I think the main idea is that since compression can alter the frequency balance, multiband compression is a way of maintaining a good frequency balance, or a way of compressing and adjusting the frequency balance (EQ) at the same time. I think it’s mostly used by mastering engineers to get that modern (boring ) constantly-loud sound.
There are too many variables to say what compressor (or what settings) give you the “most natural” sound. It depends on the program material and the amount of compression you use. A limiter set-up to tame a few unexpected-infrequent peaks is usually going to be transparent (and will sound more natural than the hard-clipping you’d get without the limiter).
I’d say a multiband compressor (like most compression) is typically used as an effect… It’s used because it alteres the character of the sound. It may be desireable, but I’d consider that less natural than the unaltered sound.
Izotope has an online [u]Mastering Guide[/u] (based on using their software). Starting at the bottom of page 49, there is a section on Multiband Dynamics.
I think the main idea is that since compression can alter the frequency balance, multiband compression is a way of maintaining a good frequency balance, or a way of compressing and adjusting the frequency balance (EQ) at the same time. I think it’s mostly used by mastering engineers to get that modern (boring > > ) constantly-loud sound.
So that’s why we hear harmonics, distortion and clipping on commercial music, but rarely pumping, right? That is what I meant by “side-effects” of full band compression. Pumping is what makes listening to FM radio so disgusting to listen to (at least it is for me).
A limiter set-up to tame a few unexpected-infrequent peaks is usually going to be transparent (and will sound more natural than the hard-clipping you’d get without the limiter).
Oh don’t get me wrong, I am no defender of hard clipping. With a few exceptions depending on the source, it sounds horrible. But so does the Hard Limiter effect in Audacity if not used with extreme caution. As I said to Steve, I prefer his Soft Clipping Limiter or the Broadcast Limiter.
There are too many variables to say what compressor (or what settings) give you the “most natural” sound. It depends on the program material and the amount of compression you use.
Agree. I usually try many different settings before getting the desired result. Not an easy task at all. Music with prominent drums/percussion generally sounds better with fast attack times, but that doesn’t always work.
You can try for yourself. I’ve uploaded the new limiter here: Limiter
Limiters are very useful with live recordings, but of limited usefulness (excuse the pun) for processing pre-recorded (commercial) music as this will usually already have been processed with a limiter. For evening out the loudness (reducing the dynamic range) of pre-recorded music (useful when listening in noisy environments) it is generally best to use a lookahead compressor with fairly slow Attack / Release times. Both the built-in Audacity compressor and Chris’s dynamics compressor are good for this.
OMFG, THANK YOU! This is exactly what a limiter should be!
Limiters are very useful with live recordings, but of limited usefulness (excuse the pun) for processing pre-recorded (commercial) music as this will usually already have been processed with a limiter.
Well, that’s true for modern music, but older releases are generally softer in volume and keep a wider dynamic range. Pretty ironic btw, as analog tape is theoretically more limited (no pun intended) than digital technology.
Thanks for testing it - I’m quite pleased with it myself
If you have the time, could you post a brief “review” on the page where I’ve uploaded it. Just a brief note of how you used it, whether it does what you thought it would, any problems / suggestions / questions. It’s encouraging to other Audacity users if they can see that they are not the first to try an effect.
apologies for resurrecting an old post; i’m quite new at the mixing process and was trying to decipher through all of the replies between you folks haha… anyways… to clarify: were you able to get the compressor settings to show in milliseconds instead of seconds? I’d appreciate any feedback… i was attempting to send a PM, but says i’m not authorized to view other members profiles… thanks!!!
No, the Audacity Compressor effect is designed to use fairly long (slow) Attack/Release times (minimum “Attack” time = 0.1 seconds, minimum “Decay” time = 1 second).
If you require really fast Attack/Release times a Limiter (such as the one linked to in the earlier post) may be more suitable.
Sorry for posting in an old post, but when facing the same problem, Google brought me here, so I guess it is a good place to post.
I just wanted to say that I think I have found a solution to shorten the attack/decay times. Sorry if I say something stupid, as I am not a “sound” expert at all, but in my case it seems to work (I use this on an electric piano recording, which seems to be known for being an unforgiving recording type when applying effects).
The attack and decay times are expressed in seconds, not in number of samples. So a workaround to those “big” times is to apply the compressor after having lowered the track rate. Do this as follows : Click on the black Arrow on your track (to the right of the track name), go to Set Rate, Other, and type a new (lower) value in the text box. Click OK, then apply your compressor, and then revert your track to its normal sample rate (using the same procedure). For example if you have a track which sample rate is 44100 hz, if you change the sample rate to 4410 hz (10X lower) and apply the compressor, the minimum decay time is still 1 sec, but 1 sec on the “stretched” track. Then when you come back to 44100 hz, it is as if you had used a 0.1s decay time (10X shorter).
This does not seem to generate artifacts, as Audacity does not resample when changing the rate (the sample set is still exactly the same, it is just more spread along the timeline). As the sample number does not change it does not lead to audacity crashes due to a bit number of samples to process (except if it already crashes on the original track). Those two problems occur if you try to do the same thing but using change tempo (making the tempo 10X slower then reverting it to normal without applying the compressor already leads to HUGE distortions because (I think) audacity resamples the recording programmatically).
Nice trick Consign. Yes that’ll work.
You’re correct that changing the speed using the drop down menu “Set Rate” just “spreads out” the samples without any other change.
Just an additional quick note : Do not forget to modify the attack time when doing so (I typically set it to 1 sec like the decay time). Otherwise if you heavily change the rate (I made it 100X lower to bring the decay time to 10 ms), the attack time will become too low (if you let the attack time at its minimum, it will become 1 ms in this case) which causes some kind of static noise: I think because if decay time or attack time is too low, a high compression leads to big volume jumps (because the volume change occurs during a too small time interval).
Not that one specifically, though I have a whole bunch of dynamic processor plug-ins of various types.
That particular one has the features that I’d like in the built-in Audacity Compressor effect.
You know I use Audacity for speech, not music. I think I want shorter release times than 1 s. Speech doesn’t have the tails to distort that percussive sounds have.
Another big ambition might be a compander that would plot a curve with two knees and three slopes.
That’s a historical point. Earlier versions of the Audacity compressor used the term “Decay” instead of “Release”. Pleased to say that I persuaded the developers to change it. The word “decay” was probably used so as to be consistent with the Audacity effect, but yes, it should be “release”.
) constantly-loud sound.
> ) constantly-loud sound.
