Login / Register
 
Plugin compressors sound hazy compared to hardware
Closed
Subscribe
#2551
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2551
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,165

Murray is offline
Has anyone noticed how whenever the discussion is between hardware and plugins,

"it's not the gear, it's the skill!"

but when it's plugins against plugins, there are these vast and crucial differences?

#2552
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2552
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Even worse, when it's plugin against plugin it's COMPLETE radiosilence, no one dares to make a judgement call on Grey v/s Steinberg Vintage Compressor v/s NI Supercharger

so that's settled
We also found agreement that the API2500 can't be modelled very convincing at this time.....

progress is being made

now everyone listen carefully to Stevens original file again (the distortion is muffled away), brighten it up a bit (2dB @ 8k and 50hz) put an M/S matrix on it and get it to -11RMS dBFS... we talk again then....
#2553
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2553
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 793

bogosort is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Ah. Personally Im not convinced its just distortions and saturations from components like transformers creating the differences in analogue and digital compressors.

And even when modelled - personally I dont like the tone of the modelled 'DNA' which is why I sold VCC and VTM - and generally why Ive preferred my compressor over VBC in my shoot-outs. If we look at the analyser plots of many recent plugin models - they show harmonic distortions - so technically - they are producing 'mojo' processed ITB.

Im not sure Ive seen anyone suggesting mojo cant be made in digital - but I suspect anyone saying that may have been stating a personal dislike of the simulated mojo available in plugins now...or perhaps even referring to something they hear but cannot technically explain.

Being able to technically explain something doesnt mean you cannot discuss it or hear it.
Valid points, SWAN, but if it's not distortion/saturation, then what is it? Whatever mojo is, it has to be caused by physical means, right? The only other possibilities are that it doesn't exist or that it is literally magical.

Everyone's different, but when I'm confronted with something that must be either illusion or genuine magic, I assume it's an illusion.

Of course, the more likely situation is that whatever this mojo thing is, it is caused by actual, quantifiable physical processes. And if these physical processes can be measured in say, the API 2500 but not the dbx 166, then suddenly we know what they are. And if we know what they are, then we can create them in DSP.

I know you and many others are more concerned with what is actual than what is possible, and I can't speak to the actual (I'm not a DSP engineer, nor have I spoken with plugin designers), but the underlying current in every single post in this thread is whether analog sounds different than digital because of the nature of analog vs the nature of digital. I'm asking you to consider with clear mind the previous three paragraphs in the context of the analog vs digital thing. Whatever mojo is, it's not an analog thing, it's a process thing. And processes are exactly what DSP can do really well. Maybe plugin makers have yet to figure out the specific processes that make you smile, but that isn't digital's fault. On the contrary, maybe you should become a DSP designer and show us all how it should be done.
2
#2554
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2554
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,546

SWAN808 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Slate View Post
What do you think does create the differences? Have you any technical data?

We have four years worth, and I can tell you that distortion, noise, crosstalk, phase distortion, and dynamic frequency response create a piece of gear's 'sound'.

SWAN, what analog compressors do you use? What did you compare the VBC to?

Cheers
Steven
One observation is I have totally clean compressors which in my opinion still sound similar to other plugins with 'DNA'. I do think VBC sounds good for a plugin and is among the best - but I dont feel that the difference is the same between a clean compressor and VBC - and a hardware unit. Hence not being convinced its as simple as 'clean compressor + DNA' = case closed.

Another point. That data you have - distortion, noise, crosstalk, phase distortion and dynamic freq response. They are measured from analogue gear right? Are you certain the resultant simulated variations of those artifacts turn out the same as those in the analogue domain?

I dont know the technical reasons for this - but I do know that things in theory are not always borne out in practice.

