I've been using pure software since I started sequencing, but now I'm thinking it'd be nice to run my final mixes through a tasty hardware compressor to add a bit of 'that special something'.
I've tried just about all software compressors available and I'm fairly sure that they aren't quite up to the task.
I know nothing about hardware compressors - can anyone give me some tips? As usual I'm looking at the budget end of the market.

Only compressor cheap that is worth over software is RNC.

You are doomed to spend over 1000$ for anything else good Best should I say anything that competes with software of similiar or much less price.

Before you do anything you'll regret I'll tell of a few experiences.

Drawmer 1969, a preamp valve comp. Supposebly very good a warming up just about everything. I had very high hopes about it as it's certainly one of the best in its price range.

It's gotta be one of the biggest disappointments in all my hardware experiences! I tried running several different type of material through it, guitars, vox, drumsubs, master channels. Apart from few drumsub examples, I always found out I could do better with any of the more advanced software, like blockfish/endorphin or sonalksis. Now that there's the new one from torben I wouldn't even bother at the drawmer, although it *looks* repectable...

I've also used several of the better channelstrip compressors, but mostly with disappointing results. I hope to be suprised in the future, but I think most good ones are hopelessly out of reach (ie. luxury high end).

I won't even mention the numerous solidstate cheapos from all manufacturers I've tried during the years...

Now that there's Voxengo/Sonalksis/Fishphones/Kjaerhus we're digitally secured for a long time! Heck, I didn't even mention UAD yet, did I?

Maybe I should add that the only front that's not been conquered by digital (apart from luxury high end) is proper tape saturation/compression. I've been completely extatic about this Studer B67 1/4 inch master/editing tape deck I found just lying around. It's one hell of a tank, but I bet you could find one of these for a very reasonable price nowadays. (warning though, it's HUGE mofo)

I could go on and on about the sound quality for pages but... heck. I'll just book more time in the studio right now!

Wow, I'm suprised by that response.
My favourite sofware comp is the Sonalksis. Generally for mixes I find it sounds better than anything else I've tried. All the plugins that aim to simulate some kind of 'warming' process sound too bitty and just not quite right. Even Warmifier - I generally prefer not to use it.

Electro-Harmonix makes 2 very nice opto-coupler valve compressors.

On the low end there's the Black Finger, it uses 2 12AX7 tubes, one for compression, one for gain - and it's very very quiet for having2 12AX7's in it. This thing will run you about $200 USD, and it works beautifully on everything, from vocals to drums to guitar and bass. Smooth, warm sustain - no pumping though if that's your bag. i find everything that goes through it sounds better, i use mine constantly, one of my best buys ever. It has a Lamp mode and an LED mode for the optical source. LED is fast and even, Lamp is slower on the attack, and compressed more bass than treble. Moth modes have a 'squash' mode than can be enabled as well, giving a much slower attack, and more of a 'vintage' sound. It's mono though, but you could get two I suppose (I keep thinking of it)

On the high end, Electro-Harmonix has just released the NY-2A stereo compressor (yeah, cheeky name huh), which looks to me like the ultimate compressor available at the moment. It lists for $2999 USD, but MusicToyz is selling them for $2099. This has some special russian military tube that is supposed to be 30X quieter than the 12AX7, and it has lamp, led, and electr-luminiscent panel for opto sources. It has lovely gain reduction meters, and pretty much has me drooling in lust full time. One day I'll have one.

If you don't like EHX or these don't help you, I second the recommendation of the RNC. I've used one before and I can vouch for the quality. I would consider this the middle ground between the black finger and the NY-2A.

Good luck! After being bummed on a few compressors (shitty boss crap, MXR dynacomp - sorry), I can tell you that it is very nice to finally find a compressor that is satisfying to use all the time. You'll be pleased when you get the right one, and if you aren't - well you didn't get the right one!

Cheers

Mate, I honestly think that if cost is an issue you'd get better results with software. I here many pro engineers use software on the master bus - most combine an opto compresser with some kind of warmer. For example, one guy i spoke to users RenComp with the DUY tape sat plug. Another guy uses Sonalksis with PSP Vintage Warmer. These types of processing are great even in a pro setting, and you will find that only the really expensive hardware will be noticably better. Units like the API and SSL 2 buss comps are meant to be fucking awesome (Iv never used them)! So my advice is to save you money, cuz hardware is a rich mans game.

But to answer you question, I think Joe Meek make decent budjet compressors. Never used one on a master buss (do they even do a stereo model?) but they are decent.

