't know technique first, and to b) the answer is that they are asking the wrong question to begin with.

I keep repeating this, but it's just not getting through. I'm not blaming the MBC. I'm blaming the mentality behind the belief that it's a necessary tool.

G.

If only recording was more like dungeons and dragons.

You start out as a level 1 engineer with a basic tool (ie some basic music software like Acid (nothing against acid, I used to use it myself)).

Once you have gained a certain amount of experience you ascend to level 2 engineer, where you can go and get a higher end bit of DAW software that, after 1 level of experience gaining, you will know fits your needs.

After more experience with that, you ascend to level 3. At level 3 you can go and buy yourself your first basic compressor. You can't buy a basic compressor at level 1 or 2, because you don't meet the level requirements, that being level 3.

When you have more of a grasp of a compressor, you ascend to level 4, whereby you can go and get yourself a host of funky plugins, nothing too complex mind...

At level 5 you get your first limiter.

You continue experimenting, learning, and gaining experience, increasing the arsenal of tools that you can use and know how to use, until the final level 10 where they give you an MBC, at point which your experience tells you (as is often the case with these games) that you don't need it.

Content with the array of tools you have been granted. You them continue to find ways of boosting your stats to make yourself more powerful (read: continue learning and picking up new things until the very end)

Apologies for jabbering crap but it seemed like a nice analogy when it started I fear I may only have succeded in painting myself as a geek. And an idiot. Oh well...such is life...

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If only recording was more like dungeons and dragons.

A very similar analogy that I keep in my mind is martial arts training.

MBCs are the ninja stars and nunchucks of audio recording that every body with a driver's license goes out and buys and starts flailing around and practicing with. They then expect to be the next Bruce Lee, without developing the discipline, the technique, the working out, the meditation and so forth. They buy their gi and their stars and their chucks, practice a few kicks and maybe even a throw or three. Yet if push came to shove, even a drunken biker could still send them to the hospital with one punch.

On the other hand, someone with the undertanding of how the arts actually work and what they are all about, who properly works their way up the discipline a little bit - they don't even have to be a black belt - soon realizes not only that they will almost never need bling like stars and chucks, but that in fact is not even what the discipline is all about.

I'm not saying everybody has to be a triple dan black belt in audio engineering (lord knows I'm not even close to one yet). I'm just saying leave the weapons alone until you're ready for them. We're lucky in this racket that only a small number of people actually get seriously physically hurt by a bad recording. But that doesn't make the analogy any less valid.

G.