Are we close to getting plugin compressors that sound like real ones?

[ryst]

I would say if you are so concerned about modeled comps sounding exactly like their hardware counterparts, then you'll probably never be happy unless you go out and buy a bunch of the hardware comps you want software comps to sound like.

If you're ready to move forward in the digital age and embrace digital technology you can find some pretty awesome sounding plugins without worrying about how they sound compared to hardware and you can get a lot of work done and be happy.

Or, you can have a little of both.

[inthere]

Sound like the real hardware? Ummmm, no. But there are some sensational plugin compressors out there, some which sound better than hardware. Some of my favorites: Waves Renaissance Compressor, Soft Tube's CL1B, and Metric Halo's compressor.

If you know how to compress, you won't have much trouble mixing with plugins.

[Jeezo]

Multiband compressors , surround comp , deesser's are even better !!

The compression side is mastered i think , the analog sounds is where the debate is .....and not a real conceirn now we have tools like VCC , NLS , VTM rct ....to add mojo we miss...

just my 2 cents ...

[jariya]

Salut Jeezo,

My thread was, in part, a reaction to VTM...whether developers are getting close to replicating the mojo of hardware compressors. There are a lot of good plugins out there and I've purchased many of them and use them to craft my sound and mixes.

But, the question remains. And it seems (according to many who have commented here and my own personal views) that we're not quite there. Still, we should all applaud the efforts of our favorite programmers who strive to improve the art and science behind our musical tools year after year.

[Mikkel]

IMHO they are getting closer and no doubt they will get better in the years to come. However I still miss a software compressor that I can push really hard, and squeese the s*** out of my audio track, without distortion.

[Jeezo]

well try with the waves api or the ssl duende bus comp in auto release mod .....those are excellent and clean ....

I really think that the frontier isn't relevent anymore simply beacuse the last 5% missing are WAY WAY WAY worth the workflow alone !!

Number of instances
Total recall
Price
Maintenance ......ect ...

it's just a litlle harder (very little) but a mix totaly ITB can sound as good as an analog mix !! and this is the principale concern ....the question is who gonna mix

[Lilliemarck]

Originally Posted by electro

Nope. Hardware is the standard by which plugins are (and should) be measured.

The vast majority of classic records from the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s were mixed via hardware Eq, Compresson and Analog tape.

I can't agree with you unless you mean plugins emulating a specific hardware. There are so many possibilities that can come out of software that maybe never could have been done, at least not easy, with hardware. So not ALL software should be measured by some hardware standard. Sounds a little conservative.

So what if classic records where mixed via hardware in the 60s-90s? Times change and new things emerge. By your standard then maybe we should stop close miking instruments? I mean during the first half of the 1900 the vast majority of records used more ambient miking capturing the more natural timbre of the instruments. Since most instruments are designed to sound their best at a little longer distance then that should be the standard by which we record instruments right?

[Atak]

The truth is hardware has come to it's end in advancement alone. Hardware will need the support of more software to keep advancing. Software has advanced greatly in just the past 10 years and still continues to.

Sent from my MOTWX435KT using Gearslutz App

[popmann]

At the end of the day the real test is if you can distinguish a digital emulation from a hardware version.

Actually not really the real world test. If you duplicate settings, they sound nothing alike...so, someone by ear has to set them to match "as best they can" for the comparison...which also speaks to the "real world test" that matters more--how quickly can you get from point A to point B. you're only testing if it can get there...and honestly, without mix context, did you just have them (try) to pick which was which? I'm not a 100% sure I could do that...but I KNOW that I can fiddle with the CLA3a and come back and fiddle more...or, I can pipe the track out to my Urei, one pass of adjustment, print and call it a day. THAT is the real world use of most nice hardware, IME. including summing mixers...including analog EQ vs digital. I agree that step one may be scientifically to prove it can get to point B, but eventually getting there isn't the only factor.

The thing is...when you're doing project based (not hourly) work..."forgiving and musical" gears is not an invest ment in clients being happy--I can get clients happy 100% ITB. But, it takes ME longer...so, effectively, I've made less money.

