What are considered the most transparent compressors?

[BB Bill]

Originally Posted by raal

have heard Atomic Sqeezebox also excels at this but i can't speak from personal experience. GML 8900 i can vouch for personally. hope this helps.

I own the Squeezebox as well as the GML. The Squeezebox, like the GML, can do serious lifting without pumping. It's an incredible unit and I never understood why it hasn't caught on.

Although both can compress without pumping artifacts, the Squeezebox feels a tad more colored than the GML. It's a GLORIOUS color, don't get me wrong (and I use the Squeezebox more often than the GML) but if you want the signal as clean and uncolored as possible I'd look at the GML first.

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

And also even if some of you can draw automation into something that resembles a compressed signal, why would you do that, it just strikes me a huge waste of time in comparison to turning a few knobs on a compressor!!???!??!

The reason people will do fader automation in lieu of compression is because, as you said "It will sound different" Different way to skin a cat.. (sorry pita)

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

No one can possibly think, using a compressor to control dynamics using a precise set of timings and math that affects everything that passes thorough in an arbitrary manner ie threshold attack/release/ratio is the same as fader automation.

Fader automation or riding during tracking is corrective,micro mixing etc, just another tool, it does not sound like compression... even the most transparent compressor is in no way going to "re draw the amplitude/volume" in accordance to every sample/event!! its going to compress!!!

Manual/written fader automation or Waves vocal rider (possibly the closest thing to a timed and threshold based fader automation) and say ren comp are going to sound completely different as will a GML...

Now you can try emulate a compressed signal using fader automation but even then im willing to bet money it wont sound the same and viceversa ill definately bet money that there will be a differene between someone drawing some automation on a file and then sending the original (that they automated) into a gml or some other transparent comp and compare soundwise. Im not trying to put anyone down and im all for moving forward here but im just saying they are two completely different processes that dont sound the same...

Op isn't saying he doesn't want to achieve the same result using technique cuz he wants processing, there's a technique to compression too you know lol he is asking about compressors... Fader automation while also a great tool to control volume, it isn't the same as how a compressor does it...

[Trev@Circle]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

No one can possibly think, using a compressor to control dynamics using a precise set of timings and math that affects everything that passes thorough in an arbitrary manner ie threshold attack/release/ratio is the same as fader automation.

Fader automation or riding during tracking is corrective,micro mixing etc, just another tool, it does not sound like compression... even the most transparent compressor is in no way going to "re draw the amplitude/volume" in accordance to every sample/event!! its going to compress!!!

Manual/written fader automation or Waves vocal rider (possibly the closest thing to a timed and threshold based fader automation) and say ren comp are going to sound completely different as will a GML...

Now you can try emulate a compressed signal using fader automation but even then im willing to bet money it wont sound the same and viceversa ill definately bet money that there will be a differene between someone drawing some automation on a file and then sending the original (that they automated) into a gml or some other transparent comp and compare soundwise. Im not trying to put anyone down and im all for moving forward here but im just saying they are two completely different processes that dont sound the same...

Op isn't saying he doesn't want to achieve the same result using technique cuz he wants processing, there's a technique to compression too you know lol he is asking about compressors... Fader automation while also a great tool to control volume, it isn't the same as how a compressor does it...

And also even if some of you can draw automation into something that resembles a compressed signal, why would you do that, it just strikes me a huge waste of time in comparison to turning a few knobs on a compressor!!???!??!

The fact he wants a transparent compressor suggested to me (and obviously to a number of others) that he doesn't want to hear the compression. Best way of achieving the sound of no compression? Don't compress. Simples.

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

No one can possibly think, using a compressor to control dynamics using a precise set of timings and math that affects everything that passes thorough in an arbitrary manner ie threshold attack/release/ratio is the same as fader automation.

Fader automation or riding during tracking is corrective,micro mixing etc, just another tool, it does not sound like compression... even the most transparent compressor is in no way going to "re draw the amplitude/volume" in accordance to every sample/event!! its going to compress!!!

Manual/written fader automation or Waves vocal rider (possibly the closest thing to a timed and threshold based fader automation) and say ren comp are going to sound completely different as will a GML...

