is cheap compressor better than none???

[bino_5150]

Cheap compressors can be cool.

I use DBX for some light peak control while I'm tracking, so I don't loose a good take to clipping. It feeds a hard limiter, and is someone does hit the limiter, the compression cushions it, so it is very transparent. This leaves me with a natural sounding signal that I can compress to taste during mixing. I must say that I like the silky smooth sound the DBX contributes to my C414.

With that said, I wouldn't try to compress really while tracking, because you are stuck with it. When you have better sounding plugs with greater flexibility as an option, it would be wise to take this path.

Now, notice I said cheap compressors can be cool. I didn't say garbage compressors can be cool. That 3630 looks good lit up in your rack, but that's about all I'd use it for: the pretty lights.

I've used many DB comps, from the cheapest to the legendary 160, and they all sound good. I wouldn't hesitate to throw a 3630 out the window and spend $150 on a quality DBX. just my opinion though...

[Bierce85]

Originally Posted by Resonant Alien

Well, there are really two reasons to use a compressor: 1) to level out transients while tracking so that you can print levels as hot as possible without overloading

In my experience this has never really paid off. There's lots of headroom with 24 bit recording and trying to max your levels while tracking really just wastes it and increases the chance of clipping. Some also feel that cheaper converters and preamps do not sound as good at those levels.

[Bassmankr]

My point of view is to use compressors at the mix stage as effects with the exception of needing a very clean tracking compressor to make up for an inconsistant musician's playing/ vocalist's mic experience. There are plenty of great cheap usable outboard compressors but the Alesis is not one of them. There are lots of good suggestions in prior threads, use search. A few of the ones with alot of positive threads are the Art Pro VLA, DBX 160x, JBL 7110, Symetrix 501, etc. just start digging in the threads! Outboard sounds different than ITB and in my opinion because compression is such a dynamic effect it will be some time before ITB compressors will sound the same. If you are not doing analog mixing and your DAW has ADC, you can ping an outboard compressor to use in the mix stage ITB.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Ironklad Audio

yea, but how much can you trust HC reviews of a cheap piece of gear?

most of the people who pick up the 3630 have probably never used another comp. before...and if they have, it was most likely another cheap POS comp.

if you took all the people who gave it decent reviews, and let them play around with some distressors or LA-2A's or something for a couple days, they'd probably trash the 3630 to no end.

Did someone say that the $100 3630 can compete with a $3000 LA2A here? (And don't forget you'll need two LA2As to 'compete' -- so that's $6000!)

If they did -- it sure wasn't me.

All I'm saying or have said is that the 3630 is probably the most full featured compressor around for the money it costs (need I repeat 100 dollars) and as such could be considered a decent deal for the money.

Now, would someone be better off buying an RNC (to pull a cheap compressor out of thin air) for about double the money if they can afford it? Or maybe one of those ART starved voltage tube Pro VLAs for a little more?

I'd probably say yeah, go for it. (Still, neither of those units has the amount of control, though they are certainly probably better liked for their sound by low end afficianadi.)

But will they get the same thing out of a 3630 that they'll get out of a compressor that, in essence, costs SIXTY TIMES as much?

I'm thinkin' probably not.


See if you can guess what else I'm thinkin', ace...



BTW... in case anyone was distracted by this annoying sidebar dialog, I'm part of the plug in compressor contingent here -- I think the OP should avoid tracking with compression, especially cheap compression; unless you know precisely what you want and what you're doing when you're tracking digitally, I think it's best to avoid compressing on the way in. (As I indicated in my first post.)

[bino_5150]

No need to take it to the LA2A extreme here ... I mean lets be real, the 3630 compared to ANYTHING.

You can get a great sounding quality DBX for about $150, or spend slightly less on a piece of crap gear that will actually degrade your audio instead of helping it.

I have had great success with the DBX 266XL as a tracking compressor. It was $150, and I can not think of one single complaint about it. It is quiet and smooth, fully adjustable, and sounds *CLEAN*... unlike that 3630. This has all of the features of the 3630, except is doesn't sound like crap!

For $99 you can get the less flexible but better sounding PreSonus Comp16.

for $150, you can like I said get the DBX, or the Samson SCOM 4 channel (this is what I use on my live rig for my wireless mics).