But, I digress...I do think the tools are there to produce professional sounding mixes in software. The examples In my sig, I challenged myself to do just that. They agreed to let me use the before and afters...and I was set to prove that when you hire me, you're not hiring my gear. They had, give or take, the same potential for sonics I did. Listen to the results. Not bad for some guys' home recordings, no?

But, that's only the beginning hurdle.

Can it be as good? (separate bit equal) Yes.
Can it match the exact sound? Sorta close...yet sorta far away. Some aspects are closer than others.
How quickly can it get to either of the first two? Epic fail. Given a desk of analog EQ...small rack of nice compressors and FX, I can get there significantly faster. Right now, the sweet spot for time/energy/money, is mixing ITB with outboard inserts/Aux FX. When I look at how much more I would have to spend for a full recall summing set up in addition...or forbid a full desk with recall...I know for a fact my clientele couldn't tell a difference. That money would be to shave off time for me.

Anyway...just pointing out that, while in a way, I think some software companies have made wonderful strides...there's still aspects severely lacking. Where will we be in 10-15 years? I can tell you that other than a handful of paradigm changing plug ins, we're not a LoT further than we were 10 years ago when I first attempted mixing in software. We've come light years in the (IMO BS) "content manipulation" capability...and very nOT far in terms of sonics.

You want to give me the set up I was mixing on then? Memory serves it was Nuendo 1.5...Waves Ren series and IK T-Racks...maybe a P3 chip? g4? yes, new vintage emus by the same companies have advanced...but, for ten years? Its obvious that not been where the focus of software companies lie. People buy "make me sound better than I am" features. New OS compatibilities. New sample instruments. Not sonics. And, when you're me, that means...for light work, I use them...but, of in one pass, I'm not getting what I need out of an EQ or reverb or compressor...patch in the hardware.

[John Suitcase]

The 'ergonomic' argument is one I find interesting!

You're saying that with outboard, you can get a sound quicker, bounce the audio out and back into the computer, including the time it takes to patch it in, etc, faster than you can insert an instance and tweak it to sound the way you want?

I agree that working with a mouse/trackpad, on one knob at a time is not great, I think this is maybe a lot of people's main problem with working ITB. There's nothing like being able to push up 10 faders at once, or grab multiple knobs to tweak simultaneously.

[Nu-tra]

Waves API 2500 is pretty dang close. I sold my hardware unit. Psp old timer is the most convincing

[GJ999x]

Originally Posted by Lilliemarck

So what if classic records where mixed via hardware in the 60s-90s? Times change and new things emerge. By your standard then maybe we should stop close miking instruments? I mean during the first half of the 1900 the vast majority of records used more ambient miking capturing the more natural timbre of the instruments. Since most instruments are designed to sound their best at a little longer distance then that should be the standard by which we record instruments right?

:D

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Gearslutz App

[popmann]

You're saying that with outboard, you can get a sound quicker, bounce the audio out and back into the computer, including the time it takes to patch it in, etc, faster than you can insert an instance and tweak it to sound the way you want?

Yes. The problem is the action of the compressors. Theyve modeled the circuit color very well, IME. Which is why the VCC/NLS stuff is working so well for me.

The reason I OWN the old La3a is because of how well it quickly sits two of the most challenging tracks to "sit" in a mix--bass and vocal. The plug in does not...with as little work. I find myself putting it on...then it doesn't work later (meaning I notice, it obviously didn't change what it's doing)...so, I tweak the levels (it's only two knobs, you know? Not a tweakers box)...again...and again...meanwhile, I can hardware insert the real one...and I will leave it live--yet not have to touch it.