Ive been comparing VBC to my drawmer 1969. Different units but I can get very similar with Grey + 40% Mu...note for me the accuracy of the emulation is not important in my tests - which I prefer the sound of is.
__________________
For Sale: UVI Urban Suite $125!!!
#2555
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2555
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,135

Send a message via Skype™ to UnderTow
UnderTow is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
RavenMixDry_AM24MS were talking about right?
No, we were talking about the other master, RavenMixDry_AM24. There is serious unflattering distortion throughout the whole master. This has nothing to do with mojo or anything like that or even taste. It sounds broken. It gets worse later in the file. Listen from 2:50 onwards...

Alistair
__________________
Alistair Johnston - TV & Film Post, Mastering, Sound Design
--
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool" -- Richard P. Feynman

"There's a sucker born every minute" -- P.T. Barnum
1
#2556
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2556
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post

Ive been comparing VBC to my drawmer 1969. Different units but I can get very similar with Grey + 40% Mu...note for me the accuracy of the emulation is not important in my tests - which I prefer the sound of is.
This! very healthy mindset, people should be more results driven, not getting hung up on a GUI, or always trying to find "analogue legacy DNA" in a plugin.

If it sounds good it is good, regardless of GUI or marketing story.
Steven's VBCs are GOOD, but nothing special compared with current stock plugins.
1
#2557
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2557
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,165

Murray is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post

I know you and many others are more concerned with what is actual than what is possible, and I can't speak to the actual (I'm not a DSP engineer, nor have I spoken with plugin designers)
The whole thread is based on "actual", not "possible", isn't it?

I would think people are concerned with the actual because they are spending their actual money and making actual recordings now, not waiting for some magical time in the future.

As far as what "mojo" is, apparently Slate plugins have some sort of magical low end and midrange fairy dust mojo that other plugins don't.
#2558
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2558
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
No, we were talking about the other master, RavenMixDry_AM24. There is serious unflattering distortion throughout the whole master. This has nothing to do with mojo or anything like that or even taste. It sounds broken. It gets worse later in the file. Listen from 2:50 onwards...

Alistair
where, take one sybil and i'll show you it's nothing more than that's already there. Did you listen to Steven's Original file at all? I'll do a version without EQ, you tell me if you think it's gone, or masked
#2559
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2559
Slate Pro Audio / Slate Digital
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,633

Steven Slate is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
Even worse, when it's plugin against plugin it's COMPLETE radiosilence, no one dares to make a judgement call on Grey v/s Steinberg Vintage Compressor v/s NI Supercharger

.
Hi, appears you missed my post. Here it is, addressed to you again:

Ok, so I think I've solved the problem here. Unfortunately, it will lead us to another issue with your credibility.

You claim that your files using the Steinberg Vintage Compressor and the NI Supercharger Compressor sound the same to my VBC.

Well first of all, based on your guesses, you don't seem to be certain which of the files that I posted ARE the VBC's FG-GREY.

Next, I just took a listen to your RAVEN mixes using the Steinberg Vintage Compressor and the NI Supercharger. I compared them to BOTH the SSL compressed mix and the VBC FG-Grey compressed mix. If you consider these to be VERY CLOSE, then I would respectfully suggest that you improve your monitoring.

The NI Supercharger has a completely different frequency response, and a lot less low end. The kick is much thinner than both of my examples, and there is clearly more top end in the Supercharger which is very audible on the vocal. The Supercharger has less thump and more sheen. I didn't mind it, but I certainly missed all the low end and midrange mojo from my examples. Very different.

But not as different as the Steinberg Vintage Compressor. Compared to my examples, this is very pumpy, and the kick drum really squashes the entire mids every time it plays, making a weird affect on the vocal and guitars. The upper mids are pretty mangled.. this is not a pretty sounding buss compressor. This is not even in the same ballpark as my examples.

So if you believe that these two plugin compressors sound like the VBC, then we shall stop any correspondence right now because we are hearing vastly different things.

