All about compressors (links broken: sorry!)

[Cordelia]

Oh well. I strongly preferred the hardware.
The Glue sounded fine, but I really hoped it would be B.

[Kingston]

Also of note is that Kingston thought the UA version was his own hardware. I can't blame him, I'd most likely had chosen 'C' in all cases to be the hardware as it is so smooth.

but I thought C had the most smear! that's why I thought it was hardware (didn't you read that opamp smear ramble?). On my personal "crap headphones shootout", it somehow seemed to dull (you say smooth) transients, and I chose it specifically because it didn't sound as good as, for example B. I had not heard the plugins, and only set out to find the hardware... FAIL!

I expected hardware would automatically sound worse (it usually does), and somehow less clean. What do I know. Guess those OPA604 and OPA2604 opamps are even better than I already knew (and you have a seriously good AD/DA because it didn't play a factor in the shootout).

One thing is for sure, UAD nails the actual compression behaviour. Now if it only was as flexible as Glue.

[SWAN808]

I considered asking Andy if there could be changes made to the Glue but I think whats done is done. I would rather buy the Glue but I dont thing the treble dull and attack and release nature is going to be changed for me. Most likely I will receive abuse from fanboys.

I will buy the UA SSL in the last day of the sale today...

[bmanic]

Also of note is that Kingston thought the UA version was his own hardware. I can't blame him, I'd most likely had chosen 'C' in all cases to be the hardware as it is so smooth.

but I thought C had the most smear! that's why I thought it was hardware (didn't you read that opamp smear ramble?). On my personal "crap headphones shootout", it somehow seemed to dull (you say smooth) transients, and I chose it specifically because it didn't sound as good as, for example B. I had not heard the plugins, and only set out to find the hardware... FAIL!

I expected hardware would automatically sound worse (it usually does), and somehow less clean. What do I know. Guess those OPA604 and OPA2604 opamps are even better than I already knew (and you have a seriously good AD/DA because it didn't play a factor in the shootout).

One thing is for sure, UAD nails the actual compression behaviour. Now if it only was as flexible as Glue.

Yeh, smooth/smear, we mean the same thing. I also thought the UA one has some weird "sound" to it. I actually measured it in Christian Budde's analyzer and came up with zero. Nothing weird happens there so it must again be all about the treatment of the transients.

Cheers!
bManic

[Kingston]

Nothing weird happens there so it must again be all about the treatment of the transients.

that was my final conclusion as well. But I really really thought the opamps (and general analog signal path) would be much more audible.

By the way, I just realised why the "smooth" (good) became so audibly a "smear" (bad) to me. While doing the test, I had absolutely crap headphones, and I compensated with a pretty drastic loudness curve (using winamp EQ). This of course further emphasised a difference between the transients. Seems like hardware can take more abuse.


...which of course is no news at all.

[bmanic]

Good point. Another thing to remember is that I had not so good material to start with. On the stuff we tried in the studio it was more obvious but of course I could not upload those snippets for obvious copyright reasons.

Cheers!
bManic

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

For Bmanic:

I'm off to Musikmesse so may be without an internet connection for a few days so I thought I should post now.

All customer builds of v1.0.10 are currently being sent out with an updated algorithm that should please. It's now in line with the SSL 4000 and I've also improved the sound on long attacks.

For those that want to check out the Trial version I've given everyone another 2 weeks:

http://cytomic.com/Beta/The_Glue_Beta_Info.html

Andrew Simper

[SWAN808]

Nothing weird happens there so it must again be all about the treatment of the transients.

that was my final conclusion as well. But I really really thought the opamps (and general analog signal path) would be much more audible.

By the way, I just realised why the "smooth" (good) became so audibly a "smear" (bad) to me. While doing the test, I had absolutely crap headphones, and I compensated with a pretty drastic loudness curve (using winamp EQ). This of course further emphasised a difference between the transients. Seems like hardware can take more abuse.


