multiband compressor in master

[BLP]

(Using computer based DAW - Adobe Audition 3)

So I found out that if i put a multiband compressor in the master after I think I mixed everything to my taste I can easily get a sense a "loud" and "togetherness" with my over track.


Am I hurting my track by doing this?

To me it sounds better, but way different from the mix.


It doesn't peak on the meter, yet sometimes when I see it on the graph some waves are going over the 0db white line.


It also solved the problem of what I initially came to this site to figure out why my "mix was hungry" lol.

It needed to be more FULL.


The good thing is even if I am messing something up all I have to do is unpower the FX on the master and I can start over quickly.


The crazy thing is I was putting effects directly on everything recorded instead of on the channels so my changes where permanent.

It wasn't till I came here that I realised I should be putting them on the channel and the use of aux sends and busses!!

I've learned more in the last few weeks of signing up for this site and talking to actualy people then I have on my own reading various other website with no interaction of other engineers.

sorry for the babble, back to the main question lol

So, in your opinion, if used right, will a multiband compressor in the master always HELP your mix if you understand and use it right???

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

So, in your opinion, if used right, will a multiband compressor in the master always HELP your mix if you understand and use it right???

Well, to answer your question literally, ANY tool will always help if you understand it and use it right.

But if what you're asking is, "Will I always get better masters by using an MBC on them?", the answer is, "If the master calls for the use of an MBC in a certain way, then use it; if it does not call for the use of an MBC, then don't use it."

I's like asking if one should always add salt to the food on the stove. The answer is, you gotta taste it first to find out. If it needs salt, add it. If it doesn't, don't add it.

I think you're being partially fooled by The Bias Of Volume - one of the basic biases that affects casual listening. What that means is that the human ear tends to think that when A/B comparing something quieter to something louder, the louder one sounds better. Audio salespeople use that trick all the time to trick customers into buying products by sneaking volume differences into the comparison.

If you really want to taste the difference in your projects and see whether you need to salt your mix, compare them at the same volume. That is, make two mixes, one with the compression, and one without. Then play them back, but turn up the playback volume on the uncompressed one so that it's actually the same volume as the compressed one, and see which one sounds better that way. Pick whichever one sounds better.

G.

 

[dintymoore]

(Using computer based DAW - Adobe Audition 3)
... if used right, will a multiband compressor in the master always HELP your mix if you understand and use it right???

That's like asking "will food always taste better if I add salt?".

If the food is too salty to begin with it sure won't.

That being said, I have all my tracks going out of the computer into a passive mixer that goes through two tube compressors and then through a T. C. Electronics Finalizer, and that goes back to the computer as the final stereo master.

So I'm always going through the Finalizer, even when I'm just playing around, and I have it set up for multi band compression. I have it set so the compression kicks in on the low band way more than the mid and hi bands, and my default is to always use it. I record only my own stuff so there's not that much variation on the source.

 

[RAMI]

I usually read the other responses before I post, but that's just me.

 

[BLP]

Well, to answer your question literally, ANY tool will always help if you understand it and use it right.

But if what you're asking is, "Will I always get better masters by using an MBC on them?", the answer is, "If the master calls for the use of an MBC in a certain way, then use it; if it does not call for the use of an MBC, then don't use it."

If you really want to taste the difference in your projects and see whether you need to salt your mix, compare them at the same volume. That is, make two mixes, one with the compression, and one without. Then play them back, but turn up the playback volume on the uncompressed one so that it's actually the same volume as the compressed one, and see which one sounds better that way. Pick whichever one sounds better.

G.

Thanks I will try that comparison.

----

And I'm not really mastering yet or making masters, I'm talking bout the channel that says "master" inside the program. I'm not actually saving a mix out then bringing the single song into the MBC I am applying it to the master channel and manually adjusting bands to get the sound I like before I save the song out.

(If that even makes a difference lol)

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I usually read the other responses before I post, but that's just me.

