PWM compressor besides Mantis 2?
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
Thanks for the suggestion, simmo75! I don't see PWM in the manual. It looks like some of their other plugins have PWM parameters, but I'm not seeing anything specifically referencing compression.
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
Thanks JazJazgot
. I get it, that's probably why it's rare. I'm still interested, though, and fascinated by whatever emulations may be out there.-
- KVRian
- 1266 posts since 6 Jun, 2016
Dave Hill is the man.
http://www.cranesong.com/pwm_comp.pdf
http://www.cranesong.com/pwm_comp.pdf
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
Wow, thanks for the article lunardigs!lunardigs wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:02 pm Dave Hill is the man.
http://www.cranesong.com/pwm_comp.pdf
-
- KVRist
- 37 posts since 14 Oct, 2020 from London
Well said. I think all of these is just nostalgia and nothing more. I made my own perfect compressor, which consist only of two parts, envelope follower and gain control. And indeed, it simulates PWM ones perfectly. I don't see the point of having modeled ones, unless you want to have their specific imperfections. But I don't think the current two implementations have any of them.lunardigs wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 4:02 pm Dave Hill is the man.
http://www.cranesong.com/pwm_comp.pdf
I'm having a lot of fun!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
The point for me is to contextualize the PWM in the context of other modeled compressors. At the moment I'm only able to work with plugins, not outboard gear, and am interested in learning about the nuanced differences between the different implementations as much as I can with plugins. I understand it may seem finicky to be searching out a PWM and figured asking may reveal some hidden gems I was unaware of.
I don't fully agree with Mr. Hill - there's a reason that people want to bring these types of sounds and methods of working ahead with them into the future through copying them, and although it may be nostalgia a lot of the time IMO it's also for sonic reasons and will inevitably advance the sonic world whether or not Mr. Hill thinks it will:
Considering analogue in relation to digital, there is something sonically specific about vintage analog/past gear that individuals want to bring forward into our almost inevitable digital future. We already know digital/new gear doesn't naturally overdrive like analog/past gear, that it's a sound many individuals like and prefer, and that this is a sonic quality relegated to that analog realm (unless coped into digital form). Then - after it's copied into digital form and precisely because it now exists in digital form - it also has access to all the additional features available to digital that may not have been available or present in the analog/past counterpart. This type of hybridization advances the sonic world forward in that - in the best cases - it is marrying the best of the old with the best of the new to create novel sonic realities in a way that isn't possible without first copying the old vintage gear. I feel like Mr. Hill is speaking according to an ideology in that sentiment and - like all ideologies - ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So for me:
"Copying vintage designs does not advance the sonic world."
is just another ideological statement declared by someone rationalizing their own worldview. It's factually incorrect - not only does every copy inevitably bring change with it - intentionally or unintentionally - but even if it were to be an exact copy, the sonic world is still advanced through the re-contextualization of the vintage copy into the new modern context. Even if hybridization doesn't occur, the vintage copy advances the sonic world simply by existing and being available to use in it's now-modern context. Additionally, all it takes is for some hip and brilliant young engineer to hear a piece of gear he wouldn't have otherwise heard besides it was copied, is then inspired by it to create something that appears all together new but which is inspired by that experience and there we have again advancement in the sonic world caused by copied vintage gear. Reality doesn't correlate with Mr. Hill's declaration and will advance how it chooses to, not according to his dictates.
Most of the time, when I watch professional mix engineers share their craft, their choice of tools has more to do with the character of the tool, not whether or not it is "perfect", so-called. In fact, it's the imperfections in the compressor - the ways in which it's not perfect but rather lends it's personal imperfect characteristics to a mix in a way that makes it appropriate for that specific music - that they're reaching for. From that standpoint I would say that a "perfect" compressor actually isn't perfect at all - it's imperfect in it's lack of character, specificity and attitude (of which it has none). It's "opinion-less" which CAN be good in certain contexts, but in many contexts people reach for "opinionated" gear because the opinion of that gear matches the type of music they're mixing, it's the most appropriate flavor for it and - through it's opinionated stance - is more efficient because it is already naturally suited for the sound world it's being introduced to and doesn't need as much tweaking to get there.
I get it - looking into PWM compressor plugins is maybe ultra-finicky and - in some eyes - unnecessary. I feel curious about it at this point and want to look into it. I guess, at this point, I'd really be interested in hearing from anyone that knows of any hidden gems besides what's been shared here. For now, I'll likely go with both Mantis 2 and PIE just to see what's going on. If there WERE any imperfections in the original units I'd hope that both AA and Waves would do their best including those as well.
Again, I imagined the market may be kind of slim due to PWM's close proximity with the present, but in this world where there seem to be thousands of 1176 emulations I thought there would be at least more than two PWM's!