For $200, there is the DBX 166XL or the BBE Maxxcom (a pretty good limiter).

I would however stay away from any tube gear in this price range. But there is a LOT of ground to cover between the LA2A and the 3630...

Hell, I would buy a Behringer compressor ($200) before the 3630...

I'm actually looking at an SM Pro Audio OC8 8 channel optical compressor to follow the 8 channel API clone pre-amp for tracking drums. That's only $240.

When tracking, though, compression should be very light. That's what I recommend anyway. Just to prevent losing good takes to clipping while maintaining a good signal to noise ratio.

[theblue1]

bino

Looks like you're a lot more on top of the low end compressor thing that I ever was (or likely ever will be).

I will defer to your more thoroughly formed opinions.

Needless to say, I don't have nearly as many problems comparing a unit that only costs 50% more -- as opposed to one -- er, two for stereo -- that cost 5900% more.


Of course, let's not forget that I allowed as how he'd likely be better off spending up to get a RNC or other somewhat more expensive low end compressor -- so, you know... And, of course, I was among those who suggested not tracking with compression in the first place unless he knows precisely what he's going for and how to get it.

[bino_5150]

Originally Posted by Bierce85

In my experience this has never really paid off. There's lots of headroom with 24 bit recording and trying to max your levels while tracking really just wastes it and increases the chance of clipping. Some also feel that cheaper converters and preamps do not sound as good at those levels.

Actually, light compression for peak control is a very good technique if done properly. It's great when you have a vocalist or instrument that delivers a very dynamic performance and you want protection from clipping while maintaining your noise floor and the dynamics of the performance.

It also doesn't squash the signal as much to the point where it's noticeable.

When I spit a verse, 80% may never even hit the compressor, but that other 20% that crossed the threshold, 5% of that may have been bad clipping. The only part of the signal affected is the loudest part, so you do not lose the dynamic range of the rest of the recording.

My compressor feeds a hard limiter, so softening it up before the limiter makes the limiter more transparent if the signal should crash.

You don't try to crush the signal coming in... Leave the heavy compression for the mix.

[Ironklad Audio]

ok, well, maybe an LA-2A wasn't the best thing to bring up as a comparison...but i'm just saying - people who like the 3630 are probably people who haven't used better. i sure as hell can't afford LA-2A's, but i have used them and other high-end compressors before, and as such know what a "good" comp. sounds like, compared to a total crap one.

[theblue1]

Originally Posted by Ironklad Audio

ok, well, maybe an LA-2A wasn't the best thing to bring up as a comparison...but i'm just saying - people who like the 3630 are probably people who haven't used better. i sure as hell can't afford LA-2A's, but i have used them and other high-end compressors before, and as such know what a "good" comp. sounds like, compared to a total crap one.

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't seem to be in a position to consider an LA-2A -- nor was he even asking about buying any new hardware.

But if he should later post about how he wants to spend $6,000 on a pair of nice compressors, I trust you'll be there for him with your informed opinion.




BTW... has it ever occurred to you that someone might 'like' a given unit in the context of its price range? That they may well have used better compressors and would, if they had a chance, own those instead, but are limited by economic realities to the tools they can afford. I started engineering in the early 80s and, while I never worked in million dollar studios, I definitely was able to work with some excellent gear. Unfortunately, when it came time to supply my own small 16 track project studio, compromises were necessary.

Now, as our much more on-point and well-connected friend, bino, suggested above, the bottom of the hardware compressor market appears to have evolved and there are now a number of options. But when I bought my 3630 (which, I will point out, once again, I have not used in a nuymber of years), it was the only unit around it its price range. (It was also, I'll add, a "throw-in," since I was at the same time buying a piece of gear that was "hot" at the time and so, price-protected by the manufacturer. So the vendor gave me a 'package' deal that included the 3630.) The 3630 has, also, over the years, received entirely decent reviews in recording pubs. Why? It's certainly no LA-2A, right? Because it was considered by the reviewers, at the time, a good deal for the money.

Again, the market has evolved and, as bino suggests, there may well be better choices in today's market, even in that bargain basement price range.