You remember with bad converter and line amp you are can be adding bad sound to it too! Be careful

Oooh, been lusting after that NY-2A, too. Apparently it's the bees knees and the makings of a true modern classic. I've also heard only positive things about RNC (apart from the wallwart) but not actually heard it. Gonna get a few one day.

It's a sad fact, but the good stuff pretty much starts from around £2000. And most of them are mono!

If you're rich/curious and want to get into this, www.gearslutz.com is a godsent forum. You will even get the mix guys from the world class stars telling of their mixbus preferences and for example a guy from the old motown days who has seen it all. Too good stuff.

chagzuki wrote:

All the plugins that aim to simulate some kind of 'warming' process sound too bitty and just not quite right. Even Warmifier - I generally prefer not to use it.

Very true most of the time, and will keep you alert during mixdown.

I found a sort of a cure, a bit costly maybe, but certainly cheaper than luxury high end.

Go 96khz. Simple as that. No longer will you have to worry about over digital-ness. Of course you'll lose a big punch from your box, but it shouldn't be a big deal as there's freezing etc. At worst it'll force you to better mixing decisions as you will have less headroom.

Heck, even going just 48khz will give you considerable impovement. Even better if you then master at 96khz, and as your last step go to 44.1.

Kingston wrote:

chagzuki wrote: All the plugins that aim to simulate some kind of 'warming' process sound too bitty and just not quite right. Even Warmifier - I generally prefer not to use it. Very true most of the time, and will keep you alert during mixdown. I found a sort of a cure, a bit costly maybe, but certainly cheaper than luxury high end. Go 96khz. Simple as that. No longer will you have to worry about over digital-ness. Of course you'll lose a big punch from your box, but it shouldn't be a big deal as there's freezing etc. At worst it'll force you to better mixing decisions as you will have less headroom. Heck, even going just 48khz will give you considerable impovement. Even better if you then master at 96khz, and as your last step go to 44.1.

Easy one: Rob a bank and buy an SSL G384 stereo bus comp. It makes evertyhing sound like a record! Or, get an Al Smart. They are the same (Al was the one who developed the comp for SSL originally), adn they are a bit cheaper.

Nuff said! I love mine!!!


rs

Kingston wrote:

chagzuki wrote: All the plugins that aim to simulate some kind of 'warming' process sound too bitty and just not quite right. Even Warmifier - I generally prefer not to use it. Very true most of the time, and will keep you alert during mixdown. I found a sort of a cure, a bit costly maybe, but certainly cheaper than luxury high end. Go 96khz. Simple as that. No longer will you have to worry about over digital-ness. Of course you'll lose a big punch from your box, but it shouldn't be a big deal as there's freezing etc. At worst it'll force you to better mixing decisions as you will have less headroom. Heck, even going just 48khz will give you considerable impovement. Even better if you then master at 96khz, and as your last step go to 44.1.

Do you want me to write all the reason why this is not true? I can go away thinking it works for you, good. When the advice is bad and given to another person I want to correct it

96khz is not the solution If you wish me to strain my english I can show you why it is really a problem. This is not the question of the first post, and I do not want to dirty the thread

If you start a new one for this idea then I will post. I do not think this is the best subject for discussions. There is fact here and I think a forum will try to dirty the fact with opinion. Science and opinion are bad enemies:)

I think just go ahead and say what you want to here.

Alive In Chernobyl wrote:

Kingston wrote: chagzuki wrote: All the plugins that aim to simulate some kind of 'warming' process sound too bitty and just not quite right. Even Warmifier - I generally prefer not to use it. Very true most of the time, and will keep you alert during mixdown. I found a sort of a cure, a bit costly maybe, but certainly cheaper than luxury high end. Go 96khz. Simple as that. No longer will you have to worry about over digital-ness. Of course you'll lose a big punch from your box, but it shouldn't be a big deal as there's freezing etc. At worst it'll force you to better mixing decisions as you will have less headroom. Heck, even going just 48khz will give you considerable impovement. Even better if you then master at 96khz, and as your last step go to 44.1. Do you want me to write all the reason why this is not true? I can go away thinking it works for you, good. When the advice is bad and given to another person I want to correct it 96khz is not the solution If you wish me to strain my english I can show you why it is really a problem. This is not the question of the first post, and I do not want to dirty the thread If you start a new one for this idea then I will post. I do not think this is the best subject for discussions. There is fact here and I think a forum will try to dirty the fact with opinion. Science and opinion are bad enemies:)

yes! - I was too lazy to comment more than ' ' on the quote, but you're right actually, alive - people should be warned to take this as good advice...

chagzuki wrote:

I think just go ahead and say what you want to here.

