Multi-band compression - is it really better?

[Aloe]

That's the sort of talk makes me wonder why there's no VST pedals yet. Be so much better than Toneprint.

well, it's much more complex than you think. VST is not a standard format or anything, it's a binary file, compiled for your CPU and OS. so, if your goal is, for example, to use the same VST you're using on your Windows machine, this ends up, well, with an Intel and Windows-powered pedal that's clearly a thing that doesn't make sense due to a lot of reasons.

aside from the compatibility thing, you also need a VST host (and different VST hosts have different bugs and behave differently) and compatible low latency AD/DA, that's possible, but very complex and expensive. and on top of all this you need some means to control your VST, so probably will end up with RDP/VNC for that, which adds even more complexity and unreliability.

 

[JeezyMcNuggles]

Came across this little post about a built in compressor on a TC amp:



I was interested in his explanation:
- most single band comps work by compressing according to the strings with the most energy i.e. E (or low B for 5 strings), so these strings are determining the overall compression;
- this potentially "ruins the dynamics of your playing", which is a common criticism from those who prefer not to use a pedal board compressor at all.

The amp has a 3 band compressor individually dealing with the lows, mids and highs, which is "more transparent" and tightens the sound without impacting the dynamics so much.

Is he correct in what he's saying?

Spectra comp. It's amazing.

It also gives you infinite sustain.

 

[Hummergeist]

Would use for a stereo mix, would also use for a wider-ranging instrument like a Chapman Stick.

 

[okabass]

Not found any benefits of multiband compression. But parallel (dry/ comp signal) and series comp yes. If you have a good quality compressor and play fingers or pick that will work well.

 

[JazznFunk]

I can't see much use for a true multi-band compressor in a live setting - just more chances to go sideways in a hurry. In a recording studio, it can be a huge help in sorting out a mix, or SOMETIMES on individual instruments.

 

[factory presets]

well, it's much more complex than you think. VST is not a standard format or anything, it's a binary file, compiled for your CPU and OS. so, if your goal is, for example, to use the same VST you're using on your Windows machine, this ends up, well, with an Intel and Windows-powered pedal that's clearly a thing that doesn't make sense due to a lot of reasons.

aside from the compatibility thing, you also need a VST host (and different VST hosts have different bugs and behave differently) and compatible low latency AD/DA, that's possible, but very complex and expensive. and on top of all this you need some means to control your VST, so probably will end up with RDP/VNC for that, which adds even more complexity and unreliability.

Well leaving aside the fact that VST works across multiple platforms precisely because it is a standard, NI, Arturia and and Waves, among many others have had modelled instruments and effects working in VST in real time for decades. My point wasn't wouldn't it be good if someone made VST FX. It was isn't it about time Source Audio or 3 Leaf got in the real time editing business. Many of the big music software houses have well established hardware lines and several have their toes in guitar water for a while now.

It don't really bother me if they do or don't. But if you're familiar with say the fabfilter interface, you might agree that little boxes made of ticky tacky are not the final word in FX navigation.

 

[Aloe]

Well leaving aside the fact that VST works across multiple platforms precisely because it is a standard

well, sorta. VST plugin is a binary built for a specific CPU and OS using a specific C++ library from Stenberger. so, a specific VST built for Windows won't work on a Mac. a VST API is a standard, as well as Audio Unit specification or AAX or ReWire, i.e. it's a 'standard' just in the same manner as all other audio plugin systems are. this alone is not enough, as you need exact VST plugin and host compatibility.

if you've been 'for decades' in DAWs, you surely have seen the situations where different VST hosts are incompatible, the same plugin works okay in one DAW, but crashes another one. this is all due to reasons stated in my previous message. hardware VST hosts are a complex story and often need a specific build of VST that's not your average Windows/Mac VST, which, again, kills the main point of a VST host in a pedal.