Cheers,
Steven
__________________
Steven Slate

www.slatedigital.com
www.stevenslatedrums.com
www.slateproaudio.com
SLATE SUPPORT:
www.slatedigital.com/support

I DO NOT CHECK PM's! Please EMAIL ME instead NON TECH SUPPORT Questions to slate@stevenslate.com

Follow us @ www.twitter.com/slateproaudio
2
#2560
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2560
Slate Pro Audio / Slate Digital
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,633

Steven Slate is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
Has anyone noticed how whenever the discussion is between hardware and plugins,

"it's not the gear, it's the skill!"

but when it's plugins against plugins, there are these vast and crucial differences?

Hi Murray, did you make this theory up or are people saying it? I can't find anyone saying that. Skill is skill, and lack of skill is just that, a lack of skill. Whether you are using hardware software or noware, you need skill to make stuff sound good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post

Ive been comparing VBC to my drawmer 1969. Different units but I can get very similar with Grey + 40% Mu...note for me the accuracy of the emulation is not important in my tests - which I prefer the sound of is.
The 1969 is a VERY colorful unit for sure, and has a unique sounding grab (I owned one several years ago). I'm confident however, that its exact sound can be modeled in digital. For reference, could you process the RAVEN dry mix with your favorite setting?

Cheers,
Steven
1
#2561
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2561
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
here you go:
still distorted?
Attached Files
File Type: wav RavenMixDry_noEQ.wav (9.03 MB, 11 views)
#2562
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2562
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 793

bogosort is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
The whole thread is based on "actual", not "possible", isn't it?
You keep threatening to leave, what gives? Too entertaining for ya to stay away, I guess. In any case, you're subtle mind can surely understand the difference between speaking from my perspective (I own four or so plugins) and what is actually out there. That I address the general does not reduce its applicability to the specific.

Go watch some car wrecks on youtube or something.
4
#2563
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2563
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Hmmm Steven, so now we enter subjective territory.
Do you feel like picking them out in a blind test?
I'll work just a little bit more on the settings and post you 4 sets which has your files already posted and some Vintagecompressor and Supercharger slipped in?

Can so the same test as you did 3 days back? i've got your files already.
The reason why I've chosen the brightest files of your test is because when I had my SSL Superanalogue it did a lot of things, but it didn't brighten up tracks, I could be wrong there, or my or your unit are broken I don't know my unit has been sold nealy a year ago, since i got my NAIL. so had to settle with a trip on memory lane

To be completely honest about your test:
heard 4/4 differences
1A/2A/3A/4B sounded a bit "better" overall, but were just a bit too bright to my liking compared to the source file and the bass was more "pronounced" but less dense/weight.
Hence I guessed that the opposite would have been the hardware (1B/2B/3B/4A) but then again maybe I just liked Grey better, who knows?
All I know for sure so far is that i could seperate all files consistently via WinABX, but yes might have found Grey more appealing, again who knows...

All I did with VintageCompressor and NI Supercharger (I just took the "rock" preset on both) was to provoke a discussion, which has been proven now everyone avoided as the plague. I didn't even compare just dumped the files on there see who bites, no one did

To be honest, not sure how close i can make them to match, might give that another go. would you be up for a blind test though?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Slate View Post
Hi, appears you missed my post. Here it is, addressed to you again:

Ok, so I think I've solved the problem here. Unfortunately, it will lead us to another issue with your credibility.

You claim that your files using the Steinberg Vintage Compressor and the NI Supercharger Compressor sound the same to my VBC.

Well first of all, based on your guesses, you don't seem to be certain which of the files that I posted ARE the VBC's FG-GREY.

Next, I just took a listen to your RAVEN mixes using the Steinberg Vintage Compressor and the NI Supercharger. I compared them to BOTH the SSL compressed mix and the VBC FG-Grey compressed mix. If you consider these to be VERY CLOSE, then I would respectfully suggest that you improve your monitoring.