Do you think the first post answered good? I think you mean yes Can we start a new thread for this idea.

I wish all of us to answer with the idea we are all smart, kind and repecting. Please!

Quote:

Do you want me to write all the reason why this is not true? I can go away thinking it works for you, good. When the advice is bad and given to another person I want to correct it 96khz is not the solution If you wish me to strain my english I can show you why it is really a problem.

Well, I said "sort of a cure". That's where it stays at the current CPU generation.

Still, it is huge big improvement. What do you think oversampling means? Many plugins are starting to offer it as standard, and it's especially important with any kind of distortion/waveshaper/tubewarmer and the benefits will pretty much multiply with any concurrent processing step (less truncation).

You might want to bring in the nyquist argument, but that wont hold either with most current AD/DA converter filtering or plugin processing accuracy.

Whether you want it or not, its the inevitable future direction to some, at least in the any professional audio field. Just not quite yet.

Of course, KVR is the wrong place to talk about it as many can't tell the difference between 16bit vs 24bits.

Also, let's not hijack the thread.

http://mindprint.com/cms.php?scr=products&mode=1&r=p&pr_kat=6

Musical results, adjustable tube saturation if you want to use it for a clean signal path and the adaptive mode works magic.

I own this unit for 2 years, satisfied with it, just go to your local music store and have a listen, opinions vary when it comes to dynamics.

Kingston wrote:

Quote: Do you want me to write all the reason why this is not true? I can go away thinking it works for you, good. When the advice is bad and given to another person I want to correct it 96khz is not the solution If you wish me to strain my english I can show you why it is really a problem. Well, I said "sort of a cure". That's where it stays at the current CPU generation. Still, it is huge big improvement. What do you think oversampling means? Many plugins are starting to offer it as standard, and it's especially important with any kind of distortion/waveshaper/tubewarmer and the benefits will pretty much multiply with any concurrent processing step (less truncation). You might want to bring in the nyquist argument, but that wont hold either with most current AD/DA converter filtering or plugin processing accuracy. Whether you want it or not, its the inevitable future direction to some, at least in the any professional audio field. Just not quite yet. Of course, KVR is the wrong place to talk about it as many can't tell the difference between 16bit vs 24bits. Also, let's not hijack the thread.

When you speak I see you use the word arguement. So I will leave it as is


Chagzuki have you looked to other things to offer the effect you wish? Compression is the first idea. Have you tried Sonalksis EQ with no setting? You can try to use digital compressor in better way. Use it with a low threshold with 1.5:1 ratio and long attack. You can also try with better converter. This can make the difference you wish to have sometimes too.

Oh shit, sorry,

should've mentioned about the mindprint en-voice experience. It was a delight to use, but mono only. The compressor sounded odd, but good. The saturation knob didn't add anything positive though.

That thing worked especially well on individual (live) drums. I used it on snare most of the time, and as a DI for guitar.

This was the MK I. Think they improved the preamp on the MK II.

Oh yeah, I've tried some of standalone pieces that try to justify their existance with a single tube stage (compressors, preamps, and god, that new triton... blasphemy). That approach only adds a nasty fart and burb that you will hear on most digital wannabes, too. They only "brown up" the sound.

Look at manley to see what tubes are *really* meant for. Think their motto is something like "We don't use tube stages for THD".

Quote:

When you speak I see you use the word arguement.

'argument' is not the same thing. I was kind of aiming conversation based on facts to be honest.

Alive In Chernobyl wrote:

You remember with bad converter and line amp you are can be adding bad sound to it too! Be careful

Isnt that the point of a tube? I mean really tubes are still used because they add a dirty sonic character to the music. The so called warming effect is really a natural comptression and noise adding that happens due to the limitations of the phyiscal tube and its inability to be perfect. If you want perfect go software or at least solid state. If you want coloration and "warmth" go tube. Personally I have a couple of TubeWorks BlueTube racks that I replaced the tubes in with some ultra low noise EH tubes...they do wonders for the final mix...they add a dirtyness that brings my sterile digital mix back into the analog world.