...which of course is no news at all.

bottom line is you thought the UAD plugin was the modified SSL clone hardware you built....

Despite the conditions that says something about the UAD plugin...

[bmanic]

For Bmanic:

I'm off to Musikmesse so may be without an internet connection for a few days so I thought I should post now.

All customer builds of v1.0.10 are currently being sent out with an updated algorithm that should please. It's now in line with the SSL 4000 and I've also improved the sound on long attacks.

For those that want to check out the Trial version I've given everyone another 2 weeks:

http://cytomic.com/Beta/The_Glue_Beta_Info.html

Andrew Simper

Yes this is cool and I have the demo. I just haven't had time to install it yet! Besides, it looks like my demo time is running out (it isn't reset by new versions it seems). We'll see.

EDIT: correction, the new demo doesn't work in Reaper. It says it has expired, while in FL Studio I can use it for a new 14 days of trials. Too bad the old version expired as I would have liked to compare the changes.

Cheers!
bManic

[Shy]

After demoing Algorithmix LP SplitComp, I bought it. It's not yet "officially" available (through their site etc.), but you can email for 14-day demo details. As for price, yes, it costs as much as a high-end hardware mono compressor, so don't even consider it if you don't want to spend that much. And I'm not even trying to "promote" it with this post, just sharing my thoughts.

It solves pretty much all my software compressor needs and has what I think is the best sound out of a digital compressor. At the fastest attack setting, -no- sharp transient peak is ever allowed (and that's without look-ahead delay). There's optional soft and hard saturation, which can be nice for taming peaks with "slow" attack.

The sound can be either very "clean" or "dirty", in general it's very "tight", and there are several very useful different release characteristics. The threshold range of this compressor is insanely huge, in effect more than any software or hardware compressor I've used. As with any digital compressor (or eq etc. for that matter), it can't actually replace hardware, as its character is very different than an analog compressor's. I use it mostly for shaping or taming extremely transient-rich sounds pre or post my hardware compressor, and find that it's an ultimate combination.

[bmanic]

Yeah, I hear you. I've been trying to avoid demoing the Alogirthmix compressor as all I ever heard was praise for it. However, at 1800 euros it is way out of my league in the software domain. There is simply no way I am willing to pay that much for something that will be hard to sell later.

Personally I've been considering the Flux Alchemist, multiband thing. It's also insanely expensive but I have gotten some very good results from it lately. I finally figured out how to use it properly.

I will most likely try the demo of the split compressor soon but before I do, could you post some audio examples? Any examples that show off what you think it does best would be appreciated. What is the CPU use on that thing? Is it possible to use it comfortably within a mix as well as mastering?

Cheers!
bManic

Ps. I envy you!

[Shy]

Don't envy me, really, let's just say I was saving for a long time . (by the way, the current "list price" is 1280 euro or so)
The CPU usage is huge, and you need to use a very large ASIO buffer size. More than one instance of it could cause 100% CPU spikes. It could also be somewhat specific to my setup, and they might improve that before an "official release", and maybe reduce the need for a very high buffer.

Here is a simple example which I think says a lot.

[bmanic]

That's a very impressive example. I wasn't really able to reproduce it. Mind telling me the exact settings used? It sounds like the split was in use and one part is compressing more than the other. It's obviously very much compressed as the background noise pumps nicely along and at a relatively strong level.

Damn.. I really wish they wouldn't sell the damn thing so expensive. There's virtually no resale value on such software in the future whereas hardware would be an investment. Though I'm not sure I know of any hardware that could do that either.. perhaps the Weiss DS1mk3.

Cheers!
bManic

[Shy]

No split used. Here is the SplitComp preset.

[bmanic]

Can't try that yet. Will keep it handy for testing once I get the demo up and running (if I dare!).

How do you feel the comp works at typical mastering settings with long attack, short release? Can it "ride" the waves in a nice way, adding punch to drums and such? Or is it best suited for the quick squeeze?

Cheers!
bManic