That's funny, I always salt the other responses before I read them

Seriously, considering there's only a few minutes differences in the time stamps betweem my and dinty's post, I'll give the benefit of a doubt that he hit his "Post Reply" before I hit my "Submit Reply".

G.

 

[oretez]

(Using computer based DAW - Adobe Audition 3)

if used right, will a multiband compressor in the master always HELP your mix if you understand and use it right???

like with most audio stuff there is no simple answer

except: 'it depends'

or

'if it sounds 'right' to you, (and particularly when working on someone else's project and they hire you back) then it's 'right'

discussing multi band compressors is like many things audio related, a can of worms (or even snakes on a plane)

I know individuals whose opinions I general respect who think multi-band compression, and its popular proliferation, due to cheap plug ins, is the worst thing, for music since white sliced bread.

I used frequency limited compression for a long time, pre dating my forays into digital editing by years . . .

but for me multi band compression remains a surgical tool, used to address small fairly specific issues within a track . . . as I avoid even pretending to master things (with a passion) I can't really address how effective a tool it might me on a mix that doesn't suck . . . but in a very general way I prefer to apply multi-band, frequency limited compression to elements of the mix prior to the master . . .

that said I've worked on a number of projects where the raw material is a mono, pseudo-stereo, or stereo mix of a performance where addressing individual voices is more or less impossible, where some form of frequency limited compression is a useful tool for cleaning of the final product

this is not a thorough discussion (and I trying to keep it short of mind numbing) but for example what you are doing when applying multiband compression to the master bus (or the final mix) is kind of the opposite of the processes that enhance the detail of each voice, but tries to find 'space' so that the voices don't interfere with each other. What you are doing is compressing everything, all the elements that comprise a 'voice' (not necessarily a human voice, but a voice in an arrangement, which might be a single instrument, group of instruments), all the individual voices, within a specific frequency band exactly the same. One of the things that lends variety, movement and rhythm to a tune is to 'compress' similar frequencies of different voices the same, variable dynamics . . .

I a simple case situation one might side chain one voice to another, particularly if they are particularly rich in the same frequency bands. I.E. you might use the vocal dynamic to trigger compression on the acoustic guitar, when vocal cuts in you quash the dynamics, reducing its intensity, of the guitar. Vocal drops out, guitar expands to it's original dynamic presence. This is an old trick and can easily be overused or missused so the effect does not support the rhythm of the arrange, but since acoustic guitar and human voice tend to be clutter in a lot of the same frequency bands doing something that alters the expression is a way to lend individual character to each voice.

Another difficulty with multi-band compression is what happens at the boundaries of so called frequency bands. If you are not careful about the slope of EQ you can produce a resonance ringout or chime that you might or might what . . . but tends to be intrusive and fatiguing if over used in any case. If you aren't careful you can get a spike, related to the boundary, of a transient that you are actually trying to compress . . . which is sort of the opposite of what you might be trying to accomplish

if you use broad and shallow enough slopes there might well be no reason to apply multiband compression in the first place.

Since the order in which dynamics processes and EQ are applied makes a difference. That is EQ then dynamics can and should sound appreciably different then dynmaics then EQ the idea of being able to, sort of, apply them simultaneous sort of makes sense and has a quirky attraction. But like a lot of boxes (in all walks of life) that try to be 'multi' anything you tend to wind up with a box that has inherent conflicts among processors and doesn't, quite, do anything well.