TechnoWeeniePas wrote:

Alive In Chernobyl wrote: You remember with bad converter and line amp you are can be adding bad sound to it too! Be careful Isnt that the point of a tube? I mean really tubes are still used because they add a dirty sonic character to the music. The so called warming effect is really a natural comptression and noise adding that happens due to the limitations of the phyiscal tube and its inability to be perfect. If you want perfect go software or at least solid state. If you want coloration and "warmth" go tube. Personally I have a couple of TubeWorks BlueTube racks that I replaced the tubes in with some ultra low noise EH tubes...they do wonders for the final mix...they add a dirtyness that brings my sterile digital mix back into the analog world.

Dirty analog can be good for some. I was warning about dirty digital There is big skipping of steps in todays converters. You may add a good dirty, then dirty it more with bad. Have you ever made a great saturation and tried to put it on that again? Think of adding good saturation and putting BAD on it.

TechnoWeeniePas wrote:

Alive In Chernobyl wrote: You remember with bad converter and line amp you are can be adding bad sound to it too! Be careful Isnt that the point of a tube? I mean really tubes are still used because they add a dirty sonic character to the music.

Well, that's the modern take on it. They weren't always used like that. See above for the manley quote.

Kingston wrote:

Quote: When you speak I see you use the word arguement. 'argument' is not the same thing. I was kind of aiming conversation based on facts to be honest.

Nyquist is not an argument It is a fact. Using the word argument makes me think my opinion vs fast idea is true.

I am sorry if I do not understand right Can we start another thread with your idea?

Kingston wrote:

TechnoWeeniePas wrote: Alive In Chernobyl wrote: You remember with bad converter and line amp you are can be adding bad sound to it too! Be careful Isnt that the point of a tube? I mean really tubes are still used because they add a dirty sonic character to the music. Well, that's the modern take on it. They weren't always used like that. See above for the manley quote.

This is true for tape too Many people spend many years to make it go away. Now we all want it in big amounts! The best tape sounds are with no tape saturation. This is true with tubes too I think. Manley and Avalon teach us this very well

Quote:

Nyquist is not an argument It is a fact. Using the word argument makes me think my opinion vs fast idea is true. I am sorry if I do not understand right Can we start another thread with your idea?

'the nyquist argument' in this context means 'the information/fact based on the nyquist theorem'. In our case I was referring to the steep filters that need be used in 44.1 AD/DA conversion. They are very complicated to manufacture, or expensive, and with most midrange/cheap converters you're better of with higher samplerates. That's what I mean "the nyquist argument won't hold" [when sticking with 44.1khz.]

We'll start another thread on this, if need be. But I fear it'll soon fill with lots of misinformation and superstitions. Best talk about this at gearslutz, but even there we'd likely bumb into superstitions instead of hard facts.

Low end tube gear is just going to F*ck up your sound and should be kept far away from most audio unless you want to use it as a sort of "shitty" effect. I guarantee you that a solid state FMR Really Nice Pre (RNP) is WARMER than any bit of tube pre that could be had for $250 a channel AND it will sound better. Also look at your tube gear and try and find out if the tube inside of it is really lighting up. I know Behringer and a few other companies (maybe even Presonus as well) are putting lights behind their tubes to make you think the tubes are actually warming up. I guess they think you hear warmth with your eyes.

The fact of the matter is, and yes this is a fact though I wish it weren't, if you want a decent bit of tube gear, you're going to pay out the ass. Hell the PSU alone needed to really power a decent tube pre or compressor costs in the area of $200-300 by itself (again that's just the power supply and nothing else). Now ask yourself if you really think a $99 bit of tube gear really even has the power to drive the faux glowing tube inside the unit?

Good gear is good gear and bad gear is bad gear. Tubes do not make any bit of gear better or even warmer, nor does something being solid state make it shitty or cold. The quality comes from the design and the components in any bit of gear. And usually that is followed by a hefty price tag. Also as I alluded to earlier most bits of budget tube equipment should really be called "semi-tube" or "fake-tube" gear because the designs are just solid-state designs that have the audio pass through a tube in different stages just enough that they can call it "tube." The same theory applies to the Marshall Valvestate amps. The one tube in the units is not enough to power a guitar amp, instead they're basically hybrid solid state amps that basically have one tube inside so that they can use it as a selling point. Playing back and forth between a Valvestate amp and a real Marshall tube amp will make this difference quite clear.

