Topic: multi-band compression vs. EQ

[ethan]

I have a few sets I'm working on post production where I'd like to tighten the low end and bring up the mids. It occured to me that multi-band compression might be better than EQ. Thoughts?

[Gutbucket]

Maybe.

It might be best to adress the two issues seperately, but that's not always true.. I found a nice full band compresison setting the other day for something which did both things nicely.  Regardless, you're likely to get the best results with a combination of moderate amounts of both EQ and compression (maybe different compression settings for what you want from the bass and mids), rather than trying to just use one or the other.
 
EQ settings are probably obvious and I usually try that first to see if it's enough alone.  For more midrange clarity and detail without harshing things out with too much EQ, try using parallel compression techniques that mix in a more heavily compressed signal in with the fully dynamic uncompressed signal.  That may or may not help the bass too.  For compression targeting the bottom end I find careful setting of the attack and release to get just the right amount of low end pumping key to tightening up the bass- and that's often not done as parallel.

You can do those things with two instances of regular full-band compression which might be less prone to getting off-track. Mulitband compression splits up the frequency range, runs seperate compressors on the different parts and then puts it back together again.  You can usually specify different settings for each range, but it just seems trickier to me-  a powerful tool that I haven't really had time to get a good handle on yet.

[Myco]

iZotope has a good one.

[ethan]

iZotope has a good one.

That's what I'll be using. It comes bundled with Soundforge Pro 10

[Gutbucket]

Got any pointers on good multiband settings?

I'm curious what works well for you.

[Myco]

iZotope has a good one.

That's what I'll be using. It comes bundled with Soundforge Pro 10

Yeah, that's the one I use on occassion also.

[Myco]

Got any pointers on good multiband settings?

I'm curious what works well for you.

I can't say that there is any particular setting, or group of settings that are ideal. For me it's just a trial and error sort of thing. I don't use it too often, but there have been a few occassions where I have made use of it and I've been happy with it. It has the presets that get you in a ballpark, then you can tweak individual aspects of that setting. Not an entirely scientific process for me. I bet you would understand the underlying concepts to it better than I do. I have read good reviews of it's core programming also, but it's beyond my knowledge.

[page]

(Working off of memory) On using a multi-band on the bass, I try and have the band peak and start downward about 30-40hz above where the meat of the note/kick/etc is that I'm trying to fatten. I think that makes the intersection about another 50hz or so above that and I find that works well enough. I've never tried to use the multi-band comp on anything else as EQ does the trick there (or it requires other effort that a compressor just won't fix).

I personally like how Ozone's comp lets you target via either RMS or Peak based. What I don't like about it is the only lookahead function is in the mucho-expensivo edition (which is why I only use it on the bass where I think any pumping that occurs sucks less than if it occurs elsewhere).

[Matt Quinn]

Maybe.

It might be best to adress the two issues seperately, but that's not always true.

This would 100% be my take on it, and maybe it's just because I use Ableton, which has a ridiculously awesome amount of flexibility when it comes to building your own serial/parallel device chains. They are 2 separate tools for 2 separate issues, for me it doesn't make sense to try to kill 2 birds with one stone when you've got 2 perfectly good stones.

In general, EQ comes before compression. I'd get the tonal balance as close as possible to what you want before moving on to dynamics.

[page]

In general, EQ comes before compression. I'd get the tonal balance as close as possible to what you want before moving on to dynamics.

Do you find that your compression alters the tonal balance? I've been hit and miss, sometimes I find it brightens the source (e.g. cymbals are sitting just under the loud stuff which gets tramped down thus revealing the cymbal more), and sometimes I don't notice it.

So I take the opposite approach; comp then EQ. I don't think there is necessarily a good/bad approach in that regard as long as it works.

[Gutbucket]

Myco, my approach is similar in that I know a bit of what is going on, or how it is supposed to work at least, but for the most part I just use that as a starting point and home things in from there by ear.  Lots of fiddling and trial & error.

Page, are you using RMS or peak detection for that bass comp?

The thing about pumping is that when using compression to tighten up the bass, I'm sort of using that effect to add some missing dynamic to an otherwise flabby and ill-defined bloated bass or kick after getting the overall level general right with EQ.  Maybe I'm using the term pumping incorrectly and bouncing is a better description for what I'm shooting for here, where by contrast, pumping is more about the unwanted side-effect on the other frequency ranges outside the bass range being targeted (possibly appropriate as an effect for mixers but not what we want as a more or less transparent mastering tool)?