As a very rough rule (though in practice it's a little of this, a little of that nudging things in a particular direction) I tend to prefer fixing dynamics first then addressing EQ. Roughly imposing significant (and if its not significant why do it) dynamics changes will alter the effect of the EQ more significantly then EQ will alter the impact of dynamics changes. A multi band compressor has to make 'decisions' concerning frequency prior to applying compression . . . so again you are kind of aiming in direction of a target you cant 'see' . . . until the effect is applied then you back up alter a parameter and try again

we do a lot of that while mixing in any case but to employ a process whose first shot is more or less guaranteed to be quite as good as should be seems somewhat counter productive.

it is for all these reasons and probably a half dozen others that lead me to believe that, even on the master bus, it can, at times, be exactly the right tool, overall I view it as a precision tool not something generally applied to 'fix' the mix

there is little a multi-band compressor can contribute, as part of the mix process, to the master bus that can't be addressed more effectively within elements of the mix. Don't 'fix' the mix, simply mix it better

 

[dintymoore]

That's funny, I always salt the other responses before I read them

Seriously, considering there's only a few minutes differences in the time stamps betweem my and dinty's post, I'll give the benefit of a doubt that he hit his "Post Reply" before I hit my "Submit Reply".

G.

That is funny - yes I do try and read before I post. Sometimes I'll post over a period of several minutes while I talk on the phone or make coffee so I don't think we have a case of copyrite infringement here.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That is funny - yes I do try and read before I post. Sometimes I'll post over a period of several minutes while I talk on the phone or make coffee so I don't think we have a case of copyrite infringement here.

Yeah, for me sometimes it just that I am not the fastest typer in the world either.

Just a case of great minds salt alike....



G.

 

[BLP]

like with most audio stuff there is no simple answer

except: 'it depends'

or

'if it sounds 'right' to you, (and particularly when working on someone else's project and they hire you back) then it's 'right'

discussing multi band compressors is like many things audio related, a can of worms (or even snakes on a plane)

I know individuals whose opinions I general respect who think multi-band compression, and its popular proliferation, due to cheap plug ins, is the worst thing, for music since white sliced bread.

I used frequency limited compression for a long time, pre dating my forays into digital editing by years . . .

but for me multi band compression remains a surgical tool, used to address small fairly specific issues within a track . . . as I avoid even pretending to master things (with a passion) I can't really address how effective a tool it might me on a mix that doesn't suck . . . but in a very general way I prefer to apply multi-band, frequency limited compression to elements of the mix prior to the master . . .

that said I've worked on a number of projects where the raw material is a mono, pseudo-stereo, or stereo mix of a performance where addressing individual voices is more or less impossible, where some form of frequency limited compression is a useful tool for cleaning of the final product

this is not a thorough discussion (and I trying to keep it short of mind numbing) but for example what you are doing when applying multiband compression to the master bus (or the final mix) is kind of the opposite of the processes that enhance the detail of each voice, but tries to find 'space' so that the voices don't interfere with each other. What you are doing is compressing everything, all the elements that comprise a 'voice' (not necessarily a human voice, but a voice in an arrangement, which might be a single instrument, group of instruments), all the individual voices, within a specific frequency band exactly the same. One of the things that lends variety, movement and rhythm to a tune is to 'compress' similar frequencies of different voices the same, variable dynamics . . .

I a simple case situation one might side chain one voice to another, particularly if they are particularly rich in the same frequency bands. I.E. you might use the vocal dynamic to trigger compression on the acoustic guitar, when vocal cuts in you quash the dynamics, reducing its intensity, of the guitar. Vocal drops out, guitar expands to it's original dynamic presence. This is an old trick and can easily be overused or missused so the effect does not support the rhythm of the arrange, but since acoustic guitar and human voice tend to be clutter in a lot of the same frequency bands doing something that alters the expression is a way to lend individual character to each voice.

Another difficulty with multi-band compression is what happens at the boundaries of so called frequency bands. If you are not careful about the slope of EQ you can produce a resonance ringout or chime that you might or might what . . . but tends to be intrusive and fatiguing if over used in any case. If you aren't careful you can get a spike, related to the boundary, of a transient that you are actually trying to compress . . . which is sort of the opposite of what you might be trying to accomplish

if you use broad and shallow enough slopes there might well be no reason to apply multiband compression in the first place.

