Multi-Band compression: Friend or Foe? - Page 2

Definity · #16 (**permalink**) 11th July 2008 , 10:23 AM

i couldnt survive without multiband compression especialy the way i sample and all i use is the fruity one which to be honest i did use once to master a track and it made it sound quite a bit better

frott · #17 (**permalink**) 14th October 2008 , 10:57 PM

[quote]
Software multiband is great if you have a TC Powercore or a UAD1 or something but if its native its not going to have the processing resolution and thats always going to be a pain.
[/quote]

False. Native has absolutely no downside versus hardware driven. Look at the summing of Powercore plugins to the native counterparts, they sum to 0.

[quote]
The requirement of multi-band compression at the mastering stage (to me) would suggest there's something wrong in the mix. I wouldn't even use multi-band compression during mix down, really, it seems like lazy, poor quality mixing to me.
[/quote]

False. Multi-band compression is used to give different amounts of compression to different bands. Pretty simple. If you have already perfect highs, why would you compress them if all you wanted to do was increase the quieter midrange or lows? This isn't a mixing problem.

[quote]
Precisely - the perfect mix needs no mastering, but there's no way you're going to get a perfect mixdown every time. Mastering isn't a magic ingredient, it's a solution to a problem. The less needed, the better.
[/quote]

Completely and bizarrely incorrect. Mastering is taking multiple perfect mixes, across many tracks, and standardizing them as well as normalizing them for broadcast on as many types of outputs as possible. It is impossible to consider those issues while mixing, or else you'd be making mixes tailored to a specific set of references: radio, speakers, headphones, mp3, etc.

[quote]
I would strongly disagree with that statement, mastering shouldn't actually 'fix' any problems, mastering is really about preparing your track(s) for duplication; essentially normalising and not much more.
[/quote]

Correct. But in this case, normalizing includes tweaking specific EQs, multiband compression.

[quote]
We're all allowed our opinions, your views BSMo are normally spot on, however I really think your comment is slightly off the mark. In a perfect world I agree but this aint no perfct world and I've found that many recording studios/home studios have odd monitor foilbles that only show up when ending up in a mastering room, thus adjustments are required if a satisfactory end result is required. Also clients sometimes discover mix problems after the event, ie lack of low end etc. which can also be fixed.
[/quote]

The issue isn't that they "only show up in a mastering room" it is that a typical mixing room is not built the same way as a mastering room. Mixing rooms attempt to flatten the sound as much as possible to show no bias, where mastering rooms fill out bias intentionally as reference.

[quote]
Well generally cubase, neundo and all that lot are only 32bit processors(although they are float point, but thats another subject in itself) where as something like the TC or UAD is going to be able to process to like 72 bits or whatever the specific piece of gear states it can do.[/quote]

Which is then irrelevant since you're capped at your mixing bitrate anyway, and none of this is exclusive to UAD/TC. You can have extremely high processing engines without hardware.

[quote] Mastering is about creating a perfect copy of the original and is usually the place where your going to use a multiband comp and by this stage theres already going to be significant quantization errors from all the plugins and processing/mixing thats already been applied. [/quote]

This is true, but it isn't exclusively fixed by hardware: just get software with a resolution.

[quote]
In much the same way as with tape when mastering your going to use the best convertors possible to maintain all the clarity thats present and make the best respresentation of whats been created by using a native plugin for the multiband your effectively doing the same as using lower grade convertors as your just adding more quantization errors to the chain. Using something like M3 (i think thats one of the TC mastering plugins) your going to add far less quantization errors due the fact that its a far more accurate plugin due to the 72 bit (or whatever) proccessing thats being carried out.[/quote]

From the UAD manual:

Most UAD Powered Plug-Ins support up to 32-bit, 192KHz operation

I have no idea where you've gotten this 72 bit nonsense, but really the only benefit from a UAD is the UAi engine and the fact that you're offloading the effects onto a card to save processor overhead. Relevant maybe for people with tons of tracks and effects (or who don't know how to properly route things) but modern computers have nearly completely destroyed the main benefit in terms of offloading effects.

The UAD is still nice to allow your channel strips to live out of the way, without hogging resources. But ask anyone who has used the various Waves strips if they need an offboard card to "sound better."

[quote]
This difference in bit rates is why a lot of people prefer Protools as they say it sounds cleaner which is true because it uses a 48 bit fixed point mix engine even if you capturing in 16bit. The whole 16 bits is just moved around accross the available 48 bits, whereas cubase is only going to work in that operation when you tell it too.

I dont have any links but theres loads of articles about on how different bit rates will change how a processor or mix engine works and its actually quite interesting to see the differences.[/quote]

Wow, maybe they should switch to reaper that is 64 bit. Or any of the other software that is 64 bit. Your example is a bit out of date.

Yes, different bitrates alter the sound. No, obtaining high bit rates is not a benefit of UAD/Powercore. Feel free to point out where this is stated. I'm surprised it isn't plastered all over the UAD manual:

[url]http://www.uaudio.com/products/uad/_docs/UADManual.pdf[/url]

Anyway, the real scoop is that UAD plugins do sound great and that card is a dongle these days.

Mastering, yea: it's great. But if you're doing homebrew non-professional stuff, it's a layer of polish that might not be noticable. People these days believe that mastering is just a part of mixing, and the bottomline is that if you believe that you probably don't understand the nuances of mastering tools and rooms versus mixing.

Multi-band compression? Ozone does it just fine (and it's 64 bit! gasp!) however lay off of it unless you're calibrating a set of tracks for release.

