Guest boo Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 alesis 3630 for example seems to be really cheap second-hand, and fully featured. so is it worth getting one? do they sound better than software compressors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 no, don't get budget compressors if you already have decent software. you can only use one instance of them at the same time (versus plugins of which you could load/use multiple instances at once). they generally dont sound any better than budget (or even free) plugins. they take up space (although you get a physical interface with knobs and shit, which is nice). its only worth getting a hardware compressor if it does something that you just can't do with software. so i mean high end compressors like SSL 9000's, urei 1176's, teletronic LA2a, etc.. but even those units can almost be paralled using high end plug ins (like waves plugins, or sony/oxford plugins for example). plugins are simply more flexible and easier to use when it comes to compression. although: if you can get a 3630 REALLY cheap, you may want to mod it into a unit that actually sounds nice, check out this post: http://www.prodigy-pro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8690 there's actually loads of info on that forum if you're serious about compression - that entire forum is dedicated to cloning (ultra-) high-end audio equipment (mostly EQ's and compressors). for example, you could build a perfect ssl9k clone for 500$ or a 1176 for 300$ (a 'new' unit would cost you more than 2000$). good stuff, if you're into it. i'm gonna build some of those clones myself in the near future, especially the ssl clone looks very interesting and is actually quite easy to make.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 i thought that might be the case. that mod/clone stuff sounds really cool - but i have no experience in that area, and i wouldn't call myself "serious about compression". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 yeah, even if it is a clone of something that costs over two grand, 500$ is still alot of money for a compressor..but its fun to build & you could always trade it for other stuff; a proper clone is worth quite some money, look at something like this for example, wicked result (& pretty nice pictorial!).. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ~Pd~ Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 These compressors that have clone-recipes at that forum - they're good for full song mastering / limiting or they're mostly for compressing a vocal or a guitar track? Pardon my extreme ignorance of hardware. :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 sure you can use any compressor on any kind of sound.. depends on what you like, some people like to use, say, a (clone of an) Urei 1176 on the entire mix or on entire busses but some like to use it for individual tracks, some like it for both, i don't think that there is a 'wrong' way to use a compressor, its just a matter of taste.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnuts Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 Actually, there's nothing that sounds like a 3630 in s/w S/w compression is very delicate and usually quite unnatural... the only s/w compressor i like is waves ssl channel comp, but even then it's not an allrounder and it's not as useful as a dbx or even composer if you want to compress a whole mix, then in all honesty, a behringer or an alesis is generally a better choice than anything you'll find in s/w the control rate of s/w compressors is usually poor - esp in waves - so where a real compressor is using an envelope with (eqv) 44.1k adjustments/sec - a s/w is often down around 400-1000 digital compression on a bassdrum usually makes it weaker and sharper - analogue compression will tend to make it punchier and more powerful... they're very different fx if you want to know what a 3630 sounds like, it's the compressor Daft Punk use on everything... very popular in techno and french house the Really nice compressor is better for more subtle applications again, if you're working native, you really do need at least one stage of h/w to delineate things and add some weight best kept secret at the moment is the behringer ultrafex pro... i've seen them in mastering studios recently along side Massive Passives, Vari-mu, Z-Systems, etc. i sold mine when i first got pro tools and a masterflow - because sometimes what you think should sound better, does seem to... but there's not a plug-in in the world which can do for a mix what a simple analog compressor and enhancer do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ~Pd~ Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 best kept secret at the moment is the behringer ultrafex pro... i've seen them in mastering studios recently along side Massive Passives, Vari-mu, Z-Systems, etc. Wow, and those are dirt cheap too. I'll have to check that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 Actually, there's nothing that sounds like a 3630 in s/w S/w compression is very delicate and usually quite unnatural... the only s/w compressor i like is waves ssl channel comp, but even then it's not an allrounder and it's not as useful as a dbx or even composer if you want to compress a whole mix, then in all honesty, a behringer or an alesis is generally a better choice than anything you'll find in s/w are you taking the piss? you'd prefer a budget behringer unit (which is almost as digital as a regular plugin, all dsp-based) over a high end waves or sony oxford plugin? when compressing a WHOLE mix? the control rate of s/w compressors is usually poor - esp in waves - so where a real compressor is using an envelope with (eqv) 44.1k adjustments/sec - a s/w is often down around 400-1000 interesting, do you have any more info about that? as far as i know, waves plugins can process up to 96khz (maybe even 192khz these days) of data, not sure how you'd get the 400-1000 figure? digital compression on a bassdrum usually makes it weaker and sharper - analogue compression will tend to make it punchier and more powerful... they're