The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
What is closer to hardware, EQ's or compressors
Old 13th January 2007
  #1
Here for the gear
 

What is closer to hardware, EQ's or compressors

They have been improving with plug ins a lot these days. Which do you think are closer to hardware, the EQ' or compressor plug ins?
Old 13th January 2007
  #2
Lives for gear
 
mixerguy's Avatar
eq's
YMMV
Old 13th January 2007
  #3
Lives for gear
 
studjo's Avatar
ditto
Old 13th January 2007
  #4
According to converter design legend, Dan Lavry, mixing and EQ do pretty well as digital processes, but compression, being highly nonlinear, can produce more artifacts and aliasing error.

(That said, I have at least one compressor plug in I like pretty well.)
Old 13th January 2007
  #5
EQs absolutely, IMO.

There are some 'ok' software comps, but there are some great EQs now.

I think it's only been fairly recently that they've come around, as well. EQs even a few years ago didn't have the versatility they have now.
Old 13th January 2007
  #6
Lives for gear
 
AlexLakis's Avatar
 

Delay.
Old 13th January 2007
  #7
Lives for gear
 
azwun25's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexLakis View Post
Delay.
lol...for sure. EQ's definitely although I'm pretty happy with my UAD compressors.
Old 14th January 2007
  #8
Here for the gear
 

I would tend to agree with EQ but I must admit the UAD LA2 A and 1176 are pretty good sounding compressors
Old 14th January 2007
  #9
Gear Guru
 
RoundBadge's Avatar
Yeah EQ's.. but they still completely bite compared to the real thing..
put 8 channels through a neve 80 series then put the equivalent URS plugs across the same 8 in the DAW.
the plug in's will sound downright depressing by comparison..times 16..times 24 channels it just gets worse
most people nowadays don't have access to the good old stuff ..they happily buy the plugs completely unawares of how the real deal sounds.
Old 14th January 2007
  #10
Lives for gear
 
RusRant's Avatar
 

Quote:
most people nowadays don't have access to the good old stuff ..they happily buy the plugs completely unawares of how the real deal sounds.
I'm aware of the difference, but I can't budget 32 channels of Neve for most (very, very rarely gonna happen!) projects I am involved in. I have to make the best with what I got. Plugin EQ's are very good today. The difference really lies in the distortion characteristics of analog devices that I don't think most plugins can, or even try to simulate IMO. I have had great luck useing nice pres and analog outboard on the way in, and all plugins while mixing. But I won't kid myself that it's analog . Plugins sound different, not always better or worse, just different when used this way. The bad thing about plugins IMO is there lack of ability to add warmth thats not already present in the recording prior to using it. I have had a real difficult time trying to mix tracks that were poorly tracked while using plugins. It's a lot easier with hardware/analog devices. I do sometimes miss tape and consoles. Oh well, time marches on.....
Old 14th January 2007
  #11
11413
Guest
i dont think they'll ever model depth... or the complexities of transformers and analog tape... it's just something the molecules in the audio path do to sound

prolly the thing to do is stem everything thru a box with 22 transformers in it... at least that's my plan.
Old 14th January 2007
  #12
Lives for gear
 
Absolute's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
i dont think they'll ever model depth... or the complexities of transformers and analog tape... it's just something the molecules in the audio path do to sound

.
Its insane I even have to explain this but....

Just think about what you said for a moment in the context of history and you'll realize your wrong

You know how many times in history people have made that very same failed prediction?

The answer is ..it will sound better. There is absolutely no question about it. The sonic quality of music is so much better today. Remember, recording didnt even exist just a short time ago. We are in a new medium now. Even the new digital TV, which tout a better picture still has many flaws. The day is young.

The digital medium is not like the Hammer. Which is basically unchanged for hundreds of years. The digital word is infinite by its very definition. There is no limit. There's not a chance in the world it will not exceed tape.
Old 14th January 2007
  #13
11413
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute View Post
Its insane I even have to explain this but....

Just think about what you said for a moment in the context of history and you'll realize your wrong

You know how many times in history people have made that very same failed prediction?

The answer is ..it will sound better. There is absolutely no question about it. The sonic quality of music is so much better today. Remember, recording didnt even exist just a short time ago. We are in a new medium now. Even the new digital TV, which tout a better picture still has many flaws. The day is young.

The digital medium is not like the Hammer. Which is basically unchanged for hundreds of years. The digital word is infinite by its very definition. There is no limit. There's not a chance in the world it will not exceed tape.
what a load of ****. when the digital copy of the tape plays back it's a compromise... if you mess with it too much it turns to dust... digital has no soul.

it does NOT sound better.

the digital emporer is just now starting to wear a speedo... it'll be 100 years before it sounds like 1/2" tape. you only spew all this propaganda about digital being better because you've never experienced real audio... and film still looks better than any hdtv ever will.

imax is an improvement... speakers are getting better... but the only things good about digital are repeatability and editing ease... the tone sucks ****.
Old 14th January 2007
  #14
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
it does NOT sound better.
Yes, “it” does sound “better.” Digital music today sounds better than it did 5 years ago, which sounds better than 10 years ago, which sounds better than...etc...
Is there any question that digital will sound better 5 years in the future?

However, digital can not sound better than ½ “ tape; “better” in fact loses all meaning in this context because digital emulates tape. The closer it gets, the "better" the sound. It can never more than emulate tape, just as a copy can never be more than the original. One would not say a copy is better than the source; that doesn’t make sense.

If “better” simply refers to better sounding in general, this is an opinion. If you think the sound of tape is recording at its ultimate, then by definition, digital can never be better, not even in 1000 years.