The NI Supercharger has a completely different frequency response, and a lot less low end. The kick is much thinner than both of my examples, and there is clearly more top end in the Supercharger which is very audible on the vocal. The Supercharger has less thump and more sheen. I didn't mind it, but I certainly missed all the low end and midrange mojo from my examples. Very different.

But not as different as the Steinberg Vintage Compressor. Compared to my examples, this is very pumpy, and the kick drum really squashes the entire mids every time it plays, making a weird affect on the vocal and guitars. The upper mids are pretty mangled.. this is not a pretty sounding buss compressor. This is not even in the same ballpark as my examples.

So if you believe that these two plugin compressors sound like the VBC, then we shall stop any correspondence right now because we are hearing vastly different things.

Cheers,
Steven
#2564
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2564
Lives for gear
 
UnderTow's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: the Netherlands
Posts: 6,135

Send a message via Skype™ to UnderTow
UnderTow is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post
here you go:
still distorted?
On a quick listen it seems to be gone but I don't think it was the EQ. Maybe the same problem as with your original MS file?

Alistair
#2565
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2565
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 557

Oden is offline
It seems like more or less two conclusions have been reached here:

1) Digital does not have any magical "Hazyness" or other such thing, nor does analog have a magic vibe. Most digital compressors still alias a bit according to the plugin analysis thread, this will get better as CPUs get more powerful.

2) While there is no magic differences between these two mediums, each compressor is still different. So use whatever you think suits your sound.
1
#2566
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2566
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,546

SWAN808 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post
Valid points, SWAN, but if it's not distortion/saturation, then what is it? Whatever mojo is, it has to be caused by physical means, right? The only other possibilities are that it doesn't exist or that it is literally magical.
yes but Im not continuing this concept of mojo - I dont think its useful. I think you are using it as a vehicle to make your point...I merely paid lip service to it as a way of describing tonal and harmonic colour...

Quote:
Of course, the more likely situation is that whatever this mojo thing is, it is caused by actual, quantifiable physical processes. And if these physical processes can be measured in say, the API 2500 but not the dbx 166, then suddenly we know what they are. And if we know what they are, then we can create them in DSP.
If you have heard of Acustica Audio Nebula - they have a type of sampling technology which is able to sample saturation to various degrees. There is a developer who has (with varying success) sampled an API 2500 - including programs specifically of the line amp being pushed. I purchased this program and can attest to it adding some thickness and harmonics. I cant say how accurate the program in Nebula is but its there to my ears-just an aside.

Quote:
I know you and many others are more concerned with what is actual than what is possible, and I can't speak to the actual (I'm not a DSP engineer, nor have I spoken with plugin designers), but the underlying current in every single post in this thread is whether analog sounds different than digital because of the nature of analog vs the nature of digital.
Actually - I really dont think I agree with you here. Ive noticed that is how you interpreted a lot of the posts-but Im not sure I agree with the idea everyones saying there is a fundamental difference or it cant be simulated. I think thats in your head! I dont know if that is because you have studied all of this, but in the first post you read of mine - and responded rather strongly - you actually misread what I was saying over this exact issue. You assumed I was saying it wasnt possible - when I didnt say that at all. I gave some speculative reasons why current models might sound different. Sorry if this sounds strong - but you seem a bit obsessed about explaining to me that its possible.

To be honest - I am interested in theory and the possibility as an aside for chatting - but Im a musician first - and my main concern is the end result. Something I like the sound of.

Quote:
I'm asking you to consider with clear mind the previous three paragraphs in the context of the analog vs digital thing. Whatever mojo is, it's not an analog thing, it's a process thing. And processes are exactly what DSP can do really well. Maybe plugin makers have yet to figure out the specific processes that make you smile, but that isn't digital's fault. On the contrary, maybe you should become a DSP designer and show us all how it should be done.
God you dont half bang on trying to make your point dont you! Why you are insisting I consider the concept of 'mojo' -when I never used the term?!

Its possible in DSP - I get it!!!!