I don't fully agree with Mr. Hill - there's a reason that people want to bring these types of sounds and methods of working ahead with them into the future through copying them, and although it may be nostalgia a lot of the time IMO it's also for sonic reasons and will inevitably advance the sonic world whether or not Mr. Hill thinks it will:
Considering analogue in relation to digital, there is something sonically specific about vintage analog/past gear that individuals want to bring forward into our almost inevitable digital future. We already know digital/new gear doesn't naturally overdrive like analog/past gear, that it's a sound many individuals like and prefer, and that this is a sonic quality relegated to that analog realm (unless coped into digital form). Then - after it's copied into digital form and precisely because it now exists in digital form - it also has access to all the additional features available to digital that may not have been available or present in the analog/past counterpart. This type of hybridization advances the sonic world forward in that - in the best cases - it is marrying the best of the old with the best of the new to create novel sonic realities in a way that isn't possible without first copying the old vintage gear. I feel like Mr. Hill is speaking according to an ideology in that sentiment and - like all ideologies - ends up throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So for me:
"Copying vintage designs does not advance the sonic world."
is just another ideological statement declared by someone rationalizing their own worldview. It's factually incorrect - not only does every copy inevitably bring change with it - intentionally or unintentionally - but even if it were to be an exact copy, the sonic world is still advanced through the re-contextualization of the vintage copy into the new modern context. Even if hybridization doesn't occur, the vintage copy advances the sonic world simply by existing and being available to use in it's now-modern context. Additionally, all it takes is for some hip and brilliant young engineer to hear a piece of gear he wouldn't have otherwise heard besides it was copied, is then inspired by it to create something that appears all together new but which is inspired by that experience and there we have again advancement in the sonic world caused by copied vintage gear. Reality doesn't correlate with Mr. Hill's declaration and will advance how it chooses to, not according to his dictates.
Most of the time, when I watch professional mix engineers share their craft, their choice of tools has more to do with the character of the tool, not whether or not it is "perfect", so-called. In fact, it's the imperfections in the compressor - the ways in which it's not perfect but rather lends it's personal imperfect characteristics to a mix in a way that makes it appropriate for that specific music - that they're reaching for. From that standpoint I would say that a "perfect" compressor actually isn't perfect at all - it's imperfect in it's lack of character, specificity and attitude (of which it has none). It's "opinion-less" which CAN be good in certain contexts, but in many contexts people reach for "opinionated" gear because the opinion of that gear matches the type of music they're mixing, it's the most appropriate flavor for it and - through it's opinionated stance - is more efficient because it is already naturally suited for the sound world it's being introduced to and doesn't need as much tweaking to get there.
I get it - looking into PWM compressor plugins is maybe ultra-finicky and - in some eyes - unnecessary. I feel curious about it at this point and want to look into it. I guess, at this point, I'd really be interested in hearing from anyone that knows of any hidden gems besides what's been shared here. For now, I'll likely go with both Mantis 2 and PIE just to see what's going on. If there WERE any imperfections in the original units I'd hope that both AA and Waves would do their best including those as well.
Again, I imagined the market may be kind of slim due to PWM's close proximity with the present, but in this world where there seem to be thousands of 1176 emulations I thought there would be at least more than two PWM's!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
Interesting, melco_go! I wasn't aware of this. It sounds like a significant difficulty, making me wonder how good these emulations may be.meloco_go wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:04 pm True PWM is hard to do in digital. For it to make sense the control path needs to operate at a frequency much faster than the audio sample rate.
-
- KVRist
- 37 posts since 14 Oct, 2020 from London
I like your responses. True, you have to have gear, which is capable of switching on and off with frequency of MHz, or better GHz. This can't be modeled easily in the digital world, because of its limits. The only way is to have physical pwm compression. Some of them are really cheap these days.
I'm having a lot of fun!
-
- KVRist
- Topic Starter
- 410 posts since 14 Sep, 2016
Interesting, this may be an opportunity/necessity moment of "backing out" of the box into analog gear. I'll have to consider this, thank you!JazJazgot wrote: Mon Apr 26, 2021 8:01 am I like your responses. True, you have to have gear, which is capable of switching on and off with frequency of MHz, or better GHz. This can't be modeled easily in the digital world, because of its limits. The only way is to have physical pwm compression. Some of them are really cheap these days.
-
- KVRAF
- 25050 posts since 12 Jul, 2003 from West Caprazumia
No, I don't think melco_go's remark is absolutely accurate:10bd01 wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 11:38 pmInteresting, melco_go! I wasn't aware of this. It sounds like a significant difficulty, making me wonder how good these emulations may be.meloco_go wrote: Sun Apr 25, 2021 10:04 pm True PWM is hard to do in digital. For it to make sense the control path needs to operate at a frequency much faster than the audio sample rate.
from the Dave Hill paper linked to above:
(take note kids: language skills are not the only path to a successful careerThe modern PWM gain control circuit design has the advantage of being able to use current technology, very high speed parts. They were not available 20 years ago or were very costly and power hungry. Components that can switch between off an on in less than 1nS, that are suitable for build a switched gain control element are now available
)So yes, it might prove to be very difficult to emulate this Crane Song PWM compressor as software (if possible at all
) but on the other hand the Pye is age old (a lot more than 20 years or 30 years old (no idea when that paper actually has been written)), so it's absolutely safe to say that its switching works at a significantly lower speed (with the resulting artifacts propably being part of its desired character) and therefor will also be a lot easier to emulate as software.Btw: I assume that a FPGA might come to the rescue in regards to solving potential speed limits with "software" emulations.
Last edited by jens on Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:49 am, edited 1 time in total.