 

[factory presets]

well, sorta. VST plugin is a binary built for a specific CPU and OS using a specific C++ library from Stenberger. so, a specific VST built for Windows won't work on a Mac. a VST API is a standard, as well as Audio Unit specification or AAX or ReWire, i.e. it's a 'standard' just in the same manner as all other audio plugin systems are. this alone is not enough, as you need exact VST plugin and host compatibility.

if you've been 'for decades' in DAWs, you surely have seen the situations where different VST hosts are incompatible, the same plugin works okay in one DAW, but crashes another one. this is all due to reasons stated in my previous message. hardware VST hosts are a complex story and often need a specific build of VST that's not your average Windows/Mac VST, which, again, kills the main point of a VST host in a pedal.

You can do business across computer platforms. The internet is the same for Apple, Windows and Android. You can co-operate on recording projects, scientific research and cooking classes. But you must never do anything guitar related between Windows and Mac?

Seems a little strange.

 

[Aloe]

But you must never do anything guitar related between Windows and Mac?

if you look closely on any plugin download page, you'll see, there's a separate build for a Mac and for Windows, sometimes you'll see builds for different MacOS versions/architectures and also 32-bit/64-bit versions for Windows.

most of the times it's transparent to the user, they do download the plugin for their host and forget about the rest. most of the time plugin state is compatible between platforms, but sometimes it's not and your session is not transferable between Windows and Mac (XLN Audio, I'm looking at you).

it becomes more of a problem when you need a build for a system that the plugin vendor is not able to build and test. usually plugin makers support/test specific matches of:
* architecture
* OS and OS version
* DAW and DAW version

and yeah, sometimes they do need specific fixes for some of combinations.

 

[factory presets]

if you look closely on any plugin download page, you'll see, there's a separate build for a Mac and for Windows, sometimes you'll see builds for different MacOS versions/architectures and also 32-bit/64-bit versions for Windows.

most of the times it's transparent to the user, they do download the plugin for their host and forget about the rest. most of the time plugin state is compatible between platforms, but sometimes it's not and your session is not transferable between Windows and Mac (XLN Audio, I'm looking at you).

it becomes more of a problem when you need a build for a system that the plugin vendor is not able to build and test. usually plugin makers support/test specific matches of:
* architecture
* OS and OS version
* DAW and DAW version

and yeah, sometimes they do need specific fixes for some of combinations.

And yet all across modern life, in markets global and niche, mankind has risen above platform tribalism to embrace the digital revolution. They've reached out to their brothers in bytes across the dark divide. Much to the chagrin of Mr Jobs.

You still haven't explained to me why fuzzboxes would be any different.

10-15 years ago I'd've let to have that the guitar market is smaller than the techno production one. But I very much doubt that is the case today, if it ever was. Best I got for your argument is the rock patrol is older and inherently more conservative. But they still prefer lightweight amps etc.

 

[amper]

There's really nothing to be learned from most of the responses in this thread.

The facts remain:

1. Most bassists don't understand compression.
2. Most bassists don't understand how to use compressors.
3. Even fewer bassists understand how to use multiband compressors.
4. The complexity of multiband compressors obviously increases with the number of bands. Mastering compressors will generally have 5 bands, but there are only a few multiband pedal compressors on the market for bass guitar, and none of them have more than 3 bands. For digital: tc electronic SpectraComp/Hypergravity, Boss BC-1X Bass Comp, Source Audio Atlas. For analogue: the old Trace Elliot SMX, the Becos, and maybe one or two others.
5. No, an HPF on a sidechain trigger feeding a wideband compressor is not the same thing, though it is admittedly better than not having the HPF on the sidechain, at all.
6. No, parallel compression is not a substitute for multiband compression, either. Parallel compression serves different purposes, being mostly effective for producing apparent sustain.
7. Again, no, "good/better technique" is NOT a substitute for compression. Why does this constantly have to be repeated? Why must we constantly be subjected to "hurr durr yurr need practice murr"?

The one true thing that has been stated in this thread is that if you are not able to use a single band compressor effectively, a multiband compressor is only going to give you more opportunities to fail.

This is why I constantly say to people that although the SpectraComp pedal (not the ones in the amps) is probably the best compressor on the market, you should not use it if you don't know what you are doing with it, since there are no training wheels, and frankly the documentation and support from tc electronic is pretty poor. The Source Audio Atlas is similar in complexity, except that I think it has only 2 bands, so might be easier to use, and documentation and support is probably better, but also might not be as effective as the 3-band SpectraComp.