Home	Register	Groups	FAQ	Members List	Calendar	Search	Today's Posts	Mark Forums Read	Go to DV247.com
New to Forums or just joined? Why not start your journey here?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://forums.dv247.com/music-software/76-multi-band-compression-friend-foe.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
Mastering plugins - when do you use them? - MusicRadar Forum	This thread	Refback	3rd September 2008 10:32 PM
Mastering plugins - when do you use them? - MusicRadar Forum	This thread	Refback	17th July 2008 12:03 PM

#16 (permalink) 11th July 2008 , 10:23 AM
Definity Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 22	i couldnt survive without multiband compression especialy the way i sample and all i use is the fruity one which to be honest i did use once to master a track and it made it sound quite a bit better
Offline

#17 (permalink) 14th October 2008 , 10:57 PM
frott Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2008 Posts: 1	[quote] Software multiband is great if you have a TC Powercore or a UAD1 or something but if its native its not going to have the processing resolution and thats always going to be a pain. [/quote] False. Native has absolutely no downside versus hardware driven. Look at the summing of Powercore plugins to the native counterparts, they sum to 0. [quote] The requirement of multi-band compression at the mastering stage (to me) would suggest there's something wrong in the mix. I wouldn't even use multi-band compression during mix down, really, it seems like lazy, poor quality mixing to me. [/quote] False. Multi-band compression is used to give different amounts of compression to different bands. Pretty simple. If you have already perfect highs, why would you compress them if all you wanted to do was increase the quieter midrange or lows? This isn't a mixing problem. [quote] Precisely - the perfect mix needs no mastering, but there's no way you're going to get a perfect mixdown every time. Mastering isn't a magic ingredient, it's a solution to a problem. The less needed, the better. [/quote] Completely and bizarrely incorrect. Mastering is taking multiple perfect mixes, across many tracks, and standardizing them as well as normalizing them for broadcast on as many types of outputs as possible. It is impossible to consider those issues while mixing, or else you'd be making mixes tailored to a specific set of references: radio, speakers, headphones, mp3, etc. [quote] I would strongly disagree with that statement, mastering shouldn't actually 'fix' any problems, mastering is really about preparing your track(s) for duplication; essentially normalising and not much more. [/quote] Correct. But in this case, normalizing includes tweaking specific EQs, multiband compression. [quote] We're all allowed our opinions, your views BSMo are normally spot on, however I really think your comment is slightly off the mark. In a perfect world I agree but this aint no perfct world and I've found that many recording studios/home studios have odd monitor foilbles that only show up when ending up in a mastering room, thus adjustments are required if a satisfactory end result is required. Also clients sometimes discover mix problems after the event, ie lack of low end etc. which can also be fixed. [/quote] The issue isn't that they "only show up in a mastering room" it is that a typical mixing room is not built the same way as a mastering room. Mixing rooms attempt to flatten the sound as much as possible to show no bias, where mastering rooms fill out bias intentionally as reference. [quote] Well generally cubase, neundo and all that lot are only 32bit processors(although they are float point, but thats another subject in itself) where as something like the TC or UAD is going to be able to process to like 72 bits or whatever the specific piece of gear states it can do.[/quote] Which is then irrelevant since you're capped at your mixing bitrate anyway, and none of this is exclusive to UAD/TC. You can have extremely high processing engines without hardware. [quote] Mastering is about creating a perfect copy of the original and is usually the place where your going to use a multiband comp and by this stage theres already going to be significant quantization errors from all the plugins and processing/mixing thats already been applied. [/quote] This is true, but it isn't exclusively fixed by hardware: just get software with a resolution. [quote] In much the same way as with tape when mastering your going to use the best convertors possible to maintain all the clarity thats present and make the best respresentation of whats been created by using a native plugin for the multiband your effectively doing the same as using lower grade convertors as your just adding more quantization errors to the chain. Using something like M3 (i think thats one of the TC mastering plugins) your going to add far less quantization errors due the fact that its a far more accurate plugin due to the 72 bit (or whatever) proccessing thats being carried out.[/quote] From the UAD manual: Most UAD Powered Plug-Ins support up to 32-bit, 192KHz operation I have no idea where you've gotten this 72 bit nonsense, but really the only benefit from a UAD is the UAi engine and the fact that you're offloading the effects onto a card to save processor overhead. Relevant maybe for people with tons of tracks and effects (or who don't know how to properly route things) but modern computers have nearly completely destroyed the main benefit in terms of offloading effects. The UAD is still nice to allow your channel strips to live out of the way, without hogging resources. But ask anyone who has used the various Waves strips if they need an offboard card to "sound better." [quote] This difference in bit rates is why a lot of people prefer Protools as they say it sounds cleaner which is true because it uses a 48 bit fixed point mix engine even if you capturing in 16bit. The whole 16 bits is just moved around accross the available 48 bits, whereas cubase is only going to work in that operation when you tell it too. I dont have any links but theres loads of articles about on how different bit rates will change how a processor or mix engine works and its actually quite interesting to see the differences.[/quote] Wow, maybe they should switch to reaper that is 64 bit. Or any of the other software that is 64 bit. Your example is a bit out of date. Yes, different bitrates alter the sound. No, obtaining high bit rates is not a benefit of UAD/Powercore. Feel free to point out where this is stated. I'm surprised it isn't plastered all over the UAD manual: [url]http://www.uaudio.com/products/uad/_docs/UADManual.pdf[/url] Anyway, the real scoop is that UAD plugins do sound great and that card is a dongle these days. Mastering, yea: it's great. But if you're doing homebrew non-professional stuff, it's a layer of polish that might not be noticable. People these days believe that mastering is just a part of mixing, and the bottomline is that if you believe that you probably don't understand the nuances of mastering tools and rooms versus mixing. Multi-band compression? Ozone does it just fine (and it's 64 bit! gasp!) however lay off of it unless you're calibrating a set of tracks for release.
Offline