Analog Obsession releases two new plugins! (Reduced prices)

[soundmodel]

I prefer the Fetish over Waves CLA-2A for example. Sounds warmer and distorts peaks less.

[bmanic]

I prefer the Fetish over Waves CLA-2A for example. Sounds warmer and distorts peaks less.

Are you trolling?

Serious question. This is the second time in a short while you are comparing two completely different compressor topologies (the other being the Elysia Alpha vs SSL).

I mean, you can compare two vastly different units of course but perhaps then say "I prefer FET compression vs Opto compression" instead of making it sound like two plugins that try to be the same thing where one does it's thing "better".

Perhaps a language barrier here?

/off topic

[soundmodel]

It's sound similarities that I'm referring to. It could be rough approximation, but this is how I categorize.

To me (in practice) Fetish serves a similar purpose as the CLA-2A. Thus the comparison. If I want that kind of compression I either use CLA-2A, or as of now I usually put Fetish instead.

Similarly, I use Alpha and SSL G somewhat interchangeably, just that I perceive G to be more funky and classic, whereas Alpha is thick and modern, but their snap, "swell" and density sound similar enough to me. They're not interchangeable, but slightly different flavors of the same category.

Comparably, the MJUC sounds very different from Fetish to me. It has a 1176 model and I perceive it to be more aggressive, but also smoother then the Fetish, which I perceive to act more on "peak level" as does LA-2A. I find that a 1176 style compression works more on averages leading to denser and "punchier" compression, whereas (C)LA-2A to me is a bit squishy (since it acts on peaks).

[plexuss]

It's sound similarities that I'm referring to. It could be rough approximation, but this is how I categorize.

To me (in practice) Fetish serves a similar purpose as the CLA-2A. Thus the comparison. If I want that kind of compression I either use CLA-2A, or as of now I usually put Fetish instead.

Similarly, I use Alpha and SSL G somewhat interchangeably, just that I perceive G to be more funky and classic, whereas Alpha is thick and modern, but their snap, "swell" and density sound similar enough to me. They're not interchangeable, but slightly different flavors of the same category.

Comparably, the MJUC sounds very different from Fetish to me. It has a 1176 model and I perceive it to be more aggressive, but also smoother then the Fetish, which I perceive to act more on "peak level" as does LA-2A. I find that a 1176 style compression works more on averages leading to denser and "punchier" compression, whereas (C)LA-2A to me is a bit squishy (since it acts on peaks).

I think you guys have a gap in communication due to two different contexts: soundmodel is talking about the scope of compressors in general, where-as bmanic is thinking in terms of a family of similar compressors or even as specific as a particular model. These are of course all valid comparisons but it's important to be on the same page what the context or scope of your coparison is. Trying to have a conversation with differing contexts will lead to confusion and possibly conflict.

[bmanic]

It's sound similarities that I'm referring to. It could be rough approximation, but this is how I categorize.

Well each to their own. Still.. there are no similarities between a 1176 and a LA-2A, hence they are usually used together as they cover completely different types of compression.

In fact, they are so different that you may as well compare anything to anything else. Doesn't make much sense in my opinion.

[bmanic]

It's sound similarities that I'm referring to. It could be rough approximation, but this is how I categorize.

To me (in practice) Fetish serves a similar purpose as the CLA-2A. Thus the comparison. If I want that kind of compression I either use CLA-2A, or as of now I usually put Fetish instead.

Similarly, I use Alpha and SSL G somewhat interchangeably, just that I perceive G to be more funky and classic, whereas Alpha is thick and modern, but their snap, "swell" and density sound similar enough to me. They're not interchangeable, but slightly different flavors of the same category.

Comparably, the MJUC sounds very different from Fetish to me. It has a 1176 model and I perceive it to be more aggressive, but also smoother then the Fetish, which I perceive to act more on "peak level" as does LA-2A. I find that a 1176 style compression works more on averages leading to denser and "punchier" compression, whereas (C)LA-2A to me is a bit squishy (since it acts on peaks).