Now you can try emulate a compressed signal using fader automation but even then im willing to bet money it wont sound the same and viceversa ill definately bet money that there will be a differene between someone drawing some automation on a file and then sending the original (that they automated) into a gml or some other transparent comp and compare soundwise. Im not trying to put anyone down and im all for moving forward here but im just saying they are two completely different processes that dont sound the same...

Op isn't saying he doesn't want to achieve the same result using technique cuz he wants processing, there's a technique to compression too you know lol he is asking about compressors... Fader automation while also a great tool to control volume, it isn't the same as how a compressor does it...

And also even if some of you can draw automation into something that resembles a compressed signal, why would you do that, it just strikes me a huge waste of time in comparison to turning a few knobs on a compressor!!???!??!

Exactly my point, couldn't have put it any better.

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by Audio X

The reason people will do fader automation in lieu of compression is because, as you said "It will sound different" Different way to skin a cat.. (sorry pita)

Exactly! And I am not looking for the sound of writing a million little automation nodes, I am looking for a compressor.

Again. These are two different things. I promise my OP is still my OP.

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by Trev@Circle

The fact he wants a transparent compressor suggested to me (and obviously to a number of others) that he doesn't want to hear the compression. Best way of achieving the sound of no compression? Don't compress. Simples.

What I want to hear is the dynamic range of a recorded sound compressed, that is correct.

What I don't want to hear is all the pumping, ducking, slight distortion and tone alteration that seems to happen with a lot of compressors.

My original post is essentially asking: "Are these two things simultaneously achievable?"

[Trev@Circle]

Originally Posted by Verve111

What I want to hear is the dynamic range of a recorded sound compressed, that is correct.

What I don't want to hear is all the pumping, ducking, slight distortion and tone alteration that seems to happen with a lot of compressors.

My original post is essentially asking: "Are these two things simultaneously achievable?"

Excellent. Now we know.

[Ernest Buckley]

Originally Posted by iangomes

Vari-mu surprises me in that list!

It`s a great compressor. The first time I used it, I thought it was broke.

[Audio X]

Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley

It`s a great compressor.

A nice comp, but for me belongs on the non-transparent list.

[Suda Badri]

Originally Posted by Audio X

The reason people will do fader automation in lieu of compression is because, as you said "It will sound different" Different way to skin a cat.. (sorry pita)

Yes, exactly and as you suggest a creative use to drawing automation is completely cool and if it gets to to a desired result that's great.

And i do agree with audio x in the post above... i was only referring to the mastering varimu not the normal one and its only transparent till about 5-6 db max then it tells you im a manley! but the slam is suggested to be mastering grade clean limiting/compression...

[One To One]

Originally Posted by Verve111

What I want to hear is the dynamic range of a recorded sound compressed, that is correct.

What I don't want to hear is all the pumping, ducking, slight distortion and tone alteration that seems to happen with a lot of compressors.

My original post is essentially asking: "Are these two things simultaneously achievable?"

D.W. Fearn Vt-7
Maselec MLA-2

[tridelica]

Originally Posted by Verve111

This does not include moving a fader up and down really fast in between all the transients to get a drum take a little fuller. I'm pretty sure that isn't what automation was intended for.

It's not what's 'intended' that counts. It is what's interpreted.
Automating, or closely gain riding a track, is a pain, but it can yield a pleasant compression-like effect, where you are obviously squelching peaks, but in a very tasty way, almost like coloration with out harmonic-distortion coloration.
Automation is the ultimate 'vibey' but clean compressor. And it gets the job done in a very tweakable way. However, I don't like drawing automation curves because it is post-production, sweatshop work, albeit often necessary.

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by tridelica

It's not what's 'intended' that counts. It is what's interpreted.
Automating, or closely gain riding a track, is a pain, but it can yield a pleasant compression-like effect, where you are obviously squelching peaks, but in a very tasty way, almost like coloration with out harmonic-distortion coloration.
Automation is the ultimate 'vibey' but clean compressor. And it gets the job done in a very tweakable way. However, I don't like drawing automation curves because it is post-production, sweatshop work, albeit often necessary.

Automation is not a vibey compressor. Automation is automation of a potentiometer (either analog or digital). There are a million scientific reasons why this is true. They work in completely different ways and they yield vastly different interpretable results.