[AndrewsLaneRec.]

yeah. 3630's are pretty awful... plus they use that stupid wall wart xfmr... trade it in... at least get a dbx 166XL, 1066... whatever... even a 266xl

[Bierce85]

Originally Posted by bino_5150

Actually, light compression for peak control is a very good technique if done properly. It's great when you have a vocalist or instrument that delivers a very dynamic performance and you want protection from clipping while maintaining your noise floor and the dynamics of the performance.

I totally agree, especially if it's something you know you're going to compress in the mix anyway. I'm just saying compression for the soul purpose of having the signal recorded as close to full scale as possible is silly and usually makes tracks harder to mix later on. I'm not sure why, it just does. YMMV of course...

[kragg]

Hi

I used to record analogue synths and analogue drum machines to my computer, and i'd like to record the take as close possible as what i want to hear in the end.

This is the reason why i'm thinking about buying a cheap but decent hardware comp :
1- to limit some peaks before the soundcard ;
2 - to already have a hint of the sound i'll be able to reach later more more in depth with plugins (i mean : subtle, transparent or pumping soudn, etc) ;
3- maybe, to give some coloration to the signal ;

I don't want a gritty lofi comp (i already have 2 of them for some artifact generation needs), and i have a 150-300$ budget.


So i have 2 questions :

- In that price range, will i find a product which will give me good results, and make worthy the use of a hardware rack (despite the fact that i like to have my hands on real knobs, and that i like to apply compression while tracking more than after having recorded the take) ?

- Whic compressor/limiter would you advice me, to put between my mixer and my soundcard, for individual takes of basses and beats (or even sometimes all together) ?



This is what comes to my mind so far :

1 - a used Drawmer MX-30 (few parameters, mostly to be used as a limiter) ;

2- an Art Pro VLA II : at that price range, will the tube sound be worthwhile ? Will it be good for beats, basses and full mixes (at subtle settings) ?

3- the FMR RNC has very good reviews everywhere, but it seems better for accoustic takes, voices, and not so good at compressing basses and beats : is it common to many cheap compressor ? Or should i try another product ?

4- the Samson S-com Plus : i fear a little bit the "too many features at a too low price" paradigm, and would have avoided this one if Sound on Sound didn't made a good review of it... If not pushed too hard, for very cheap, would it act as a rather clean limiter / level booster ?

[bino_5150]

dude, honestly, for the price point that you have with that list there, just get a DBX...

And always fear cheaply priced tube gear... they usually sound like ass....

[Bassmankr]

Don't know if I'm chiming in too late with an answer for you, the Samson S Com is the same as the Behringer, just a different logo on the unit (look at the knobs and screen layout) and I'd look for something else. There seems to be 2 camps here on this board about cheap compressors. One group won't touch anything under $1K maybe even $1.5K and the other camp says there are plenty of cheap units that are usable. I'm in the former camp. How many big name studios have a DBX 160X in their racks (like all of them LOL) and due to their popularity their prices have doubled on ebay so someone is buying them. Will a DBX 160X change the sound of what you put in it YES and that's the point. There are plenty other examples of usable compressors in the used $100 to $200 per channel range just look up some of the threads like "Low End Gold" and such. The main thing with compressors and especially cheap compressors is they will add color so I think it's best to view them as an EFFECT best used at mixdown. There are very few pristine/transparent/super clean compressors, and even fewer in the cheap catagory (maybe an Aphex 651 with the Jim Williams mod would be the best example of that). Seems to me the most popular high end compressors (over $1K) have a very pronounced color 1176/LA2A/Distressor and that's what makes them desirable, we like how they change the sound. Do some thread reading and pick a used cheap compressor to do some learning on. You may keep it forever or move on to bigger and better but the best way to understand all of this is with your own experience and ears without taking out a loan.

[kragg]

thanks for the replies !

[TheTool]

I forgot who made it, but theres actually a plugin that models the 3630.

haha.

[firby]

Not a fan of the 3630 here. It was the compressor that I learned on though and some people use them to grit up tracks nicely (this happens a bit in dance music I hear). Having all of the parameters on that box does not a worthy compressor make. I turned knobs on that box and often heard no change at all in the sound.

