Your go-to compressor in 2023?

[jamcat]

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible. You use concrete models and concrete units.

You keep saying that. Please explain what you mean. You don't want us to use the word, "TYPE", but what else would you call groups of compressors using tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode, other than a "type" of compressor design. Compressors that differ by design features are literally grouped, and a word for a group, can be "type". I'm not seeking to argue, but to understand what you mean.

I just figured he is an anal-retentive object oriented programmer.

[lobanov]

There are "essentially" 5 Primary types of compressors...

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible. You use concrete models and concrete units.

Differences between units aren't significant in the digital world but differences between models can be significant.

Pick one compressor you haven't used before and learn it. Try it in different contexts.

It may be obvious, but what audiojunkie wanted to say is there are 5 big types of compression in the physical world : tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode. Each reacts differently to audio signal and each forms a specific group that shares similar vibe.
Most digital compressors are based on the behaviour of these units. I guess a purely digital compressor is more similar to a VCA.
Of course, each unit is unique and a Manley, a Gates Sta-Level or a Fairchild 670 (all tube compressors) will behave quite distinctly. However, they share some similar signature you don't find in the FET models : for exemple, the ratio depends on the input gain in the tube models, the release is shortened by high level transients in the Fet models (the 1176 for exemple)...

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible.

You keep saying that. Please explain what you mean. You don't want us to use the word, "TYPE", but what else would you call groups of compressors using tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode, other than a "type" of compressor design. Compressors that differ by design features are literally grouped, and a word for a group, can be "type". I'm not seeking to argue, but to understand what you mean.

If I take away the word, "Type", does this sentence work better for you?

Each of the various compressor designs (ie Tube, opto, FET, VCA, or Diode) in the real world reacts differently to the audio signal. And those compressors that model the various compressor designs are intentionally meant to emulate the characteristics of these various compressor designs in the digital world.

If I'm completely mistaken, I do apologize. I am simply trying to learn and understand better. If one should not refer to the various modeled compressors as types, and You use concrete models and concrete units, please help me understand what concrete models and units you are referring to? Please expound for those of us that are trying to learn Write a paragraph instead of just a sentence. It will help me understand better.

You don't use (for example) a Vari-Mu compressor. In the digital world you use UAD Manley Variable Mu. Or may be Pulsar Mu. Or SPL Iron. Or NI VariComp. Or IKM Dyna-Mu. Or something else. All these compressors sound differently. Nobody garantees you identical sound. And nobody garantees you authenticity of emulation. What we name "Vary Mu" in a plugin may sound as a non Vary Mu comp. Theoretically I can take the simplest and the crappiest algo, make a plugin and name it "Vari Mu compressor". Just for fun. Or to take some money ("all people know Vari Mu comps are cool"). Don't trust words and pictures blindly.

True emulation, non true emulation... I just don't want to waste my time with it. And I don't recommend it to anybody.

It is better to take a real hardware Vari Mu compressor, especially if you want to understand how it sounds. But which one? Manley Stereo Variable Mu Compressor doesn't sound as Fairchild 670 does. You'll find plenty of differences between them. And in the analog world two units of the same model tends to sound differently...

Instead of this take any compressor and try how it works. One of them. Apply it for this material or for that one. May be, your knoledge of TYPES will help you (may be it won't, I don't know). Use a concrete compressor as you cannot use a TYPE of compressor.

[lobanov]

oops, I'm sorry...

[andivax]

Think about compression like about changing the groove/pulse of the sound.
Plus adding the harmonics/saturation.
Then it will be obvious that so much compressors actually make sense!
Different compressors = different attack/release curves, also double releases (like LA-2A), weird ratios, different saturation.

The Recap is obvious - find a compressor which can be "all in one" and may be it will be your "go to comp".
In this context I would recommend:
1) Cenozoix from TBTech, presets are here in Everything Bundle: www.andivax.com
2) U-He Presswerk (good company, can be nice emulation of the old gear).
3) Klanghelm DC8C (extremely cheap and extremely powerful, has EASY mode for fast work!).

But my "go to" is Cytomic The Glue, which is SSL BUS comp. Funny )

Rays of love from Ukraine

[audiojunkie]

There are "essentially" 5 Primary types of compressors...

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible. You use concrete models and concrete units.

Differences between units aren't significant in the digital world but differences between models can be significant.

Pick one compressor you haven't used before and learn it. Try it in different contexts.