In short, don't believe the hype about tubes being better or warmer or anything, and just start looking for good gear. The word "tube" in most cases is simply used as marketing hype by the companies selling budget "tube" gear. Sorry for this rant full of elitist tripe, but if you start to look at how good tube gear is supposed to work (from a design level), is built, and how much it costs, you'll come to these same conclusions. I'm all for cheap gear, as long as it's good. And if a $99 single tube pre works for you, that's cool too, but check out the $250 a channel FMR RNP and see how that sounds to your ears.

Can I just repeat myself here? SSL G384!!!

Also, why the hell is it that every homestudio owner in the whole wide world has this total fetish about valve gear? I don't get it. It doesn't make a piece of a equipment better that there's a tube in it, actually in most cases it might make it worse. If you really want valves, you gotta prepared to pay GOOD money for it, cause you simply can't build valve gear as cheaply as you can with solid state stuff. Do NOT waste money on a cheap'ish valve mic or comp or preamp, spend the same money on similarly priced solid state gizmos, you'll be much better off that way!

Don't believe they hype. Valves aren't little fat magic wands that'll make your music sound more like records. On the other hand, an SSL bus comp might just do that. If you're mix is up for it, of course!


luv


rs

r.baby wrote:

...why the hell is it that every homestudio owner in the whole wide world has this total fetish about valve gear?...

While I agree with you that there is a current valve hype going on that is more than a tad overblown, I must say that they do serve their purpose at times. I dont use a tube on everything I do...but I do use them. Curring marketing will make you believe that you need them and that they are the next big thing...but if it wasnt valves it would be something else...and marketing aside they do have purpose. Making a digital reproduction of a Hamond organ sound authentic for instance...dirty it up with a tube. Dry sterile digital synth sound? Dirty it up alittle with a tube and walla you have a more analogish sounding output. Not saying that they work for everyone or everything...but dont knock them and say that they are useless either...hell people like the old-school stuff...and for good reason...it doesnt fit every type of music but neither does a modern VST instrument

Very informative, and a pretty clear concensus. Cheers guys.

Hi

I get the feeling that what was being asked for was a piece of hardware that could be used at the mastering stage to add a little (obscure?) something that would enhance or polish the mix?

Well as many will tell you - for a start you can't polish a turd - so you need a pretty good mix in place anyway - if its just to add (?) or enhance individual sounds then again there are a whole host of software (and hardware) based options.

I have sold most of my hardware now but one of a few remaining pieces that I have left which I run my final mix through is a TC triple c compressor/finalizer type unit - now it is probably dsp based - but nevertheless putting a mix through this unit does add a polish/eq curve/tightness or whatever other(subtle) words you might like to add.

I also have an SPL compressor - which really does not 'add' a whole lot to a sound or mix that I find beneficial - this probably cost £500 new - so you have to be wary of spending out on this technology!

Unfortuanately - unlike software you can't download hardware for a trial!

Other hardware 'types' to consider if your desperate for this option might be something like an Aphex c2 exciter which will enhance/compress individual sounds or a mix, perhaps a valve EQ - but it aready appears that people are saying you can't get esoteric equipment cheap - so you would need to consider carefully what you are likely to get for your money.

there are alternatives though - a technique used (and one of many) by 'Scratch' - Lee perry (a renowned reggae producer from the 70's) was to record the mix or part of it from his monitors and feed it back to a track on his reel to reel 4 track - this brought out a really nice hi end which could then be mixed in with the rest of the mix.

It is all time consuming stuff - Bill Nelson would put a mike in a metal bucket (placed in the vicinity of the guitar combo) to record certain guitar riffs!

Production in this day and age has become tooo predictable for many - perhaps look else where for ideas for sprucing up your sounds/mixes?

Flipper.

I concur with the general concensus - cheap h/w is generally going to sound cheap. There are however a few provisos to that - some cheapish comps can be pushed alot harder than many s/w comps, and some have distinctive character (i.e. they colour the sound) If you want heavily pumping mixes that are squashed beyond any sensible dynamics, then even a cheap h/w comp is likely to be well used by you. But be prepared to need to buy more h/w to remedy some of the losses that will bring you.

Almost all budget comps will lose your topend - even though a valve one will add some harmonics making you think that your top end will be Ok, the compression will more than cancel out that gain. If you want to put it through quality valves without the compression, then you need to spend good money.

So you have a cheap valve comp. You've dirtied up your mix with the valve -> you've lost some of your sparkle because of the compression. So you need to buy either an enhancer, or an Eq. If you go for s/w Eq then you need to go back from A->D. if you need to go from D->A->D you are losing precious quality of sound - now you've already stated that you don't like the dirty quality of things like Vintage Warmer, so what's the point of transfering in and out of your soundcard, losing quality each time, unless the h/w that you're going out into is adding a huge amount (which no budget h/w will do!).