If you want the benefits of multiband compression on bass, but you want it easy to use, then the Boss is right one, and if you look at comparative reviews of compressors, you will pretty quickly notice that the BC-1X is one of the best rated bass guitar compressors available, regardless of type. The disadvantage of the Boss is that it's pretty much only useful for bass guitar, whereas the SpectraComp has full and complete access to all parameters, so it can be tailored to any purpose.

 

[amper]

It seems to me that a lot of the misunderstandings around using multiband compression on bass have more to do with the quasi-religious fervor with which people regard the studio compressors of the 1960s, like the Urei 1176 and the Teletronix LA-2A, or heaven forfend, the MXR DynaComp, that little squashbox that defines for so many what "compression" sounds like, in the first place, and which became the basis for most of the pedal compressors on the market, even today. Far too many people simply cannot imagine that audio technology has advanced in the past 60 years. I mean, we still have people insisting vinyl is superior.

 

[micguy]

Very good point, but perhaps more relevant to other uses than bass guitar?

Nope - bass is the instrument where multi band compression is the most needed.

 

[Drop1]

Nope - bass is the instrument where multi band compression is the most needed.

Bass covers a very wide range of frequencies which makes multi band particularly useful on bass. You're right about that.
I also like mulits on the drum buss to affect the whole kit at once (usually in parallel woth the clean signal) and a light touch of a multi on the master buss.

Thise are the main 3 places I use multi.

 

[Deleted member 271037]

Nope - bass is the instrument where multi band compression is the most needed.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[jimfist]

There are two things at play here with respect to multi-band compression: using it as a technical tool vs. using it simply because it does things to your sound that you like.

If for technical reasons, then certainly a deeper technical knowledge would seem to be prerequisite, no? So, all good there. For the rest of the knuckle-dragging bass player universe, I see absolutely no harm in getting all knob-twisty and experimenting to see if a multi-band comp does anything appealing to your sound.

As we all know, you can get yourself into trouble using multi-band OR broadband comp, and there are many ways to "inappropriately" use MBC, or any other sonic tool, for that matter.

I try to remind myself that, in being creative, most of the rock music I enjoy has a string of "inappropriate" usage/behavior somewhere at its core. That's fine by me. I may think something sounds like utter crap, but creative use is subjective, and not up to me as to whether a sound "works" for someone else, regardless of what technical convention supposes. Time to lighten up a little. JMHO.

 

[micguy]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

That's OK.

 

[factory presets]

Nope - bass is the instrument where multi band compression is the most needed.

Might be some value making a distinction between 2 band and 3 or more bands. Dual compressors work well for bass because very low notes need different settings than higher ones. A lot of 2 band comps have those settings baked in specifically for use with basses.

Compressors with more bands and more knobs roam mixing desks in search of a drum buss. Bands can be set to target individual drums or groups like toms or cymbals without having to worry about mic crosstalk. And using one comp across the kit lends a cohesive feel to said kit while still facilitating different settings for different drums.

Just be overkill on bass.

 

[D.A.R.K.]

There are two things at play here with respect to multi-band compression: using it as a technical tool vs. using it simply because it does things to your sound that you like.

If for technical reasons, then certainly a deeper technical knowledge would seem to be prerequisite, no? So, all good there. For the rest of the knuckle-dragging bass player universe, I see absolutely no harm in getting all knob-twisty and experimenting to see if a multi-band comp does anything appealing to your sound.

As we all know, you can get yourself into trouble using multi-band OR broadband comp, and there are many ways to "inappropriately" use MBC, or any other sonic tool, for that matter.

I try to remind myself that, in being creative, most of the rock music I enjoy has a string of "inappropriate" usage/behavior somewhere at its core. That's fine by me. I may think something sounds like utter crap, but creative use is subjective, and not up to me as to whether a sound "works" for someone else, regardless of what technical convention supposes. Time to lighten up a little. JMHO.

Best summation yet. Well said.

 

[markorbit]

I'd prefer to have a dual-band compressor. See the old Trace Elliot SMX heads. You can heavily compress the lows and not so much the highs. The Trace then added a tilt control so you could balance the result. I can't help thinking that the SMX 12 band preamps were as good as it got - at least for the tone I liked.