Dynamic EQ vs Multiband Compression

[Brandon203113]

I'm wondering when i should be using one or the other in a mix.. Do i only use dynamic eq on small resonances and such that are too small for the multiband compressor? Or is there a density aspect side of things as well? I figured if they covered the same area frequency wise, they'd both narrow the amount of dynamics right so why would i use one over the other??? Can someone explain???

[powermat]

i use dynamic EQ to fix small frequency ranges (like bad resonance or some noise or something)... i use multiband compression for its normal thangs

[kingozrecords]

I've always wanted a dynamic eq that used heavy limiting instead of just compression for that glossy warmth. Maybe I'll make one that works that way. Dynamic EQ's though are really great, but I think the real issue with them is that ultimately there is too many options.

I've used them in the past to master but it's just so frustrating playing with a bit here, a bit there and then having a different sound altogether. It's mind-numbing but I like dynamic EQ's a lot.

I think it may be better to just use a smooth reverb and then use a multi-band compressor. It would sound similar if the reverb were glassy. But, I mean - if you're a purist you could instead use something that merely provides attack and release with latency for the same effect. Possibly in a least destructive tense perhaps.

And to answer your question I think honestly it has more to do with the resonance applied during the crossover. It's sound applied to a copy of the same sound close to each join that causes the effect. Sometimes three bands could be best for instance.

[codec_spurt]

I'm wondering when i should be using one or the other in a mix.. Do i only use dynamic eq on small resonances and such that are too small for the multiband compressor? Or is there a density aspect side of things as well? I figured if they covered the same area frequency wise, they'd both narrow the amount of dynamics right so why would i use one over the other??? Can someone explain???

If you are wondering then you still haven't worked it out.

There is a time for one, a time for the other.

Only experience will tell you.

There are probably producers/mixers/engineers out there that still don't know the difference, but just try to hone their skills.

It's hard trying to explain EQ. It's hard trying to explain compression.

It's just about impossible to explain Dynamic EQ, Multiband Compression.

Just know that there is a distinction, but it does overlap, and much of that is dependent on program material.


Do i only use dynamic eq on small resonances and such that are too small for the multiband compressor?

Generally, I would say, YES, this is a good move.

Dynamic EQ is more of a scalpel for jobs like this, where as Multiband Compression would be a sledgehammer.

Dynamic EQ is more for small jobs within the frequency domain, as you have noted. Multiband Compression is more for broadband work more for vibe. You have more chance of 'rescuing a mix' via Dynamic EQ than you do via Multiband Compression. But then again, it's not set in stone.

You are on the right path. Trust your ears. Don't expect any sensible answers from a forum (not just KVR).

[Kinh]

No ones really answered the question yet. Both can be used for narrow bands so that's really not the difference. Lets see if someone actually explains the difference and applications

[mitchiemasha]

The difference is... The compressor keeps on compressing to it's ratio over the threshold. The dynamic EQ you set the amount of reduction, this enables a result that the comp can not do.

I mainly use dynamic EQ for sidechain ducking, but then again, I'm not very good.

It would be like giving the comp a 2nd threshold to which it stopped compressing. Especially useful when ducking instruments for vocal space. The problem being, you need the duck to start on the quiet section and not so much on the loud section. before dynamic EQ, to achieve this took some complicated phase flipping gated trickery. Making a lot of mash ups for Dj sets I ran into this problem pretty quickly.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ducking-mixdown

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

They're nearly the same thing. A multiband compressor is usually a split band system where each band has a specific frequency and bandwidth whereas a dynamic EQ usually has independent bands that don't interact and can be placed arbitrarily (including overlapping). Very broadly, multiband comps are usually used to enhance whereas dynamic EQ's are great for fixes. This doesn't infer that the distinction pertains exclusively to bandwidth, as the OP seems to suggest - there are many good applications of dynamic EQ using broad bands (perhaps to remove or control reverb), similarly a tight arrangement of split bands could work to smooth out the overall result. There are certainly plausible scenarios where dynamic EQ's can be used to enhance and (perhaps less likely) multibands can be used to fix problems, so the only true distinction is in the rules governing band behaviour/interaction (can bands overlap?).

Dave and I considered this a lot prior to designing Multiplicity, we wanted to deliver a plugin where all of the use-cases we could think of for dynamic EQ and multiband compression were addressed, hence the crossover, pre and post band arrangement. The crossover gives you what you would expect from a multiband dynamics system, the pre/post bands give you dynamic EQ functionality before or after the crossover.

[imrae]

I made a flowchart for this previous thread: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=490380&p=6865743 (you might have to sign in to see it).

In a mastering context, a multiband is messing up your mix all the time whereas a dynamic EQ is only messing up your mix while it's active. This problem is reduced but not eliminated with a linear-phase or phase-compensated implementation.