Since the order in which dynamics processes and EQ are applied makes a difference. That is EQ then dynamics can and should sound appreciably different then dynmaics then EQ the idea of being able to, sort of, apply them simultaneous sort of makes sense and has a quirky attraction. But like a lot of boxes (in all walks of life) that try to be 'multi' anything you tend to wind up with a box that has inherent conflicts among processors and doesn't, quite, do anything well.

As a very rough rule (though in practice it's a little of this, a little of that nudging things in a particular direction) I tend to prefer fixing dynamics first then addressing EQ. Roughly imposing significant (and if its not significant why do it) dynamics changes will alter the effect of the EQ more significantly then EQ will alter the impact of dynamics changes. A multi band compressor has to make 'decisions' concerning frequency prior to applying compression . . . so again you are kind of aiming in direction of a target you cant 'see' . . . until the effect is applied then you back up alter a parameter and try again

we do a lot of that while mixing in any case but to employ a process whose first shot is more or less guaranteed to be quite as good as should be seems somewhat counter productive.

it is for all these reasons and probably a half dozen others that lead me to believe that, even on the master bus, it can, at times, be exactly the right tool, overall I view it as a precision tool not something generally applied to 'fix' the mix

there is little a multi-band compressor can contribute, as part of the mix process, to the master bus that can't be addressed more effectively within elements of the mix. Don't 'fix' the mix, simply mix it better

I don't use it to fix the mix. I use it to enhance what I've already done. Atleast I'm under the impression that's what I'm doing.



I never use presets tho. Presets are like TV dinners and I rather make the meal my self from scratch.

 

[Massive Master]

I can tell you this -- I've heard maul-the-band compression wreck far more mixes than it's ever helped.

And if it truly sounds "better" then why didn't you simply mix it to sound like that in the first place...?

It's sort of a rhetorical question. But I can also tell you how many times I've used maul-the-band compression in the last year or so...

Two. Maybe just one... One *track* mind you - Not on an entire project... If I need MBC, I usually contact the mix engineer and tell him what was so screwed up that it needed MBC to fix it.

 

[BLP]

I can tell you this -- I've heard maul-the-band compression wreck far more mixes than it's ever helped.

And if it truly sounds "better" then why didn't you simply mix it to sound like that in the first place...?

It's sort of a rhetorical question. But I can also tell you how many times I've used maul-the-band compression in the last year or so...

Two. Maybe just one... One *track* mind you - Not on an entire project... If I need MBC, I usually contact the mix engineer and tell him what was so screwed up that it needed MBC to fix it.

Because, most of my clients are hip hop artist, who bring instrumentals with them already "mixed". I have no access to the individual tracked out instrumentals.

So my goal is to mix their vocals to the instrumentals they bring.

 

[oretez]

I can tell you this -- I've heard maul-the-band compression wreck far more mixes than it's ever helped.

And if it truly sounds "better" then why didn't you simply mix it to sound like that in the first place...?

It's sort of a rhetorical question. .

uh, yeah sort of what I said, or would have if I didn't like babbling so much

 

[oretez]

I don't use it to fix the mix. I use it to enhance what I've already done. Atleast I'm under the impression that's what I'm doing.

but, in my not always humble, opinion if you are applying MBC to the master bus you are, in effect, attempting to fix the mix rather then fixing (if something needs to be fixed) the mix . . . my guess is that if MBC compression makes the master bus sound better one could get 'better' results massaging individual tracks . . . it probably would take longer, and I'll admit that if the check has already cleared and that's all I'm going to get on a project that I have attempted to 'fix the mix' . . . I'm never, ever happy with the results (one reason why I don't pretend to 'master')

by the time you reach a point where putting any process on the master bus is a good idea you should already have a reasonable idea of what the arrangement is, have listened critically to the project enough times to have some time idea of strengths and weaknesses of individual tracks in supporting that arrangement. If for some reason MBC sounds good on the master bus . . . suggestion was to 'sleep on it' and appraise individual tracks the following morning. (& I'm well aware that in a commercial setting that is not always possible, but sacrificing individual track dynamics under the idea that quashing the mix/mess together (via any type of compression/expanding) is over the long haul not the best approach to securing tracks that are 'lively' and don't fatigue on repeated plays

 

[oretez]

Because, most of my clients are hip hop artist, who bring instrumentals with them already "mixed". I have no access to the individual tracked out instrumentals.