However, a DBX 163x will stomp that box with just a slider. A Behringer composer is still better than a 3630. A symetrix 501 kills a 3630, Valley people dynamite absolutely annhiliates a 3630, MXR dual limiter the same thing.

If you get a cheap unit then at least get a cheap unit with pedigree. I am above waisting time on selecting the 'right' 200 dollar compressor. It has already been done.

Remember, its about how the box compresses not about the knobs and lights.

[uncle duncan]

I would suggest that using cheap compressors for tracking is a really good way to make your recordings sound like crap. As an experiment, try tracking something with, and then without a cheap compressor. Compare playback. The result will be obvious: cheap compressors put a blanket over your sound, much like crappy A/D conversion.

I've had a DBX 163X, 166XL, 266XL, a RNC, some behringers. They're all crap. They take a clean signal and turn it into garbage. The only compressor I use for tracking these days is the Safesound P1, and I only use it on vocals and bass. The P1 is totally transparent. There is absolutely no sound degradation whatsoever. There are better compressors for tracking guitars and drums, but they cost a heck of a lot more than a Safesound, so unless you can afford to drop a grand or two, you're better off compressing ITB.

At 24 bit, there's no reason to worry about peaks. Just record at conservative levels. Your prosumer A/D conversion is going to break up if you max your levels, so keeping your levels down gives you better sound quality, and eliminates the need for controlling peaks. Once you get ITB, something like the UAD Precision Limiter works great at controlling peaks, and you get to dial in the compression/limiting to fit the mix, something you can't do when you're tracking.

The day I stop using cheap compressors for tracking was the day my recordings really started sounding pro. But we all have to learn the hard way, so go ahead and ruin some tracks, if that's what it takes to get the message.

[bino_5150]

I don't completely agree with the above post.

There is a big difference between "cheap" and "crap". Sometimes there is the same difference between "expensive" and "good"...

There is no reason that you shouldn't be able to get a good sound out of those DBX. Everyone has their own taste though.

My point is, if you have to go with a compressor in this range, as many of us do because we don't have the budget for a rack full of $6,000 compressors, then at least get something that's tried and true. DBX is quality, and the 3630 is not. You don't have to drop a grand to get a good compressor, trust me...

The DBX has a sound that is actually sought after, and the proof is that almost every major studio has at least one in their rack. But the DBX sounds good!

I have never been into a studio that was worth anything and saw a 3630. I can't think of anyone who thinks that they sound good, although I know some people who purchased them just to mod them (google people), or like was stated, to use as an effect to degrade the sound on purpose.

If we follow uncle duncans philosophy, then none of use should ever even bother to record until we save up a couple hundred thousand dollars to buy a big SSL G console.

You just need to shop smart in this price range, that's all. There is good gear out there, you just have to look harder to find it.

[uncle duncan]

Originally Posted by bino_5150

If we follow uncle duncans philosophy, then none of use should ever even bother to record until we save up a couple hundred thousand dollars to buy a big SSL G console.

I think you misunderstood my point. I record vocals and bass through the Safesounp P1 compressor every day. It costs around $600. There is a night and day difference between the P1 and my old DBX units. The P1 is totally transparent - you can't even tell it's there, other than the fact that the levels are more consistent. However, it's sort of a one-trick pony, in the sense that it has auto-release, which works fine on vocals and bass, but doesn't work so well on more percussive instruments, so I just record everything else clean.

'Clean' is the operative word here. Getting pristine audio into your daw is how you get great sound. You can always add a UAD compressor for color ITB and then undo it if you don't like it, but you can't undo a fuzzy DBX after it's been recorded. However, a fuzzy DBX might be perfect for taming a bright vocal mic going through a clean preamp, so as long as you utilize the DBX as a color - a way to degrade the sound for artistic purposes - then do your thing. But if you're using it for the purpose of controlling levels, you're degrading the sound in the process, something you should be aware of before you commit the sound to the DAW.

[bino_5150]

I'm with you, but "clean" is also relative...

Here is the difference: every and I mean EVERY piece of analog equipment has a sound of it's own, be it a mic, a pre, a compressor, amplifier, or whatever... Even the speaker itself that you are listening to the recording on. No matter how transparent it is, it still colors the sound in some way. On your compressor, it may just be harder to hear. Some people like this quality, while others are trying to create a specific sound.

