Ok, could someone give me some info on the "why's" of multi-band compression?

  • Thread starter Thread starter DrewPeterson7
  • Start date Start date
Just to be pedantic, I'd like to point out that a compressor is not an "effect." It's a dynamics processor. An effect would be something time-based like delay or chorus.

It depends. Most of the time I use my UAD 1176LN more as an effect than really for compression purposes. For example, it has a nice way of distorting synth bass lines, dirtying them enough to give them some character. Since these are synth parts, there aren't any dynamics issues per se, at least none that couldn't be dealt by other means (for example editing MIDI velocity values).
 
.
The main point is that the recording world seemed to do just fine before they came along.

Hi Glenn, You could say this about many things in the audio world. ie: digital recording, autotune, powered speakers, midi, etc. that list can go on and on...

Rarely ever comes in handy - Certainly not on anything that actually sounds good...

What are the things that contribute to a MB being useless? They can be used in many instances where you would be doing something as simple as a side chain on a conventional compressor which is done quite a bit. I guess I'm just interested to hear some reasons why they are so hated or undesirable?
 
Last edited:
Hi Glenn, You could say this about many things in the audio world. ie: digital recording, autotune, powered speakers, midi, etc. that list can go on and on...
Absolutely. It'd do folks well in general to remember things like that on occasion and not fall into the gear slut syndrome so easily.

Though some things actually address problems or solve solutions more distinctly than others. For example, we did fine without MIDI, as long as we had access to a multitude musicians. But for those without that resource access or the budget for such access, MIDI is a real godsend. Similarly, the digital format opens up a whole new magnitude of manipulative possibilities that are just not logistically feasable with analog.

Multiband compression, OTOH, doesn't really solve any real issues that couldn't satisfactorily be dealt with before their advent. It's not like engineers were sitting around saying, "Man, I can't wait until someone comes along and invents the technology to allow for multiband compression, because it could really make my life so much better." As mentioned earlier, the basic technology was available as early as the 60s, as it was used in the major noise reduction schemes. Yet it took some 25-30 years or so after that before we started seeing it's common use as it's own general processing tool. Why? because there was no real need for it.

In fact, it's not a totally unreasonable argument to say that MBC has encouraged a decline in studio technique rather than cause an improvement. As Massive said, there's not much need for MBC on a mix that actually sounds good, and Shred said, that it's useful for fixing problems in stereo mixdowns that should have been fixed in the mix and not in mastering. If people would listen to the engineers before them and actually learn how to mix instead of listening to a bunch of marketing dweebs and skipping the mixing process altogether only to try and fix their mix in mastering, we wouldn't even be having this thread.

G.
 
I hear ya, There are a lot of things that are at our disposal that aren't needed as a necessity. The advent of "stereo" took well over 50 years to catch on.

In the perfect world if all audio mixes sounded good from the get go, we wouldn't need any tools in mastering or even the profession at all.

.. but I'm tying to see where the real disdain for the use of MB comes from?
It seems on the internets there is a real dislike for these but I have yet to hear a real reason why?

The only one excuse or reason that even comes close is: Crossover points? There's crossover in every eq. There's crossover in every speaker configuration. If the gear is designed properly, this is a non issue and invisible to the user?

How are they not used on anything that sounds good. They are.
 
I guess what I was trying to get at, and I think a bunch of you have answered this, is if there was eer a situation where I found some problem frequencies on a, say, acoustic guitar track around, oh, hell, 600hz, under what situation would I be better off pulling up a multi-band compressor instead of an EQ notch there. And, I guess the answer would be that it'd be a good idea if it was only a problem for part of the performance, but not all

Even then you could just use automation on your EQ.
 
Finalist: Post with the largest number of legitimate uses for the letter "x" :D

In the perfect world if all audio mixes sounded good from the get go, we wouldn't need any tools in mastering or even the profession at all.
Well, perhaps with the meSpace-era corrupted definition of mastering as "making a single song sound good", that may have some fraction of truth, but in the real world definition of mastering as "prepping recordings for their final sound and destination media", there is always going to be a need for mastering.

The point is, we don't need a perfect world. It wasn't that long ago that all audio mixes DID sound good - or at least were supposed to (the human element always makes sure that there are going to be clunkers here and there, of course.) That was the WHOLE IDEA of mixing, to create the best-sounding mix that you could. Mastering was NEVER about making bad mixes sound good, it was about polishing and prepping perfectly GOOD mixes. This leads into your next question:
I'm tying to see where the real disdain for the use of MB comes from?
It seems on the internets there is a real dislike for these but I have yet to hear a real reason why?
It's not (IMHO) so much a a disdain for the tool, it's a disdain for it's misuse and abuse based upon a misunderstanding of the recording production process in general.

