Mastering Engineer Debunks Dynamic EQ VS Multiband Compression; MUST WATCH

[@joesalyers]

I remember back in the OLD DAYS the only Dynamic analog EQs were the BSS DPR-901 & XTA Electronics D2 and few homemade boxes I saw around Nashville Studio. But Dynamic EQs were mainly used in the Television & Movie world for Dialogue control on moving boom mics. Analog Multiband compressors were fairly uncommon as well, a couple VCA 3 band and 1 Opto 3 band is all I remember ever seeing. But mult'ing was common back in the console days so basically making a multiband compressor manually on 2 or more channels on a console. Dave Pensado and Justin Niebank were famous for splitting out vocals and multibanding them. Good video. The Tokyo Dawn Labs dynamic EQ is a parallel EQ design so each band is independent and then the output of each band is sent to the next band in the order you set them, then combined in the end that way to bands really close together aren't over or under compensating. That is the only Dynamic EQ I know of that does that, the rest are just processed at the same time together.

[@Beatsbasteln]

you laid out the basic routing for those types of dsp processors, but you'd be surprised how much of a pandora's box it can really be. with all the different kinds of routing-optimizations, entirely different filter architectures, allpass filters, linear phase with pre-ringing artefacts, minimum phase with the phase smearing. it's an endless topic and at the end of the day you just use the plugins that feel right anyway :)

[@panorama_mastering]

Exactly! But I needed to answer this question for myself, because it was unsettling to me how vague people were being when differentiating the two tools;

[@thomasengel4317]

Of course, you're right. That's why you have such a overwhelming number of EQs and compressor (both plugins as well as analog gear), which each claim to be better than their competitors. But I think that's not the point here, since Nicholas just wanted to highlight the basic difference between a multiband compressor and a dynamic EQ, so that you get an idea, how/why they achieve different results. He did not claim, that dynamic EQs are generally better, they're just introducing less pronounced phase shifts. As usual, the choice whether to use a dynamic EQ or multiband compressor depends on the product you're using (and thus the actual architecture and features involved), the audio material you're applying it to, the settings (since especially multiband compressors are often used with too aggressive settings) and your expectation on the result (because phase shifts are not necessarily harmful for your mix, indeed they sometimes add that extra "flavor").

[@entity9588]

Pro MB dynamic mode does the same thing as a dynamic eq which is why it's been my go to mode and multiband compressor for years. I've always thought it sounded the cleanest, even compared to other greats like the leapwing one. check the manual description "Dynamic Phase Finally, the unique Dynamic Phase mode gives you the best of both worlds: it results in a flat/linear phase response when no gain processing is applied, but does not introduce latency or pre-ringing artefacts (like linear-phase processing) or static phase distortion (like minimum phase processing). Minor phase effects will only be introduced when the gain of a band is actually changed. This is possible because the input signal is not actually split into bands, but is treated with intelligent dynamic filtering, offering almost the exact same frequency response as with linear phase and minimum phase processing. Dynamic Phase is by far the most transparent mode, suitable for both mastering and mixing, so we have chosen this as the default processing mode for new plug-in instances. Note that Dynamics Phase mode closely approximates the behavior of "normal" multiband processing, but in some cases, like muting all bands, or placing bands next to each other, it works slightly differently."

[@panorama_mastering]

Solid pick up! It's funny because I've never liked Pro-MB Period; I've used it and do use it every now and then; but something has never sat well with me using it;

[@huberttorzewski]

Pro-MB sounds amazingly clean and nice, I really like it for subtle mix bus work (up to 1dB low mids and highs compression on the master bus and on problematic vocals (huge range singing and going fast from soft to loud singing) up to 3-4dB). Sounds like nothing has changed in the sound but everything sits and feels way better.

[@TheReemixa]

this is great nicholas! besides the yet again amazing technical analysis, i can really relate to how you came up with this! doing whatever during the day and then the mind wanders off to some kind of audio related challenge and trying to wrap itself around it.. happens to me every now and then. glad that you shared your thoughts and let us be a part of the outcome! thanks so much for your work :)

[@panorama_mastering]

Thanks for watching ! Yeap; this happens very often; so I always am making sure to jot notes down as soon as anything comes to mind;

[@itsoundshuman]

I sent this to a couple of friends. One specially since he is doing a freaking crazy filter research. As far as I remember his version this would probably wouldn't be the way to separate them. In my way of thinking it & understanding... both designs could be called Dyn EQ or MB Compression. It would probably have to do more with how many filters are you using, not with the routing itself. Since all you are doing is affecting in some way the detection circuit. Like the 80's SSL Desser, duplicate track, emphasize FQ, feed that into track that is actually going out through SC. But for me the importante is much more of a concept, when to use what. TDR Nova could be used in any of those ways (just to call a free option for everyone). When I get an answer from the researching friend I'll come back and post his answer or he'll probably post it himself hahaha I always enjoy your videos. :) Hope we can make some video together.

[@Jarrix]

How did you make it so that we were able to see what you drew on your ipad? that was so sick ! i would love to know how to do that

[@mlrdmn]

Great video! Thanks for the knowledge!