I'm sorry but I am still baffled as to why people think this is a valid argument.

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Verve111

Automation is not a vibey compressor. Automation is automation of a potentiometer (either analog or digital). There are a million scientific reasons why this is true. They work in completely different ways and they yield vastly different interpretable results.

I'm sorry but I am still baffled as to why people think this is a valid argument.

I disagree a bit. Think end result: If the end result includes higher lows(volume), and/or lower highs(volume), it's safe to say it's been compressed...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Suda Badri]

Whhhattt no its not.... Its safe to say its automated.... Where is the actual compression of dynamic range, if you lower the high volume stuff the low volume stuff will go down as well ie not compression... It does not sound the same.... It is a completely different process... Lol we are actually going to have to take bets and do an experiment...

Transparency =/= the sound of no compression (that's bypass) =/= automation, in any way not sonically, not in practice, not in theory and not in this thread... Has anyone of these people suggesting automation for the op tried the compare automation to compression???

[jrhager84]

Define 'compression' for me, please...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

I disagree a bit. Think end result: If the end result includes higher lows(volume), and/or lower highs(volume), it's safe to say it's been compressed...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Let's get one thing straight: In terms of using a compressor, dynamic range is NOT the difference of volume over a whole piece of music. A crescendo here a decrescendo there and so on. That's what automation is for.

Compression reduces (compresses) the dynamic range of audio from one millisecond (sometimes micro second) to the next. Or, more specifically, the amplitude difference between the valley and peak of a waveform.

For the LAST time. THIS IS NOT WHAT AUTOMATION IS FOR. If one were to use automation for this purpose, one would have to draw automation lines that correspond to every single last peak and valley of the wave form. AND one would have to do this in a mathematical, perfectly executed manner relative to the source material.

The OP is asking about compressors because this is what compressors are designed to do.

[jrhager84]

Ah, forgot you made the rules. I'll remember that the next time I use a shoe to hammer a nail, just cause I feel like it.

My point is: whatever works, works. Pre-defining something as 'incorrect' is foolish IMO. You realize that some of the most iconic records were made using ideas and techniques that were 'wrong', right?



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Verve111]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Ah, forgot you made the rules. I'll remember that the next time I use a shoe to hammer a nail, just cause I feel like it.

My point is: whatever works, works. Pre-defining something as 'incorrect' is foolish IMO. You realize that some of the most iconic records were made using ideas and techniques that were 'wrong', right?

No rules, I'm just looking for a compressor.

[deleted by mod]

Iconic records are usually iconic for many more reasons than simply using gear not as it was intended to be used. That being said I still doubt that Alan Parsons used automation for compression for Dark Side of the Moon

[Suda Badri]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

Define 'compression' for me, please...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Firstly, i think i made the point quite clear i don't know if you have read this whole thread or the top of the page where Im quoted anyway If i define compression (playing with dynamic range of said signal) and you define automation or volume control (playing with amplitude of said signal), they will be different, in terminology, in application and sonically (the biggest point to make)... That is enough for me...

Don't get me wrong Im all for creativity and using whatever means necessary to get the job done... But in a thread asking about compressors, automation isn't the answer, drawing automation does not compress the signal at all...

Anyway are you telling me that you think compression and automation can reach the same sonic end result? Like if we were both given a signal i compressed it and you drew automation, will it sound similar?? Or if you were given a gml and did it yourself in your own studio? Will the two files you processed sound similar? Prove it and even if you were successful (which i doubt and am willing to bet actual money on it that your automation won't sound the same as a $5k compressor) prove why that isn't a huge waste of time compared to compression unless you are going for something creative and unachievable by compression alone...

Im not trying to pick a fight Im trying to make sense of why automation is being suggested as a replacement to compression when it does not sound the same, act the same or is the same process in anyway... Just trying to keep this thread on track as it were... Case in point, In this page of the thread there's only like 2 posts that are on topic

[Kabby]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

Whhhattt no its not.... Its safe to say its automated.... Where is the actual compression of dynamic range, if you lower the high volume stuff the low volume stuff will go down as well ie not compression... It does not sound the same.... It is a completely different process... Lol we are actually going to have to take bets and do an experiment...

