Topic: attack-release on plug in compressors (Read 6866 times)

carlos jaramillo · « **on:** November 28, 2005, 05:09:45 PM »

I have a very hard time setting attack and release times on software based compressors, do they really work?. I do hear the difference in signal but they dont dance do they?

j.hall · « **Reply #1 on:** November 28, 2005, 05:33:59 PM »

not sure which plugs you are using exactly, but i have a similar experience with waves, and digi stuff.

any of the simulation plugs work a bit better for me with attack and release. i hardly ever use plug in compressors though so my opinion is a bit uninformed i'm affraid.

carlos jaramillo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 28, 2005, 07:25:53 PM »

do they really work a little better than a wired and solded real machine- for you? or are you meanning you hardly use plug ins... Confused

j.hall · « **Reply #3 on:** November 29, 2005, 10:53:45 AM »

i hardly use plug-ins at all.

i do most all of my processing out of the DAW on my analog gear.

i personally still prefer the analog gear and think it still works better.

i have heard great things about some newer plug-in compressors though and i'll probably check them out.

cerberus · « **Reply #4 on:** November 29, 2005, 11:08:38 AM »

Is the Oxford console a "real machine"? I think too many generalizations and assumptions are being made here.

The sound of a compressor is a simple gain envelope and amplifier distortion. The latter is more difficult to emulate digitally, but some people really like the UAD emulation of their own 1176, LA2A...etc.

Mixerman claims the BF 1176 and LA2A sound exactly the same as each other and nothing like the hardware they look like.

Nomad declines to specify which hardware his plug-ins model.

Sony makes their Oxford processors as plug-ins too. Most people who heard the hardware and many who didn't think they are fantastic.

cerberus

zetterstroem · « **Reply #5 on:** November 30, 2005, 02:31:03 PM »

"The sound of a compressor is a simple gain envelope and amplifier distortion."

hmmm.. how about input/output transformers and tubes etc. ???

no doubt in my mind that analog compressors works and sounds better..... it's simply easier to get great results.... and they come in more "flavours"...... just as analog eq's....

would i mix a record with plugs?? just did.... mostly bomb factory fairchild comp's and pultec eq's

"My clients don't care what brand I use...or if it's "real" hardware or not.. Do yours?"

ohhhh yes!!! zero bling in plug's

"is the Oxford console a "real machine"?" yes it's real if you can touch it..... but it's still a bunch of plugins in a nice box.... Very Happy

carlos jaramillo · « **Reply #6 on:** December 03, 2005, 06:26:06 PM »

j.hall wrote on Tue, 29 November 2005 16:53

i hardly use plug-ins at all.

i do most all of my processing out of the DAW on my analog gear.

i personally still prefer the analog gear and think it still works better.

i have heard great things about some newer plug-in compressors though and i'll probably check them out.

yes i really do think the real machines are better, i love them too, but in one or other occasion don't have the option. Then thouht I was doing something wrong. Besides, is it possible to side chain them. In any way ?. not the track source but the dynamics?

cerberus · « **Reply #7 on:** December 11, 2005, 10:36:46 PM »

yes i forgot transformers... not always perfectly linear...tricky to emulate.

i agree that lack of sidechainining in many plug-ins makes them inferior in function, but I am going to be experimenting with sidechaining M-S by using stereo plug-ins and muting the "chain" side which I will make sure triggers the threshold well before the program material could. Do you think it should work?

jeff dinces

leban (giancarlo) · « **Reply #8 on:** December 14, 2005, 09:18:46 AM »

zetterstroem wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 19:31

"The sound of a compressor is a simple gain envelope and amplifier distortion."

This is terribly true. A lot of plugins simply use an envelope follower (and this is easy to implement, just a rms measure using a lowpass filter for a compressor, or a peak measure for a limiter) BUT there is a change in amplitude in real-time made using this value. Every sample has a different gain -> this could be read as distortion.

But a la2 is not so linear.... it distorts too... otherwise it would be easily modelled using convolution...
My question
Do we need the la2 'colour' or 'compression' itself?

cerberus · « **Reply #9 on:** December 14, 2005, 03:47:08 PM »

leban (giancarlo) wrote on Wed, 14 December 2005 09:18

zetterstroem wrote on Wed, 30 November 2005 19:31

"The sound of a compressor is a simple gain envelope and amplifier distortion."

This is terribly true. A lot of plugins simply use an envelope follower (and this is easy to implement, just a rms measure using a lowpass filter for a compressor, or a peak measure for a limiter) BUT there is a change in amplitude in real-time made using this value. Every sample has a different gain -> this could be read as distortion.

But a la2 is not so linear.... it distorts too... otherwise it would be easily modelled using convolution...
My question
Do we need the la2 'colour' or 'compression' itself?

i think it's all percieved as distortion, because the ear is not linear. i think one cannot have compression without distortion since we are trying to induce the psychoacoustic effect that something is louder than it is, or has more dynamics than it does.

i think we need the color and the compression. but an analog chain has more color already, so the proportions to add color vs. amplitude envelope control would be different for digital (assuming digital artifacts exist only below the threshold of perception, which i think is entirely possible and a reasonable assumption).

and the technique would also be different. not necessarily according to the analog tradition, but emulating it, like a magician would, like artists do. i dream and experiment and learn from experience and have lots of failures. the rules of analog seem to me to lead to a good sounding record. the rules of digital are only solid guideposts to avoiding disaster. so i think to be successful in digital, you must think completely outside the box. the irony of it all.

[not to mention that a lump of ferrite just intuitively seems more "natural" than a string of 1s and 0s, and of course sounds natural right out of the box... even a cheap lump of ferrite could perhaps work if we are only interested in making distortion. by comparison, i think cheap dsp always sucks.. and you can't usually identify cheap dsp by physical attributes.. so imo, not easy to do digital. i can't always predict the outcome as easily with digital, whereas i think it is easier to conjure an analog chain and predict the results without ever hearing it]

convolution? i think with any dsp process there is a going to be a tradeoff between accuracy in the time domain vs. the frequency domain. this is the biggest hurdle for any digital processor, imo. but I am sure electrical engineers have their own set of constraints, and 100 years of time for the most clever amongst them to work these out.

second order harmonics. i don't think it's rocket science to make these.. but you know.. there is magic in electrons running through tubes, like frosty the snowman's hatand mysteriously filled stockings on christmas morning [imho!]. i've worked with digital since 1985, and the first thing i learned was how to make it sound "warmer"; by now i think am pretty good at it.

jeff dinces

leban (giancarlo) · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2005, 07:54:27 AM »