It's easier to target a specific problem region using dynamic EQ, with less side-effects than a multiband comp. In practice, it's hard to recommend ever using a multiband compressor. They are better for making general-purpose loudenators, but that isn't actually a good thing to do.

[Brandon203113]

I made a flowchart for this previous thread: viewtopic.php?f=62&t=490380&p=6865743 (you might have to sign in to see it).

In a mastering context, a multiband is messing up your mix all the time whereas a dynamic EQ is only messing up your mix while it's active. This problem is reduced but not eliminated with a linear-phase or phase-compensated implementation.

It's easier to target a specific problem region using dynamic EQ, with less side-effects than a multiband comp. In practice, it's hard to recommend ever using a multiband compressor. They are better for making general-purpose loudenators, but that isn't actually a good thing to do.

Sorry, I don't understand the terminology when you say single/multitrack, what are those and why would they force you to choose between multiband/dynamic eq instead of a regular compressor??? Also, is there a reason you said a mid area resonance would be treated differently than a high area resonance??? Thanks for the response Rae!

[imrae]

When you use a multiband you are splitting the audio by frequency range; this is not always a very musical or natural process. However, if you are dealing with a recording of several parts that have already been mixed together, multiband processing allows you to approximate splitting up the mix into different instruments. If that is the goal, you will get more natural results by going back to the (multitrack) mixing stage and working on individual tracks there.

Sometimes these processes are used to split a single recording into different features, e.g. on distorted guitar chugs it is useful to treat the harmonic sizzle separately from the boomy cabinet resonance. These can't be recorded separately, but it is less crazy to treat them independently than, e.g. a clarinet's output above 1000Hz and below 1000Hz. On vocals, a narrow filter around 6kHz is mostly getting sibilance so compressing there gives an unphysical but pleasing "de-ess" effect.

[mitchiemasha]

Dave and I considered this a lot prior to designing Multiplicity,

But did you consider the point I made.

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

But did you consider the point I made.

Sorry, which point specifically? As far as I see you're describing the systemic limitations of the tools you're using and ascribing them to the definition of the terms "multiband comp" and "dynamic EQ", but your points don't have to be true at all. They don't hold for Multiplicity, here's why :

Multiplicity has high and low thresholds and a dead band in between, meaning you can attenuate differently depending on whether a signal is peaking or falling. In addition to this you can limit the amount of attenuation (in either direction) both above and below the thresholds independently. You can do this for the crossover (multiband comp) and for single bands (dynamic EQ), the paradigm works the same.

This incorporates the functionality you ascribed to the two different processes to either (or both simultaneously). The threshold behaviour of an individual processor is not a defining attribute of multiband compressors nor dynamic EQ's as a whole, merely descriptions of the limitations of your current toolset.

[mixtur.se]

The difference is... The compressor keeps on compressing to it's ratio over the threshold. The dynamic EQ you set the amount of reduction, this enables a result that the comp can not do.

I mainly use dynamic EQ for sidechain ducking, but then again, I'm not very good.

It would be like giving the comp a 2nd threshold to which it stopped compressing. Especially useful when ducking instruments for vocal space. The problem being, you need the duck to start on the quiet section and not so much on the loud section. before dynamic EQ, to achieve this took some complicated phase flipping gated trickery. Making a lot of mash ups for Dj sets I ran into this problem pretty quickly.

https://www.soundonsound.com/techniques/ducking-mixdown

Some compressors have this, ex the Arturia ones
https://www.arturia.com/products/softwa ... comp-fet76

[Krzysztof Oktalski]

Some compressors have this, ex the Arturia ones

These are neither multiband compressors nor dynamic EQs, they're standard wideband comps AFAIK.

[mitchiemasha]

...

Edit: I only kind of made 1 point and yes. I was comparing Cubase Multiband. Many other multibands have the feature.

Now irrelevant explanation.
The dynamic EQ can start reducing the volume at a low threshold and once it's hit the max reduction, for example 2db, it will stop reducing. Relaxing the ratio (on a compressor) to only reduce 2db, doesn't achieve the same thing, relaxing the threshold (on a compressor) to only reduce 2db, doesn't achieve the same thing.

Which does leave me wondering. What is the ratio of reduction in a dynamic EQ. If it was a hidden variable, related to the reduction set and threshold, it would be more like a compressor, the maths in reverse (like transposing an equation) but that's not the performance I've observed.

It's huge for subtle sidechaining. The problem being, the key of the sidechain will keep reducing the compressor, where as a dynamic EQ will hit the max reduction dialled in. Relaxing the threshold (edit: on a compressor) means the reduction won't start for the quiet parts of the key (the parts you need it to be reduced for). Relaxing the ratio means you won't get as much reduction, as quickly as you need it.

Read the article I linked. He explains the problem quite well. The sidechain reduction is needed more for the quiet parts of the key, the loud parts stand out perfectly well, they don't need further reduction that the compressor will deliver. His solution to resolve the issue is a bit too complex. But now we have DYNAMIC EQ.