KVR Audio

soulata · Post by **soulata** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:27 pm

bmanic wrote:.. prepare to ditch the plugin world after this. It might shock you how good serious gear can sound.

aaaah, it's like studying abroad somehow. I'd never get my money back if I invested in serious hw. I'll rather stay with equally serious sw.

(I still hope it's musicianship that counts)

k

bobby yarrow · Post by **bobby yarrow** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:41 pm

From an investment point of view, hardware is far superior. Almost certain you could buy a distressor, use it for 5 years, and sell it for near what you paid. Try that with a UAD-1 . . .

That said, it is musicianship that counts. None of this stuff, past a certain very low level anyhow, matters at all. I like hardware, a lot, but I don't feel like I'm 'justified' in any purchase I've made in a long time. Which is to say, after the first $20k or so invested, the quality of one's gear is no longer a limiting factor.

plastic · Post by **plastic** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:43 pm

i have a fatso and it's truly great.
i record everything through it. especially guitars with podxt sound miles better through it. even without compressing the signal it gets more organic and alive...i dont want to say "warm".
it's also great to remove harsh frequencies from digital synths and the compressor modes are very versatile.
fatso is mad expensive but i haven't regret the purchase yet.

soulata · Post by **soulata** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:10 pm

bobby yarrow wrote:From an investment point of view, hardware is far superior.

well, not all hw is superior, but I agree somehow.

bobby yarrow wrote:Which is to say, after the first $20k or so invested, the quality of one's gear is no longer a limiting factor.

erm, I only spent around 6k (not couunting saxophones) on equipment (misses included). i've still got a long way to go

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:15 pm

Oh crap... just checked and all I can find from our quick Fatso session are 192kbit MP3 versions of the track...

Not exactly a good way to demonstrate anything

Especially what Fatso did to the transients, damn it...

Anyways, I'll put these online... you can at least hear something happening, especially in the quieter parts.

JMH

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:45 am

The Distressor is a beast of a compressor. The 'nuke' button is quality for really extreme breakbeats and stuff. Not heard much like it on the computer unfortunately.

neverwhere2012 · Post by **neverwhere2012** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:59 am

to add another device into the mix here... found this -- http://www.mercenary.com/splcharisma2.html -- while browsing around mercenary audio one day. seems to be a tube saturation/soft limiter box. don't know how great it sounds for $550, but SPL seem to be a decent company with some known good sounding product (transient designer, anyone?). been considering picking one up kind of as a poorman's fatso/distressor type of thing, but i may spring for more quality preamps first. anyway, if anyone has any experience or insight to add on this thing, it'd be nice to hear it.

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:01 am

Ok, here goes...

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_original.mp3

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_fatso.mp3

Ignore the cheese songwise

(those robot vox were a temp thing, though the cheesiness has grown on me since...)

Regards,

JMH

gareth_fx · Post by **gareth_fx** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:24 pm

Distressor means 'Distorting Compressor' and its very unlike an 1176.

Switchable odd and even harmonics on the drive the only thing that remotely resembles a 1176 is the 'nuke' mode which is akin to pushing the 4 ratio buttons in on a urei.

Gareth_FX

omo · Post by **omo** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:26 pm

some ppl just love to mention UAD-1 at any chance, gareth_fx

JeffSanders · Post by **JeffSanders** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:28 pm

omo wrote:some ppl just love to mention UAD-1 at any chance, gareth_fx

Yes. Like everyone who has one. With good reason.

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:25 am

JeffSanders wrote:
omo wrote:some ppl just love to mention UAD-1 at any chance, gareth_fx
Yes. Like everyone who has one. With good reason.

Sintefex.. Sintefex.. Sintefex..

- bManic

bmanic · Post by **bmanic** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:26 am

jmh wrote:Ok, here goes...

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_original.mp3

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_fatso.mp3

Ignore the cheese songwise (those robot vox were a temp thing, though the cheesiness has grown on me since...)

Regards,

JMH

I still think the tune is nice! Anyways, here I'd like to add that this particular song did benefit from the fatso but jmh had another song with him too, which did not benefit from it at all, so it just shows that even expensive hardware that try to be "that magic box" just doesn't cut it always.

Cheers!
bManic

jmh · Post by **jmh** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:39 am

Yeah, forgot about that other track... no matter what we tried, it just didn't do anything positive. 'twas a really busy track though.

Let's hope there's a Sintefex thread soon that I get to post something more

Regards,

JMH

;-) · Post by **;-)** » Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:48 am

jmh wrote:Ok, here goes...

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_original.mp3

http://amj.bombsquad.org/temp/mm_fatso.mp3

Ignore the cheese songwise (those robot vox were a temp thing, though the cheesiness has grown on me since...)

Regards,

JMH

At first: The Fatso track is -1.36db quieter!!!

After normalizing it, the (psycho-accoustical) loudness of the original track remains higher than the proceeded track...

The only significant difference I'm able to hear, are the transients. Those are flatter with the Fatso than with the original. But the entire loudness of the proceeded track is quieter. (Well, the compressor worked at lest ...)

But wait ..., also the visual analysis result is: the entire track volume is reduced (still after normalizing it) ...

Althought, the Fatso adds high frequency content and some bass compression to the mix. If that's enhancing and "analog type saturation", so the entire effect is rather quite extremely subtile.

I would be glad to hear some of you here, who actually can explain me where even the significant difference (after normalizing) is ...

As far I see (hear) there is no "magic" at all. Not even subjective to me. As much I even try to find it.

I mean, after reading that: ...

Users can enhance & soften the sound of mediums such as modular digital multitracks (MDM's), HD recorders, Dat recorders, Ram Recorders etc. Mixdown engineers will have an option not to use bulky, expensive, (and often flaky) analog tape recorders to get the warmth and sweet high end they've come to rely on for so many decades. Owners of Adats, MDM's, RAM and modern hard disk recorders can finally put a stop to complaints about the "coldness" and "brittle edge" of their mixes and instruments with the "rounded" and "musically non linear elements" of vintage analog. Finally, audiophiles can bring back the warmth and cuddly sound of LP's and tapes to their CD players, and other digital reproduction mediums.

Fatso's Four Types of Processing (Available on both channels)
1. Harmonic Generation and Soft Clipper (Distortion generation)
2. High Frequency Saturation - WARMTH!
3. Transformer & Tape Head Emulation
4. Classic Knee Compression - Empirical Labs Style!

... I expected something more.

You must be quite superstitious to hear that what's written above. If that's the entire result, so I would say that can be easiely topped with several (probably average) software plugins!

But: maybe completely wrong usage of that hardware or a "bad" example?

(That is no attack at all, JMH

)

.

Distressor and Fatso - is there a sw like this?