Multi-band compression: We can, but should we?

[BEADist]

I think the 'unpopular opinions' are generally based on the idea you don't need compression, just practice more.

I have old hands and can not practice a lot. Can I please use a compressor to sound better? Or can I please use a compressor to get a synth sound? I don't play Mustang Sally, I play different stuff that benefits from different sounds also. And can we discuss the benefits/drawbacks of multi-band compression without the notion that someone doesn't like/need compression in general? It seems not.

 

[31HZ]

For what it's worth, I can't use a compressor that doesn't have a selectable HPF-sidechain mechanism when playing live; this feature allow the comp to behave like a (very) simple double-band compressor with a variable taper between the two bands (and with no means for independent dynamics control, of course).

I like to tweak but I don't want to do it while I'm playing.

 

[robert_stuart]

I have no meaningful training other than editing lots of my own silly little home recordings..

I find a multiband compression to generally, when used in moderation, provide a more natural sounding result.
particularly with my bowed string instruments, I find it tends to sound more how it does in the room after mild multiband compression.

I've gotten very good results in particular when putting a microphone on a bass speaker cabinet.

Thank you, that's really interesting and it makes sense: when listening to an acoustic instrument, the perceived compression artifacts of the air and room affect various frequencies differently. E.g., higher frequencies propagate further (and directionally). And so I can imagine that multi-band comp which allows the higher frequencies to escape the comp detector can be more natural sounding.

 

[loukash]

IMHO from my audio engineering background, musicians have a hard enough time understanding and properly employing single-band compression. Asking them to do that across multiple bands AND have the result both musical and solving an actual audio issue is asking a lot. And if the harmonics are getting so noticeably crushed by the fundamental frequency and destroying your tone, you're not setting up your single-band compressor properly. Having more bands at your disposal just means setting up 3 or 4 compressors poorly.

As a part-time mastering engineer, I fully agree.
And even when mastering, it's usually better to fix potential issues in the mix first.
Usually I'm resorting to multiband compression only when (re)mastering historical or direct two-track recordings.

All that said, if you have a multi-band compressor, and you can set it up well enough to address the needs of your signal and it sounds good, you're not doing any harm.

Also agreed, but understanding multiband compression takes quite some time, trial and error. It may have taken me a few years to fully get it, as I'm not a full time engineer, only occasionally doing such jobs a couple of times a year. (Hint: Ian Shepherd has a couple of great videos online where he explains how it works.)

So aside from occasional use when mastering, for live bass performance I'm using it only in one instance via HX Stomp:

• Old Italian Eko fretless acoustic bass guitar with a rather bad piezo pickup destructively installed by the previous owner: the E and A string sound a bit too weak and thin and the multiband compressor definitely fixes it by taming the low end of the D and G strings. While it would be more sustainable (also literally) by replacing the pickup, I feel that the additional costs and work needed are not really worth it since the Stomp does a pretty good job here.

 

[robert_stuart]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone.

I realize I need to finish my day-job work so that I can actually play with the multi-band comp and see for myself.

 

[loukash]

true multiband compression […] works best in a recording situation

???
When doing digital recording, I want the signal to be as natural as possible.
It's easy to compress anything later.
It's hard to "decompress" a squashed recording, however.

When I used to record analog signal on tape (1/2" 8-track without Dolby), I would use compressors on the mixing console inserts to avoid distortion and to keep the tape noise level low when mixing.
But with 24-bit digital recording, this has become an absolute non-issue.

 

[FugaziBomb]

This will be a very unpopular comment, but it seems that a tool that was once an audio shaping tool used by FOH and engineers in the studio has made its way to the pedalboards of eager pedal buyers, much to the delight of manufacturers. Like, for instance, why would anyone want to compress a P bass with flats? I mean, that dude is compressed out of the box.

Yeah, a multi band comp on a pedal board is wild as all hell to me, too, but at the same time I'm like "gw'on girl, get wild!" I bought my first compressor for the dumbest reason: I wanted to rackmount my GK RB head and didn't want it sitting in a rack all by itself. It took me like 2 years to figure out how to use it, but I was still a teenager so I had time to figure out how it worked for what I was doing.

 

[JazznFunk]

???
When doing digital recording, I want the signal to be as natural as possible.
It's easy to compress anything later.
It's hard to "decompress" a squashed recording, however.

When I used to record analog signal on tape (1/2" 8-track without Dolby), I would use compressors on the mixing console inserts to avoid distortion and to keep the tape noise level low when mixing.
But with 24-bit digital recording, this has become an absolute non-issue.