I think you guys have a gap in communication due to two different contexts: soundmodel is talking about the scope of compressors in general, where-as bmanic is thinking in terms of a family of similar compressors or even as specific as a particular model. These are of course all valid comparisons but it's important to be on the same page what the context or scope of your coparison is. Trying to have a conversation with differing contexts will lead to confusion and possibly conflict.

You are further confusing things.. what on earth do you mean with "scope of compressors in general"?

How is there a "context" where 1176 and LA-2A are being compared, unless it's a discussion about where one model is more suitable than the other? These units sound literally nothing alike.. their "box tone" is different. Their compression action is different. The physical operation and maintenance of these are different.

[soundmodel]

Better just trust ears. Plug-ins can offer denser parameter ranges as well as the models might be "approximations" or alterations on the "principles" of the original hardware, but they are not 1:1.

Thus it's possible to find similarities between plug-in models. Particularly, because in DSP (as well as in electronics) a lot of stuff is usually based on iterating on the same algorithms/functions, with slight tweaks. Same with saturation, one often finds a lot of tan-function.

[Havok]

Comparably, the MJUC sounds very different from Fetish to me. It has a 1176 model and I perceive it to be more aggressive, but also smoother then the Fetish, which I perceive to act more on "peak level" as does LA-2A. I find that a 1176 style compression works more on averages leading to denser and "punchier" compression, whereas (C)LA-2A to me is a bit squishy (since it acts on peaks).

You're getting confused, MJUC is a vari-mu style compressor whilst Fetish is an 1176. And the 1176, with its ridiculously fast attack, is about as peak compression as you get, it was even released as a "true peak limiter"

[Rockatansky]

I prefer the Fetish over Waves CLA-2A for example. Sounds warmer and distorts peaks less.

Just turn the input gain on the Fetish to 5 o'clock, that's the best and most analog sound you'll ever get out of it. I wonder why Waves and all the others didn't model this absolutely authentic behaviour.

Better just trust ears.

Wise words, wise words.

[stratum]

I prefer the Fetish over Waves CLA-2A for example. Sounds warmer and distorts peaks less.

Just turn the input gain on the Fetish to 5 o'clock, that's the best and most analog sound you'll ever get out of it. I wonder why Waves and all the others didn't model this absolutely authentic behaviour.

Better just trust ears.

Wise words, wise words.

That plugin simply doesn't work at all in my opinion (I've just tried). Turn the input gain all the way up and it mutes the output.

[soundmodel]

Comparably, the MJUC sounds very different from Fetish to me. It has a 1176 model and I perceive it to be more aggressive, but also smoother then the Fetish, which I perceive to act more on "peak level" as does LA-2A. I find that a 1176 style compression works more on averages leading to denser and "punchier" compression, whereas (C)LA-2A to me is a bit squishy (since it acts on peaks).

You're getting confused, MJUC is a vari-mu style compressor whilst Fetish is an 1176. And the 1176, with its ridiculously fast attack, is about as peak compression as you get, it was even released as a "true peak limiter"

It has three different modes. Mk2 is "1176" style, which I refer to.

https://klanghelm.com/contents/products ... models.php

[jens]

176, not 1176 - that is a totally different comp (one FET, the other vari-mu) - you appear really confused and clueless

[djscorb]

Mk2 in MJUC is wonderful.

It has some quirks depending on the ratio, density and istage settings, but can add a really nice depth to the low end in mastering when dialled in right. I use it a lot for it's "boxtone" and with almost no compression happening

Cheers

Scorb

[mod.killer]

Because it's an EQ. You're boosting the lows just by using it. Tweak the settings and the curve changes a little. So what? You couldn't have done this with a normal EQ?

[stratum]

Because it's an EQ. You're boosting the lows just by using it. Tweak the settings and the curve changes a little. So what? You couldn't have done this with a normal EQ?

Nope. It's analog warmth or something. The bass has just gotten phatter.
Seriously though, I wonder how many people actually ask this question, or whether they can hear any difference an analog EQ makes or not.