In any case, I believe it’s just to say that Absolute’s post in no way deserved to be labeled a “load of ****.” But that’s just my opinion.
Old 14th January 2007
  #15
, love and rock n roll guys:D

Quote:
the digital emporer is just now starting to wear a speedo... it'll be 100 years before it sounds like 1/2" tape. you only spew all this propaganda about digital being better because you've never experienced real audio...
possible. now calm down, I can hear you
Old 14th January 2007
  #16
Quote:
In any case, I believe it’s just to say that Absolute’s post in no way deserved to be labeled a “load of ****.” But that’s just my opinion.
we will talk about the ****load in detail
Old 16th January 2007
  #17
11413
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnPaulJones View Post
Yes, “it” does sound “better.” Digital music today sounds better than it did 5 years ago, which sounds better than 10 years ago, which sounds better than...etc...
Is there any question that digital will sound better 5 years in the future?
"digital" sounds better than it did 5 years ago.

OK. FINE.

digital is a SUBSET of AUDIO.

digital will sound better than analog tape when it sounds better than analog tape.. "technology" is meaningless.. it either sounds better or it doesnt.

that said, the aesthetic of digital is totally different... what plays back off tape just about always sounds better than what went in... with digital you're only trying to approach duplicating exactly what went in... for pure sonics tho tape kills digital which is why i said the original post is a load of ****... that the **** is getting progressively less ****ty doesnt mean it's as good sounding as 40 year old rust on plastic.
Old 3rd April 2007
  #18
Gear Head
 
virtualsounds's Avatar
 

I believe that the most decent compressor plugin up to date is Waves SSL. Any opinion on that?
Also what do you think about guitar plugins sollutions? I have worked with bands (underground) that worked with v-amp and amplitube... I dont believe that the "air" of an analog equipment can be simulated. Any opinion on that also?
Old 4th April 2007
  #19
Here for the gear
 

digital audio recordings will probably never match up to tape as a CD will never match an LP. The nature of an analouge recording completely differs to a digital recording, but both have their applications in modern music.
Old 4th April 2007
  #20
Here for the gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 11413 View Post
"digital" sounds better than it did 5 years ago.

OK. FINE.

digital is a SUBSET of AUDIO.

digital will sound better than analog tape when it sounds better than analog tape.. "technology" is meaningless.. it either sounds better or it doesnt.

that said, the aesthetic of digital is totally different... what plays back off tape just about always sounds better than what went in... with digital you're only trying to approach duplicating exactly what went in... for pure sonics tho tape kills digital which is why i said the original post is a load of ****... that the **** is getting progressively less ****ty doesnt mean it's as good sounding as 40 year old rust on plastic.
you sound like jay - in the jay and silent bob movie - jay and silent bob stikes back with all of those '****s' hehe
Old 4th April 2007
  #21
Gear Maniac
 
Anonymatt's Avatar
 

Computers have been simulating the folding of proteins for a few years now. Software will certainly learn to mimic the nonlinearities and overall level of complexity of any analog system to whatever degree of resolution is necessary--certainly enough to fool most humans, at least the ones without implants, that is.

Oh, sure, there's a philosophical difference between phenomena we might label "simulation" or "the genuine article", but in ten years it may be something audio professionals will rarely, if ever, consider.

Maybe some guys will. I'll have better things to do. I mean, even in 2007, I almost have better things to do, but not quite.

Hey, maybe one day there'll be more lady engineers. The future's so brite.
Old 4th April 2007
  #22
Gear Maniac
 

i agree that digital is getting better.
i also agree that it will never sound completely like analog tape.
how can it? it's a very different technology, even if you can tweak it and infinitely re-arranges 0s and 1s.
do solid state amps sound like tube guitar amps? they can sound similar and get close, but they're different technologies.

i think there is ongoing and justified resentment as to how these digital audio companies market their gear/technology. there is a lot of bad and quasi-dishonest marketing going on. i heard some pretty crappy tape recorders back in the day, and there sure is a lot of pretty bad digital gear.

people should focus less on the technology being rocked and more on pressuring whatever company it is to do what they do better. better op amps, simpler circuits, better clocks, and better tape machines if they are going to make a comeback.

steven walcott
www.engine-studios.com
Old 4th April 2007
  #23
Lives for gear
 
Flying_Dutchman's Avatar
 

well....imao, digital stuff doesn´t get the same, but why not using more than one plug-into get better sounding results? I mean, if you want a tube eq, why not use blue eq, for ex, combined with tube simulation or whatever.

Another thing is, will the customers realize the difference, whats´going on in 10 years , when all this mp3 listening guys willbe at the record companies? I don´t know....

Another fact, as mentioned earlier in this thread, is that the digital domain gets better, whta will be in 10 years, nobody knows

best regards
Old 5th April 2007
  #24
Lives for gear
 
The MPCist's Avatar
 

Plugins are just a totally different set of tools... You can't go by the same eq points and boost/cut amounts... it's nowhere similar. The only way to use em is to just twist away and listen--it's harder to get stuff sounding good on plugins but it just takes some extra time and effort (it also might be a brainwash technique--the more you hear the more it's ok).
Old 5th April 2007
  #25
11413
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by The MPCist View Post
it also might be a brainwash technique--the more you hear the more it's ok).
i like to tweak away on plug EQs for an hour or so then save as and revert to the old one.... usually the change (which seems DRASTIC at the time) is about 5%... it always baffles me how little the sound changes once in the computer... to the point of comedy.

you really have to get 90% of it before it hits the A/D or you end up looking like the guy in my avatar... as i often do...

oi
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump