are there any protools hd users that track with a software-compressor?

[monster]

would anybody dare? and i mean real recordings not homerecording-crap.
wich one would you use without shaking so heavily, you couldn't get hold of your mouse.

[gainreduction]

While you can track with a plugin com, is there a particular reason why you want to do that ? I mean, monitor through one, record a clean file and have the option to change anything after the fact seems like a better idea to me.

[monster]

no, no, no... i'm just interested if anybody does this and what they use. i have a bunch of hardware here and no reason not to use it. and i like to record with compression.
but if i would find the right software, who knows....

[gainreduction]

The software compressors that have impressed me the most so far are Sonnox comp/lim, TubeTech CL-1B, Abbey Road TG12413, Waves v-comp and Massey CT-4. I have yet to try the api2500 but seems cool.

EDIT: I just demoed the Waves CLA bundle and that sounded absolutely great. Add to the list.

I went to listen to George Massenburg on the Hi-End gear conference in Hamburg and there were Massenburg hi-res dynamics plugins in his PT sessions. I hope he will release them commercially someday.

[T_R_S]

I know guys track with Waves RComp mainly for the ability to save settings so if they need to go back and retrack they have the record settings stored. I like an Neve 8801 with (USB recall) I have used an RComp to track with works great for me.

[AntillesSound]

The new McDsp Retro Comp is SO rad. Rather transparent, but always does what I want it to. plus it has a mix knob! its verry verry cool.

[Duardo]

are there any protools hd users that track with a software-compressor?
would anybody dare?

If you're talking about actually tracking through the compressor so the compressed signal is what's recorded...why would you do that? There's no reason I can think of to do that, other than forcing yourself to commit. Since it's happening after the conversion to digital, there's no advantage to doing that and plenty of reasons not to.

If you're just talking about listening through compressors as you track, though, sure, I do it all the time. Sometimes I wind up leaving those compressors on through the final mix, but the beauty of the system is that you can just change things at any point without losing anything...which is why, again, there's no reason to "print" the compressed signal as you track that I can think of...

[haikusoftruth]

Finally the last response (thanks Duardo) gave me hope for mankind...

This is the STUPIDEST question yet!

If you are hitting a plug in the audio has ALREADY BEEN CONVERTED- as in NO REASON to even ask this...

Throw a plug on- if you like tracking with it fine. If not- BYPASS IT or remove it. Whats the f'ing problem?

This one is for the "try too hard ******" hall of fame. Maybe pair this with the "first comporessor" thread... POINTLESS!

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by Duardo

If you're talking about actually tracking through the compressor so the compressed signal is what's recorded...why would you do that? There's no reason I can think of to do that, other than forcing yourself to commit. Since it's happening after the conversion to digital, there's no advantage to doing that and plenty of reasons not to.

If you're just talking about listening through compressors as you track, though, sure, I do it all the time. Sometimes I wind up leaving those compressors on through the final mix, but the beauty of the system is that you can just change things at any point without losing anything...which is why, again, there's no reason to "print" the compressed signal as you track that I can think of...

+1. PT monitoring (for example) changes when in record mode to be pre-plugin so you can monitor with a plugin on but still see the recorded audio levels.

Anyone recording through a plugin needs their head examined.

[hipass]

Originally Posted by psycho_monkey

Anyone recording through a plugin needs their head examined.

Then Mutt Lange must be the biggest idiot of all time.

[BLUElightCory]

Even if Mutt Lange is actually recording into PTHD through a plug, there is absolutely no reason to do so.

EDIT: I'm referring to committing the plug-in processed audio to disk. No reason for it.

[toolskid]

All day long. Whats the biggie. Do the job with the tools you have and make it sound great.

If you want some examples:

SPL TD
SOFTUBE FET COMP
MCDSP COMP BANK
CRANESONG PHEONIX
MASSEY TAPEHEAD


I could go on. Some stuff works in some situations other things don't. I've turned off a fairchild cos it was too slow before and used a plugin - big whoop - the 670 wasn't doing it for that track. etc.. etc..

