Quantcast
In praise of hardware - the real thing in compressors. - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
In praise of hardware - the real thing in compressors.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #31
Gear Guru
 
Brent Hahn's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
Me too. AIthough I occasionaIIy ogIe some PCM80's.....
When I had mine I was always struggling to de-ice them and never really got there. 70, 300, 90, 91 all better in that regard. And 480, of course.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #32
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brent Hahn ➡️
When I had mine I was always struggling to de-ice them and never really got there. 70, 300, 90, 91 all better in that regard. And 480, of course.
I still have my pcm 80 in the active rack, but it’s turned off most of the time.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Russell Casse ➡️
You’re mobile phone probably has 1000x the processing power of a 1980 Lexicon 224.

Relabs 480L is sample accurate with the hardware!

The designer himself had a challenge a while back to prove otherwise.
And an M7 has like 10 times the processing power of most PC's.
It's the design of the system that's important. Input-foldbacks-output that has to be tuned by ear. Once there are analog components, it becomes a system, not just software.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #34
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
Obviously these are your opinions, but when you say digital reverb is “cloudy” and hardware isn’t, you set up an either or expectation that everyone should be able to hear
Those are debating words, Henry.
Why are those words debatable? They are part of his opinion and impressions, and aren’t stated as if you are an idiot if you don’t hear the same thing. If I describe a painting as a glorious and wonderful thing, you are fully entitled to think it is a mediocre and uninspiring effort. There isn’t reason for a debate.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #35
Gear Addict
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum ➡️
And an M7 has like 10 times the processing power of most PC's.
It's the design of the system that's important. Input-foldbacks-output that has to be tuned by ear. Once there are analog components, it becomes a system, not just software.
I think you just agreed whilst disagreeing with me - cool.

The point is …. I agree …. It’s not about the processing power per say.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #36
Gear Addict
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightowl43 ➡️
I too had this experience with compressors, now I am starting to dive into analog EQs. Thoughts on analog EQs vs their digital counterparts? I am blown away by the Fearn VT5. Looking into a Chandler Curve Bender next.
I lot of EQs distort harmonically even just engaged. The API 550A and 560 are notorious for this, then they tried to "fix" this in the 550B. So usually the plugins are modelled using "dynamic" convolution, so your ear picks up on the EQ changes, which are pleasant, but it's not REALLY modelling the distortion very well. And if it is modelling the distortion... well, have you ever played a real tube amp into a mic\mic pre and then played a Helix?

Real gear always sound great right away and then you take time to tweak it to perfection. Sims you are always tweaking just to get it to sound good.

It is my opinion that plugins are subtly ruining music. Everything is 95%, you "can barely tell the difference" and what you get out the other side just lacks the weight and oomph. IMO it's its own sound. If you like "modern" production that's fine.

I went on a thousand day journey on this stuff. I thought I could cheap out somewhere and eventually learned why some producers prefer certain rooms in certain studios.

I now use plugins as standins and prep for studio time. I am currently debating some sort of hybrid mixing and or looking at my tracking situation, but it's clear I won't be buying the whole chain anytime soon. Turns out I have expensive ass taste lol
Old 6 days ago
  #37
Gear Maniac
 
Seems to me reverb is the easiest effect to run itb for tracking. I mean, it has built in delay! Is having an extra 10-15 ms (or whatever your i/o latency is) predelay really hurting your tracking reverb? If you have "zero latency" monitoring, turn that on while also monitoring the daw track you're recording to. Then put a 100% wet reverb as an insert on the track while adjusting daw channel fader to taste.
Old 6 days ago
  #38
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett ➡️
Software is good to just OK. But is can't REALLY substitute for the good to great hardware. Same with reverb. I listen to software reverb and it just sounds a little cloudy to me.
i like hardware too: digital hardware though!

digital desks, digital dynamic processors, digital eqs, digital efx - does this digital hardware qualify as software or as hardware? how do you assess code that got ported and literally sounds identical?

i'm NOT trying to substitute my old analog hardware with digital gear! digital allows me to approach things in a way of which i have been dreaming for years and to achieve results not possible with analog gear...
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #39
Lives for gear
 
Jimbo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
I like green eggs and ham!

So, there!

note: Like Henry, I also happen to prefer hardware compressors over software. I have done a/b comparisons of many plugins with hardware, engaging similar response curves and very close levels (E.g., LUFTS, peak) and the hardware is less glassy and more focused in almost every case.