Again, the context was missed even though most all of my posts referenced compression (multiband specifically) as part of the mixing/mastering side of things, not tracking. However - SOMETIMES people want to have compression via an outboard unit as part of their basic tracking signal IF it is subtle and IF it doesn't back you into a corner in terms of later processing. I have been known to do it with perfectly fine results. Depends on the context and project....and the bass.

 

[Aloe]

I’ve ditched my single-band compressor from my pedalboard when I got my first 5-string. it just squished the low B string too much. I’ve bought another highly respected single-band compressor to find out it works just the same. multi-band worked fine.

so yes, a multi-band comp is something very welcome for an extended range bass. for a 4-string? well, some folks prefer single-band for more traditional feel, some prefer a multi-band for like more clarity.

 

[becosfx]

Maybe a stupid question, but I am curious, are there examples where multi-band compression is used to make the bass sound 'not natural' on purpose? Of course there is squishing the bass signal 'flat' to get a synthy sound, but how about multi-band, is there something weird that is actually desired?

I mean, in the past distortion was a problem that needed to be fixed because it was unwanted.

One cool thing that a dual-band can do is to use it more like a dynamic EQ, which may be more useful for mastering. For instance, you may split the signal low enough, below 100Hz and not compress the lows at all, instead raising the gain slightly on the band to add controlled heft to the low-lows. Even if you compress on the lows, you could independently adjust the band level higher, to sound "more fully". Of course, this should be done with subtle adjustments. And this would be more beneficial to some particular pickup' sound profiles and less beneficial to others. You can't do that with a full-band compressor, and the side-chain filter can't do that either, although that may accomplish enough. Likewise, you could split higher up, say above 700Hz, and enhance highs above by raising the band gain (compressed or not). In fact, the dual-band compressor could be used as a preamp at the same time. Think of it as a tilt-EQ where you set the pivot (crossover's split) anywhere within its range. Unbalance the gain on each band, and the result is enhancing one band more than the other. This could be practical in some circumstances, achieving something with less devices, like compensating for venue acoustics. To put it another way, a dual-band expands on what can be done with compression. But it is surely not "mandatory". It may have its practical or fun/creative use cases, just like with any other audio effect, I suppose. It may be less practical if one needs to make on-the-fly adjustments though. For that, compressors with less controls may be more useful.

 

[KidAmnesia]

This thread really highlights the different approach to "tone shaping" from a players perspective and from producer/engineer perspective.

Player will use tone shaping tools to get the sound in their heads that makes them happy and able to hear themselves on a mix and feel the response in their fingers. I won't say this approach is wrong. I play bass because it makes me happy and use the tools at my disposal to have as good a time as possible, so I do this all the time. But I understand there might be a good reason why a producer will put a DI box before my pedalboard when recording.

From producer perspective, compression in the bass track is less about what makes the bass sound better and more about how it impacts the whole mix. How does the bass' dynamic range affect the vocals? How does this or that compressor on the bass track make the drums sound? Is there a specific issue in this mix that making the system more complex in some way or another would solve?

 

[JazznFunk]

One cool thing that a dual-band can do is to use it more like a dynamic EQ, which may be more useful for mastering. For instance, you may split the signal low enough, below 100Hz and not compress the lows at all, instead raising the gain slightly on the band to add controlled heft to the low-lows. Even if you compress on the lows, you could independently adjust the band level higher, to sound "more fully". Of course, this should be done with subtle adjustments. And this would be more beneficial to some particular pickup' sound profiles and less beneficial to others. You can't do that with a full-band compressor, and the side-chain filter can't do that either, although that may accomplish enough. Likewise, you could split higher up, say above 700Hz, and enhance highs above by raising the band gain (compressed or not). In fact, the dual-band compressor could be used as a preamp at the same time. Think of it as a tilt-EQ where you set the pivot (crossover's split) anywhere within its range. Unbalance the gain on each band, and the result is enhancing one band more than the other. This could be practical in some circumstances, achieving something with less devices, like compensating for venue acoustics. To put it another way, a dual-band expands on what can be done with compression. But it is surely not "mandatory". It may have its practical or fun/creative use cases, just like with any other audio effect, I suppose. It may be less practical if one needs to make on-the-fly adjustments though. For that, compressors with less controls may be more useful.

Another sticky-worthy share. This is exactly the context in which most of us usually apply multi-band compression. Excellent, practical, pragmatic summary.