It may be obvious, but what audiojunkie wanted to say is there are 5 big types of compression in the physical world : tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode. Each reacts differently to audio signal and each forms a specific group that shares similar vibe.
Most digital compressors are based on the behaviour of these units. I guess a purely digital compressor is more similar to a VCA.
Of course, each unit is unique and a Manley, a Gates Sta-Level or a Fairchild 670 (all tube compressors) will behave quite distinctly. However, they share some similar signature you don't find in the FET models : for exemple, the ratio depends on the input gain in the tube models, the release is shortened by high level transients in the Fet models (the 1176 for exemple)...

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible.

You keep saying that. Please explain what you mean. You don't want us to use the word, "TYPE", but what else would you call groups of compressors using tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode, other than a "type" of compressor design. Compressors that differ by design features are literally grouped, and a word for a group, can be "type". I'm not seeking to argue, but to understand what you mean.

If I take away the word, "Type", does this sentence work better for you?

Each of the various compressor designs (ie Tube, opto, FET, VCA, or Diode) in the real world reacts differently to the audio signal. And those compressors that model the various compressor designs are intentionally meant to emulate the characteristics of these various compressor designs in the digital world.

If I'm completely mistaken, I do apologize. I am simply trying to learn and understand better. If one should not refer to the various modeled compressors as types, and You use concrete models and concrete units, please help me understand what concrete models and units you are referring to? Please expound for those of us that are trying to learn Write a paragraph instead of just a sentence. It will help me understand better.

You don't use (for example) a Vari-Mu compressor. In the digital world you use UAD Manley Variable Mu. Or may be Pulsar Mu. Or SPL Iron. Or NI VariComp. Or IKM Dyna-Mu. Or something else. All these compressors sound differently. Nobody garantees you identical sound. And nobody garantees you authenticity of emulation. What we name "Vary Mu" in a plugin may sound as a non Vary Mu comp. Theoretically I can take the simplest and the crappiest algo, make a plugin and name it "Vari Mu compressor". Just for fun. Or to take some money ("all people know Vari Mu comps are cool"). Don't trust words and pictures blindly.

True emulation, non true emulation... I just don't want to waste my time with it. And I don't recommend it to anybody.

It is better to take a real hardware Vari Mu compressor, especially if you want to understand how it sounds. But which one? Manley Stereo Variable Mu Compressor doesn't sound as Fairchild 670 does. You'll find plenty of differences between them. And in the analog world two units of the same model tends to sound differently...

Instead of this take any compressor and try how it works. One of them. Apply it for this material or for that one. May be, your knoledge of TYPES will help you (may be it won't, I don't know). Use a concrete compressor as you cannot use a TYPE of compressor.

Ah! This makes much more sense to me! I agree. Thank you for the clarification!

[Sound_Bear]

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible. You use concrete models and concrete units.

Differences between units aren't significant in the digital world but differences between models can be significant.

Pick one compressor you haven't used before and learn it. Try it in different contexts.

It may be obvious, but what audiojunkie wanted to say is there are 5 big types of compression in the physical world : tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode. Each reacts differently to audio signal and each forms a specific group that shares similar vibe.
Most digital compressors are based on the behaviour of these units. I guess a purely digital compressor is more similar to a VCA.
Of course, each unit is unique and a Manley, a Gates Sta-Level or a Fairchild 670 (all tube compressors) will behave quite distinctly. However, they share some similar signature you don't find in the FET models : for exemple, the ratio depends on the input gain in the tube models, the release is shortened by high level transients in the Fet models (the 1176 for exemple)...

You never use TYPES of compressors. It is not possible.

You keep saying that. Please explain what you mean. You don't want us to use the word, "TYPE", but what else would you call groups of compressors using tube (vari-mu), opto, FET, VCA and Diode, other than a "type" of compressor design. Compressors that differ by design features are literally grouped, and a word for a group, can be "type". I'm not seeking to argue, but to understand what you mean.

If I take away the word, "Type", does this sentence work better for you?

Each of the various compressor designs (ie Tube, opto, FET, VCA, or Diode) in the real world reacts differently to the audio signal. And those compressors that model the various compressor designs are intentionally meant to emulate the characteristics of these various compressor designs in the digital world.

If I'm completely mistaken, I do apologize. I am simply trying to learn and understand better. If one should not refer to the various modeled compressors as types, and You use concrete models and concrete units, please help me understand what concrete models and units you are referring to? Please expound for those of us that are trying to learn Write a paragraph instead of just a sentence. It will help me understand better.

You don't use (for example) a Vari-Mu compressor. In the digital world you use UAD Manley Variable Mu. Or may be Pulsar Mu. Or SPL Iron. Or NI VariComp. Or IKM Dyna-Mu. Or something else. All these compressors sound differently. Nobody garantees you identical sound. And nobody garantees you authenticity of emulation. What we name "Vary Mu" in a plugin may sound as a non Vary Mu comp. Theoretically I can take the simplest and the crappiest algo, make a plugin and name it "Vari Mu compressor". Just for fun. Or to take some money ("all people know Vari Mu comps are cool"). Don't trust words and pictures blindly.