That's in contrast to the standard application of compression in reducing dynamics, and more of an odd cookie for me to get set correctly.  I have a harder time getting it to work, and sometimes it doesn't at all, but as mentioned the attack and release settings working closely in rhythm with the music are key.  Seems a game of letting whatever exists of the initial transients through before the compressor clamps down and lowers the level, then releasing smoothly before the next event to let it through uncompressed again.  Possibly a good job for the bottom range of a multiband comp since the 'bounce' would be limited to that band alone and not 'pump' the other bands.

Matt, interesting to hear about Ableton (never used it).  The device chain building aspect appeals to my way of thinking and I've always wanted an easier way to do that or at least visualize the signal flow graphically.

I can see arguments for EQ before or after comp.  I sometimes do both, depending.. usually EQ before compression at the track level and afterwards at the master bus, simply because they fall in that order without rearranging things, and I'm usually working iteratively and addressing one aspect at a time then moving on to something else.  But that's more of a practical workflow thing.  Yet consider electric guitar rigs and processors.  Totally different goal since it's all about imparting color, but where the EQ goes in the signal chain makes a big difference in sound and there is often an EQ stage both before and after distortion stages for instance.

It might be that controlling major frequency and level issues with one stage of EQ and dynamics before going on to fine tuning the more balanced result of that with other, more targeted EQ and/or compression settings is called for.  Multiple small adjustments often seem to work better for me than one big adjustment.

[page]

Page, are you using RMS or peak detection for that bass comp?

I favor peak detection but it's more of a "what do I want to accomplish" (and what am I better at setting up quickly due to experience). I'm trying to contain spikes, and then second, round out a tone more then anything. I've actually daisy-chained compressors for that reason. Use something wtih lookahead and adjustable frequency detectors for the main sections (e.g. 300-8000) and then come back around with Ozone's in multi-band mode for just that sub 300hz level.

Maybe I'm using the term pumping incorrectly and bouncing is a better description for what I'm shooting for here, where by contrast, pumping is more about the unwanted side-effect on the other frequency ranges outside the bass range being targeted (possibly appropriate as an effect for mixers but not what we want as a more or less transparent mastering tool)?

True, I guess it's a "whats the problem at hand". I favor a fast attack on my comp by default because I don't have the luxury of individual micing so I'm battling wild dynamics that are coming from a range of instruments. That's why I have a healthy penchant for lookahead functionality. Softube's FET Compressor has one and the color it imparts works with with my soft mics. If I was using something more sharp or bright, I'd probably look elsewhere.

It might be that controlling major frequency and level issues with one stage of EQ and dynamics before going on to fine tuning the more balanced result of that with other, more targeted EQ and/or compression settings is called for.  Multiple small adjustments often seem to work better for me than one big adjustment.

Mildly off topic:
I was playing with a plugin recently that had an analog distortion modeler with it and I found if I knocked the saturation down to almost nothing (as recommended elsewhere) that it was pleasant on the master bus. The real benefit though was that coupled with the wet setting. In this particular case, the gear that was being emulated had a punch or compress effect that was just enough to benefit the mix without me having to dicker with it elsewhere (and being able to adjust just how much punch/flatening to introduce). Used sparingly it was really nice, but I wouldn't crank the thing by any means. Right tool for the right job.

[ethan]

thanks all I'm finding the discussion quite interesting....can't wait to get off work and get to my DAW

[Gutbucket]

Yep, good discussion.  Thanks for the thread, E.

Page, that makes sense.  Peak detection should give a faster response and wider range of input values which is probably better suited to this stuff.. RMS a slower, more averaged response, probably making RMS more appropriate for envelope-like signal leveling over longer time periods.  Yet I've never gotten that to work well sound quality-wise and typically resort to manually dawing volume envelopes for longer term level adjustments.  Of course that could be the tools I'm using or the way I'm using them.

When I use a compressor alone to bring up details in the midrange and top (not paralleled) the attack/release setting is what seems to control color somewhat by how much transient edge makes it through to brighten things up or tone it down.  Maybe that's something of a corellary to getting a bit of dynamic bounce in an otherwise loose bass with somewhat longer time settings.  I never really thought of it that way before because it seems like an entirely different effect subjectively, with not only different time settings but also less threshold and make-up gain, and often set more sparingly as you mention.  It also might have something to do with 'tuning' compressor time settings appropriately for the mid and treble sounds being somewhat more general in nature than tuning for bottom, as snare and cymbal hits are typically more universal in their faster envelope than rhythmic bass and kick interaction.

[F.O.Bean]

I NEVER EQ. ONLY use the Multi-Band Compressor in WaveLab and I LOVE IT you can easily screw up a recording when EQing, but MBC is much easier to deal with