FabFilter User Forum
Pro MB upward compression ratio question
I've made some progress. Mainly, the realization that the range knob applies scaling when it is in upward compression mode helps explain when the actual amount of amplification varies. I hadn't noticed this because it says, quite distinctly, in the help text for Ratio: "In comparison, the Range knob limits the amount of compression or expansion, rather than scaling it." It's clearly scaling...setting a static ratio and increasing/decreasing the range also causes the amplification to scale. Kind of hard to determine how they interact, but in practice, it probably works intuitively?
You're correct: in normal expansion or upward compression modes, the range not only limits the amount of expansion, but also scales the amplification. We found that this gives a more natural / intuitive behavior that's comparable to how the range parameter works with regular compression.
Cheers,
I'm seeing some behavior I can't quite wrap my head around wrt to the way ratio behaves in an upward compression configuration. Downward compression is behaving as I would expect. For example:
A 1 kHz -6 dB sine tone sent into Pro MB with a single band that spans the entire spectrum.
Threshold: -12 dB
Range: -30 dB
Attack/Release: 0%
Ratio: 2:1
Knee: 0 dB (hard)
Lookahead: 0 ms
As expected, the above configuration produces a -3 dB tone. However, the following example confuses me:
A 1 kHz -6 dB sine tone sent into Pro MB with a single band that spans the entire spectrum.
Threshold: 0 dB
Range: 30 dB
Attack/Release: 0%
Ratio: 2:1
Knee: 0 dB (hard)
Lookahead: 0 ms
In this case, I would expect something like a -3 dB tone (6 dB below the threshold resulting in +3 dB amplification) or a +12 dB tone (6 dB below so +12 dB amplification) depending on how upward compression ratios work. However, what I see is a -1 dB tone. In no way can I deduce how a 2:1 ratio and a signal -6 dB below the threshold would result in +5 dB of amplification. I am pretty new to all this, but it would seem like I should get the exact inverse of the downward example. What am I missing? Thanks!