True emulation, non true emulation... I just don't want to waste my time with it. And I don't recommend it to anybody.

It is better to take a real hardware Vari Mu compressor, especially if you want to understand how it sounds. But which one? Manley Stereo Variable Mu Compressor doesn't sound as Fairchild 670 does. You'll find plenty of differences between them. And in the analog world two units of the same model tends to sound differently...

Instead of this take any compressor and try how it works. One of them. Apply it for this material or for that one. May be, your knoledge of TYPES will help you (may be it won't, I don't know). Use a concrete compressor as you cannot use a TYPE of compressor.

Ah! This makes much more sense to me! I agree. Thank you for the clarification!

It's a clarification of a subjective point of view that negates the value of theory and epistemology. As a personal method it may work if it suits someone's preferred workflows and one's preferred way of approaching skill acuisition. Fine, great for you (lobanov) and for many others. But when someone uses a different approach such as comparing e.g. various compressor units of the same class of components and electrical functions (i.e of the same "type" as audiojunkie put it) with the intent to research certain aspects of commonalities and differences between models in that class (or between units from the same model series from that class, for that matter), then your condition about use will be satisifed while your conclusion you draw from it will not.

[jamcat]

This discussion has devolved to beyond ludicrous, and is as I suspected. You are of course using a "type" of compressor because every individual unit of any particular model inherits the macro-characteristics of its type.

An argument would be that all software models are of the type "digital" and none can in reality be of any other type, regardless of their marketing or UI.

[lobanov]

It's a clarification of a subjective point of view that negates the value of theory and epistemology. As a personal method it may work if it suits someone's preferred workflows and one's preferred way of approaching skill acuisition. Fine, great for you (lobanov) and for many others. But when someone uses a different approach such as comparing e.g. various compressor units of the same class of components and electrical functions (i.e of the same "type" as audiojunkie put it) with the intent to research certain aspects of commonalities and differences between models in that class (or between units from the same model series from that class, for that matter), then your condition about use will be satisifed while your conclusion you draw from it will not.

1. Comparison of compressors isn't practiacl use of them. If you want to be strict (yeah, theory and epistemology) you must distingish them. Yes, knowlege what we get from comparison can be important. But this isn't the essence. You just take a compressor (concrete unit) and try to achieve what you want to achieve.

2. We talk about digital emulations which may be incorrect or even fake. There is no any standard for it. Nobody controls it. Practically a type ("Vari Mu", "VCA", "opto" etc.) is just words we use to name it. Instead of different units of the same model (hardware or software, analog or digital) that really share significant common propreties.

3. "...with the intent to research certain aspects of commonalities and differences between models..."

Yes, commonalities and differences. They coexist. I'm talking about this. When we talk about "Vari Mu type", we mean commonalities only. But there are differences. In the world of digital emulation these difference can be huge. And when you compare all variants of Vari Mu (or VCA, or something else) you find these commonalities and differences. Both of them.

[lobanov]

This discussion has devolved to beyond ludicrous, and is as I suspected. You are of course using a "type" of compressor because every individual unit of any particular model inherits the macro-characteristics of its type.

An argument would be that all software models are of the type "digital" and none can in reality be of any other type, regardless of their marketing or UI.

No, you always use a concrete unit. The question is in what extent this unit is different from other units of the same type. Sometimes this difference is huge, sometimes it is not. It depends.

[Papuzzo]

This discussion has devolved to beyond ludicrous, and is as I suspected. You are of course using a "type" of compressor because every individual unit of any particular model inherits the macro-characteristics of its type.

An argument would be that all software models are of the type "digital" and none can in reality be of any other type, regardless of their marketing or UI.

Just like with every discussion on the Internet. People here who haven't yet learned to tune out the noise must think that every little choice is mission critical in the production of music. If I don't use an 1176 on drums my mix will suck. If I don't use a LA2A on vocals my mix will suck. Then it devolves further because if I use an emulation of an 1176 or a LA2A it won't be close enough to the MOJO of the hardware and my mix will suck. Rinse and repeat with EQ. Rinse and repeat with reverb. I've learned that the vast majority of mixing tasks can be done with stock plugins. I know, HERESY!!!

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

This discussion has devolved to beyond ludicrous, and is as I suspected. You are of course using a "type" of compressor because every individual unit of any particular model inherits the macro-characteristics of its type.

