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

[Dean Aka Nekro]

Hehe, old fart! Getting mellow, hm? (Hit and run...)

I'm 45. And like that piece of music, too.

haha man, Age is just not something I think matters one bit when it comes to friends, audio/music in the slightest

On topic: I've got nothing substantial to add to the Dragon challenge at the moment, sorry. We had some interesting talk about compressors here at u-he today. Sascha is so deep into this stuff it's amazing. I learned a lot today. Exciting times we live in.

+1 really even though I've got still quite some examples people have posted to grab still and listen to

Indeed it is good times and I do not see that stopping anytime soon in both the analogue hardware world and digital software world. I'm not much well up on synthesizers but you lot seemed to up the stakes alot with DIVA. Look forwards to the fruits of the teams labour's when you do release a dynamics processor. Not just u-he either as there has been alot of good progression by other developers also.

Analogue gear will always be a neeeded/relevent for myself as microhpones need more than just pre-amps and DSP will always be needed also. That was/is where my live and let live saying/point of view stands and in my lifetime probably always will. Using each to best exploit the advantages/pros each has to offer.

Never will be a case of one over the another as far as I am concerned except when it comes to personal preferences, What budgets/finances to spend/invest on equipment and so on. I really am looking forward to trying out Slate's Dragon unit when I can do and also now I have a powerful audio machine again up and running, I am able to properly demo a list of software that my old setup just could not cope with in the context of a full mix. So I have alot to catch up with to be honest DSP wise

All the best and to all as always

Dean

[Ah Xoc Kin]

And I totally agree, we should set high standards regardless of whether those listening can hear a difference.

I guess you don't mean that without any given context, right? If so, what context? Someone should hear the difference you want to make, right? Who?

If I can get something to sound as good as I can, I'll go that route. If I hear mistakes that don't add to the song, I'll do my best to fix them. I guess the idea is to avoid the "no one will notice" attitude.
For example:
http://www.hometracked.com/2007/08/23/1 ... the-album/

Many of these are amazing songs. Classics. And as Jimmy Page said regarding Bonham's squeaky pedal: "That was something that was obviously sadly overlooked at the time."

That comment was just an agreement with Dean, who wrote: "...No matter where any musician/audio engineer's work may end up the best efforts should and does go into capturing, mixing and mastering audio..."

[Uncle E]

If I can get something to sound as good as I can, I'll go that route. If I hear mistakes that don't add to the song, I'll do my best to fix them. I guess the idea is to avoid the "no one will notice" attitude.

Yes! The odd thing to me is that it's not just "no one will notice", it's "no one else will notice even though I will notice". Personally, I mix better and enjoy the process more when I'm using great sounding gear.

[Leonardus]

Having read this thread I have to admit, I have a very noob understanding of things. There is an aspect in this software versus hardware discussion that seems nonsensical to me. It's where folks have sold off their hardware compressors..

I can't imagine a recording studio getting by without hardware compressors and limiters. Isn't a principle use of compressors and limiters to protect the signal path from overload? As such, at least for taming plosives and unexpected extreme dynamic fluctuations while tracking, isn't software compression coming in a bit late in the game? It seems to me hardware and software compressors, while both essential tools for music production, are 2 very different animals. I see where software and hardware use overlaps, but don't we need both?

I'm here to learn so please teach me up.

My scheduded upgrade for a very modest project studio includes a UA 4-710 (this features mic pre's with built-in hardware compressors) and a UAD=2 DUO -principly to use UA's software compressors at mix stage.

[Fritze]

And I totally agree, we should set high standards regardless of whether those listening can hear a difference.

I guess you don't mean that without any given context, right? If so, what context? Someone should hear the difference you want to make, right? Who?

If I can get something to sound as good as I can, I'll go that route. If I hear mistakes that don't add to the song, I'll do my best to fix them. I guess the idea is to avoid the "no one will notice" attitude.
For example:
http://www.hometracked.com/2007/08/23/1 ... the-album/

Many of these are amazing songs. Classics. And as Jimmy Page said regarding Bonham's squeaky pedal: "That was something that was obviously sadly overlooked at the time."

That comment was just an agreement with Dean, who wrote: "...No matter where any musician/audio engineer's work may end up the best efforts should and does go into capturing, mixing and mastering audio..."

Yeah, cool. Fully agreed. I think these are things that people do notice. Same with compressors. When a certain song does groove like (insert your favourite super words) then certain useage of certain compressors can be ONE reason for that.
What the most obvious thing with the Dragon example is that it FEELS right. I don't know which one it was but when I listened to one of the software compressors examples trying to mimmick the Dragon I thought that it just doesn't feel right. I think that is the most important thing, besides the obvious like farting or flapping envelopes of a misbehaving compressor. And this is easily spotted with not so super headphones or monitors. Jimmy Hendrix, Daft Punk, Weather Report, etc. they all do groove and have big time /groove/feeling even when listened through a poor little mono kitchen radio.

[Uncle E]

I can't imagine a recording studio getting by without hardware compressors and limiters. Isn't a principle use of compressors and limiters to protect the signal path from overload? As such, at least for taming plosives and unexpected extreme dynamic fluctuations while tracking, isn't software compression coming in a bit late in the game? It seems to me hardware and software compressors, while both essential tools for music production, are 2 very different animals. I see where software and hardware use overlaps, but don't we need both?

You're not far off. 15 years ago, when we were still recording at 16-bit, it was extremely important to get the signal recorded as loud as possible. However, with 24-bit recording and the advances in recording equipment, our noise floors are now so low that it just just isn't as important as it used to be.

Anyway, there are still devices that do what you're talking about. The Universal Audio 4-710d and Focusrite OctoPre MkII Dynamics both have compression sections between their mic pre's and digital inputs, while the Burl B2 Bomber has transformers in its input stage that somewhat approximate the input stages of classic compressors. Also, I imagine that a lot of digital live consoles might have limiters in them, given that there's no room for error in those situations.

[frankjcc2003]

I can't imagine a recording studio getting by without hardware compressors and limiters. Isn't a principle use of compressors and limiters to protect the signal path from overload? As such, at least for taming plosives and unexpected extreme dynamic fluctuations while tracking, isn't software compression coming in a bit late in the game? It seems to me hardware and software compressors, while both essential tools for music production, are 2 very different animals. I see where software and hardware use overlaps, but don't we need both?

You're not far off. 15 years ago, when we were still recording at 16-bit, it was extremely important to get the signal recorded as loud as possible. However, with 24-bit recording and the advances in recording equipment, our noise floors are now so low that it just just isn't as important as it used to be.

Anyway, there are still devices that do what you're talking about. The Universal Audio 4-710d and Focusrite OctoPre MkII Dynamics both have compression sections between their mic pre's and digital inputs, while the Burl B2 Bomber has transformers in its input stage that somewhat approximate the input stages of classic compressors. Also, I imagine that a lot of digital live consoles might have limiters in them, given that there's no room for error in those situations.

That's pretty much my thoughts, is that we can record at such a low level that there is no need for protection from clipping, although I have been caught off guard a couple of times with a very dynamic singer, you tell them give you a test of the loudest part that they will hit and they say ok, then you leave a lot more headroom than that, then when they pumped up they clip the input, so I try to anticipate if a climax is building, then i slowly or quickly turn down the input.

I think it's a lot more suitable and controllable to just use automation to lower the loud sections so you're not stuck with what the compressor or limiter did to the take, This may be a different story on instruments, but I don't have much experience on recording instruments so maybe hardware is better for that. Anyway I favor manually editing levels before it goes into a compressor. much less artifacts and squashing dynamics.

[Leonardus]

Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Frank.