So my goal is to mix their vocals to the instrumentals they bring.

damn, admittedly I do not do much hip/hop, so am far from conversant as to 'industry standard' approach . . . but the situation you are describing is a really ugly one to be in from a technical stand point

not criticizing you or clients but that approach feels way to much like Karaoke to me. Generally speaking I'd think that to get the results I'd want to achieve it would be cheaper (for the client) for me to just retrack necessary instrumentals . . . it might lack the necessary fashion forward patina but it would certainly seem to me to nod in the direction of far more creative results. And on the hip hop in which I've participated the samples employed didn't require our matching the sound to anything 'new', they were simply addressed as a distinct instrument

I do a lot of overdubs (record, engineer, produce, mix, etc.) for tunes where the foundation material is tracked elsewhere. something 'industry standard' common but . . . not being able to tweak individual tracks would make me need to charge more, not less

 

[PDP]

I think you're being partially fooled by The Bias Of Volume - one of the basic biases that affects casual listening. What that means is that the human ear tends to think that when A/B comparing something quieter to something louder, the louder one sounds better. Audio salespeople use that trick all the time to trick customers into buying products by sneaking volume differences into the comparison.
G.

This is great point IMO,People will listen to a song at the volume they want. I certainly understand the contemplation though, seems like the trendy thing is to use loudness effects on mixes.

 

[BLP]

damn, admittedly I do not do much hip/hop, so am far from conversant as to 'industry standard' approach . . . but the situation you are describing is a really ugly one to be in from a technical stand point

not criticizing you or clients but that approach feels way to much like Karaoke to me. Generally speaking I'd think that to get the results I'd want to achieve it would be cheaper (for the client) for me to just retrack necessary instrumentals . . . it might lack the necessary fashion forward patina but it would certainly seem to me to nod in the direction of far more creative results. And on the hip hop in which I've participated the samples employed didn't require our matching the sound to anything 'new', they were simply addressed as a distinct instrument

I do a lot of overdubs (record, engineer, produce, mix, etc.) for tunes where the foundation material is tracked elsewhere. something 'industry standard' common but . . . not being able to tweak individual tracks would make me need to charge more, not less

Yes, it would, but the instrumentals they bring are already a whole and I am suppose to make the vocals fit in without having access to the instrumental. perhaps I should post the song I was mixing when I did this topic and maybe that will help?

 

[benage]

Hi, can I ask why are you using a MultiBand over a single Band compressor? are you setting the different bands with different amounts of compression or are you leaving them the same? I only ask because I was using a Multiband on my mixes partly to 'gel' them, to help in the loudness process,(and also I was worried if I didn't when played on the Radio The reverbs and delays would be brought up by the stations compressers and be too much) but also because multiband seemed to change the sound in a way I liked that single band compression did not. However I have learned since then that multiband compression can give you an 'EQ Skew' which can sound pleasing to the ear but can be recreated with single Band compression and EQ adjustment (in my case it was scooping the mid range slightly).

 

[BLP]

This is the one I use on the master output.




I do not fully understand what the "crossover" does.


Could anybody explain?

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I do not fully understand what the "crossover" does.

Crossover sets the frequencies where one band starts fading and the next band starts taking over. The crossovers are represented on your graph by the vertical white lines. They basically set the overall width and placement of each of your four bands of compression.

You should learn how to get you mixes to sound good without using Blowzone in mastering first. Then if/when you do decide that you need to use Blowzone in mastering, the results will sound 5 times better than they do now.

G.