An argument would be that all software models are of the type "digital" and none can in reality be of any other type, regardless of their marketing or UI.

Just like with every discussion on the Internet. People here who haven't yet learned to tune out the noise must think that every little choice is mission critical in the production of music. If I don't use an 1176 on drums my mix will suck. If I don't use a LA2A on vocals my mix will suck. Then it devolves further because if I use an emulation of an 1176 or a LA2A it won't be close enough to the MOJO of the hardware and my mix will suck. Rinse and repeat with EQ. Rinse and repeat with reverb. I've learned that the vast majority of mixing tasks can be done with stock plugins. I know, HERESY!!!

It's not heresy,it's delusion to think,that people should stop developing the dope plugins they develop,just because stock plugins could do some useful work...
Entire business rely on the hype and development,your ideas are totally wrong.
I am grateful for all the hard work these guys put in their products ,so mr nobody like me to be able to touch the magic,that these plugins have and spell on the mix.
Without these quality plugins, modern music will be really expensive.
Lately i am super satisfied with U17 compressor,don't know details about it,just put it on some tracks and it was magical..for i don't know less than 20 euro discounted.
My idea is drink one instead of two beers and buy a nice plugin,which will make your track really dope.
Cheers

[Papuzzo]

Velltone, don't get me wrong, I love my FabFilter and Valhalla plugins, and my U-He synths. They deserved and earned my money. But if I were not able to afford 2 beers, I would be just fine using the stock plugins and the myriad free plugins. Many free plugins are better than so many paid plugins. And I hope the competition from stock plugins and free plugins puts a lot of pressure on commercial plugin developers to improve their quality and even reduce their price. Lastly, I am saying this because budding musicians should know that great music can be produced on a severe budget with free or stock plugins and not feel pressured into thinking they have to have all the most expensive plugins to make that great music. When their great music starts making them money then they can look at FabFilter and U-He.

[pekbro]

Velltone, don't get me wrong, I love my FabFilter and Valhalla plugins, and my U-He synths. They deserved and earned my money. But if I were not able to afford 2 beers, I would be just fine using the stock plugins and the myriad free plugins. Many free plugins are better than so many paid plugins. And I hope the competition from stock plugins and free plugins puts a lot of pressure on commercial plugin developers to improve their quality and even reduce their price. Lastly, I am saying this because budding musicians should know that great music can be produced on a severe budget with free or stock plugins and not feel pressured into thinking they have to have all the most expensive plugins to make that great music. When their great music starts making them money then they can look at FabFilter and U-He.

Is there anything in particular that leads you to believe that budding musicians are suffering as such?

...Anyway, if you ask me the only folks who might even remotely be thinking like that are the
folks around here, the bulk of whom are definitely not budding musicians.

In any event, it's definitely not the OP, who only asked what people were using so he might
investigate, looking to find a compressor to me his specific needs. More than prudent to
ask if your goal is to make an informed decision.

[slackhead]

I hope the competition from stock plugins and free plugins puts a lot of pressure on commercial plugin developers to improve their quality and even reduce their price.

This is exactly what has happened in a lot of cases. Look at how much you can pick up Waves, UAD, etc in sales now compared to what they were charging even five or so years ago. This is good for pretty much everyone, apart perhaps for developers whose business model has been based on the higher prices which were normal in the past but now won't or can't come down to current levels.
Personally, it means I can now use some of this stuff that would only have been a dream previously. And I can see for myself the difference over stock plugins. It's one of the things that makes this hobby such fun. Although I do still use some of the better free stuff, with Variety of Sound particularly coming to mind.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

Velltone, don't get me wrong, I love my FabFilter and Valhalla plugins, and my U-He synths. They deserved and earned my money. But if I were not able to afford 2 beers, I would be just fine using the stock plugins and the myriad free plugins. Many free plugins are better than so many paid plugins. And I hope the competition from stock plugins and free plugins puts a lot of pressure on commercial plugin developers to improve their quality and even reduce their price. Lastly, I am saying this because budding musicians should know that great music can be produced on a severe budget with free or stock plugins and not feel pressured into thinking they have to have all the most expensive plugins to make that great music. When their great music starts making them money then they can look at FabFilter and U-He.

Yeah i get your point,it's madness for sure to buy nonstop plugins,but not to upgrade your skills.
I like what you said about music,i am also one of these musicians and share your vision of ''make music,not product''.
Musicians must focus on their music, not on mixing and fx,this is slowing me down a lot,despite i can do crazy stuff as sound and don't need so much extra fx,but the good mix is science and i need nice eq,reverb,saturation ,comp so on ...
Money making is a good thing,especially when you work hard for them :):)