Are we close to getting plugin compressors that sound like real ones?

[Trakstar]

Ibe been eyeballing a few api and cartec 500 series offerings and with the new 1073 EQ and preamp combis just come out I am definitely investing in a 500 series lunchbox which gives me 6 slots to fill out with 500 units. Its about 3-400 quid for the box and individual units range from £200-1000 but they are a lot cheaper than the hardware processors due to their size and yet perform exactly the same functionality.
http://www.sweetwater.com/shop/studio/5 ... _guide.php

you can get Api 500 series dynamics at a lot less compared to the full on rack units which is perfect and I really like the Idea of owning some actual hardware that will fit on my project studio desk.

Just been checking the dynamics out, they evn come with dual linked stereo in one 500 unit for around £500, the equivalent hardware a lot more. The API 560 EQ sure looks the part and there are lots of similar models available from other makers for around £250+. My mind is made up, no more plugins when I can save and Mod out my own personal 500 rack

[SWAN808]

Yeah I thought about a 500 rack because of the nice size and more reasonable pricing...the Xpressor is good value and the Lindell audio units are worth looking at...the Arsenal Audio/JDK R14 EQ...the AML EZ1073 looks like a great Pre/EQ combo...to do it I would look to get 2 EZ1073, and stereo compression - but you are still looking at an investment of £2000 - which is a lot of money.
In the end I decided for me the lower end rack stuff is fine such as GAP/Chameleon Labs/Art/Overstayer etc...

[Shy]

This is a question adressed to all those in this thread who stated that software compressors in general sound significantly different to hardware ones:


You have a lot of experience with hardware compressors and I take it you have regular access to some of them. So could you please upload a few processed/unprocessed examples to show those of us (e.g. me) who do not have any experience with hardware compressors, what all the fuss is about?

I am very curious and are really looking forward to your examples.

It's not about software compressors in general sounding "significantly different", it's mostly about them sounding significantly worse, because instead of providing smooth gain reduction, they give a sound that's broken and stuttered compared to a good analog compressor's.

Since you want an example, instead of giving you an example of "fine analog compressor vs shitty plugin compressor", I'll give you an example of fine analog compressor vs the only plugin compressor that can cope with anything nearly as well as any analog compressor, without sounding like a broken mess. Then, you could compare any other plugin compressor you want to these samples and hear for yourself how they're all simply inadequate, many far more than some others. Here.

I guess that as usual, I may get no comments from people who actually test things properly, but I'll also cover the usual BS anyway:

- So that no one says stuff like their compressors "just sound different" - there is no "emulation" needed to match these settings very closely, just proper tweaking of a plugin with a half decent range. I also matched that sound closely with several other compressor plugins (each requiring different parameter values, so it's pointless to give general pointers). The main difference with them is that they can't cope, as usual.

- Yes, this is what you may call an "extreme" case. It's meant to showcase artifacts very clearly. No, it doesn't mean that compressor plugins sound just fine with lower thresholds, there are many cases with moderate thresholds in which they're also very inadequate compared to an analog compressor that can cope, like on voice. If you can't understand that it's orders of magnitude easier to compare things / match settings with a drums sample like here, then you have a problem.

- If this doesn't matter to you and you love whatever software compressor and feel compelled to say things like "in a mix it doesn't.." (no, it does) or "it sounds like shit to me either way" (shut up, troll man) or "hey I get it, you love shiny hardware and hate software" (no, you're just an idiot) or "hey dude, this is all subjective, dude" (yes, no shit) or "hey man OK whatever why you write all those words?" (why are you here?) please spare the world from comments like that.

Eh, I'm surprised I still do this stuff once in a while. I'll just mention one more thing: if you disagree with any of what I wrote, don't think for a second that I care.

[Trakstar]

This is a question adressed to all those in this thread who stated that software compressors in general sound significantly different to hardware ones:


You have a lot of experience with hardware compressors and I take it you have regular access to some of them. So could you please upload a few processed/unprocessed examples to show those of us (e.g. me) who do not have any experience with hardware compressors, what all the fuss is about?

I am very curious and are really looking forward to your examples.

It's not about software compressors in general sounding "significantly different", it's mostly about them sounding significantly worse, because instead of providing smooth gain reduction, they give a sound that's broken and stuttered compared to a good analog compressor's.

Since you want an example, instead of giving you an example of "fine analog compressor vs shitty plugin compressor", I'll give you an example of fine analog compressor vs the only plugin compressor that can cope with anything nearly as well as any analog compressor, without sounding like a broken mess. Then, you could compare any other plugin compressor you want to these samples and hear for yourself how they're all simply inadequate, many far more than some others. Here.

I guess that as usual, I may get no comments from people who actually test things properly, but I'll also cover the usual BS anyway:

- So that no one says stuff like their compressors "just sound different" - there is no "emulation" needed to match these settings very closely, just proper tweaking of a plugin with a half decent range. I also matched that sound closely with several other compressor plugins (each requiring different parameter values, so it's pointless to give general pointers). The main difference with them is that they can't cope, as usual.

- Yes, this is what you may call an "extreme" case. It's meant to showcase artifacts very clearly. No, it doesn't mean that compressor plugins sound just fine with lower thresholds, there are many cases with moderate thresholds in which they're also very inadequate compared to an analog compressor that can cope, like on voice. If you can't understand that it's orders of magnitude easier to compare things / match settings with a drums sample like here, then you have a problem.

- If this doesn't matter to you and you love whatever software compressor and feel compelled to say things like "in a mix it doesn't.." (no, it does) or "it sounds like shit to me either way" (shut up, troll man) or "hey I get it, you love shiny hardware and hate software" (no, you're just an idiot) or "hey dude, this is all subjective, dude" (yes, no shit) or "hey man OK whatever why you write all those words?" (why are you here?) please spare the world from comments like that.

Eh, I'm surprised I still do this stuff once in a while. I'll just mention one more thing: if you disagree with any of what I wrote, don't think for a second that I care.

Thanks for the reference material, im going to try it out with some of the software compressors I have to see if they can do the same and check the differences.

[SWAN808]

- So that no one says stuff like their compressors "just sound different" - there is no "emulation" needed to match these settings very closely, just proper tweaking of a plugin with a half decent range. I also matched that sound closely with several other compressor plugins (each requiring different parameter values, so it's pointless to give general pointers). The main difference with them is that they can't cope, as usual.

- Yes, this is what you may call an "extreme" case. It's meant to showcase artifacts very clearly. No, it doesn't mean that compressor plugins sound just fine with lower thresholds, there are many cases with moderate thresholds in which they're also very inadequate compared to an analog compressor that can cope, like on voice. If you can't understand that it's orders of magnitude easier to compare things / match settings with a drums sample like here, then you have a problem.

- If this doesn't matter to you and you love whatever software compressor and feel compelled to say things like "in a mix it doesn't.." (no, it does) or "it sounds like shit to me either way" (shut up, troll man) or "hey I get it, you love shiny hardware and hate software" (no, you're just an idiot) or "hey dude, this is all subjective, dude" (yes, no shit) or "hey man OK whatever why you write all those words?" (why are you here?) please spare the world from comments like that.

thanks for the example. splitcomp sounds pretty good as does the Dragon...I think there are other plugin compressors that can do a decent job...? But I do understand your points...

The Slate 1176 test here is interesting.

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/gear-sho ... la-2a.html

Another poster did a better effort matching the IK 76 than Slate

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/6713527-post38.html

The Slate compressor in FG-X is quite nice...for a certain style.

Im not sure what we are discussing now but for me a hybrid approach works quite nicely. Im very curious about the new CDSoundmaster drum compression presets for Nebula...

[@midnight]

I realize this is a difficult question to ask and to answer. Let me try to explain. In terms of EQs, it seems (to me) that many musicians / engineers who contribute to various forums support the general view that developers have gotten really close to matching their outboard equivalents. But, not so with compressors …at least not yet.

One reason that I bring this up is because of the good work that is being done regarding console and tape emulations (UAD, Toneboosters, and most recently SlateDigital's VTM). Given the more thorough analysis behind our understanding of how such real world equipment works, why our ears appreciate the qualities they impart to sound, and improvements in algorithm design, it should be no surprise that "better" plugins are the result.

Also, I realize that some of the quality differences can be appreciated only once the entire signal chain is upgraded as well - better converters, speakers, etc.

I've also noticed new developers appearing on the public scene with their take on compressors, and meeting with positive reactions. I've tried several of the latest offerings, but I'm not yet convinced. I have too many already, and I'm a bit tired of being disappointed. Let's say I'm in the market for a quality plugin compressor that "feels, behaves and sounds" like it could exist in the real world. Now, I know that I'm treading into very subjective territory, but the analogy with EQs is there and one day should work in this case.

So, are we "almost there" with compressors? One plugin that received some good feedback about a year or so ago was the Vertigo compressor. Any others? Perhaps the new version of the UAD 1176 (although I can't test it as I no longer have access to a UAD card since I'm only working with a Windows laptop)?

[Trakstar]

I realize this is a difficult question to ask and to answer. Let me try to explain. In terms of EQs, it seems (to me) that many musicians / engineers who contribute to various forums support the general view that developers have gotten really close to matching their outboard equivalents. But, not so with compressors …at least not yet.

One reason that I bring this up is because of the good work that is being done regarding console and tape emulations (UAD, Toneboosters, and most recently SlateDigital's VTM). Given the more thorough analysis behind our understanding of how such real world equipment works, why our ears appreciate the qualities they impart to sound, and improvements in algorithm design, it should be no surprise that "better" plugins are the result.

Also, I realize that some of the quality differences can be appreciated only once the entire signal chain is upgraded as well - better converters, speakers, etc.

I've also noticed new developers appearing on the public scene with their take on compressors, and meeting with positive reactions. I've tried several of the latest offerings, but I'm not yet convinced. I have too many already, and I'm a bit tired of being disappointed. Let's say I'm in the market for a quality plugin compressor that "feels, behaves and sounds" like it could exist in the real world. Now, I know that I'm treading into very subjective territory, but the analogy with EQs is there and one day should work in this case.

So, are we "almost there" with compressors? One plugin that received some good feedback about a year or so ago was the Vertigo compressor. Any others? Perhaps the new version of the UAD 1176 (although I can't test it as I no longer have access to a UAD card since I'm only working with a Windows laptop)?

whats so funny

[Dean Aka Nekro]

I realize this is a difficult question to ask and to answer. Let me try to explain. In terms of EQs, it seems (to me) that many musicians / engineers who contribute to various forums support the general view that developers have gotten really close to matching their outboard equivalents. But, not so with compressors …at least not yet.

One reason that I bring this up is because of the good work that is being done regarding console and tape emulations (UAD, Toneboosters, and most recently SlateDigital's VTM). Given the more thorough analysis behind our understanding of how such real world equipment works, why our ears appreciate the qualities they impart to sound, and improvements in algorithm design, it should be no surprise that "better" plugins are the result.

Also, I realize that some of the quality differences can be appreciated only once the entire signal chain is upgraded as well - better converters, speakers, etc.

I've also noticed new developers appearing on the public scene with their take on compressors, and meeting with positive reactions. I've tried several of the latest offerings, but I'm not yet convinced. I have too many already, and I'm a bit tired of being disappointed. Let's say I'm in the market for a quality plugin compressor that "feels, behaves and sounds" like it could exist in the real world. Now, I know that I'm treading into very subjective territory, but the analogy with EQs is there and one day should work in this case.

So, are we "almost there" with compressors? One plugin that received some good feedback about a year or so ago was the Vertigo compressor. Any others? Perhaps the new version of the UAD 1176 (although I can't test it as I no longer have access to a UAD card since I'm only working with a Windows laptop)?

whats so funny

I do not know but I can say that some trolls seem to find the most fun and amuse themselves in the most odd places/over pretty straight up questions IME (fwiw). Never feed a mogwai after midnight Trackstar dude if you know what I mean

[metamorphosis]

Whenever I get nostalgic, I just flick on one of my old 16-bit DX plugins. Nothing like a bit of digital warmth...


...[/trolling]

[A.M. Gold]

Now, this is a thread that may be headed for a lock.

[herodotus]

- If this doesn't matter to you and you love whatever software compressor and feel compelled to say things like .... "hey man OK whatever why you write all those words?" (why are you here?) please spare the world from comments like that.

I'll just mention one more thing: if you disagree with any of what I wrote, don't think for a second that I care.

(why are you here?)

[poonna]

Since you want an example, instead of giving you an example of "fine analog compressor vs shitty plugin compressor", I'll give you an example of fine analog compressor vs the only plugin compressor that can cope with anything nearly as well as any analog compressor, without sounding like a broken mess. Then, you could compare any other plugin compressor you want to these samples and hear for yourself how they're all simply inadequate, many far more than some others.

Didn't you say the Waves API 2500 plugin replaces your hardware, too? So, in your opinion not only the LP SplitComp, I guess?

[Shy]

Yes, the only use I've ever had for an API 2500 is fairly slight gain reduction, in a "mastering" context. Later I found out that unsurprisingly, that's how most people use it, usually with even tamer settings than mine. The plugin replaces it excellently in that context, but like all other plugins compared to LP SplitComp and various analog compressors, some digital hardware compressors (in KSP8 and System 6000) and some hybrids (Distressor), it breaks terribly with threshold levels suitable for gain reduction of single tracks, especially very dynamic tracks like vocals and various acoustic and electronic instruments. It's not a big deal, since I never liked the real 2500 for that purpose either (although it doesn't stutter like the plugin).

[poonna]

... it breaks terribly with threshold levels suitable for gain reduction of single tracks, especially very dynamic tracks like vocals and various acoustic and electronic instruments.

Have you tried Brainworx compressors, like the Vertigo VSC-2 or Elysia alpha? They are regarded very highly as very close to the hardware behavior. What do you think about them?

[Shy]

I've tried everything, have you tried them? I think it's essential that people compare things themselves and not care much about what anyone says (including me), I don't like sharing negative opinions on specific plugins unless there's a really good reason.