very different fx i'd say thats a pretty far fetched generalisation, there's loads of analogue comps that'll 'sharpen' up a kick nicely and there's loads of digital comps that make stuff 'punchier' or more 'powerful'.. you can't just say ANALOGUE SOUNDS LIKE THIS and DIGITAL SOUNDS LIKE THAT.. again, if you're working native, you really do need at least one stage of h/w to delineate things and add some weight one stage of hardware to add some weight? what kind of hardware? i wouldn't want to record my entire mix through a cheap behringer mixer, i doubt that adds weighth? maybe if you feed your entire mix thru a 1176, sure, that might add a nice little edge ('weight'?!) but that just depends on whether you like that sound or not, i wouldnt use 'ALWAYS FEED THRU ONE STAGE OF HARDWARE' as a rule of thumb, that's pretty idiotic actually.. i'd rather keep my mix in the digital domain that feeding it thru crap hardware. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pantsonmyhead Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 really?? I'll take the rennaisance axx or a universal audio plugin over a dbx anyday... something about the control of the attack, i can only run dbx's in parrallell but nothing beats and LA2A hands down the finest compressor ever made i like driving the makeup gain circuit on the ssl6k too....sounds nasty and fwumpy waves plugins run at 48k (rtas) i believe don't quote me on that though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aeser Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 compression plugins suck ass for the most part. hardware compressors don't all suck. the RNC is a cheap ($170-ish) hardware compressor which sounds awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnuts Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 are you taking the piss? you'd prefer a budget behringer unit (which is almost as digital as a regular plugin, all dsp-based) over a high end waves or sony oxford plugin? when compressing a WHOLE mix? Yep, I co-own Phase Studios in Nrth London, we master for Sony, MTV, Scuzz, Extreme, etc. it's complete nonsense that expensive compressors sound "better" or are more useful... In any serious studio you'll find dbx's alongside Urei's, Neve's, Avalons, etc. because they're completely different in character... You put a $6million sounding recording thru a dbx and it's still the same sound coming out the other side - it's not cheapened - an expensive compressor is only expensive to manufacture because of how it works... that doesn't make it better/worse or more transparent... e.g. an Avalon is outstanding on vocals because it's so delicate - but on a snare drum, a dbx beats Avalon, Manley, API, etc. to hell... it's a completely different kind of compression. Daft Punk use a 3630 compressor over the mix - they could use their £6k Eventide (I've got one) which has multiband mastering algorithms, etc. but the 3630 is simply better for achieving that sound. The Behringer Composer is very similar to the 3630 and dbx - in fact, it's got better signal-noise and is more transparent... 3630 is more dynamic sounding and dbx tends to be punchier... but they're very comparrable, and absolute staples for dance music production and still used in almost all studios for drum kits. interesting, do you have any more info about that? as far as i know, waves plugins can process up to 96khz (maybe even 192khz these days) of data, not sure how you'd get the 400-1000 figure? control rate's quite different... 96khz means it shoves through data in 8-16-32bit packets through an algorithm - it's not actually counting from 1 to 96000 each second, that would require silly processing... the control rate refers to the speed at which the algorithm itself updates - so the detail of the compression curve... a comp plug-in will update maybe 500 times a second - reaktor goes up to about 1000 i think? but usually you'd set it on just a few hundred. for smooth, vocal compression this makes little difference, but for transient reshaping it's a world apart - which makes plug-in comp's particularly useless for percussion. if your CR is the same as sample rate it means compression curves actually reshape transients, creating the high pitched snap and bass thud of h/w compression. i'd say thats a pretty far fetched generalisation, there's loads of analogue comps that'll 'sharpen' up a kick nicely and there's loads of digital comps that make stuff 'punchier' or more 'powerful'.. you can't just say ANALOGUE SOUNDS LIKE THIS and DIGITAL SOUNDS LIKE THAT.. every analogue compressor is a different entity - with digital, there's much less in it - they tend to all react much more like opto compressors, delicate sounding and more suitable for vocals... these comprssors do tnd to be more expensive in h/w, but they're quite limited one stage of hardware to add some weight? what kind of hardware? i wouldn't want to record my entire mix through a cheap behringer mixer, i doubt that adds weighth? maybe if you feed your entire mix thru a 1176, sure, that might add a nice little edge ('weight'?!) but that just depends on whether you like that sound or not, i wouldnt use 'ALWAYS FEED THRU ONE STAGE OF HARDWARE' as a rule of thumb, that's pretty idiotic actually.. i'd rather keep my mix in the digital domain that feeding it thru crap hardware. there's almost no such thing as crap h/w... you put a Behringer Composer in a £10k hifi and you won't notice any degredation in quality, because its still a broadcast quality piece of audio gear... George Michael and Michael Jackson use Mackie mixers and Behringer Ultrafexes on tour! George Michael's such a big fan he takes about 12 of them and won't even soundcheck without... i've got much more expensive enhancers, like SPL 8-pack and tube vitalizer, and dramer masterflow, but the ultrafex is my favourite, and you could run a £10k master through it and it'd still add clarity and depth even where the SPL can't. true, you can't generalize too much - i'd probably avoid a behringer mixer - however, autechre mixed on a seck 18-8-2 (which makes a behinrger look like an SSL) for their first 2 (/3?) albums, and it gave them a sound. but you can pick up a cheap mackie for £150 which'll add new dimensions to your sound... liam howlett on the latest prodigy album liked that mackie sound so much, he pre-mixed thru a Mackie desk before going into the Neve/Pro Tools... really?? I'll take the rennaisance axx or a universal audio plugin over a dbx anyday... something about the control of the attack, i can only run dbx's in parrallell but nothing beats and LA2A hands down the finest compressor ever made i like driving the makeup gain circuit on the ssl6k too....sounds nasty and fwumpy waves plugins run at 48k (rtas) i believe don't quote me on that though no plug-ins run at that control rate - they may use interpolation to emulate higher control rates, but it takes an exceptional amount of DSP to model compressors at that detail dbx are found in every studio - you have to use longer attack times 30-50ms to get that sound... the release is very dynamic too - a UAD plug-in will never give you that kind of punch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 yeah you're right, (relatively) lo-fi compressors can still have a nice sound, i guess they're nice to abuse especially if you're into that kinda pumping, raw compression. but if i'd go for a mix that's as clean & well-defined as possible and decided to compress my entire mix with one unit, i'd rather use more subtle stuff.. well, most of the time anyway.. and sure, if we're talking about the transient scanning speed of a compressor, ofcourse it (almost-)continous scanning at speeds like 192khz or something, not like analogue hardware opto-couplers or regular VCA-based compressors ofcourse.. BUT, i think that high end plugins are actually really good at simulating the behaviour of smooth transient scanning like the continous-ness of analogue comps, try it out, even free plugs like BLOCKFISH have very smooth (and fast) envelopes... plus, you also get the flexibility of being able to switch between comp models & different algorythms on the fly..they might not sound exactly as nice as a solid hardwre compressor but the flexibility & ease of use make up for that IMo.. but then again, every sound has its time & place,its all a matter of taste, there arent any unbendable rules imo.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 woah sorry for the sloppy post, i meant to say that plugs obviously DONT run at (almost-)continuous transient scanning speeds like 192khz;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnuts Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 well it's about applying a transformation to wave data in real-time... if you go thru a list 1 to 44,100, recalculating the gain reduction, then and applying this transformation to wave data, you'd run into serious DSP territory very quickly... An Eventide harmonizer can use up 6 DSP's just doing a compressor, an EQ and a chorus. so in s/w you batch process in blocks - it recalculates the gain reduction maybe 100-1000 times a second, whilst shoving blocks of wavedata thru it... even UAD's very processor light compaired to a typical drawmer digital compressor i sold a lot of old gear when i got pro tools and had nicer h/w to use - but you listen to a lot of older albums, like modus operandi, and you just won't get that sound native... it's a very clean, slick production - it sounds expensive, but it's actually the sound of a behringer composer and an ultrafex on a mackie desk... so i bought my ultrafex and composer back not long ago, and tbh they're invaluable to me now i'm working mostly native a composer and an ultrafex on a native mix will often give it just what it needs, while an avalon 737 and a weiss eq will be so subtle you'll still be stuck with a digital-sounding mix Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blicero Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 holy pwn, batman. that reminds me, i need to go pick up some leads so i can chain my behringer tube composer to my behringer mixer while i mix tunes on my behringer monitors. i am a whore. but man that was a pwn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest greenbank Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 what about look-ahead? software can know the future, hardware usually can't. do hardware compressors introduce a delay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnuts Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 there are h/w compressors with look ahead, but the way regular h/w reacts to strong transients is what makes it sound dynamic and induces saturation where s/w would induce digital clipping h/w can be made to react to the energy of an input signal rather than just the wave amplitude - and the characteristics of the gain reduction might cause it's own behaviour to warp - and because it's real physics you're dealing with, it'll tend to do this in a way which sounds natural and responsive... in code, you don't know you've got a strong bass transient until you've had time to sample enough of it, so there's usually a degree of guess work in making something behave naturally esp. offline, s/w does a mathematically better job of compressing and mixing signals - but obviously that's not what we relate to as listeners - electronic music has to work extra hard to get away from it sounding like numbers multiplied together in a box Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acid1 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Tube compressors are really hard to emulate and have good character... granted the character is really distortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest boo Posted September 27, 2006 Share Posted September 27, 2006 this is a very informative thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr_Nova Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 Hmmm, this thread's making me consider sending a lot of my drum mixes through my hardware compressor (which I tend to just use for guitar, vocals and sampling at present). I think i've just never tried it before out of laziness, and because I like the sounds I get with the digital plug-ins I have. I'm