Now can I go back to what I hear now in the real world?
#2567
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2567
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
On a quick listen it seems to be gone but I don't think it was the EQ. Maybe the same problem as with your original MS file?

Alistair
not sure, I'll do some more runs tomorrow skipping components then if you want you can tell me when it's gone.
i mean I hear the crackles and pops and sibbilants of the singer, but not new ones compared to the ones which are already in the file. or are you talking about a "crunch sheen" over the file which you can't hear on the original file?
#2568
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2568
Lives for gear
 
bogosort's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 793

bogosort is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
God you dont half bang on trying to make your point dont you! Why you are insisting I consider the concept of 'mojo' -when I never used the term?!
My bad, SWAN! Sorry if I lumped you into the mojo crowd (again).
#2569
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2569
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,546

SWAN808 is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Slate View Post
The 1969 is a VERY colorful unit for sure, and has a unique sounding grab (I owned one several years ago). I'm confident however, that its exact sound can be modeled in digital. For reference, could you process the RAVEN dry mix with your favorite setting?

Cheers,
Steven
I dont find it to be that colourful unless you push the tube output...it has a bit of a high freq softening...it does have a certain grab I'll agree. Im not even sure if Im gonna keep it tbh.

I know you are confident if can be modelled - thats no suprise! Your confidence - and bogosort theory - is great but it just means a sort of nebulous future potential...that is handy for people arguing for the legitimacy of plugins right now...

Stand by Ill look at doing that file...
#2570
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2570
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,165

Murray is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Slate View Post
Hi Murray, did you make this theory up or are people saying it? I can't find anyone saying that. Skill is skill, and lack of skill is just that, a lack of skill. Whether you are using hardware software or noware, you need skill to make stuff sound good.
Yes, skill is skill, no matter what plugins you use.

You don't need special plugins.

Seems obvious there is a goal for some in this thread to suggest you don't need special expensive hardware, you just need skill, but when discussing solely plugins, the "you just need skill" mantra disappears.

That's my observation.
#2571
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2571
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,165

Murray is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogosort View Post

Go watch some car wrecks on youtube or something.
Your posts are enough of a car wreck for me at this point.

I'll do what I want and say what I want, as you and every other "expert" continues to do.

If you don't like it, that's really too bad, isn't it?
#2572
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2572
Slate Pro Audio / Slate Digital
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,633

Steven Slate is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analogue Mastering View Post

All I did with VintageCompressor and NI Supercharger (I just took the "rock" preset on both) was to provoke a discussion, which has been proven now everyone avoided as the plague. I didn't even compare just dumped the files on there see who bites, no one did

To be honest, not sure how close i can make them to match, might give that another go. would you be up for a blind test though?

Forgive me if it seems like I'm picking on you my dear friend, but your statement above is completely contradicting your previous argument. You claimed that there is no difference between VBC and stock plugins like the Cubase Vintage Compressor or the free NI Super Charger. But based on your post, there are quite DRAMATIC differences!

And NOW... you're claiming that you just used a preset, and didn't even listen to the files? So you posted them, didn't listen, and then drew conclusions?

It doesn't really add up.

SWAN, I'd be quite interested to hear the 1969. I kinda miss that unit. It definitely has a cool tone on the attack.

Cheers,
Steven
3
#2573
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2573
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
No Steven, I rendered the files and posted them, nothing serious, just seeing who bites, no one did point made...
but like I said, I can take a more serious stab if you're up for it?
#2574
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2574
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2,303

Analogue Mastering is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnderTow View Post
On a quick listen it seems to be gone but I don't think it was the EQ. Maybe the same problem as with your original MS file?

