The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Pulsar Smasher modeled after the of a uniquely modified 1176 compressor FREE!
Old 6 days ago
  #121
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

I think that why most hardware people don't think software plugins compare to hardware units as most plugin developers don't understand an hardware consistency to the middle. Most stereo hardware units don't make things ultra wide but are very consistent and very careful about the middle.

This is what I stressed to Vincent at Pulsar to take care of for the MU and I thought what was missing. Again, when I got the update, they had did just that. Not sure what they did and maybe Vincent or someone from Pulsar can attest to this but, they nailed the middle feel of the hardware which brought the compressor to another level I hadn't heard before in a plugin.

I'm not sure if they did the same for this plugin as I haven't done intensive test with this like MU but, with the "All Button In" effect, you are NOT worried so much about the middle.

Just so you know, Vincent is no stranger to this. What I've gathered in the talks we've had he helped in Slates VBC, Arturia 3 compressors and much more and now Pulsar.

Very smart guys over there and incredible coder if I must say.

The next few will be incredible so, be looking out for this company!

Marc
Old 5 days ago
  #122
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
I think that why most hardware people don't think software plugins compare to hardware units as most plugin developers don't understand an hardware consistency to the middle. Most stereo hardware units don't make things ultra wide but are very consistent and very careful about the middle.

This is what I stressed to Vincent at Pulsar to take care of for the MU and I thought what was missing. Again, when I got the update, they had did just that. Not sure what they did and maybe Vincent or someone from Pulsar can attest to this but, they nailed the middle feel of the hardware which brought the compressor to another level I hadn't heard before in a plugin.

I'm not sure if they did the same for this plugin as I haven't done intensive test with this like MU but, with the "All Button In" effect, you are NOT worried so much about the middle.

Just so you know, Vincent is no stranger to this. What I've gathered in the talks we've had he helped in Slates VBC, Arturia 3 compressors and much more and now Pulsar.

Very smart guys over there and incredible coder if I must say.

The next few will be incredible so, be looking out for this company!

Marc
You just put in to words what I love about Mu and why even if I didn’t realize it. It also explains why so many soft comps feel flimsy in comparison.

I think Magic Death Eye does similar. I love it and Mu.
Old 5 days ago
  #123
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
I think that why most hardware people don't think software plugins compare to hardware units as most plugin developers don't understand an hardware consistency to the middle. Most stereo hardware units don't make things ultra wide but are very consistent and very careful about the middle.

This is what I stressed to Vincent at Pulsar to take care of for the MU and I thought what was missing. Again, when I got the update, they had did just that. Not sure what they did and maybe Vincent or someone from Pulsar can attest to this but, they nailed the middle feel of the hardware which brought the compressor to another level I hadn't heard before in a plugin.

I'm not sure if they did the same for this plugin as I haven't done intensive test with this like MU but, with the "All Button In" effect, you are NOT worried so much about the middle.

Just so you know, Vincent is no stranger to this. What I've gathered in the talks we've had he helped in Slates VBC, Arturia 3 compressors and much more and now Pulsar.

Very smart guys over there and incredible coder if I must say.

The next few will be incredible so, be looking out for this company!

Marc
That's exactly why StageOne and CenterOne are so good, you can take any plugin and give it that HW-esque space and pop. To a degree, of course, some plugins sound better than others and hence benefit more from it.

Haven't needed to use those with Mu, especially using Mu in M/S mode.

Edit: on that note, try Mu in M/S on busses for some instant width and size. Not just the mixbus. You can push it further on busses (instrument, synths etc).
Old 5 days ago
  #124
Lives for gear
 
djrustycans's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
I think that why most hardware people don't think software plugins compare to hardware units as most plugin developers don't understand an hardware consistency to the middle. Most stereo hardware units don't make things ultra wide but are very consistent and very careful about the middle.

This is what I stressed to Vincent at Pulsar to take care of for the MU and I thought what was missing. Again, when I got the update, they had did just that. Not sure what they did and maybe Vincent or someone from Pulsar can attest to this but, they nailed the middle feel of the hardware which brought the compressor to another level I hadn't heard before in a plugin.

I'm not sure if they did the same for this plugin as I haven't done intensive test with this like MU but, with the "All Button In" effect, you are NOT worried so much about the middle.

Just so you know, Vincent is no stranger to this. What I've gathered in the talks we've had he helped in Slates VBC, Arturia 3 compressors and much more and now Pulsar.

Very smart guys over there and incredible coder if I must say.

The next few will be incredible so, be looking out for this company!