a compression junky, so even after using the hardware stuff I always end up adding a couple digital compressors as well. The PSPwarm tube emulator is my favorite. Also there are a lot of free digital compressors that get a grainy crackly sound that I don't think I could emulate with the hardware stuff... it just SOUNDS digital, and that's why I like it for cold sounding electronic stuff. Sometimes my favorite effects are the cheap shit that no professional would dare touch, unless they have an acquired taste for that sort of thing as I do. Same thing applies with shit guitar amps that no band would ever use in a concert, but damned if they don't sound great in a studio mix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chim Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 great thread, and i totally agree about the routing through hardware. nowadays i always run my final mixes through my mackiemixer and it sounds so much better, not much change here since it's output through the mackie, but it's when i put my tracks on my mp3 player or play it in school or somewhere else that it's noticeable how much smoother and better the tracks sound in comparison to my solid state tracks. lately i've started outputting individual tracks in ableton to let the mixer mix them together and then send it back into the computer, and it has great results. but shit man, i need to get some cheap compressors and stuff. by the way maynard, i think it was you who recommended me to get my 1402 VLZ and i haven't regretted it since. big ups also, I'm curious, are even hardware DSP compressors better than digital stuff, or are you just referring to analog comps? by the way, dbx is fucking expensive man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iep Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 holy pwn, batman. that reminds me, i need to go pick up some leads so i can chain my behringer tube composer to my behringer mixer while i mix tunes on my behringer monitors. *flees for the raging rabid mob of behringer users* but yeah, the Periwrinkle definitely has a point - and indeed he gave some good info when making said point ;) i think it comes down to: there isn't one objective ultimate way of compression - there is no compression-rule of thumb that can be applied anywhere & anytime. every sound & every situation may need another technique; so, i'd advice tauboo to just try out the 3630; who knows, maybe you like the sound, maybe you dont.. if you don't like it, you could either modify it, or sell it (probably without losing money, since you can buy it for a nice price). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest blicero Posted September 28, 2006 Share Posted September 28, 2006 the other point is that expensive hardware doesn't mean better hardware. it depends on what your trying to achieve. some of my favorite hip hop production of all time was done on a $200 sampler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paulie Walnuts Posted September 29, 2006 Share Posted September 29, 2006 great thread, and i totally agree about the routing through hardware. nowadays i always run my final mixes through my mackiemixer and it sounds so much better, not much change here since it's output through the mackie, but it's when i put my tracks on my mp3 player or play it in school or somewhere else that it's noticeable how much smoother and better the tracks sound in comparison to my solid state tracks. lately i've started outputting individual tracks in ableton to let the mixer mix them together and then send it back into the computer, and it has great results. but shit man, i need to get some cheap compressors and stuff. by the way maynard, i think it was you who recommended me to get my 1402 VLZ and i haven't regretted it since. big ups also, I'm curious, are even hardware DSP compressors better than digital stuff, or are you just referring to analog comps? by the way, dbx is fucking expensive man! yeah there's some good info on Monolake's site about using analogue gear - about how it delineates everything just a bit... the more you're using mixers, fx units on send/return loops, MIDI gear, etc. the more organic your music becomes... to the point where dub techno guys can loop the same 2 beats for 10 minutes or more, really effectively exploring a simple musical idea, without ever really sounding "repetative." and in dance music there's always this idea that going thru a desk or amp sort of controls your sound - where digital processing might create slightly wierd high frequencies and transients, just going through a desk seems to smooth it out and make it more user friendly... i've had a few DSP compressors - had a Drawmer at one point, Finalizer and now an Eventide... they're certainly very different from any plug-ins I've heard... the Drawmer especially, you could hear it slide and pump very smoothely... when you hear waves C1 compressing a bass drum or snare, it's very snappy - think that must be down to control rate - but when you use a h/w compressor, you have to forget everything you think you knew about s/w compression, because the attack and release times can have a much more dynamic effect, and can alter the tone of the sound too by changing the frequencies in the attack transient. it's very difficult to learn on plug-ins because a 10ms attack on a bassdrum may sound much like a 30ms attack, but in h/w you realise that 10ms castrates the sound while 30+ms usually leaves a decent attack in there the Drawmers and Eventides can be nice for mastering, if you really want something subtle to catch peaks, but a cheap h/w compressor is usually much more versatile and musical i use a lot of s/w compression when i'm processing drum sounds out of old breaks and things - where they're already full of character... blockfish is useful and quite h/w like, waves ssl is great over a mix (but you need to really understand compression to get much out of it), the free steinberg grancomps are secret weapons of mine too i still like to use as little gear as possible on the whole, and s/w allows that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.