multiband compression
Home > Home Recording Forum > Recording Techniques > multiband compression
Posted on Jul 09, 2003 07:42 pm
fortymile
Member Since: Jan 18, 2003
hello sirs.
i'm having the sneaking suspicion that it doesnt matter how many distortion modelers i collect; that the key to getting the tight crunchy sound i need is almost totally rooted in how you apply multiband compression/limiting.
i'm going after two separate tones right now. i could post a link to clips if anyone cares to go into this further with me, maybe give me some opinions on what's going on in them. one tone is a very tight, astoundingly crispy distortion from a danzig track called 'black mass.' i think its one i'd like to have in my arsenal. another is one i'm hearing on the new jane's addiction album (which is a very good album, surprisingly.)
i'm pretty sure the danzig tone must have a hard multiband limiter on it to get that crunch. the waveform is a solid block of sound if i remember correctly. is that something people do to get metal crunch?
the jane's song i'm thinking of is more interesting. i could use this sound for multipurpose recording if i could figure out how to create it. it sits evenly in the mix--it's not overpowering. very controlled and punchy distortion. it doesnt need to be overpowering to be effective. i can hear the bass and drums and vocals clearly, but there it is...a firm crispy distortion.
its always been hard for me to resist turning up my guitars as loudly as possible. i always just assumed they needed to be loud and huge. but if i could figure out how to use multiband compression/limiting, maybe i could be more refined about distortion. i think it needs to sit lower in the mix...but be more audible and clear at the same time.
jues one time remixed one of my songs, and i would pay to know the settings he used. he said 'some EQ' and 'some multiband compression.' and yes--its that sound, the multiband stuff, that i think is giving it the kick that i'm after. i just dont know, dont know, about how to treat each band. this is very new to me. i guess you want to compress each band and then keep the gain on the mids band turned down?
i feel like i've done my research. i've hit the wall. so what is the insight that leads to the next level? just identifying what the applied effects are in a recording is a major step for me, and so if i'm right about the multiband limiting, well...i'm here if anyone has something to suggest. a way to treat individual bands.
[ Back to Top ]
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 10, 2003 11:33 am Fortymile,
From reading through you post a few times, my initial reaction was that you needed to process only the guitar track per your want for a specific guitar sound. However; per your note of Jues premastering expertise maybe it is a function of the way it "sits" in the mix. And you are right about the art of cutting through a mix. It is not always best achieved by blasting it over the top. The only question that I have is a function of the way multiband in premastering works. Or are you talking about applying multiband to just your guitar track? Thinking as I write, I am probably talking apples and oranges. Most of my mixes are of multiple instruments shareing the same audio range. Multiband applied to a mix will push and pull as well as massage those instruments in an audio range. I am guessing that the "block" waveform you are talking about is a function of multiband compression, limiting and sonic maximization. You can take a recording beyond max and still control distortion with those tools. Sorry, I didn't look at your equipment list prior to just babbling. If you don't have a permastering package may I suggest Ozone? Or at least reading through the Ozone primer which I think you can download without purchasing Ozone; Can't remember for sure.
Jul 10, 2003 03:25 pm woah...that's hard for me to understand :)
i was talking about, at least initially, just processing the guitar track. there was no premastering involved with what jues did to my track. i basically sent him the whole track and he applied multiband compression to the mix itself. the result was that the whole track became punchy. it sounded good. i'm thinking that what i need to do is to apply those settings, whatever they are, to just my guitar. and that would give me the crunch i need. and if i could get that, i could mix the guitar lower in the track. i do have a problem with 'turning it up.' i just feel discouraged today. theres such a rush of hope when you find something like izotope trash (i mentioned this in another recent post) and expect it to solve all your problems. then you realize that after all this time you still havent figured out how to use compression to sculpt a crunch...i havent written a new song in 6 months. distortion is my roadblock. i start to work on something and i get sucked right into figuring out why the recording sounds so lousy, and next thing you know its a month later.
Jul 10, 2003 03:32 pm p.s. sorry, i dont mean to whine or anything. usually i'm able to teach myself things that i set out to learn. but learning these specific audio operations via experimentation is not working.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jul 11, 2003 07:33 am "...i havent written a new song in 6 months. distortion is my roadblock. i start to work on something and i get sucked right into figuring out why the recording sounds so lousy, and next thing you know its a month later."
I think you are approaching music in the wrong way if the search for a particular guitar sound has become more important to you than your writing IMHO.
If you come up with a great song, then noone is going to mind that the guitar sound is only 90% not 100%. You have to get this in perspective. The recording side of things is the means to the end, not the end in itself. The 'end' is of course putting your vision of a song/tune (whatever) down on 'tape' so you and other people can listen to it, what other purpose could there be?