Back in the 70s, the subject of similar debate was the whole "fix in the mix" syndrome. People started to be lured by the siren calls of more sophisticated EQ, compression and multitrack technology into the lazy tactic of not worrying about problems with the tracking because they could just "fix in the mix". As you should well know, relying too heavily on that philosophy is a recipe for disaster. Now with stuff like MBCs, harmonic balancers, and other such fancy doodads, that has been pushed even a step further down the chain. Nowdays, on boards like these (and it's not limited to HR), newbs are being drawn to the idea of "fix in the master".

After the four+ years I have been frequenting this board, I can testify without hesitation that a good 90% of newb home recorders - and many non-newbs, FTM - know almost nothing about what the stage of mixing actually entails, and worse, don't even know that they do not know. There is this pervasive belief that mixing is pretty much a mechanical process of roughly slapping the tracks together, and fixing and modifying the sonic problems with the resulting mix is SUPPOSED TO be handled in the mastering stage, by the use of things like MBCs and Hair-Ball and such.

This backloading of the process from tracking to mixing, and then from mixing to mastering, as if music production is just a more complicated version of using their 5-band EQ on a stereo track on their home stereo or mePod is the problem.

Now, some of you mastering dudes may not see it that way, as it can mean a potential for even more business in an expanded role for you guys. But it doesn't serve the music, the process or the client well to embrace the idea. Besides, if the trend continues, it will wind up biting you guys in the ass when things move to "fix it in the shrink wrap", which is the logical next step. ;)

If you really want to mix, do it in the mix. Don't save it until after the mix has been mixed. :)

G.
 
Last edited:
I'm not arguing against the use of maul-the-band compression -- I'm just very tired of the abuse of it.

"Back in the day" if I needed to compress bands separately, there I was hooking up compressors to a crossover network. It's not like it was impossible to do. But (as SSG mentioned), now they're a crutch. And the way that they're marketed as some "secret mastering tool" (when I'd bet pretty good money that I haven't used one at all in six months** and I can't recall using one on a mix that actually sounded good since the early 90's)...

It's most definitely not even related to the side-chain on a compressor...Totally different animal. A side-chain forces the gain-reduction to react to a modified band. A multi-band unit has individual gain-reduction circuits that react to and process a specific limited band.


** I frequently use the UAD MBC as a frequency-conscious expander - Perhaps the best unit ever made for the task. Saved many an on-site classical recording from the horrors of the HVAC unit or architectural rumble.

I'd go as far as to say that certain well-made analog units (someone mentioned the Drawmer and Tube-Tech units earlier) are a far out in front of most of the questionable digital plugs and processors (such as one of my favorite doorstops, the Finalizer). It's so not a fair fight that it's not even a fair comparison.
 
So basically you guys are saying the dislike and paranoia for multi band comes from how they are marketed or perceived (as a crutch) to and by people who don't know how to use them and that the outboard units are in another class that is superior, and shouldn't be compared to the plug in?

Or do would you agree that if people who use them, knew what they were doing and used them for what they were designed for, they can work in your favor, sort of like a compound miter saw would?

I'm still not getting how they are only used on stuff that doesn't sound good.
Couldn't you say the same thing about an eq? In the wrong hands this certainly does damage and is only used on things that do not sound good to make them sound better.

BTW, I use the Tube tech all the time and also use a bit of plug in when called for and their use has never been brought up or discussed by a client, they just seem to care that the final product sounds very good.
 
Couldn't you say the same thing about an eq? In the wrong hands this certainly does damage and is only used on things that do not sound good to make them sound better.

You could say it about anything in any part of the recording process really. A guitar in the hands of someone who can't play as well as they think they can, a mic in the hands of a singer who doesn't know how to work one properly, a mixing desk in the hands of a 'producah', various plugins of all shapes and sizes in the hands of those who insist on using them without really knowing why, a mastering engineer with a limiter in the hands of a record company executive. In the wrong hands it can all spell disaster.
 
So basically you guys are saying the dislike and paranoia for multi band comes from how they are marketed or perceived (as a crutch) to and by people who don't know how to use them and that the outboard units are in another class that is superior, and shouldn't be compared to the plug in?
I can't comment on the iron boxes specifically, as I have not had the fortune to use one. But the first part I'd mostly agree upon, with the small modification that it's not so much people that don't know *how* to use them - though that is indeed part of it- but that use them for the wrong purpose; that use them to try and mix their song after the mixing is already supposed to be done.
Or do would you agree that if people who use them, knew what they were doing and used them for what they were designed for, they can work in your favor, sort of like a compound miter saw would?
yeah, I'd agree with that. It's just like any tool; it's how, where and why you use it, not whether the tool itself is up to the task.
I'm still not getting how they are only used on stuff that doesn't sound good.
I can't speak for John, but I think you may be looking at from a different perspective than it was meant - at least as to how I meant it, anyway.