I've seen (heard) really inexpensive hardware EQs and compressor rock digital ones. And visa versa. Like, if you need a fast Fairchild response...and you've got a hardware LA3a, the software will kill it. But, I'd guess that if I had a real Fairchild here, I'd hear the same kids of differences I hear with the 3a. I really like IK's Pultec...but, I don't have a real one here to compare, you know? ive had vintage 2as here for mixes, while prior to the Waves...the UA sounded like...well, NOT like it. And they still haven't updated that algorithm? One of the things that truly calls their paradigm into question for me. They redid the 76s because they heard Waves spank them.

I'm a HUGE proponent of digital emulation...in theory...it represents empowerment for musicians everywhere. But, in that passion comes the need to point out where it's currently lacking.

I would ask the OP what their motivation is in asking? If you're looking for confirmation that you have the tools you need...you do...AND they aren't equivalent to hardware. That's not completely contradictory. Do I need to next just do a mix with nothing but what is included in $75 Reaper?

[dr_Jezz]

As someone who can't compare the hardware to the multitude of software he has hands on experience of, but has followed these kind of threads pretty assiduously and noticed a distinct lack of correlation between opinions on either HW between HW users or SW between SW users, hazard the possibility that this means that opinions between users of HW and SF can hardly be used as gospel either, and are, again, down to you 'like what you like' on the whole? Apologies for the longest sentence ever. Having said that, things are likely to get better, but things right now are pretty much as good in your head as your head is likely to get without dropping a whole load of prejudice on either side. Just a thought. I've used hardware since I was a kid in terms of synths and Fx generally and I'm sooo happy with VI now. Just another repetition of an oft pronounced thought

[popmann]

Btw...one of my fave software compressors? The $20 165a...have to look up who makes it. It does that kind of Jensen sizzle air...and will "level" really well.

I have had great success with that...the IK and Waves Fairchild...the CLA76s...and the Waves API 2500.

I mostly think, though, that compression overuse is in my past. I've got a mix up right now...compressors across the whole thing?(hard) 3a AND IK Fairchild on the vocal. CLA3a on the bass group-intended as place holder until I print and free the real one, but it's working, so I probably won't mess with it. One less file to archive. But, that bass DI was also sent out to the SansAmpRBI hardware after software amp sims FAILED...anyway...2500 plug on the master, because it's almost done...pulling a few DB...and that's it. I have found that a lot my earlier "compressor abuse" was actually to send it out for the circuit sound and "funk it up", though I didn't realize it at the time...I use far less traditional compression with various distortion circuit emulations...VCC/NLS...Decapitator...MPX/VTM...result of my soul searching on what differences were in my analog mixes and digital...I used to have fixed channels of compression...now, even my decade old Akai had one on every channel...damn nice sounding, too-I've yet to find the direct software replacement.

Edit...I looked, there are a few instances of Transient Designer on the toms...which I do sometimes to reduce the ringing...and on the slide guitar solo to bring out some definition in the attack...technically dynamics processing...but, I don't think I'd have even considered a traditional compressor for any of those chores.

[_Mark]

Originally Posted by popmann

The redid the 76s because they heard Waves spank them.

So, what all did they update about it? I thought it was an argument always up in arms about who made the better 1176... never thought it to be confirmed.

I don't see how people can say "my plug-in LA2A doesn't sound like my hardware LA2A." Or, "my plug-in SSL 4000 console channel strip doesn't sound like my real console."
Well, isn't that the thing about hardware? They all have their own little flavors. One's compressor, doesn't sound just alike to another's. So, before one places the judgement of exact realism, shouldn't they be trying the modeled unit, first?

[popmann]

I've used hardware since I was a kid in terms of synths and Fx generally and I'm sooo happy with VI now. Just another repetition of an oft pronounced thought

And as a keyboard player...I Went from hardware synths...to Gigastudio...to the much more latent user mode VIs...and I'm back. VSL is all that's left for me...seeing the market go soft and be happy with it? Got me to buy a Hammond/Leslie and the first actual piano I've owned since being a kid. I have taken all my custom sound design I've done over the years and sampled it into a Kronos...which has the best EP emulations I've played...I'm done with software instruments, save VSL...and as crappy a string arranger as I am, if I could get any significant money from selling them, I would.