Alistair
I think it's sorted now, can you listen to the RavenMixDry_AM24MS.wav once more please?
#2575
3rd January 2014
Old 3rd January 2014
  #2575
Lives for gear
 
SWAN808's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 8,546

SWAN808 is offline
Steven Slate - can you just clarify something for me - in your OP on the Raven files you said there was -4db 'average' compression...thats quite tricky to match - can you tell me what level it was peaking on the louder files?
#2576
4th January 2014
Old 4th January 2014
  #2576
Gear nut
 
Dimmy's Avatar
 
Joined: Oct 2013
Location: Hide-outs
Posts: 130

Dimmy is offline
Quote:
Can I ask something? I'm a digital child, I've been doing things in the box all my life. One fine day when I had a little money, I bought myself 2 Distressors and an RNC, to see if it'll help me catapult my sound to some next plateau (the healthy curiosity of a Gearslut). Very quickly I started to notice ONE big difference/advantage of analog: Whichever element I compress with one of these 'real' compressors, it'll SIT there, in the mix, steady and sturdy, confidently holding its space. I never REALLY spent the time to analyze why things appear this way. I'd rather joyfully accept it -> head down -> back to work. But of course I sometimes did a little comparing with my fave plug-ins, and I always came to the same conclusion: single elements compressed similarly don't hold their space in the mix as well. I have no REAL clue what subtleties are responsible for the difference I perceive, and neither is it a big deal – it usually just means, to me, that additional tinkering and adjusting will often be required in the purely digital realm. So, my personal conclusion was/is, that .. hardware can make the job easier, but if I'd have to sell these machines today, I know I'd still be fine.

I'm not sure if I'm contributing much to the thread, especially when I'm not posting audio of what I'm talking about (I can fix some up if demanded) but I'm wondering if somebody has a similar experience (?)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray View Post
I think it's a great point.

Certainly there are aspects that are different beyond an emulation of "tone".

Seems to me there is some sort of inherent difference between even the shittiest of real guitar amps versus a fantastic rig digitally modeled, no matter how good the tone of the fantastic rig has been "captured" or imitated.

Even the crappiest of real EQs or real compressors is different than the best ones modeled.

The worst cassette tape machine is different than a digital model of it.

Obviously, many don't care about that difference, and depending on what you're doing, that difference may not "matter".

Just my opinion.
Hey Murray, I didn't mean to say it doesn't matter. To which degree it matters though is up to the end-listener's taste. Taste and how it forms is potentially another discussion to fill a thousand pages with.

My little story goes like this: When I bought the Distressors I was after a detail I had heard on a record. And I had read that the Distressors were used on the drums.

It was something about the crack of the snare on that record. I wasn't able to get this particular sound – sort of like a very pleasing texture, on top of an equally pleasing attack curve – with any combination of plugins. No doubt, the compressor only brought out what had been captured by a well-positioned mic, possibly going into an expensive pre-amp, and on top of that the drummer's awesome – yet I was convinced, still am, that the gear was responsible for bringing it out in such a beautiful way. It bugged me, I had to find out. So I bought these things, and: oh yes, I'm pleased. By the "steadiness"-factor mentioned earlier, by the subtle harmonics this particular compressor adds, by the shape of its attack and release curves, the way it feels in my hands. But also yes, I would still drop these machines without crying much in case of a total financial emergency, because – to return to the matter of 'matters' – the details moving me to invest in them might not matter to the end listener, at all. Naturally I hope I'm wrong about that.
__________________

Dimmy
#2577
4th January 2014
Old 4th January 2014
  #2577
Lives for gear
 
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,165

Murray is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimmy View Post
Hey Murray, I didn't mean to say it doesn't matter. To which degree it matters though is up to the end-listener's taste. Taste and how it forms is potentially another discussion to fill a thousand pages with.

My little story goes like this: When I bought the Distressors I was after a detail I had heard on a record. And I had read that the Distressors were used on the drums.