Marc
Don’t want to be argumentative but in my experience, every bit of hardware I use and have used sounds bigger and also wider than the plugin alternatives! That doesn’t mean they lose their solidity in the centre however.
Old 5 days ago
  #125
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0se View Post
That's exactly why StageOne and CenterOne are so good, you can take any plugin and give it that HW-esque space and pop. To a degree, of course, some plugins sound better than others and hence benefit more from it.
I read that as you suggesting you can get some nice width by adding some StageOne or CenterOne, yes ?
If so, I read M2E as suggesting that what hardware compressors have over plugins is a strong middle, rather than width ??

Perhaps it's just too early in the morning here

UPDATE: Maybe you are talking about increasing the middle signal, particularly with CenterOne ?
Old 5 days ago
  #126
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djrustycans View Post
Don’t want to be argumentative but in my experience, every bit of hardware I use and have used sounds bigger and also wider than the plugin alternatives! That doesn’t mean they lose their solidity in the centre however.
Hey DJ, I don't take it as that at all and welcome the diversity of thought as that makes us all look at things in a different way.

With that said, I'll go off of a test I did here at GS. It was an SSL Bus Compressor test. I had about 6 or 8 plugins mixed in with the hardware bus version.
Not one person picked the hardware. The plugins kind of made the hardware sound mono'ish so people naturally went for what sounded bigger or wider.
When I did an API 2500 compressor test for someone that just got their API unit, same thing. When hitting the plugin exactly like they/you hit your hardware and then matching levels RMS wise, it's extremely hard to tell but, we all naturally go for what sounds best ala bigger sounding and in some cases, that's exactly what you are suppose to go for but, the ear can be tricked, period! I've had some known hardware people on here say after the tests, WOW, I wouldn't have picked the Waves or IK etc over the hardware.
It's not to convince or turn people away from hardware at all but just to make people aware that software is as good 'IF USED CORRECTLY" and "NOT OVER DOING IT"...That is so key and what I've found in the past years.
Hell, when I used hardware, there are mixes that I can't listen too now because I over did it. Hardware is NOT a magic piece and we all have to really learn those pieces exactly like we have to learn software.
When I came off of hardware, it was really really hard at first and I almost gave up and stayed with Hardware but, in 2001/2002 I saw where it was going and though in those days, the budgets were getting bigger and I was making more money, I knew I had to learn software in and out and these so called plugins.
Now I have to the point of making them sound like hardware and past that.

Hope that helps, Marc
Old 5 days ago
  #127
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatworld View Post
I read that as you suggesting you can get some nice width by adding some StageOne or CenterOne, yes ?
If so, I read M2E as suggesting that what hardware compressors have over plugins is a strong middle, rather than width ??

Perhaps it's just too early in the morning here

UPDATE: Maybe you are talking about increasing the middle signal, particularly with CenterOne ?
Yes. Speaking from a limited experience compared to many here, hardware comps can maintain width, add depth/glue and pop the center (and keep top to bottom sounding more free/open).

Many plugins do the opposite; they widen, which can give an instant pleasing effect, but on further listening thin things out (front to back, top to bottom) and spread the center so it's less prominent. Kinda fades back in. Plugin chains on the mixbus/master make it more obvious, I think flat sounding ITB mixes are due to over processing on the mixbus/master.

If that happens StageOne can add that extra bit of depth, and CenterOne can be used to make the center more prominent in a natural way. A little goes a long way. It won't be 1:1 with HW, but it can get you closer, especially when using great plugins (including Gullfoss on busses!).

Speaking standard stereo compression here.

I'm also tired (long day), and could have written that a lot better :¬)

Edit: Took me while to reply, Marc beat me to it, this comment summing it up nicely:

"Not one person picked the hardware. The plugins kind of made the hardware sound mono'ish so people naturally went for what sounded bigger or wider."
Old 5 days ago
  #128
Lives for gear
 
Beatworld's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0se View Post
Yes. Speaking from a limited experience compared to many here, hardware comps can maintain width, add depth/glue and pop the center (and keep top to bottom sounding more free/open).

Many plugins do the opposite; they widen, which can give an instant pleasing effect, but on further listening thin things out (front to back, top to bottom) and spread the center so it's less prominent. Kinda fades back in. Plugin chains on the mixbus/master make it more obvious, I think flat sounding ITB mixes are due to over processing on the mixbus/master.

If that happens StageOne can add that extra bit of depth, and CenterOne can be used to make the center more prominent in a natural way. A little goes a long way. It won't be 1:1 with HW, but it can get you closer, especially when using great plugins (including Gullfoss on busses!).

Speaking standard stereo compression here.

I'm also tired (long day), and could have written that a lot better :¬)

Edit: Took me while to reply, Marc beat me to it, this comment summing it up nicely:

"Not one person picked the hardware. The plugins kind of made the hardware sound mono'ish so people naturally went for what sounded bigger or wider."
Ok got it now (coffee here too now )

That is a VERY interesting observation by Marc of no one picking the hardware in that test.
Old 5 days ago
  #129
Lives for gear
 
b0se's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatworld View Post
Ok got it now (coffee here too now )

That is a VERY interesting observation by Marc of no one picking the hardware in that test.
Same for the Pultec test I put up. $3000 HW was picked much (much) less than a certain plugin :¬)
Old 5 days ago
  #130
Quote:
Originally Posted by b0se View Post
Same for the Pultec test I put up. $3000 HW was picked much (much) less than a certain plugin :¬)
Which one ?
Old 5 days ago
  #131
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Endor View Post
Which one ?
NoiseAsh Releases Rule Tec Collection

Pultec HW vs SW - Pulse vs Plugins
Old 4 days ago
  #132
Lives for gear
 
doom64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by djrustycans View Post
The problem is, that when plugins are directly emulating hardware pieces, they have to sound as good otherwise they become a poor-mans version. I absolutely want plugins to sound as good as the hardware but in my experience- they just don’t.
Does that mean you can’t get the job done? No!

After trying this fantastic freebie from Pulsar, I put it up against my lowly Klark Teknik 76-KT in all buttons mode and unfortunately, there wasn’t a contest in many ways. Hardware compression sounds tighter even with low ratios and sounds much more natural.

These things matter less of course if you don’t compare them in the first place - that’s where it all goes wrong!

I compared all my VCA plugins on piano this week against my Neko SL4000 bus comp and it’s completely men against boys. The hardware is faster, smoother, rounder transients, less congested - hard to make it sound bad..

Back to the Pulsar smasher - I love how simple this is to add some parallel energy to tracks. Looking forward to doing more smashing
Try a plug-in called Access Analog. Sounds just like real hardware because it is real hardware.
Old 3 days ago
  #133
Lives for gear
 
Musician's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
Ah, the right question.

1st one I noticed that did this correct was the Analog Obsession Buster plugin.
The more you pushed it, the more it pushed out the middle exactly like the SSL bus compressor.

The other and the one I use now because it's AAX as I use Pro Tools 11HD, is Brainworx ala bx_Townhouse compressor. It does the same thing as well.
That's why it sounds more authentic because of this.

Now, the console Quad compressor sounds different than the rack mount 384 or the newer versions because of a few things I can't discuss but, though they may be build the same (using the same components etc), they will always sound different hence the reason why when someone uses the console, they always say it sounds better or more bigger sounding or fatter sounding etc.

Hope this answers your question, Marc
Well thank you Marc!
Didnt know much about AO plugins so I will check them out.
Old 3 days ago
  #134
Lives for gear
 
Musician's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
It's not to convince or turn people away from hardware at all but just to make people aware that software is as good 'IF USED CORRECTLY" and "NOT OVER DOING IT"...That is so key and what I've found in the past years.
What I found was that plugins can indeed compare to hardware if you stay within the borders of its designed limits, meaning that hardware always wins when you go more in the extremes. Hardware can always cope in some sort of way within the bounds of physics but not so with plugins. There they fall short and go flat.... I still have the tendency to faster remove a plugin than to add further to the processing chain. Not many convince in their stereo image, firmness in the center and solidness in its sound output.

Anyway, Marc, thanks for your insights
Old 3 days ago
  #135
Lives for gear
 
Musician's Avatar
I was really surprised to find that CenterOne and StageOne are developed in Belgium in a city just 20 mins away from where I live!
Old 3 days ago
  #136
Lives for gear
 
TonStrom's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
I think that why most hardware people don't think software plugins compare to hardware units as most plugin developers don't understand an hardware consistency to the middle. Most stereo hardware units don't make things ultra wide but are very consistent and very careful about the middle.

This is what I stressed to Vincent at Pulsar to take care of for the MU and I thought what was missing. Again, when I got the update, they had did just that. Not sure what they did and maybe Vincent or someone from Pulsar can attest to this but, they nailed the middle feel of the hardware which brought the compressor to another level I hadn't heard before in a plugin.

I'm not sure if they did the same for this plugin as I haven't done intensive test with this like MU but, with the "All Button In" effect, you are NOT worried so much about the middle.

Just so you know, Vincent is no stranger to this. What I've gathered in the talks we've had he helped in Slates VBC, Arturia 3 compressors and much more and now Pulsar.

Very smart guys over there and incredible coder if I must say.

The next few will be incredible so, be looking out for this company!

Marc


Thank you for your superb videos on the PULSAR MU. Incredibly helpful in more than one way!
Old 3 days ago
  #137
Lives for gear
 
djrustycans's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
Hey DJ, I don't take it as that at all and welcome the diversity of thought as that makes us all look at things in a different way.

With that said, I'll go off of a test I did here at GS. It was an SSL Bus Compressor test. I had about 6 or 8 plugins mixed in with the hardware bus version.
Not one person picked the hardware. The plugins kind of made the hardware sound mono'ish so people naturally went for what sounded bigger or wider.
When I did an API 2500 compressor test for someone that just got their API unit, same thing. When hitting the plugin exactly like they/you hit your hardware and then matching levels RMS wise, it's extremely hard to tell but, we all naturally go for what sounds best ala bigger sounding and in some cases, that's exactly what you are suppose to go for but, the ear can be tricked, period! I've had some known hardware people on here say after the tests, WOW, I wouldn't have picked the Waves or IK etc over the hardware.
It's not to convince or turn people away from hardware at all but just to make people aware that software is as good 'IF USED CORRECTLY" and "NOT OVER DOING IT"...That is so key and what I've found in the past years.
Hell, when I used hardware, there are mixes that I can't listen too now because I over did it. Hardware is NOT a magic piece and we all have to really learn those pieces exactly like we have to learn software.
When I came off of hardware, it was really really hard at first and I almost gave up and stayed with Hardware but, in 2001/2002 I saw where it was going and though in those days, the budgets were getting bigger and I was making more money, I knew I had to learn software in and out and these so called plugins.
Now I have to the point of making them sound like hardware and past that.

Hope that helps, Marc
Lovely post! I’m convinced there is no way of getting software compression to sound as natural as hardware because hardware can tame dynamics in a firm way without destroying the integrity of a sound. Even with serial compression, I haven’t found a way even close to match this.

Most plugin compressors add a nasty thin transient to sources resulting in a hard sound whereas hardware can compress hard but still sound soft with a natural release.

I could go on about the differences but not sure anybody needs to hear it!

I’m happy with hardware on mixbus and using plugins for everything else - the best of both worlds!
Old 2 days ago
  #138
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Musician View Post
What I found was that plugins can indeed compare to hardware if you stay within the borders of its designed limits, meaning that hardware always wins when you go more in the extremes. Hardware can always cope in some sort of way within the bounds of physics but not so with plugins. There they fall short and go flat.... I still have the tendency to faster remove a plugin than to add further to the processing chain. Not many convince in their stereo image, firmness in the center and solidness in its sound output.

Anyway, Marc, thanks for your insights
Well, now a days, digital plugins can take any amount of level ala 80db+ and if you lower the output the same, it would be just fine. Now that's crazy.
No hardware can do that. You would get pure distortion.
I know what you mean though, you mean plugin companies that have limited their plugins to match the hardware.
Hardware is bound to physics period but software is not bound to anything. Plugin manufactures have to put in those analog boundaries to match what hardware can and can not do. Unfortunately, if you drove any hardware piece 40db to 60db of signal and you would get pure distortion even trying to turn it back down on the output. You would also run the risk of blowing out tubes if it had them.

Digital is only as good as the programmer. Pulsar and team seem to be a really great architects.

Marc
Old 2 days ago
  #139
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TonStrom View Post
Thank you for your superb videos on the PULSAR MU. Incredibly helpful in more than one way!
Thanks man, I really appreciate it!
Old 2 days ago
  #140
M2E
Lives for gear
 
M2E's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by djrustycans View Post
Lovely post! I’m convinced there is no way of getting software compression to sound as natural as hardware because hardware can tame dynamics in a firm way without destroying the integrity of a sound. Even with serial compression, I haven’t found a way even close to match this.

Most plugin compressors add a nasty thin transient to sources resulting in a hard sound whereas hardware can compress hard but still sound soft with a natural release.

I could go on about the differences but not sure anybody needs to hear it!

I’m happy with hardware on mixbus and using plugins for everything else - the best of both worlds!
I agree that you have to go with what works best for you. Especially in times where you have to work fast and proficient. That's key in this day and age.

Anyway, good luck, Marc
Old 2 days ago
  #141
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by M2E View Post
Well, now a days, digital plugins can take any amount of level ala 80db+ and if you lower the output the same, it would be just fine. Now that's crazy.
No hardware can do that. You would get pure distortion.
I know what you mean though, you mean plugin companies that have limited their plugins to match the hardware.
Hardware is bound to physics period but software is not bound to anything. Plugin manufactures have to put in those analog boundaries to match what hardware can and can not do. Unfortunately, if you drove any hardware piece 40db to 60db of signal and you would get pure distortion even trying to turn it back down on the output. You would also run the risk of blowing out tubes if it had them.

Digital is only as good as the programmer. Pulsar and team seem to be a really great architects.

Marc
if you want to learn more about HW, ask software lovers
they will not only tell you the truth but also show you a lot of tests and youtube videos
Old 2 days ago
  #142
Lives for gear
 
Mercado_Negro's Avatar
Finally had a chance to give this a listen and looks very promising for 808's. I'll try it next time I'm given a song with 808's.

Thanks for the gift, Pulsar!
Topic:
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