The idea of using an MBC to fix a bad mix *as a purposeful and desired alternative* to actually making a good mix to begin with is more what I was referring to. In the realm of HR, I'd hazard a bet that at least a good two out of three times that an MBC is used by the average member here, it's used for that very purpose *by people who are self-mastering*, and therefore cannot use the "all I have to work with is the mixdown" justification.

The whole idea that seems pervasive these days that a bad-sounding mix is not only OK, but the way things are supposed to be, and that's why God created MBCs and MEs, I personally find extremely troublesome.

G.
 
it's not so much people that don't know *how* to use them - though that is indeed part of it- but that use them for the wrong purpose; that use them to try and mix their song after the mixing is already supposed to be done.

The idea of using an MBC to fix a bad mix *as a purposeful and desired alternative* to actually making a good mix to begin with is more what I was referring to.

I agree, I guess I was looking at it from a different perspective, From a mixing stand point there are quite a few less reasons to use a MB and it would be a bit more unpractical to throw one on the mix buss or any DIY thing unless ppl knew how to not screw up the mix by their use.

The whole idea that seems pervasive these days that a bad-sounding mix is not only OK, but the way things are supposed to be, and that's why God created MBCs and MEs, I personally find extremely troublesome.

lol, I think "bad sounding" mixes and recordings have always been around, but it's more about the song writing itself being memorable that makes anything "classic".

Have you ever really listened to the recording of the song "Imagine"?
Anyway, I see what you mean...best
 
Last edited:
Wow, this thread has gone off on a total tangent, but is still a pretty damned interesting read. thanks! :)
 
Have you ever really listened to the recording of the song "Imagine"?
Anyway, I see what you mean...best

What's wrong with it (its my favorite song, so I'm curious).

The only thing I know that's wrong with it is that on my 2000 CD remaster its freaking hot (like -9 RMS or something), but that's not the actual recording.

If I had to change one thing about it I'd make the drums a tad bit more lively. Huge fan of the mono piano intro then it splits into stereo for the first verse. Really killer effect.
 
^^^^^
It's a little OT. and yes I am talking about the original release, but there is a huge amount of hiss through out the recording, My point being that some of the greatest songs were not always recorded and mixed well but the reason they are classic and are remembered as such is the song itself. There are many great songs that were not recorded great from a technical view point, and this is nothing new.
 
^^^^^
It's a little OT. and yes I am talking about the original release, but there is a huge amount of hiss through out the recording, My point being that some of the greatest songs were not always recorded and mixed well but the reason they are classic and are remembered as such is the song itself. There are many great songs that were not recorded great from a technical view point, and this is nothing new.
Agreed.

G.
 
Last edited:
^^^^^
It's a little OT. and yes I am talking about the original release, but there is a huge amount of hiss through out the recording, My point being that some of the greatest songs were not always recorded and mixed well but the reason they are classic and are remembered as such is the song itself. There are many great songs that were not recorded great from a technical view point, and this is nothing new.

But that's really more a testament to the quality of the song, and not the quality of the mix, or the fact that someone was able to salvage a bad mix with a multi-band compressor during the mastering.

Hell, I could have been the lead engineer and mixer on the sessions where Lennon tracked "Imagine," and it'd probably still have gone gold, you know? That doesn't change Glen's fundamental point that the focus really needs to be on getting the mix right first, rather than using tools to fix a bad mix in mastering.
 
But that's really more a testament to the quality of the song, and not the quality of the mix, or the fact that someone was able to salvage a bad mix with a multi-band compressor during the mastering.

Hell, I could have been the lead engineer and mixer on the sessions where Lennon tracked "Imagine," and it'd probably still have gone gold, you know? That doesn't change Glen's fundamental point that the focus really needs to be on getting the mix right first, rather than using tools to fix a bad mix in mastering.

The whole idea that seems pervasive these days that a bad-sounding mix is not only OK, but the way things are supposed to be, and that's why God created MBCs and MEs, I personally find extremely troublesome.

That point itself was not really concerning MBC but more as a response to the above statement and to say that shitty mixes and recordings have been around since commercial and home recordings have been around. (Nothing new)

FWIW. Lennon himself recorded that song at his home studio.

