when you apply the compression, its only being applied to the low end correct? I'm not suppose to apply it to the mids or highs, right ?

Once you set up your multiband group, you can sidechain as you wish.  You can most definitely apply it to mid or highs, it will depend on what you're going for.

Quote from: iAmXan on January 14, 2016, 08:11:05 am

Anyone sidechain different ranges of frequencies?  Is it a common method?  I just picked it up recently and I feel like I just jumped a "level".  Great way to control your sidechain relationships.

What settings do you guys use/recommend?

For those not familiar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUyLopKxGZs

Hey bud, seems we have the same name. Let's fight.

Anyway, I could do this type of compression but why would I want only the low end compressed and not the other frequency bands if I'm doing like a big layered super saw, for example. I'd think I'd want all the layers sidechained the same.

Any particular examples of this in use?

I'm down, time and place?

Joking aside, the benefit of multiband sidechaining in one case is to preserve mid-high range content while cleaning the bottom end.  This works especially well with sounds like stabs for example.  I apply a higher threshold + ratio combination on my low range so that my stabs don't clutter the bottom end--and apply less on the higher end so that the snap/stab isn't ducking too much when the sidechain is activated.  The principle behind this is that sounds occupying the low end of the frequency spectrum will quickly conflict and cause muddiness, whereas you can "get away" with a lot of activity in the high end.  I immediately gained a "fuller" sound when I applied this technique.

Of course there are exceptions, as you say, where you want sidechaining to apply evenly.. and to that I say, stick with whatever works best..

Quote from: iAmXan on January 14, 2016, 08:35:30 am

As the aforementioned post said, it takes years of practice and listening (in an ideal acoustic environment).  The thing about "industry standards" is that there is usually a mastering engineering behind the scenes who has done his hours and can take a track and bring it to the next level--there is no denying the skill and meticulous sound design involved in their practice.  That's if you wish to immediately make the jump to have a professional sounding track.

On the other hand, if you would rather release songs without involvement of an engineer (due to budget or otherwise), I suggest you start treating your room acoustically (if you haven't already).  I highly recommend it otherwise working you'll be extremely limited in what you can accurately hear.  Treating my room has done WONDERS for me and I can guarantee you the same if done properly.  There are many resources online that you can look into.

Another tip would be to reference tracks that are of "Industry Standard".  Load the cleanest track you know into your DAW and analyze it alongside your own.  Make sure it is of similar volume.  Analyze it as whole and analyze it certain frequency ranges.  Compare your low end, mids, highs, etc.  Compare the mid/side relationship.  Compare every element.  By studying professional tracks, you will close the gap slowly but surely.

Be patient, the road is long but it is worth it.  Hope that helps.

What do you mean by "done his hours." Can you describe some of the technique a mastering engineer is taught? What is "their practice" to you?

As I mentioned before, assume I cannot create an ideal acoustic environment.

Also, I'm not asking for personal assistance. I'm making an (thus far, relatively poor) attempt to compile a library of industry technique pro bono (for the benefit of the members of TPF).

By "done his hours", I mean the mastering engineering has accumulated thousands of hours upon hours of work.  A typical well respected mastering engineer who is capable of critical listening and applying the tools as you desire has, under most circumstances, completed and worked on many high quality songs throughout his career.  Many have attended the accredited institutions you have mentioned beforehand.  Some have not.  Regardless, they have worked for a long time in this field and have honed their craft to a point where they are capable of producing material that is of "industry standard".

Allow me to first clarify that I am not a mastering engineer by any means.  I have not attended institutions nor have I studied under one.  Techniques will vary upon subject.  In one scenario, one might apply multiband compression to tighten the low end of a track.  In another, one might add a high shelf EQ to boost the high end of an otherwise dull sound.  Applications will vary from engineer to engineer and every single one of them will process different tracks in different ways--it really is an art.  One engineer might use a high shelf EQ, another might prefer to apply Aphex Aural Exciter by Waves to achieve a similar goal.

"Their practice" simply refers to the art of audio engineering (mixing/mastering/etc.).

To add to your compilation, I highly recommend searching for Ian Shepherd's articles and videos.  He, himself, is a mastering engineer and offers free resources online.  Check him out.

Anyone sidechain different ranges of frequencies?  Is it a common method?  I just picked it up recently and I feel like I just jumped a "level".  Great way to control your sidechain relationships.

What settings do you guys use/recommend?

For those not familiar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUyLopKxGZs

What's up guys, first post here! 

Here's a project I'm currently working on.  It's a pretty energy-filled electro/trap rager and I'm looking for suggestions on my overall mixdown.  I've listened to it so many times that my ears have become "accustomed" to it and it would be nice to have some outside opinion.

Thanks in advance!  Also, I'm willing to "trade" analysis, just leave your link below and I'll give it a listen

https://soundcloud.com/i-am-xan/xan-so-sexy-original-demo/s-y5He4

Compressor is not a tool I would suggest using to get a 'clean' mix and also, it is one of the most misused mixing tools. Compressor is a tool that enables you to control dynamics of your audio file.

While I agree that the compressor is one of the most misused mixing tools, I would actually state it is an excellent tool in creating a 'clean mix'--especially that of the multi-band variation.  As you imply, it is very misused and beginners will find themselves facing a very lifeless mix when pushing the compressor too far.

However, if used correctly, it can shape sounds (or a frequency range of a sound) far more dynamically to fit your tastes than an EQ.  Compressors are not limited to the 'permanent' nature of the EQ (an automation derivative up ahead) and can be used to place sounds more comfortably in your mix.

Allow me to illustrate: Say you are doing a remix and you are given raw guitar stems.  These guitar stems sound great in your mix--you have them EQed just the way you like and you generally happy with them--except for a few sections where the low-mid range of the guitar seems to just jump sporadically in volume and causes the mix to become temporarily muddy. 

One could slap on an EQ and cut the offending frequencies, sure, but that low-mid range cut would apply to the rest of the song thereby causing the guitar to sound thin at the other sections.  You could automate it so that the EQ only applies to certain sections of the song.  Sure, but that is very time consuming and the jump in volume isn't always identical; you would have to adjust the EQ cut for every different jump, copy, paste, etc.  Again, time consuming.

A very popular method among engineers is to take a multiband compressor and isolate the offending frequency range.  By carefully applying compression in the key areas, you can maintain a tasteful balance throughout the track.  This is just one example of applying the multiband compressor to achieve a clean mix.  I hope it helps.