[deuc647]

When I had PTHD, I would do it with reverbs, when I would record, if I didn't like it, id just take it off and the original signal was there. What are u guys talking about committing?

[Barish]

Originally Posted by haikusoftruth

INSULTS DELETED BY MODERATOR and infraction point issued

Not at all.

Any effect that you put in the chain during the tracking affects the player's performance.

To give you the best example, the touch of a funky guitar entirely depends on the compression applied to the guitar signal "while" the player hears himself "through" the compressor.

If you change that compressor setting, you've lost that feel. You've lost the sound the player has intended.

That's not an engineer's job nor responsibility, nor authority do decide how a guitarist (or any artist for that matter) should sound like.

So if a compressor plug-in set to a certain setting is what will give a player a particular performance, then why not print it? Never mind the recallability and all that jazz. We all know it, use it, abuse it.

If a performance is sounding right, I don't look further.

Plus, even plugins can not replicate their performances in the digital domain exactly the same way in every pass in different platforms. Try that on the plugs like Autotune and other pitch shifters and see for yourself.

So if you like it, print it, and move on. Forget about all that "what if I want to change it later" thingy. Ambivalence is a nightmare I hate to see in a production.

B.

[mixerguy]

Originally Posted by Duardo

If you're talking about actually tracking through the compressor so the compressed signal is what's recorded...why would you do that? There's no reason I can think of to do that.......

+1 !

stike

[SteveBoker]

On the one hand, I see no reason to commit a plug compressor, and have never done so. That's what snapshots are for.

However, I do sometimes commit outboard compression on the way in when it gets the sound I want, so it's not that I'm afraid to commit. In fact I almost alway use outboard compression rather than plugs for tracking. Why?

Usually, I try to keep the monitor chain from having to loop ITB, just to reduce latency for the performer. The argument that the performance is affected by the compression is absolutely true. Getting the most out of the performer is the main thing. Everything else is secondary. Latency is your enemy here.

So, I generally don't use plug compressors on the way to print basically because of latency in the monitor chain.

With all of that said, if you don't have the outboard but you do have the plug, and it's what gets the most from the performer, of course, go ahead and use the plug. But I wouldn't commit it, just because flexibility can be useful. Doesn't mean you have to use the power to waffle later just because you have it. If you're worried about reproduction later, then disk is cheap, print 'em both.

[monster]

well, you know my question basically was if people are committing to software as many do to hardware during tracking and i think that committing during tracking can make sense (befor or after conversion), because it's a desision you have made and it won't take up further time (or cpu).
we do it with hardware all the time and not just because it's before digital conversion but because it feels right and we trust it.
based on the sugestions made the cla bundle would be something i could imagine using because i know the hadware it's modeld after well. but the softube compressor sounds like a good 1176 as well and the retrochanel sounds very interessting.
as for people being rude on this tread- get a life...

[zimv20]

tracking "with a plug" doesn't commit the "effected" audio to disk. The unaffected signal is recorded and the plug is applied to the monitored signal, just like on playback.

Its only purpose is to affect what the musician hears.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by hipass

Then Mutt Lange must be the biggest idiot of all time.

I truly doubt he (or more accurately, his engineer) busses things through plugins and recording the results.

Plenty of outboard on the way in, yeah. Plugins on the monitor path, sure. But please point me to the proof of this!

And even if a successful engineer did track like this, it wouldn't alter the pointlessness of it.

[Duardo]

well, you know my question basically was if people are committing to software as many do to hardware during tracking and i think that committing during tracking can make sense (befor or after conversion), because it's a desision you have made and it won't take up further time (or cpu).

Sure, that makes sense, but again...aside from the CPU issue (which is typically not an issue) there is no advantage to printing with the plugin as opposed to just leaving it up. It doesn't take any more time if you decide that you're not going to change it. But having the option can't hurt...

we do it with hardware all the time and not just because it's before digital conversion but because it feels right and we trust it.

Sure, but again, if it feels right and you trust it you can still leave the plugin up. It is different with hardware because it is before conversion (in the case of analog hardware), or because you may want to use that same piece of hardware on a different track at a different point as well (with analog and digital hardware)...