[@panorama_mastering]

My pleasure!

[@rafriley6993]

I’d be curious to know how ozone multiband works as it seems to not introduce any phase changes at the crossovers - nulls perfectly

[@ritchxmusic]

Have you tried Voxengo Soniformer it seems to be kind of unique blend of the two

[@antnycruzr]

So, multiband compressors will natively create phase changes due to crossovers once it's enabled? Due to the initial EQ (band) signal split, correct? I've often used the Waves LinMB on masters, as I understand, this specific MBC operates in linear phase mode which should minimize these effects. Is that true?

[@panorama_mastering]

Many do rotate the phase on the cross-over filter; the design of the crossover's I routed in the DAW were linear phase; but that was because I could create the crossovers for the mid channel via the difference signal from the sends; however; when more band passes are involved; I don't know of such an eloquent solution (Most likely there certainly are; just not ones I'm aware of)

[@musicproductionbrauns2594]

Yeah cool now i have my custom parallel eq with tube and tape saturation in ableton cool :D

[@paulf9814]

Where are your courses? Could you link me up please.

[@sven6999]

this gets extremely nerdy... it´s great ! :D

[@panorama_mastering]

Ha ! Thanks !

[@ampersand64]

I wish there was a free spectral dynamics plugin with a good interface and gives detailed control... Nova only gives very gentle expansion/compression, and fast attack times tend to create noticable distortion. ReaXComp is super frickin difficult to use, and it's hard to properly gain match. Also the compression isn't the nicest sounding (this is a skill issue on my part). I've set up my own crossovers before, but the fact that it's so hard to tune the cutoff and add more bands takes so long that I forget the sound I was looking for. Maybe I should just buy pro mb...

[@sebguyader]

Heve you tried ReaFIR?

[@jacksmith4460]

I understand everything except , how do you reckon a Multi band is in series? It splits the signal into 3 separate bands which are all Filtered independently ? is that itself not a type of parallel processing? as the processing is happening independently before the sum? Or is it that the Dynamic inverses phase and uses the difference between the 2...and that is actually parallel? as in the phase inversion / differences make it parallel processing? or maybe another reason I am not aware of. Because if I made a pedal board and used the same signal path as a multi band, that would be viewed as Parallel signal paths in the Pedal board world (like a Wet Dry Wet set up), just to use an example. Or if I set up 2 speaker cabs with a guitar amp, if the signal went into one cab and then another cab was driven after that cab (amp into cab a into cab b) that would be series, but if I put both cabs directly into the Amp out put they would both be driven at the same point in 2 independent signal paths, that would be parallel to use another example. Great video though I am literally just querying the use of terms and what that specifically relates to. You clearly know quite a bit about the tech side of Audio so I would love to hear your answer. I know I am probably missing a key aspect here Kind Regards Jack

[@panorama_mastering]

I must admit; I need to could have been a bit more thought out in my verbiage; or explicitly stating my case for serial processing in this instance; In my perspective it's because those filters/processing on the bands are done directly in-line with itself; whereas on the dynamic EQ it's done running in parallel on a seperate channel which then re-sums back with the thru signal; You're right to question the terms; possibly in-line processing; vs parallel could have been better verbiage for this circumstance;

[@jacksmith4460]

@@panorama_mastering Great answer, I was just wondering if my guitarist brain was getting in the way of mixing brain, you have answered that very well though. Thanks so much for your video and response

[@shadowkyd]

mate, your vids are boss

[@panorama_mastering]

Thanks mate!

[@ReapWhatYouSow_RM]

I use dynamic eq as my go to i hardly use multibands

[@panorama_mastering]

Yeap; same here moving forward;

[@okcsticksandkeys]

Yeah...um....I needed this. Thank you! SUB'd

[@panorama_mastering]

Thanks for the sub! You're Welcome!

[@Entertainment-gm9zm]

well made, straight to the point. dont promote music thou, its lame and common. ❤

[@yeahna]

but the diagram is still parallel which is rather confusing explanation if you focus on that factor otherwise sweet video! Thanks a lot.

[@panorama_mastering]

You're right; thanks for watching; I explained to a previous commenter the following; I hope it helps clarify; I could have been a bit more thought out in my verbiage; or explicitly stating my case for serial processing in this instance; In my perspective it's because those filters/processing on the bands are done directly in-line with itself; whereas on the dynamic EQ it's done running in parallel on a seperate channel which then re-sums back with the thru signal; You're right to question the terms; possibly in-line processing; vs parallel could have been better verbiage for this circumstance;

[@yeahna]

@@panorama_mastering Thanks for your reply I appreciate that and certainly does help visualize better, great job!

[@chriskemp466]

like this channel

[@DarrenAudioguy]

did i mention that i work out?

[@panorama_mastering]

Bang on!

[@Rhuggins]

This reminds me of Dan Woralls video on the topic- crossover filters in reaper

[@panorama_mastering]

Spot on! I cite his video in this video and it's in the description too!

[@cesaravila4748]

present

[@robbmorris7790]

😵‍💫...uuuuh...what's this nob do?