Unless of course you are an engineer in training and want to be able to achieve certain sounds as you clients may request them from you, in which case ignore my comment. But your post as quoted above suggests otherwise.
If you play your reciorded guitar sound to friends and they think it sounds great, then surely thats close enough? Then you can get back to your writing.
I would use the analogy that its like an artists fretting about trying to achieve a particular shade of blue, an becomes so obsessed with the colour to such an extent that he never finishes any pictures any more!
Jul 11, 2003 03:08 pm you're absolutely right, songwriting's more important, but i just happen to think that my distortion sounds downright horrible and grating. unlistenable. full of scratchy highs, not warm, not 'wet', and its a major problem. the recordings that i make...i cannot listen to.
'certain sounds' arent really what i'm after--i know i mentioned two specific sounds--but thats only because they're the most recent examples of distortions i've run across that function in the way that mine need to. i.e. well.
what i need is to deliver a stereo naked guitar track to someone who can do the processing and tell me what they did. would anyone be up for this? can't be throwing time down the toilet anymore groping blindly in the dark. if i dont figure this out within the next two tries, i'm going to have to ditch the idea of recording rock music at home, and go work on an acoustic project instead. i've literally been stuck on this all year.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jul 11, 2003 03:40 pm you might want to check whether or not the problem is in your actual gear. check out amps and stomp boxes and stuff. get a good sound before it gets to the mic.
Jul 11, 2003 03:52 pm ive got a POD, its the best i can do right now. its supposed to be good.
MinkusMazBane of All ExistenceMember
Since: Mar 27, 2003
Jul 11, 2003 07:43 pm the POD has a lot of bells and whistles for sure. i've stated before that i don't like it at all, but i believe what some of the other people here are saying when they talk about being able to get incredible sounds as a result of deep tweaking. so know what the knobs do, and maybe think about going out and getting a nice 15 watt tube amp with a 10" or 12" speaker.
Jul 11, 2003 09:22 pm you know what seems to be going wrong with the pod? the high frequencies seem just terrible to my ear. you tweak that treble knob, and it's like turning up fizzle-crackle-splatz. whatever i mean by that.
ill check out the deep tweaking. i've not played with it too much yet. also looking into predatohm now.
WaltChief Cook and Bottle WasherMember
Since: May 10, 2002
Jul 16, 2003 08:45 am Fortymile,
I am very sorry to hear that you are feeling discouraged. From what I have heard of your work, it would be a real bummer if you where to let that feeling settle in. You have far too much potential for that. I noticed that you are marking time per the "6 months" reference. Maybe this is necessary, maybe not. Regardless, hot new sounds come and go every day. Some we can emulate, some we may not get down pat before something else becomes our "hot" persuit. It took me five years to emulate a reasonable upright bass sound on the bass guitar. I don't consider your post as whining, just working through your response to a formitable challange. Don't through out the baby with the bath water. It is reasonable to "shelf" a perticular sound for a bit until the frustration level subsides. It is not reasonable to "shelf" music all together (MHO). I am sorry that my last post caused confusion. I really wish Jues had come across this post as he probably has more insite to your delima. If you can "ditch" the funk you have going, and can afford to pick up Ozone's mastering package, I would recomend that and doing some experimentation. I am lost relitive to offering specific suggestion. Everything that a mastering package does introduces some "distortion". Each module in a different way. My focus per the music I hear in my minds ear is to minimize the distortion while taking advantage of each module for the enharant "pluses" per my perception. I would guess that some of the distortion enharant to the modules would be very pleasing to you per your endevor.
Keep the faith! Write Jues directly! Do something! Discouraged is a poor option.
Jul 16, 2003 08:50 am I have Predatohm...I can honestly say it WILL NOT do what you want it to, it is a good sound booster (kinda Magnetoish) but you won't get the true effect I believe you are looking for in the software world...something may be wrong with your POD, or, you just may not dig it's distortion. Look in to a different preamp, or distortion pedal.
Software-generated disortion is really weak generally, I haven't found a decent one yet, though somebody on this forum recently said they found one they like, I think from the same people that make the Ozone mastering plugin thing.
glynbMember
Since: Dec 16, 2002
Jul 16, 2003 09:22 am Seems to me a way forward would be to post a 'POD' thread and ask for people to make suggested POD settings for good home recording sounds. You could then compare what they suggest with what YOU have been using and see if its radicaly different. If they are achieving good recrodings with the same settings (or similar) to you then you have to look at things like EQ and the way you are recording.
I am surpised at your problem. I only have a crappy Zoom effects pedal and a compression unit and I DI straight in to my recorder (I don't mic up my amp due to not wanting to annoy the rest of the family!) and even I can get some reasonable distorted (heavy) guitar sounds from that setup. So you should easily be able to achieve something good with the better POD unit.
Mind you I don't record with a PC I use a Fostex vf160, so maybe that makes a difference?
