Plug Ins of High End Compressors

[AShah]

HI there,

The reason I post this message here, is because In have a query. I also have a feeling that members subscribing to this board will have the tech knowledge to answer my concern.

URS makes compressor plugins. One is a '1970' model and the other is a '1975' model. The 1975 model one is supposed to be a 'forward feed' design. While I have no idea what that means, I'm sure many of you here do.
What I care about, is how would the 'forward feed' affect the sound, and what sonic difference would that make as when compared to one that doesn't 'feed forward'?

Thanking you in advance!

P.S. Anyone had experience with those models from URS and have an opinion?
I sent them an email, with the same query, but never heard back from them.

Thanks again!

~AJ

[Reptil]

there was a funny but IMO skewed comparative thread about.... 3 months ago? (I guessed "wrong" LOL never had much luck in the lottery either)

search for duende waves ssl comp URS (you got that) chandler plugin... more are to come (a neve UAD)

oh and the liquid mix thingy.

[soundeq]

plug ins of compressors never sound "right" to me... more like automatic volume controls... Compression is one thing that no-one seems to get "right" in the box...

my .02

[gwailoh]

Originally Posted by AShah

What I care about, is how would the 'forward feed' affect the sound, and what sonic difference would that make as when compared to one that doesn't 'feed forward'?

I hope that someone who is more expert than I will correct this if I'm wrong.

Feed-forward compressors work by taking their control voltage from the input signal, resulting in a super-fast response. Feed-back comps by contrast work by taking their control voltage from the output signal, which may have already been processed by the attenuation mechanism. This means there's always a little bit of a lag and the slopes are different.

Some people feel that feed-back comps are more "musical". Many "classic" comps, Neves for instance, are feed-back. There are some current hardware comps which let you choose which you prefer. I believe this is what the API 2500 does when you select "old" or "new" compression type. The Portico comp lets you choose explicitly between feed-back or feed-forward.

A terminological point to be aware of is that software comps can be "look-ahead", which means -- I think -- that they can look at more of the incoming wave form than merely the current peak before deciding what processing to use. This is different from either "feed-forward" or "feed-back".

Hope this helps.

[AShah]

Originally Posted by gwailoh

I hope that someone who is more expert than I will correct this if I'm wrong.

Feed-forward compressors work by taking their control voltage from the input signal, resulting in a super-fast response. Feed-back comps by contrast work by taking their control voltage from the output signal, which may have already been processed by the attenuation mechanism. This means there's always a little bit of a lag and the slopes are different. Some people feel that feed-back comps are more "musical". Many "classic" comps, Neves for instance, are feed-back.

A terminological point to be aware of is that software comps can be "look-ahead", which means -- I think -- that they can look at more of the incoming wave form than merely the current peak before deciding what processing to use. This is different from either "feed-forward" or "feed-back".

Hope this helps.

Thanks for your response. On URS's site, and in a previous email, I was told they are 'forward-feed' desing, not forward look... exact words were ...'totally different beast'.
Would it besafe to assume, as per your post, that the attack on forward feed is faster?
My real interest is, how the character or personality of the sound will change? Is there a way to describe that? Or is it solely a matter of auditory experience?

Thank you again, for your time and insight.

~AJ