Different strokes.

I don't think that's the same thing though...the best software instruments sound great...as a player, though? Too much trouble at the wrong part of the process. Tracking, I need to PLAY. I can put up with computer quirks when mixing. But, having to go configuring buffers and optimizing CPU usesge in order to play an EP track? Been there, done that. Never again. First gig I did after getting the Kronos was an EP track...I strung a cable to the LA610 DI, cut some lows (Wurlitzer) with its EQ, hit record. Like 15min later I uploaded for approval. priceless.

[popmann]

Well, isn't that the thing about hardware? They all have their own little flavors. One's

Yes and no. I'm a 3a fanatic...I've had like 4 or 5 at a time here (thank you Blackbird)...for mixes...including the reissue. The circuit color is different on all of them. But, the action/function was basically the same. Except the reissue. I happened upon the most "euphonic" 3a I'd used and bought it. But, that is the stuff of nuance. The plug versus it is not...

But, sure-to some degree hardware varies...especially OLD hardware. But, that SHOULD mean that the plug in sounds like the best one they could source. Right? But, it doesn't, so that's really neither here nor there.

DEMO NLS. They modeled 32 channels of those consoles. Flip through them--that is how much analog units vary from one to the next. Nuance. Maybe important nuance...but, certainly not why hardware still bests software, all other things equal. It's like I keep reading how "every vintage mic sounds different"...while, yes, some do...I've had 4 U87i here at once that three of them I couldn't pick from each other KNOWING which was which. Serial numbers say they all spanned like 15 years...meanwhile. I've had two cheap chinese LDCs here that sounded like completely different MICS. It's all about QC. Used to be better. And it costs money. Professional audio gear (only audio gear there used to be) was made to stringent QC.

[_Mark]

Originally Posted by popmann

But, that SHOULD mean that the plug in sounds like the best one they could source. Right? But, it doesn't, so that's really neither here nor there.

How can you be so sure that the plug-in doesn't sound like the source, when you haven't tested the real unit?

[Jeezo]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

The 'ergonomic' argument is one I find interesting!

You're saying that with outboard, you can get a sound quicker, bounce the audio out and back into the computer, including the time it takes to patch it in, etc, faster than you can insert an instance and tweak it to sound the way you want?

I agree that working with a mouse/trackpad, on one knob at a time is not great, I think this is maybe a lot of people's main problem with working ITB. There's nothing like being able to push up 10 faders at once, or grab multiple knobs to tweak simultaneously.

Excellent remark , in fact , yep this is the big thing : intearraction with the hardware, and it forces you to make decisions and move on ....

When mixing , you're using your brain to create imaging (visual reperensentattion of sound in space, pshycho acoustic) , and so any interraction with your brain have an impact !!!

I heard a student telling me that when he use a plugin with a beautyfull gui , if think it sounds better !! and i said to him that , if he use a plugin that is frustrating (gui wise) , his experinece to imagingand sound at this time will not be the same !!

Same goes with hardware , the fact that you have a phisical interraction , and your brain is fully focus on sound while your touch sens focus on moving knob makes a big differnce ....

[akn0ledge]

Originally Posted by Jeezo

Excellent remark , in fact , yep this is the big thing : intearraction with the hardware, and it forces you to make decisions and move on ....

When mixing , you're using your brain to create imaging (visual reperensentattion of sound in space, pshycho acoustic) , and so any interraction with your brain have an impact !!!

I heard a student telling me that when he use a plugin with a beautyfull gui , if think it sounds better !! and i said to him that , if he use a plugin that is frustrating (gui wise) , his experinece to imagingand sound at this time will not be the same !!

Same goes with hardware , the fact that you have a phisical interraction , and your brain is fully focus on sound while your touch sens focus on moving knob makes a big differnce ....

Word

Sent from my Desire HD using Gearslutz App

[phas3d]

I think there are some things called controllers. True some aren't very ergonomic, but some aren't that bad. I use Mackie C4 and have no complains. Except sometimes when mapping is not that well implemented.