Chagzuki - I really get the impression that you like clean precise mixes. You've said you don't like PSP stuff (personally I love it - and I won't hear any of this crap about 16bit - CDs are at 16bit, and even if they weren't, the vast majority of end listeners couldn't tell the difference anyway.) I'm sure I heard you say you didn't like other enhancers e.g. the BBE one (which is probably one of the cleanest sounding enhancers on the market - all the others use harmonics and compression and Eq, and often dirty up mixes a huge amount, even though they enhance well).

Have you thought that maybe you just don't like dirtiness in a mix? Maybe you're just being seduced by hype. PSP aren't perfect, but they do make a reasonable approximation to valve harmonics and distortion. And remember that is exactly what valves do - they distort and add harmonics and limit, then distort because of the limiting (not just add harmonics - it is going to some degree degrade what you put through it).
If you don't like degraded sound, then stop thinking that analogue is going to achieve a miracle for you. It won't - not unless you spend big. (personally I think you are a little misguided about degraded sound - that is often why users have a preference for old gear - because the type of degradation they introduce is pleasing to the ear - possibly you just got used to digital media?).

Perfect sound is not often very good. That's why so many want valve emulations or saturation emulations or compressors with character added etc. Because digital can be too clinical and sound harsh - it may be a more perfect reproduction of the sound you initially recorded - but that may not necessarily make for a comfortable mix.

Either:

a) accept that you prefer clean precise digital mixes (which is fine - if you like that, then that is right for you) If that is the case, then going 24bit 96KHz etc may be good for you, but if you want dirtiness and grunge, then 24bit will make no difference apart from using up more space on your HD!

b) Retrain your ears. If you perceive your mixes aren't what you want, but find quality plugins like VW farty - you really do need to retrain your ears and perception of music and mixing. Anything valve, or saturation, and even enhancement = dirty. And it seems you don't like dirty - if that's the case, then even spending $2000 on a quality h/w valve comp ain't going to please you because it will sound farty.

I'm not being snide. You don't appear to like dirtying up your mixes. That's OK, but if your mixes aren't right for you, then concentrate on the mixing and on how you use you compressors etc. Because you're barking up the wrong tree if you think valves will clarify your mixes at all. They might make people perceive them as "warmer" or more "sparkly", but they do that by dirtying up your sound.

And for general mixing duties, I personally don't see much point in going h/w anyway - at budget range there is little or no difference. For extreme settings, yes sure, h/w can have advantages. I use my h/w for channel compression, or even drum mixes on subgroups - but I wouldn't dream of using them on a whole mix at 2.5:1 settings or thereabouts - things like GCO1 can give me just the same effect.
It's only when you get up to hard compression and limiting (especially limiting and overdriving sounds - s/w can't do what a h/w non-digital comp can do when overdriven but that's another story).
Low compression ratios doesn't really bring out the differences between comps, so it also won't emphasise the difference between s/w and h/w.
And generally you won't be compressing mixes at silly ratios so you won't hear the difference.

Quote:

"I've been using pure software since I started sequencing, but now I'm thinking it'd be nice to run my final mixes through a tasty hardware compressor to add a bit of 'that special something'."

The truth is that in my experience, no plugin compressor has even come remotely close to sounding as good as my Summit DCL-2000 or Empirical Labs Distressor.

http://www.summitaudio.com/p-dcl200.html
http://www.mercenary.com/dismodel8.html

But then, these units are expensvie - though worth every penny...

Quote:

The truth is that in my experience, no plugin compressor has even come remotely close to sounding as good as my Summit DCL-2000 or Empirical Labs Distressor.

Any chance to get an mp3 of the "action" of these
compressors? (with and without)

//Daniel

ddummer wrote:

Quote: The truth is that in my experience, no plugin compressor has even come remotely close to sounding as good as my Summit DCL-2000 or Empirical Labs Distressor. Any chance to get an mp3 of the "action" of these compressors? (with and without) //Daniel

You just listen to any modern rock/pop recording and they will be there.

Number 5 need INPUT!

//Daniel

Kingston wrote:

ddummer wrote: Quote: The truth is that in my experience, no plugin compressor has even come remotely close to sounding as good as my Summit DCL-2000 or Empirical Labs Distressor. Any chance to get an mp3 of the "action" of these compressors? (with and without) //Daniel You just listen to any modern rock/pop recording and they will be there.

what a helpful guy you are...