It was something about the crack of the snare on that record. I wasn't able to get this particular sound – sort of like a very pleasing texture, on top of an equally pleasing attack curve – with any combination of plugins. No doubt, the compressor only brought out what had been captured by a well-positioned mic, possibly going into an expensive pre-amp, and on top of that the drummer's awesome – yet I was convinced, still am, that the gear was responsible for bringing it out in such a beautiful way. It bugged me, I had to find out. So I bought these things, and: oh yes, I'm pleased. By the "steadiness"-factor mentioned earlier, by the subtle harmonics this particular compressor adds, by the shape of its attack and release curves, the way it feels in my hands. But also yes, I would still drop these machines without crying much in case of a total financial emergency, because – to return to the matter of 'matters' – the details moving me to invest in them might not matter to the end listener, at all. Naturally I hope I'm wrong about that.
Yes, agree with all you said.

And whether it matters to the end listener, well, I think it does. Or, I think it's best to think that it does. That's sort of the whole point really.

Of course, it seems like many people have the exact opposite attitude.

What's funny is, there are so many here who care about gear, talk about it all day, but seem to have the attitude that it doesn't matter to themselves or to the end listener.

For me, I actually don't really care about gear much at all. But I know what I like and what I don't like.
#2578
4th January 2014
Old 4th January 2014
  #2578
Slate Pro Audio / Slate Digital
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,633

Steven Slate is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Steven Slate - can you just clarify something for me - in your OP on the Raven files you said there was -4db 'average' compression...thats quite tricky to match - can you tell me what level it was peaking on the louder files?
I haven't touched the setting and just looked at it.. on the verse it's just past the 3db GR mark and the chorus it solidly hits the 4db mark. I can take an iphone video for you with the track playing if it will help.

Cheers,
Steven
#2579
4th January 2014
Old 4th January 2014
  #2579
Gear maniac
 
softshoe's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Location: California, US
Posts: 164

softshoe is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimmy View Post
Hey Murray, I didn't mean to say it doesn't matter. To which degree it matters though is up to the end-listener's taste. Taste and how it forms is potentially another discussion to fill a thousand pages with.

My little story goes like this: When I bought the Distressors I was after a detail I had heard on a record. And I had read that the Distressors were used on the drums.

It was something about the crack of the snare on that record. I wasn't able to get this particular sound – sort of like a very pleasing texture, on top of an equally pleasing attack curve – with any combination of plugins. No doubt, the compressor only brought out what had been captured by a well-positioned mic, possibly going into an expensive pre-amp, and on top of that the drummer's awesome – yet I was convinced, still am, that the gear was responsible for bringing it out in such a beautiful way. It bugged me, I had to find out. So I bought these things, and: oh yes, I'm pleased. By the "steadiness"-factor mentioned earlier, by the subtle harmonics this particular compressor adds, by the shape of its attack and release curves, the way it feels in my hands. But also yes, I would still drop these machines without crying much in case of a total financial emergency, because – to return to the matter of 'matters' – the details moving me to invest in them might not matter to the end listener, at all. Naturally I hope I'm wrong about that.
Dimmy, you're right. The degree it matters is very dependent on all the factors of the song including genre, musicianship, song righting, etc. A bedroom alt rock recording is going to need more work then a classical recording done at a pro studio with great mics and pres. There is also a limit to how much of a difference 3 hardware compressors will make in a mix with 80 plugins. Just like a mix with 3 plugins and 80 analog units will still sound analog. At this point in my career I can record, mix, and master without any plugins and to me the sonic difference is important, but a bad song or mixing skills is still going to sound like crap. It'll just be a smoother, warmer crap than I could have done with plugs.
#2580
4th January 2014
Old 4th January 2014
  #2580
Lives for gear
 
kennybro's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,002

kennybro is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oden View Post
...While there is no magic differences between these two mediums, each compressor is still different. So use whatever you think suits your sound.
But of course. This could be put on every page. Maybe it has been.
Closed Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook  Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter  Submit Thread to LinkedIn LinkedIn  Submit Thread to Google+ Google+ 
 
Topic:
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.