Now, knowing that up-front, a lot of people buy gear because it has "that sound". People don't use SSL compressors, API preamps, or even your vintage modeled plug-ins because they are transparent; they want "that sound"... Most compressors, mics, or preamps in the upper price range are not transparent at all; they usually have a very distinct and sought after signature sound.

My DBX compressor, which just happens to be reasonably priced, has a sound that is very desirable to many engineers and producers worldwide, from project home studios to major label multi-million dollar studios. The 160 is a legend, it's been around forever, and the DBX sound is a staple in the recording world still to this day.

The difference between the DBX and the 3630 is that with the 3630, I haven't met a rational person that actually wants "that sound"... other than maybe as an effect to grit up an otherwise sterile recording, such as a bass synth or something. Basically, it is more of an effect box than an actual compressor.

Just because you can hear the DBX does not altogether make it bad. As a matter of fact, that's why I bought it. I almost wonder if your DBX wasn't malfunctioning, as I have never experienced a fuzzy or dull sound from any of my units. It does however have a very silky smooth presence that compliments the aggressiveness of my AKG C414 B XLII. I wouldn't consider it degrading the sound any more than I would consider that SSL G series compressor as degrading the sound. It's just adding it's flavor, keeping things from sounding overly sterile, as is the case with many 100% ITB records. I would put one of my recordings up against anything else on the radio.


As a matter of fact, I used my DBX compressor on Layzie Bone's vocals. Not that I had to go the cheap route, because I hit the whole mix with the SSL compressor, but the point is I used the DBX on Layzie, and I promise you it wasn't a crap recording!

[uncle duncan]

I was talking about the cheap DBX compressors - the 166, 266, 163. The 160 is more of a pro piece of gear, with a list price of $600 for a single channel unit. But it is all relative, as you say. I never even thought about sound quality until I upgraded my A/D convertors, at which point the sound degradation caused by various pieces of analog gear became quite obvious.

It's funny how these threads spur creative thinking. Next time I'm doing a vocal that's sounding a little too crisp, I'll run it through my old 160X. Normally, I choose a fuzzier (neve-ish) preamp for this task, but the 160X would probably be a great choice for an alternative color.

[basstracker7769]

You want a cheap compressor to track with ?
get a Original ART leveler any one really
Single channel
Dual
Or Pro VLA
change the tubes if u like
and honestly it does a great job

[triez]

No plug-in compressor in the world is going to stop your converters from clipping on the way in.

[Audio Hombre]

i had this old yamaha compressor once but damned if i can remember the name. noisey and it was mainly for live use i think, but there was this one highly colored squash thing it could do that i couldn't replicate with anything else. i think i paid $80 for it used. 3630's might as well be made by behringer. they're hideous but we found use for them on drum machines a couple of times.

[aussie_techie]

Originally Posted by triez

No plug-in compressor in the world is going to stop your converters from clipping on the way in.

recording at lower levels will

modern converters have better dynamic range than even the most uneven performers or for that matter your ears, so why would it be an issue at all?

[NuClone]

In my opinion, even a cheap compressor like the Alesis 3630 is good for hands on learning; mousing is just not like turning real knobs... and for the money :), I like the Tapco SQ-2 with op amp upgrades.

An interesting observation is that many "budget" and more expensive compressors share THAT VCA's and other components. The Alesis 3630 revision D has both THAT VCA's and RMS level detectors. For example, the dbx 163A over easy compressor uses the same VCA. So, I'm curious, can a fellow hear the difference between say a dbx 266XL and an Alesis 3630 revision D in a blind comparison?

[triez]

Originally Posted by aussie_techie

recording at lower levels will

modern converters have better dynamic range than even the most uneven performers or for that matter your ears, so why would it be an issue at all?

I spent several years recording an operatic vocalist doing rock songs, and there is no way possible that she could be recorded without a limiter, her range was enormous and she used it all.

Also, recording live drums, percussion and acoustic guitar can get furry from transient clipping.

[moracspace]

Compression is a tool to control levels or dynamic or undynamic passes.Not an effect,by to todays standards most would think its an effect.
Ride the fader and save up your duckets