[Jeezo]

yep Phas3D , since i have this , i'm really back to enjoyement during mixing !!

And this makes a lot of difference , i even shut up my screen and mix with no visual feedabck !!

[phas3d]

Very nice!!! I use Mackie MCU Pro+C4 and it's great. The mouse thing for parameters is not that good. Specially if you need to use more than 1 at a time.

[Bunjji]

I think they should stop trying to emulate and just add some imperfection that is created from scratch.

[Jeezo]

yep but created from scratch imperfection is never like natural imperfection (specially also as we're so used to ) .....you see , it's like a human face : nothing is symetrical , and no one is identical (in principal) , the thing is like , tell somebody to create a face : he will struggle just to make new ones and to have the same "kind" of imperfection ....

But , yep in theory , i hear you

[zlaya]

My question: What does your audience (presumably "regular folks") say?

I share rough mixes of projects, and a lot of times "regular folks", that is even if they decide to mention it, say "Hey that sounds so professional". To me they are crappy, rough, mixes.

We "Audio Engineers" are a strange type, we hear things in a strange way, little minute details stick out to us, and they bother us if they are "unpleasant". Hate to break it to you, but, the regular Joe doesn't listen that way. He usually wants to be able to understand the the lyrics, enjoy the WHOLE song, and depending on how many drinks he's had, he wants "loud enough".

He doesn't care if you used a uber-expensive 1970's compressor, a plugin "clone" of it, or your DAW's bundled compressor. He can't hear the difference.

We should strive for something that sounds good, coherent, balanced, and musical, but I don't feel focus should be placed on the frankly minute difference between how a plugin vs. hardware sounds.

That being said, I wish I could afford some of the actual hardware that my plugins try to emulate. I like turning knobs and stuff.

[Jeezo]

Zlaya , what you say is fully valid , and not incompatible with what have been said before

To check my mix , i put it (not only) on my heavy tv system (onkyo hifi stuff +jbl) in the living room ...go to kitchen and cook ....without paying attention to music ...but listening to it ....like a real listener , we have to make this break and change hat ....and things jump out sometime ....

[popmann]

Originally Posted by _Mark

How can you be so sure that the plug-in doesn't sound like the source, when you haven't tested the real unit?

Except for the fact that it doesn't sound the best against the one I have cherry picked from a handful of candidates?

Of course it's all subjective, right? Who is Waves or CLA to say what's "best"? I'll have you note I don't think Chris uses his 3as on bass or vocal. His sit on guitar subs. So, different use case would want different action...testament to the 3a that it does that for him...does my vocal/bass work...you know? See below.

Btw...I chose the plug in on the mix...it was on a buss...Making printing it limiting...and so, it lost the kind of "six of one" coin toss. Same song, you couldnt have paid me to use the plug on the vocal over the hardware. But, that's what ai mean by tweaky...it's not the ergonomics of the knobs...it's the functional useability. The plug worked fine on the bass sub...not on the vocal. The hardware worked fine in both scenarios. Which is the workflow thing I'm speaking of. I go for the plugs first almost always. Why? Convenience. But, if they don't bring the goods in short time, I'm comes hardware...goods delivered. This was actually a special case because I'd pondered it aloud here...the hardware didn't being enough extra to the table to justify freezing everything feeding the sub. Normally, I'd have done what I did before posting here...insert plug...adjust...sounds good? Move on.

[emilision]

Originally Posted by John Suitcase

The 'ergonomic' argument is one I find interesting!

I agree that working with a mouse/trackpad, on one knob at a time is not great, I think this is maybe a lot of people's main problem with working ITB. There's nothing like being able to push up 10 faders at once, or grab multiple knobs to tweak simultaneously.

And the fact that the knobs are directly responsive (no lag/latency in selecting/moving), continuously variable in the case of pure analog stuff (for that exact spot) and don't jump around values erratically (well, unless they've gone dodgy)...those three make a big difference IMO...even more so with synths...