What makes for a great comp? EQ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BeagleFaceHenry
  • Start date Start date
B

BeagleFaceHenry

Member
I've been recording and mixing just long enough to know who to use the tools, but I not long enough to compare tools. I hear a lot of talk about a "great compressor" or a "really nice EQ". What does that mean to you? I know a "great compressor" makes all the difference....
When I'm compressing, I'm looking for straight forward, transparent compression. That's all my simple mind can handle. What are you looking for in sound? The compressor I use most (Sonitus in Calkwalk) is easy for me to understand and implement, and therefor my favorite. What makes your favorite your favorite? What did you use before and why did you switch?
Same thoughts and questions about EQ?
 
First, there are different types of EQ. Graphic, which is set width and set frequencies, usually at set frequency intervals i.e. octave or 1/3 octave (hardly used anymore); Parametric (multiple bands with variable frequency and width (Q)); and Paragraphic (a combination of the two).
Second, there are different ways to use equalization. You can use a spectrum analyzer to bring see what frequencies and widths need pushing on a specific track or even in your mix. This gives you a general guideline that you can push and then fine tune with the ears. You can comb (subtractive EQ) where you give each track a range of frequencies that are it's dominant and then subtract out all other frequencies to a certain extent allowing each track to be as loud as possible in the mix. You can use control voltage to sweep EQ making it go from tinny to full sound for example by sweeping a high pass filter out. And a raft of other ways to use EQ.
So, to answer the question, "What makes a good equalizer?" you need first to know what you're doing with it. For sweeping, you want one with a CV input (control voltage) or one that you can automate the control so you can seep manually. For final mix, you'll want three or four parametric bands with good smooth Q so you don't get notched sound (one that has a spectrum analyzer (like the one in Reason) is a nice touch). For individual tracks, you'll want to use bell curves, high and low pass filters, E mode (constant Q), all the bells and whistles; cause you never know what each track will need.
 
Honestly I think that when your talking about a "great" anything, most seasoned folks are referring to physical comps and eqs, as opposed to plug ins. Yes plug ins do a good job of replicating there physical counterparts and they do have a certain vibe to them. But what they lack are the characteristics of voltage. What happens when you push a signal through a transformer at various gain stages can make a big difference to the sound depending on how that physical unit is made. Plus you have distortion and "break up" that can happen in a real comp/eq that doesn't happen in the virtual versions.

Like i said, its not that plug ins are bad, in fact some of them are great, but I didn't really start to understand comping and eqing until i got some real ones and started to discover what they really did to the sound when you started playing with the knobs. It made going back to the plugins much more immediate for me. I'd highly recommend getting a real comp and eq at some point, even if they aren't top of the line, just to get over your fear of them and really start to understand how they work.

On the plugin side, I love UA's manley massive passive eq and their SSL comp. Also Slate's VBC cant be beat, incredibly smooth and versitile.
 
interesting question… Why is the LA2A "great"?
and which version is greater, and is the hardware greater than the software?

blind tests often answer this question. when famous adulation induced rock stars or platinum albums are made and those people swear by their gear , the gear often becomes "great", imo.

Pultec EQ….now in hardware world it might be better, but is it really? better than plug-in…then if there is no difference, then we would have to assume the digital world is a very flat playing field and the cosmetics and name brand is one thing, but it would be easier to copy the digital version and re-brand it.

I wonder how much is romance and brain-gybe-ishness that makes the "great" rating.
 
The software LA2A is great because its the easiest to use compressor out there and it sounds awesome.

End of story.
 
Great stuff guys!
It sounds like EQ's are mostly physical. The right EQ is the one that physically handles the job. If I'm following, the right EQ is the one that targets and manipulates the frequency correctly. Yes? Not the one that adds flavor or style?

It sounds like compressors are the other way. I feel like people talk about compressors more subjectively and ethereally. Every engineer seems to have a favorite. In your opinion, what makes a compressor sound better or worse? Is it totally transparent? Does it add warmth? Does it add clarity? Does it add thickness? I hear a lot about a specific compressor being better, or a hardware compressor being better than a plugin. What is that "better"ness? Or conversely, what is the "worse"ness? What is it that plugin can't do that a box can?
Have you blind tested? How would you describe the difference? Are there situations that you prefer a specific sound? If so, what is the sound and when? Have you upgraded your compressor? Why? What did you like about the new one? What prompted you to shop around?
 
Seafroggys said:
The software LA2A is great because its the easiest to use compressor out there and it sounds awesome.

End of story.
Click to expand...

My friend and I use Sonar X2 and bought the CA2A plugin. We use it a lot on vocals, guitars. It has a nice leveling effect but also some cool harmonic distortion.
 
For the sake of discussion, Btyre, would you exbound? What do you like about the neve? Don't get me wrong, I saw Sound City too, but I'm curious what your personal experience has been and why the neve is awesome. What did you use before it and why did you switch?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top