boji
Well-known member
Multi-band compression has a nasty tendency to alter the mix so that blending no longer occurs and destroys the intended sound.
Sounds like the tone of some brewery threads! ;D ;D
Multi-band compression has a nasty tendency to alter the mix so that blending no longer occurs and destroys the intended sound.
mross said:It’s all about the mix. I listened to a guy who has mixed several Grammy nominated albums, and his mixes were loud as hell. Each element had its own special place in the mix. Very little, if nothing at all needs to be done in the mastering stage.
So when problems arise during mastering, it is always going to be your mix that needs improvement.
Michael
ruffrecords said:What I dislike most about multi-band compression by radio stations is its detrimental effect on many classic tracks. These were beautifully crafted with the sound created by the arrangement of different instruments blending together. Multi-band compression has a nasty tendency to alter the mix so that blending no longer occurs and destroys the intended sound.
Cheers
Ian
some might argue it wasn't necessary back then, but in competitive markets like big cities, there was pressure to win loudest on the dial (without saturating the transmitter).hazel said:Multi-band compression was a necessary evil then. Now is just evil.
college radio stations were less squashed (perhaps because they couldn't afford the gear), as well as some classical music stations.I grew up in the 80s. Mainstream stations all sounded similar (smiley curve) but there was this alternative music station sounding not only softer but vaporous, ethereal, airy, natural. This station made me love radio.
The "old" Optimod wasn't always old. Robert Orban was pretty well respected for his work in less offensive sounding limiting/compression. Limiting was the first line of defense to prevent transmitter problems (over modulation splashed signals to different frequencies and gets the FCC on your butt). Then compression closely followed desired by the marketing/sales dept.And here I am, almost in my 40s and working in this radio station I loved (and still love). I asked then which gear/who was responsible of that sound imprint: a very old Orban Optimod set up by an old school engineer. Unfortunately he retires many years ago and Orban Optimod was replaced by a digital one (not bad per se) configurated for competitive sound (aka mainstream sound although music is still alternative).
I listen to CDs in my car because local radio sucks that bad. Ironically perhaps my car CD player has a compression button to deal with that noisy environment (sounds like a simple 2:1).This leads me to a strange moment listening to this "All time hits station from 60s to 00" and it amazed and scared me how similar Velvet Underground sounded compared to Shania Twain and Nirvana...thanks multiband compression for killing classic records' sonic signature!
Mbira said:I'm not sure how you guys feel about Ian Shepherd as a mastering engineer, but in case you don't know-he has (what I consider) a really good podcast about mastering. It's worth listening to. A subject that he talks about a lot is how all the streaming music sites have been changing how they do normalization and at what LUFS those changes are around now. It definitely is a situation where there is no one solution for mastering engineers. We are in a time right now where what works for CD is different than what works for radio and that's different than what works for streaming. I don't envy the real mastering engineers out there because you have to decide which platform is more important, or on the flip side I guess the artist needs a team that is competent enough to push several different versions of a song to the different platforms. It seems like that is what happens with the stars, but the small independents are still not able to do this (like how "mastered for itunes" is something that small artists generally can't access).
I may be wrong about some of this stuff, and I'm loving learning as much as I can about it. It's fascinating!
mross said:Then funny thing about music nowadays is the majority of people are getting used to listening on limited bandwidth systems. iPhones, $5 earbuds, iPads, laptops, sh*tty Bluetooth speakers. In addition to listening on these devices, most audio is either 256kbps-320kbps. On YouTube it is probably even worse. I believe, 99% sure, xm radio is 96kbps. I mean what the heck. There is plenty of bandwidth/harddrive space on today's smartphones computers etc, to store all their favorite music as uncompressed .wav files (16/44.1) It's laughable that most people pay for music of lesser quality, but hey, most listeners won't hear the difference on their iPhone or soda-can Bluetooth jambox anyways.
Michael Ross
You can play music on home theater sound systems that will hopefully be better than car acoustics, if done right.ruffrecords said:Probably the best quality audio people hear today is in their cars.
Cheers
Ian
JohnRoberts said:You can play music on home theater sound systems that will hopefully be better than car acoustics, if done right.
JR
DerEber said:PS: some really love loud multiband Comp mixes, some not.
So there is still hope.
I recall back in the 70's/80s after buying albums and hearing the unprocessed cuts for the first time. The crunched FM radio version never sounded better than the originals IMO.DerEber said:I wanted to say that it is still a matter of taste to some people.
mross said:Then funny thing about music nowadays is the majority of people are getting used to listening on limited bandwidth systems. iPhones, $5 earbuds, iPads, laptops, sh*tty Bluetooth speakers. In addition to listening on these devices, most audio is either 256kbps-320kbps.
Seeker said:I’ve found the dynamic spectrum mapper to be one of the best tools for making things loud without obvious distortion... it’s unlike any other multiband type compressor I’ve ever used, it’s become one of my favorite plugins.
I've always had good systems at home (Tannoys and JBL's with proper acoustic treatment), but the justice-of-peace was my 1992 Voyager, which is long gone now. None of the replacement cars came close to it.ruffrecords said:Probably the best quality audio people hear today is in their cars.
ruairioflaherty said:Paul Frindle is phenomenally smart man.
I've has DSM since it came out and while it has made it onto some projects, it's mostly been rescue jobs. It can make things very loud without distortion but never IME without changing the mix balance and tone. I could see mixing into it if I had control of the levers but for me in mastering I need to respect the client's mix first and foremost,
Any chance you could show a screenshot of your make it loud settings? I'd love to see how you are approaching it, I may be missing something.
Seeker said:I agree, I love his sony oxford stuff as well... I know its old hat, but still one of the best eq's imho.
I doubt I could enlighten you ruairi, you have far more mastering experience than me. I generally work as a mixer, but I have had people bring projects to me with basically no budget that need some help, and the DSM has worked wonders. These would definitely qualify as "rescue jobs" where the mix wasn't so great anyway. I mentioned it because I thought it might be useful for the OP, esp if loud is the goal.
Personally, I use it quite a bit in mixing, it can be a fantastic de-esser, and general vocal shaper/compressor. I also use it some as an eq with the compression function off, it's kind of strange to use but can sound really great. I love it now, but it took me a while to warm up to it.
Enter your email address to join: