The new UAD 1176's model the entire signal paths, including the input and output stages beyond just the actual compression stage. This is a big shift from the first UAD 1176, which only modeled the compression characteristic itself and that I was never a big fan of.

I don't know any freeware that can do what the new UAD 1176's can do.

Any comments about my matching of Shy's Slate Dragon wav file? Personally, I can't hear my clip breaking up.

Sorry, I got too caught up defending myself.

It's very good and doesn't break up (fall apart) but your attack still sounds snappier and the kick loses its resonance. The kick is the main thing I'm having trouble with, I haven't been able to get anywhere close to that using the compressors on my laptop. I think that's why Shy chose to use the Split Comp for his example.

But, when talking about aesthetics of the attack or kick resonance we are moving the goal posts now, since the original premise was of a software compressor plugin not being able to keep a solid, unified sound, ie: the sound will break up under certain conditions. Shy posts the conditions which he claims will reveal that inferiors sound.

He writes that, quote:

"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."
/end quote

and yet the first software compressor I picked up from my plugin folder was able to nail the Slate Dargon demo pretty well. I don't hear that 'broken stuttered sound' at all.

The attack you mention, can be further improved here, as I've just done so. The resonance on the kick, to be honest I can't hear that difference on these headphones but I know that my monitors would reveal much more, so I have to trust you that the kick is indeed different.

Anyway, I'm participating here as I'm trying to learn more about compression. I've never paid too much attention to it, especially at higher gain reduction.

I remember using some Tube Tech compressors back in the 90s in a studio I used to work in, and that was lovely. Instant fairy dust magic - didn't even have to dial any settings to get a different, satisfying sound. Since then, I've become disinteretsed in comprssors and such (but I'd still want that Tube Tech, lol).

If that's all we're listening for, I achieved that with even Maschine's little built-in compressor. However, I don't think we're going to learn anything until we emulate the effect as whole because otherwise they won't be doing the same things.


Yes, a lot of the most revered hardware has this effect. I have the Tube Tech Fairchild and know it well.

I have only followed what was put forward by Shy and his original challenge, and so far I (and at least one other poster) do not hear the artifacts he has pointed to (demonstrated with another audio demo).

The attack? This can be shaped further. The kick resonance? I can't hear any significant difference on my headphones, hence I'm lost how to improve it.

But you talk about emulating the effect as a whole... There are compressor plugins which emulate hardware processors, and people question how closely these plugins nail the sound, with some being closer than others. Here, I've tried to get close to a hardware unit with a software plugin which is not based on the said hardware unit and obviously does not emulate it. So there must be sonic differences, but as long as there are no artifacts which Shy has pointed to, then mission accomplished. No?


Audio please, or it never happened.

hehe, OK, here you go:

www.jrrshop.com/eric/eric_dahlberg-shymaschinetest.wav

Ouch! What is that noise? I'm getting some serious noise distortion....almost killed my hearing! Please check that file again.

Try it again, I re-uploaded the file.

That's better. Gave it a quick listen and it sounds good, but it's not level matched to Shy's original. It clips if I level match it. Perhaps I did too quickly as I'm about to go to bed...
@kvaca,
I've tried to match your file too. I'll upload it when I'm up.

soorry,but its nothing close to what Shy wanted to hear

based on your previous posts here Im sure you have to hear the differences yourself.../...not so much compressed, frequency response is very different, snare sound is muffled.../

Huhgh...who told you that? You are completely wrong there and your opinion is based on something pretty wrong.

I've never seen not even a trace of AD/DA converter on any DSP card from UAD or TC Powercore(or any other competitive card really).

They aren't sound cards and their DSP's don't need any AD/DA converter to do processing. In fact it wasn't case anytime in history that DSP processors needed AD/DA to run plugins.. (apart from hybrid solutions which are soundcards with DSP processors onboard but that's completely unrelated)

I think he originally thougt about latency and other unacceptable issues which doesnt occure in native plugin world...thanks for your correction, but please go back to topic - its not about dsp cards...

I think the comment makes a lot more sense when you reverse it. You're much more likely to get artefarcts with a good analog compressor than with a good digital compressor. But some people like those analog artefarcts, perhaps they don't even care about the compressor action that much. When you think about it, building a proper compressor is rather difficult in the analog domain, as you can't look forward or backward in time. The compressor action is merely a function of the filtered input, whereas in digital we can monitor the true peak level. Furthermore, overshoots resulting from longer attack times can be avoided via lookahead (if desired).

Richard

you are right with one exception - AFAIK it IS possible to look forward in analog domain, but usually this is NOT the preferred thing / look at the Shy comment about preecho in my kickdrum example on page 5 /, becouse these people prefer distortions over clean limiting with lookahead