multi mono mix buss compression

[pingu]

Hi guys.


I love the effect of multi mono tape simulation on the mix buss, in PT, but im wondering what you guys do about compression on the mix buss.

Is it a good idea to use multi mono on the mix buss also?

I love rcomp on the mix buss and sonalksis.

Is there any downfalls with mm on the mix buss?

Thanks


Cheers

[lobsterinn]

I've heard people recommend using multi-mono whenever possible when mixing ITB to help add 'depth'.

In my experience it really depends on the plug-in if there is any noticable difference or not.

I have always used rencomp in stereo as I couldn't tell the difference and it's fairly CPU hungry.

[Jbassist]

is rencomp standart multi mono? or can you set it that way?

[Absolute]

Sorry..but I think you guys are off the reservation. Im embarrassed
to even have to explain why you must use stereo compression

[pingu]

We bow down to your superiority.

[lobsterinn]

Originally Posted by Absolute

Sorry..but I think you guys are off the reservation. Im embarrassed
to even have to explain why you must use stereo compression

I believe Pingu was referring to using multi-mono (as in the same settings on each channel) as apposed to stereo.

But if there is something else I'm missing, please take the time to minister to us undeserving fools. We will forever be in your service...

[Ricey]

also called Dual-Mono
like on the Smart C2 Mix Buss Compressor, Stereo is an option- one i rarely opt for because i like the added width(depth?) DM gives the stereo image...
nothing embarrassing about it really.
OK, leaving both channels right up the middle would be kind of embarrassing!

[Improv]

Well there are different types of stereo linking.

There's the type where just the detection circuitry (algorithm) is ganged (joined) for each channel, so a peak in one or the other triggers both, but the controls are seperate, so each channel reacts differently to the trigger.

Then there's control-ganging, where the detectors are left independent, and just the controls are mirrored (though honestly I can't think of any that work this way)

I suppose you could have both concurrently, too.

The idea of linking the detectors is that you wouldn't want one channel to experience an errant trigger that the other channel doesn't see, resulting in a shift in your stereo image due to one side being sucked down. Though, imo and in my practice, unless you're doing extreme panning/dynamics, the stereo image shift is not detrimental using unlinked detectors.

Generally, I go with unlinked (multi-mono, if you will) because I like what it does to the image. If the soundstage shift bothers me (hasn't yet), I wouldn't use it. Nice thing is, it's usually pretty easy to A/B. Do that.

[AllAboutTone]

Originally Posted by Improv

Well there are different types of stereo linking.

There's the type where just the detection circuitry (algorithm) is ganged (joined) for each channel, so a peak in one or the other triggers both, but the controls are seperate, so each channel reacts differently to the trigger.


Generally, I go with unlinked (multi-mono, if you will) because I like what it does to the image. If the soundstage shift bothers me (hasn't yet), I wouldn't use it. Nice thing is, it's usually pretty easy to A/B. Do that.

I agree with this, also if you are not using multi (dual mono) the middle can get very funky and even the effects can be lesson as well, stereo compression is not the the way if you want a wide field and a true mix. I have never got a mix that i liked using stereo ganged on the buss, for me its dual mono.