Transparency =/= the sound of no compression (that's bypass) =/= automation, in any way not sonically, not in practice, not in theory and not in this thread... Has anyone of these people suggesting automation for the op tried the compare automation to compression???

Not to single you out in a bad way but there are different types of dynamic range reduction. Check out the difference between upward compression and downward compression.

[jrhager84]

Originally Posted by Suda Badri

Firstly, i think i made the point quite clear i don't know if you have read this whole thread or the top of the page where Im quoted anyway If i define compression (playing with dynamic range of said signal) and you define automation or volume control (playing with amplitude of said signal), they will be different, in terminology, in application and sonically (the biggest point to make)... That is enough for me...

Don't get me wrong Im all for creativity and using whatever means necessary to get the job done... But in a thread asking about compressors, automation isn't the answer, drawing automation does not compress the signal at all...

Anyway are you telling me that you think compression and automation can reach the same sonic end result? Like if we were both given a signal i compressed it and you drew automation, will it sound similar?? Or if you were given a gml and did it yourself in your own studio? Will the two files you processed sound similar? Prove it and even if you were successful (which i doubt and am willing to bet actual money on it that your automation won't sound the same as a $5k compressor) prove why that isn't a huge waste of time compared to compression unless you are going for something creative and unachievable by compression alone...

Im not trying to pick a fight Im trying to make sense of why automation is being suggested as a replacement to compression when it does not sound the same, act the same or is the same process in anyway... Just trying to keep this thread on track as it were... Case in point, In this page of the thread there's only like 2 posts that are on topic

My point is, it's an option. Hell, different compressors sound different! Didn't that kind of shoot you in the foot? It's a different effect for a different occasion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

[Suda Badri]

Originally Posted by Kabby

Not to single you out in a bad way but there are different types of dynamic range reduction. Check out the difference between upward compression and downward compression.

Sure mate, noted. But even so, that ain't achievable with automation!

[Suda Badri]

Originally Posted by jrhager84

My point is, it's an option. Hell, different compressors sound different! Didn't that kind of shoot you in the foot? It's a different effect for a different occasion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I777 using Tapatalk

Yeah i can't say your opinion is wrong and im all for options, even so all those different sounding compressors are compressing the signal and op has stated he is looking for a compressor and not looking to automate many times... My point is lets get on with the thread!

[dandeurloo]

I have a pair of 661's. They are modded by Jim and they are wonderful.


Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk

[baphomet1313]

Someone several pages in said the Grace 102...I have the 500 Grace M502 and it is amazing! I'm not a world reknowned audio engineer or anything, but it covers my needs perfectly and transparently.

Sent from my SPH-M910 using Tapatalk

[teo]

Originally Posted by Verve111

Metering:
Unlike many contemporary dynamic range devices, the GML 8900 Dynamic Range
Controller features an accurate meter which displays the continuous state of the VCA
(Voltage Controlled Amplifier) instead of merely denoting average gain reduction values.
Interestingly, this multi-segment LED meter reflects changes in the Output control, since
this action directly affects the discrete VCA; therefore, an increase in output gain will
correspond with a positive deflection of the meter, from whence the gain reduction will
be noted.

And that is what I hate about the 8900...just give me a reduction meter, or a switch from gain to GR...i don't need to see them both at the same time, FFS! It gets very confusing as often I have to stop playback to let the LED sit still and see where I'm starting from, in order to see how much GR it's applying.

About the crest factor controls, you can see them as controls on how aggressive the compressor is. It's not a proper technical explanation on what they do, but that's how I use them...

[Ward Pike]

An earlier poster mentioned the Aphex Compellor. I have one of those, and he's absolutely correct. 99% of the time the leveling is inaudible... you just end up with leveled sound. This would save you a heck of a lot of work in writing automation.

Of course, it has no sound (so to speak) and I don't find it that appealing when I want compression. But if I were in want of just pure inaudible leveling, than the Compellor would be a great choice.

By the way, those things are dirt cheap used on eBait and other places.

[nickelironsteel]

i like compressors that go from totally clean to colourful.

the Shadow Hills Mastering Compressor's Discrete Section with the output transformer set to Iron does that transparent Compression thing to me in the VCA-flavour, as well as my ALTA MODA UNICOMP for fet flavour. both are tough to beat.

[Suda Badri]

haha nice username!