FWIW. MBC has been used for quite some time at every major radio station for broadcast linearity
 
That point itself was not really concerning MBC but more as a response to the above statement and to say that shitty mixes and recordings have been around since commercial and home recordings have been around. (Nothing new)
And people running red lights is not only nothing new, but is (in my metropolis, anyway) increasing in frequency. That doesn't make it "right" or acceptable behavior, let alone a standard to be purposely strived for.

Of COURSE there have always been imperfect mixes, and there always will be. BTW, where were the MEs in those cases? Why did "Imagine" not have the hiss removed after it left Mr. Ono's hands? I don't know for a fact the exact answer in that exact song's case, but I can say that back then it typically/generally was NOT considered the MEs job to fix a "bad" mix.

G.
 
Of COURSE there have always been imperfect mixes, and there always will be. BTW, where were the MEs in those cases? Why did "Imagine" not have the hiss removed after it left Mr. Ono's hands? I don't know for a fact the exact answer in that exact song's case, but I can say that back then it typically/generally was NOT considered the MEs job to fix a "bad" mix.


I don't want to get ot, but the cutting/mastering engineer certainly did eq and compress any mix that went to the lathe to have the song translate better through the medium back in the day. These are the basic functions of what an ME perform today. [Make an album have continuity and sound as good as it can for the medium it's delivered on] Were these considered bad mixes before they got to the cutting room?

The term "bad mix" is very subjective. As a ratio, how many "bad" mixes sell a 100,000 or more copies today as compared to yesteryear. Is Nirvana's first album "bleach" considered bad mixes. Where the Ramones albums bad mixes, James Brown, Robert Johnson, Pick any blues album? It's all relative.

Of coarse the tools and technology we have today are getting increasingly inexpensive and because of that, they can be bought, used and abused by untrained, uneducated and hack engineers who produce less than stellar recordings. How many of these "bad mixes" actually sell and generate income or are even considered for professional release?

I wouldn't say it's an ME's job to fix what might be considered a "bad mix" but to try and make "what they are given" better. The majority of the mixes I work on tend to range from good to excellent. Not many people are going to spend the time or money to master or release a song professionally if the mix sucks.

The specifics of what an ME, mechanic, teacher or just about any profession one can name has changed over the years...Technology changes... Time marches on... MBC is just another tool that has been developed and is available to use if someone chooses like anything.

FWIW, If you listen to the song "Imagine" and compare it to the other recordings on the album you can clearly hear that the ME did try to take hiss out by LP filtering. It doesn't have much of a top end.

In conclusion I would say,

1) MBC can definitely be a helpful and useful tool if used in the right circumstance and the person using it knows what they are doing like any other tool.

2) Yes, there are a lot more crappier mixes floating around these days, but hardly any of these would be considered professional or generate income.
 
I don't want to get ot, but the cutting/mastering engineer certainly did eq and compress any mix that went to the lathe to have the song translate better through the medium back in the day. These are the basic functions of what an ME perform today. [Make an album have continuity and sound as good as it can for the medium it's delivered on] Were these considered bad mixes before they got to the cutting room?

The term "bad mix" is very subjective. As a ratio, how many "bad" mixes sell a 100,000 or more copies today as compared to yesteryear. Is Nirvana's first album "bleach" considered bad mixes. Where the Ramones albums bad mixes, James Brown, Robert Johnson, Pick any blues album? It's all relative.

Of coarse the tools and technology we have today are getting increasingly inexpensive and because of that, they can be bought, used and abused by untrained, uneducated and hack engineers who produce less than stellar recordings. How many of these "bad mixes" actually sell and generate income or are even considered for professional release?

I wouldn't say it's an ME's job to fix what might be considered a "bad mix" but to try and make "what they are given" better. The majority of the mixes I work on tend to range from good to excellent. Not many people are going to spend the time or money to master or release a song professionally if the mix sucks.

The specifics of what an ME, mechanic, teacher or just about any profession one can name has changed over the years...Technology changes... Time marches on... MBC is just another tool that has been developed and is available to use if someone chooses like anything.

FWIW, If you listen to the song "Imagine" and compare it to the other recordings on the album you can clearly hear that the ME did try to take hiss out by LP filtering. It doesn't have much of a top end.

In conclusion I would say,

1) MBC can definitely be a helpful and useful tool if used in the right circumstance and the person using it knows what they are doing like any other tool.

2) Yes, there are a lot more crappier mixes floating around these days, but hardly any of these would be considered professional or generate income.

Good post. :)
 
Back
Top