By the way!

Is there a mp3 you can download that would act as
a good source if you want to try a compressor so you
right away could spot any poor action like "flobby"
release, "spiongy" attack e.c.t ?

(and here I´m aiming for plugs with auto release funcions like limiters and stuff)

//Daniel

ddummer wrote:

By the way! Is there a mp3 you can download that would act as a good source if you want to try a compressor so you right away could spot any poor action like "flobby" release, "spiongy" attack e.c.t ? (and here I´m aiming for plugs with auto release funcions like limiters and stuff) //Daniel

There is no fool proof way of testing compressors. They are at best a spice and will all give a slighly different flavor.


Good starting points would be uncompressed multitracked drum subgroups(with at least the overheads), or individual channels in this context. Low level compression quality is usually a good indicator for everything(ratio well below 2 and really low treshold).


Then you could go for well recorded acoustic guitars as they will show no mercy on compressor flaws, flavours and transparencies. It's a breeding ground for 'spoing', 'slop' and probably 'bloing', too.

DIed electric bass is extremely unforgiving. Get a really bad bass player for example and try to save the session with a compressor. Or try to flavour up the attacks of a really good bass player.

By now you should pretty much know what the best compressors are...

By the way, I've always felt limiters are the absolute last resort in mixdowns. There's a truth in saying that limiters (mainly the one from waves) are largely responsiple for the uninspiring, bland and undynamic mixdowns we're mostly hearing nowadays. Let's not even bring up mastering in this context!

Leave the peaks as they are, let the (good) compression artifacts come through properly and let dynamics reign!

You'll end up with a much better mixdown. Let the mastering folks worry about the rest.

Kingston wrote:

ddummer wrote: By the way! Is there a mp3 you can download that would act as a good source if you want to try a compressor so you right away could spot any poor action like "flobby" release, "spiongy" attack e.c.t ? (and here I´m aiming for plugs with auto release funcions like limiters and stuff) //Daniel There is no fool proof way of testing compressors. They are at best a spice and will all give a slighly different flavor. Good starting points would be uncompressed multitracked drum subgroups(with at least the overheads), or individual channels in this context. Low level compression quality is usually a good indicator for everything(ratio well below 2 and really low treshold). Then you could go for well recorded acoustic guitars as they will show no mercy on compressor flaws, flavours and transparencies. It's a breeding ground for 'spoing', 'slop' and probably 'bloing', too. DIed electric bass is extremely unforgiving. Get a really bad bass player for example and try to save the session with a compressor. Or try to flavour up the attacks of a really good bass player. By now you should pretty much know what the best compressors are... By the way, I've always felt limiters are the absolute last resort in mixdowns. There's a truth in saying that limiters (mainly the one from waves) are largely responsiple for the uninspiring, bland and undynamic mixdowns we're mostly hearing nowadays. Let's not even bring up mastering in this context! Leave the peaks as they are, let the (good) compression artifacts come through properly and let dynamics reign! You'll end up with a much better mixdown. Let the mastering folks worry about the rest.

your way of answering makes me wonder if you know who asked...

Quote:

your way of answering makes me wonder if you know who asked...

Well, 30000 users, most of them barely beginners. Kinda hard to keep track on who's who.

But ddrummer, sorry for the ever so slightly patronizing tone.

Kingston has some big balls, and I would think a small mind

This is the 5th post Ive seen where this man speaks to someone who knows much more than him, and speaks to them as they are lesser.

Kingston wrote:

Quote: your way of answering makes me wonder if you know who asked... Well, 30000 users, most of them barely beginners. Kinda hard to keep track on who's who. But ddrummer, sorry for the ever so slightly patronizing tone.