Last edited by Jimbo; 6 days ago at 04:28 AM..
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #40
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman ➡️
Why are those words debatable? They are part of his opinion and impressions, and aren’t stated as if you are an idiot if you don’t hear the same thing. If I describe a painting as a glorious and wonderful thing, you are fully entitled to think it is a mediocre and uninspiring effort. There isn’t reason for a debate.
His “impressions” are that software reverbs sound “cloudy” while the same reverb in a hardware box does not.

To me, that indicates a difference in frequency response, since “cloudy” would be a dulling of the sound - that seems like it should be measurable, otherwise, I don’t know what he means at all.

The only difference between a hardware and software reverb is the analog circuitry in the output and input sections of the hardware, and if you bypass the analog input and converters of the hardware via a digital input (which is how many if not most use their hardware verbs) there’s virtually no difference.

So, yes, of course Henry’s entitled to his impressions and opinions, but I’m entitled to question the logic behind it - why would there be a difference? The only answer I can come up with is the usual cognitive psycho acoustic stimulus that occurs when using a “real” piece of gear. So yes, Henry hears what he hears, but only he may hear it - I certainly don’t, do you hear “cloudy” reverb itb? Do you know what he means?

So that’s my “impression and opinion”, which i’m entitled to, and to answer your question, is certainly worthy of debate.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #41
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
His “impressions” are that software reverbs sound “cloudy” while the same reverb in a hardware box does not.
Henry hears what he hears, but only he may hear it - I certainly don’t
These two sentences are all you needed to write.
There isn’t anything to argue about. Henry is not telling you what you should hear, and I doubt that he cares much about your opinion as to what he should hear or not hear.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #42
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bushman ➡️
These two sentences are all you needed to write.
There isn’t anything to argue about. Henry is not telling you what you should hear, and I doubt that he cares much about your opinion as to what he should hear or not hear.
You missed the point by a country mile.

You decide what you want to argue about, as you’re doing here, and I’ll decide what I feel is debatable.

I doubt Henry needs you to read his mind and his intent - he can speak for himself.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #43
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
You missed the point by a country mile.

You decide what you want to argue about, as you’re doing here, and I’ll decide what I feel is debatable.

I doubt Henry needs you to read his mind and his intent - he can speak for himself.
"Be quiet, Bushman, I want to argue with Henry!" lol

Go on youtube and watch Daniel Dettweiler's reverb video. He puts the differences in good words. You'll learn something.
Old 6 days ago
  #44
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I thought I said I won’t argue. I said debate which is the same thing. I’m not sure Ben reading the thread because it’s a little contentious. I’m not arguing. What one perceives another doesn’t. Nothing wrong with that. I El r try and make someone else wrong for being different and I absolutely refuse to be made to feel wrong for mine.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #45
Gear Addict
 
🎧 15 years
My personal opinion is that there is a reason for hardware compression.
You don’t use it just for compression , you use it for its box tone , its harmonic saturation. Acustica got close in terms of tone but their compression never worked well with weird attacks and release.
I tried hard with software only but was unsatisfied. Listening to mastered records I realized that pushing the gear higher increased their box tone when required. It also made me rethink my approach to compression vs eq.
Today I tend to use just a touch of clean dsp compression to get the stem to a hardware compressor or 2 and send my mix to a master buss . I do most of my eq in software and compression in hardware but use more of the box tone than a lot of compression. Sometimes a good mix just requires a little bus compression rather than a lot of software pseudo tone. My goal is to get a clean sounding mix in the computer with no dirt and get the tone afterwards in hardware. Often I prepare the mix before in the evening on my MacBook with a really good pair of headphones and just concentrate on the tone at the studio.

I like clean buss compression with little box tone and stem compression which actually uses more tone when pushed. I just bought the RME M32 pro’s which can output 24db clean to use more tone. I have 2254, La2a, 1176 , home built fairchild , sta gates, Slam, overstayer Modular, distressors, Manley mu for tone. I use a vertigo VSC2 with a gyraf g10 on my main buss. I intend to buy a Pompye , a pollock and buzz DCB M in 2022.
I am more concerned with that box tone than the coloration of reverb converters as I not a reverb freak so software is fine for that. Hope to get a Cuplate in 2022.
Old 6 days ago
  #46
Gear Maniac
 
woodsman's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
i wonder who started the notion that the software was as good as the hardware in the first place?
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #47
Lives for gear
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
Go on youtube and watch Daniel Dettweiler's reverb video. He puts the differences in good words. You'll learn something.
His thoughts on physical integrity (compression) and spectral balancing are interesting.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #48
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
don't be ridiculous: the same capable people at lexicon, tc electronic, studer, yamaha etc. who wrote the original code!

(most likely an orinary laptop today beats the boxes on which they developed the algorithms before they were ported to the silicon chips)
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #49
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyeguy ➡️
His thoughts on physical integrity (compression) and spectral balancing are interesting.
I find his thoughts in most things audio very relatable.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #50
Gear Addict
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightowl43 ➡️
I too had this experience with compressors, now I am starting to dive into analog EQs. Thoughts on analog EQs vs their digital counterparts? I am blown away by the Fearn VT5. Looking into a Chandler Curve Bender next.
Exact same thing happened to me. First compressors; now I just completed EQ and saturation upgrades a few months ago. Total of 18 channels of comps, 10 channels of EQ, 2 transient shaper channels, and 8 channels of saturation.

It's funny because the other day I was mixing some BGVox and I told myself "I'll just put a Waves comp on them and be done." But honestly, it sounded so grabby and unnatural that I stopped and ended up bouncing the tracks down with my HW.

And yes, it makes me want to remix my previous projects, too. But I chalk it up to the past and always want to move forward. If it's a good tune, people will still want to listen.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
"Be quiet, Bushman, I want to argue with Henry!" lol

Go on youtube and watch Daniel Dettweiler's reverb video. He puts the differences in good words. You'll learn something.
Will I learn why software reverb sounds “cloudy” in the box, but not when enveloped by hardware?

Because that’s the issue under discussion.

Now you’ve actually “learned something”, aka, what the actual topic is.
Old 6 days ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
James Lehmann's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
I made a New Year's resolution to resist the urge to post in these kinds of thre...

Oops!

Last edited by James Lehmann; 5 days ago at 01:51 PM..
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #53
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
Now you’ve actually “learned something”, aka, what the actual topic is.
...but missed out on the fact that dani did not route his pcm efx to converters (which would be mandatory for a comparison) so there's more to be learned! ;-)
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett ➡️
I thought I said I won’t argue. I said debate which is the same thing. I’m not sure Ben reading the thread because it’s a little contentious. I’m not arguing. What one perceives another doesn’t. Nothing wrong with that. I El r try and make someone else wrong for being different and I absolutely refuse to be made to feel wrong for mine.
You started the 5000th thread on “software vs hardware” because you didn’t want to start an argument, oops, “debate”?

This really is a living Monty Python “the argument” sketch.

GS is really strange sometimes
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #55
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by deedeeyeah ➡️
...but missed out on the fact that dani did not route his pcm efx to converters (which would be mandatory for a comparison) so there's more to be learned! ;-)
What the presumptuous mr Karloff 77 doesn’t know is, I’ve seen those videos already, and as much as I respect and enjoy Dani’s work, I disagree with some of his methods and results, exactly for reasons such as you point out.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #56
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
Will I learn why software reverb sounds “cloudy” in the box, but not when enveloped by hardware?

Because that’s the issue under discussion.

Now you’ve actually “learned something”, aka, what the actual topic is.
Go and find out.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #57
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 ➡️
Go and find out.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #58
Lives for gear
 
Jimbo's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️

This really is a living Monty Python “the argument” sketch.

No it isn't!

Old 6 days ago
  #59
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Go and find out.
D.Y.O.R. The perfect escape hatch.
Old 6 days ago | Show parent
  #60
Gear Guru
 
1 Review written
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 ➡️
What the presumptuous mr Karloff 77 doesn’t know is, I’ve seen those videos already, and as much as I respect and enjoy Dani’s work, I disagree with some of his methods and results, exactly for reasons such as you point out.
such threads are rather interesting from a psycholgical point of view, because they (often) reveal who has invested in which technology and tries to defend it (for understandable reasons): neither dani nor i are completely immune of it... - what is amusing is that we not only work in the same city (well, he has just moved his studio from the city to the pampas), but have quite a few devices and a few experiences in common, but come to radically different approaches!
📝 Reply

Similar Threads

Thread / Thread Starter Replies / Views Last Post
replies: 50 views: 13680
Avatar for MJGreene Audio
MJGreene Audio 7th March 2006
replies: 31218 views: 3442899
Avatar for Rocket88
Rocket88 10 hours ago
replies: 3306 views: 70381
Avatar for Synth Guru
Synth Guru 21st August 2021
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearspace 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…

Forum Jump
Forum Jump