 

[urkel3000]

I've used bandpass compression in my rig for several years now - my signal goes through a crossover set somewhere around 200k, and the lows go through a HPF and a Keeley bassist. The high side goes through the drive, preamp, and other fun pedals. The lows get absolutely decimated by the compressor, I'm using it as a brick wall limiter. It works wonders for me especially on bigger stages

 

[jimfist]

I've used bandpass compression in my rig for several years now - my signal goes through a crossover set somewhere around 200k, and the lows go through a HPF and a Keeley bassist. The high side goes through the drive, preamp, and other fun pedals. The lows get absolutely decimated by the compressor, I'm using it as a brick wall limiter. It works wonders for me especially on bigger stages

I use a similar approach, all within my multi-fx modeler (Fractal FM9T). Dual-band compression just sounds better to my ear, and helps solve a multitude of problems with distortion and other effects where having those effects in the low end isn't beneficial. At a recent sound check, my DI bass line was being checked in the stage wedges (very high quality, as I don't use a traditional stage amp or IEM), and without being prompted, the sound tech/mixer said "Holy $h!t, that sounds incredible". It's nice to hear when an audio pro concurs with my sense of "good sound", and largely made possible by implementing a dual band compression scheme. YMMV.

 

[MultiScaleMale]

I really don't see the conceptual difference between multi-band compression and a 2/3/4 band EQ. You want to do different things to different portions of the spectrum.

 

[iqi616]

I like the dual band compression on my Trace Elliot SMX. The low band keeps things even as I go up the neck or the higher strings. A touch of high band keeps pops from sticking out too much.

 

[logdrum]

One cool thing that a dual-band can do is to use it more like a dynamic EQ, which may be more useful for mastering. For instance, you may split the signal low enough, below 100Hz and not compress the lows at all, instead raising the gain slightly on the band to add controlled heft to the low-lows. Even if you compress on the lows, you could independently adjust the band level higher, to sound "more fully". Of course, this should be done with subtle adjustments. And this would be more beneficial to some particular pickup' sound profiles and less beneficial to others. You can't do that with a full-band compressor, and the side-chain filter can't do that either, although that may accomplish enough. Likewise, you could split higher up, say above 700Hz, and enhance highs above by raising the band gain (compressed or not). In fact, the dual-band compressor could be used as a preamp at the same time. Think of it as a tilt-EQ where you set the pivot (crossover's split) anywhere within its range. Unbalance the gain on each band, and the result is enhancing one band more than the other. This could be practical in some circumstances, achieving something with less devices, like compensating for venue acoustics. To put it another way, a dual-band expands on what can be done with compression. But it is surely not "mandatory". It may have its practical or fun/creative use cases, just like with any other audio effect, I suppose. It may be less practical if one needs to make on-the-fly adjustments though. For that, compressors with less controls may be more useful.

Thank you. Finally a post that doesn't make the rest of us pedestrian compressor users feel inadequate because we are not studio or mastering engineers

 

[Podgorny]

Hi. Professional recording engineer here. Short version: Do whatever you want. If it sounds good, it is good.

Long version: my opinion is that the shortest path between your brain and the listener's brain is usually the best one. And the more powerful the processor, the easier it is to do harm. Every recording engineer has at some point spent hours iteratively tweaking a sound over the course of a mix or project, only to bypass all the processing they'd done and prefer the original sound. That said, while it's VERY rare that I use multiband compression on bass, I can't say I've never done it. But usually, it's not the answer. That said, I do have a Tube-Tech multiband compressor living on my mix insert, so the whole mix goes through that (though it's doing VERY little. Max 2dB of reduction. Anyway, do whatever you want.

 

[warptheory]

I tried the Ignissor multiband comp on the Anagram, and if you know what you're doing it's great. But for dummies like me, easy to do more harm than good. A comp with a blend or better a HPF is easier for me to dial in.

This thread reminds me of this quote when I'm deciding what type of comp to use:

 

[jimfist]

I might not default to multi-band compression in a recording environment, but I've found that it's been successful for live use, especially for gigs that are mixed from the stage (no FOH mixer), for when there is limited or no time for extensive sound checks, and for when dealing with an obviously "challenged" sound tech staff. In those cases, providing a nearly mix-ready DI has shown to make life easier on many levels. I might not say this or use this approach if the context were different. If I knew that the crew were always qualified and the sound reinforcement gear were always top notch, I might not feel the need to take this approach....but then again I might.