Think first, think again second. Type fourth after thinking again

Kingston wrote:

ddummer wrote: By the way! Is there a mp3 you can download that would act as a good source if you want to try a compressor so you right away could spot any poor action like "flobby" release, "spiongy" attack e.c.t ? (and here I´m aiming for plugs with auto release funcions like limiters and stuff) //Daniel There is no fool proof way of testing compressors. They are at best a spice and will all give a slighly different flavor. Good starting points would be uncompressed multitracked drum subgroups(with at least the overheads), or individual channels in this context. Low level compression quality is usually a good indicator for everything(ratio well below 2 and really low treshold). Then you could go for well recorded acoustic guitars as they will show no mercy on compressor flaws, flavours and transparencies. It's a breeding ground for 'spoing', 'slop' and probably 'bloing', too. DIed electric bass is extremely unforgiving. Get a really bad bass player for example and try to save the session with a compressor. Or try to flavour up the attacks of a really good bass player. By now you should pretty much know what the best compressors are... By the way, I've always felt limiters are the absolute last resort in mixdowns. There's a truth in saying that limiters (mainly the one from waves) are largely responsiple for the uninspiring, bland and undynamic mixdowns we're mostly hearing nowadays. Let's not even bring up mastering in this context! Leave the peaks as they are, let the (good) compression artifacts come through properly and let dynamics reign! You'll end up with a much better mixdown. Let the mastering folks worry about the rest.

Alexey Lukin's webpage has very foolproof way of testing compressor. He is a very smart man, and I suggest to read his website if you can read russian. He is also very friendly.

Daniel, I do know much about common auto-envelope methods. I also have my own ideas If you want to speak on AIM or with email then please let me know. I think I can help.

Kingston wrote:

Quote: your way of answering makes me wonder if you know who asked... Well, 30000 users, most of them barely beginners. Kinda hard to keep track on who's who. But ddrummer, sorry for the ever so slightly patronizing tone.

by the way: his name is Daniel

Quote:

Think first, think again second. Type fourth after thinking again

Then think about the multitudes of beginners who will read it and have no idea of what's being talked about.

I've seen too many stupid fights here when people have had obviously no clue on the topic.

And by the way, (and this does not concern ddrummer as his stuff is mostly good) not all developers have good ears. Most of the plugs that come out have a very bland and average sound. Just because someone is a developer doesn't mean he has good ears. Some of them simply don't know how to tune their stuff. Some of them would benefit on some serious listening, engineering-ear-training experience.

We need quality control. And we need it bad!

In this sense, Sascha from digitalfishphones is just about the most committed listener and a prime example of quality control. I think our newer stars voxengo and kjaerhus are setting standards as well (among a very few others).

Kingston wrote:

Quote: Think first, think again second. Type fourth after thinking again Then think about the multitudes of beginners who will read it and have no idea of what's being talked about. I've seen too many stupid fights here when people have had obviously no clue on the topic. And by the way, (and this does not concern ddrummer as his stuff is mostly good) not all developers have good ears. Most of the plugs that come out have a very bland and average sound. Just because someone is a developer doesn't mean he has good ears. Some of them simply don't know how to tune their stuff. Some of them would benefit on some serious listening, engineering-ear-training experience. We need quality control. And we need it bad!

yes, there's surely some truth in what you write, but what I am thinking is the following:

as Daniel won't accept any money for his really outstanding plugins respect is all we can give him in return

Kingston wrote:

Quote: Think first, think again second. Type fourth after thinking again Then think about the multitudes of beginners who will read it and have no idea of what's being talked about. I've seen too many stupid fights here when people have had obviously no clue on the topic. And by the way, (and this does not concern ddrummer as his stuff is mostly good) not all developers have good ears. Most of the plugs that come out have a very bland and average sound. Just because someone is a developer doesn't mean he has good ears. Some of them simply don't know how to tune their stuff. Some of them would benefit on some serious listening, engineering-ear-training experience. We need quality control. And we need it bad!

The many beginners is more reason to think more before posting. This is not the first time to speak up and give advice not needed I can only guess you are new to internet forum setting? I know you try to give help, but it seems often to be put in the wrong place

I think all the developer here have respect for us. The idea for us to all with better ears to speak to them like students is disrespectful. The work we put into listening is far less than the work they put into making it work and listening too! If this is not to our challenge of taste then respect is due if others like it!

Quote:

This is not the first time to speak up and give advice not needed I can only guess you are new to internet forum setting? I know you try to give help, but it seems often to be put in the wrong place

New to forums?

The only thing I'm new to, is that you must be the local self proclaimed moderator authority.

Seriously now, one glance at the active topics, and can you honestly say that advice is not needed, even if slightly off topic?

Quote:

The work we put into listening is far less than the work they put into making it work and listening too!

That depends entirely on your line of work and activity.

I asked a question and got a guiding answer. People assume too many things about others...
we are all beginners you know...

And the name is ddummer.. nothing else.

//Daniel

ddummer wrote:

I asked a question and got a guiding answer. People assume too many things about others... we are all beginners you know... And the name is ddummer.. nothing else. //Daniel