hard vs software compressors

[karambos]

I was recently told: "There's not much point to recording through a VST compressor. For recording, an outboard compressor will deliver the maximum good clean signal to the AD convertor. Applying an on-board compressor plugin, after the convertor, will only bring up the noise-floor. It will not acheive the same benefit as good outboard compression."

Meaning: I should get an external compressor unit rather than apply VST compressor plugins after or during recording.

Do you agree?

Is it possible to get a decent quality unit that is both a mic preamp and a compressor?

Thankyou for your help.

 

[littledog]

Ah, the age-old debate... here's my humble input:

Using a software compresser during tracking can still be of some value in order to keep levels under control so that the artist sings/plays more easily and clipping doesn't occur farther down the chain (like at the mix bus). The other advantage to software compression is it can always be removed later. We are usually talking about "light" amounts when tracking.

On the other hand, hardware compression while tracking has the advantage of imparting a particular color to the trackas as well as maximizng levels a bit. However, the former is usually going to be a useful function only in the more expensive compressors (LA2A, 1176, Pendulum, Manley, etc.) and the latter is less important if you are recording at 24 bit (but still rather useful at 16 bit). The disadvantage is, whatever compression you use is now "there" forever!

 

[Bass Master "K"]

I use both.

If it's a signal I am very very familiar with (i.e. my voice and my buddies snare drum) then I use an external compressor (usually my RNC) because I know exactly the amount of compression I am looking for and I have preset levels for those two different types of signals since I use them all the time.

For the most part, the other stuff I do with software compression as needed, when it becomes appearent I have a track that needs compressing, that way I have more flexibility in the final product since I am not as familiar with what compression setting I will be needing for those particular tracks.

My $.02

 

[Seanmorse79]

3rd vote for both. I do pretty much what Littledog said. I go "light" on the way in with a nanocompressor ...just enough to keep a good, solid signal when the action gets quiet. Then I fine tune with Nuendo plugins.

 

[cordura21]

Littledog is right.

One of the great uses of a hardware compressor is to avoid digital clipping when the analog signal is converted to digital. This is because digital clipping sucks. Of course, if you change a digital clipping, for an analog awful clipping, then there's no point in using one. And as he said, you'll find it more useful if you have less than 24 bits, and the preamps you're using have little headroom.

Speaking of that, is the Autocom Pro from Behringer useless, or do you think it's worth a shot for a cheap price? Or shouldn't I even look at it? I can have it 100 bucks cheaper than a RNC.

 

[bludatta]

It's all about the hardware

MHO, I'm into hardware compressors WAY more than software. Why use a software compressor when you can automate the volumes to meet your needs? Hardware compressors give you a distinct sound and help improve the signal to noise ratio when tracking by getting the best bits out of the converters.

I use several types, tube (Summit Audio TLA-50), solid state (RNC), and opto (LA2A). Each has a particular sound that works well for particular uses.

 

[TexRoadkill]

The quote you listed is really talking about 2 different situations.

If your goal is to maximize the signal going into the DAC then hardware is the ONLY way to do that.

If you want to compress during the mixdown then either can accomplish that.

Compression will ALWAYS raise the noise floor no matter when or how you compress.

 

[Neve]

Speaking of that, is the Autocom Pro from Behringer useless, or do you think it's worth a shot for a cheap price? Or shouldn't I even look at it? I can have it 100 bucks cheaper than a RNC.

The Behringer Autocom is junk, don`t even think of it!!!
Buy an RNC , you`ll never regret it.....

Amund

 

[Neve]

3rd vote for both. I do pretty much what Littledog said. I go "light" on the way in with a nanocompressor ...just enough to keep a good, solid signal when the action gets quiet. Then I fine tune with Nuendo plugins.

If you take the Nanocompressor out of your chain, you might end
up with a usable signal into Nuendo.
The Nanocompressor is not good for audio that`s supposed to sound good......
It`s great for creating, small cheap sounds, but not much else.
I don`t mean to sound mean, but it`s much better to record a clean signal than compressing it with a not-soo-good compressor,
yes ,you get a stronger signal, but it`s sonics are lost....



Amund

 

[chessrock]

The Behringer Autocom is junk, don`t even think of it!!!
Buy an RNC , you`ll never regret it.....

There's nothing wrong with it. It certainly ain't junk. It doesn't give you the same level of control over attack/release times. If that isn't important to you, and all you need is something for very light compression and to avoid digital clipping while tracking, then it's actually a pretty good and cost-effective option.

 

[barefoot]

...However, the former is usually going to be a useful function only in the more expensive compressors (LA2A, 1176, Pendulum, Manley, etc.) and the latter is less important if you are recording at 24 bit (but still rather useful at 16 bit)....

Compression will ALWAYS raise the noise floor no matter when or how you compress.

I think the answer is a combination of what littledog and Tex said. If you have a really good mic, preamp and analog compressor and a shitty ADC, then it’s definitely advantageous to compress externally. I think this was a common situation in the early days of digital recording.

Otherwise, if you have a good ADC, there’s no advantage unless you just like the particular sound of your hardware compressor and want to avoid an extra DAC -> ADC step later.

barefoot

 

[Neve]

There's nothing wrong with it. It certainly ain't junk. It doesn't give you the same level of control over attack/release times. If that isn't important to you, and all you need is something for very light compression and to avoid digital clipping while tracking, then it's actually a pretty good and cost-effective option.

I totally diagree, because even having it in the chain without doing any compressing, it still ruins the sound.......
But if you like it......


Amund

 

[shadowfax]

quick question..

DAC? ADC?

acronyms.. blah.

 

[chessrock]

I totally diagree, because even having it in the chain without doing any compressing, it still ruins the sound.......

Maybe yours does . . . or did. Keep in mind that you take a risk every time you buy something with the mighty B label on the box. You probably had a bad one, and the one I had was good. It really was extremely quiet, the compression was transparent, the peak limiting worked like a champ. And I only got channel cross-talk when I ran the signal really hot on one of the channels.

 

[Chris Tondreau]

If you already have a decent mic pre that works for you, and if you're not afraid to try Behringer products, I just bought the Compser Pro MDX2200 a few weeks ago. While still too early to comment on it's reliability, it has great features and works really well. It is a 2-channel compressor that can run in stereo or dual mono, and has an expander/gate, compressor, and peak limiter and side chain for each channel. Nearly all of the parameters/functions, etc. are dialed in, and very easy to use.

You mention VST compressors. Are you using Cubase, I assume? The compressor built into Cubase is quite good for "after the fact" compressing, but as the others have mentioned, it can be very useful for controlling levels going into your system - ie. not clipping at your soundcard, not having singers have to back off from the mic to control louder parts, etc.

Chris

 

[Neve]

Maybe yours does . . . or did. Keep in mind that you take a risk every time you buy something with the mighty B label on the box. You probably had a bad one, and the one I had was good. It really was extremely quiet, the compression was transparent, the peak limiting worked like a champ. And I only got channel cross-talk when I ran the signal really hot on one of the channels.

I still don`t agree at all, any "B" compressor will do some damage just running audio trough it. I have used Autocom and both versions of the Composer. Thinner bass , less mids, more highs(ugly)
I do use an old Edison for some stereo fx sometimes, but only for "non essential" overdubs. And I also have two ECM 8000`s.
These are Behringer two only useful products for "pro" audio IMO.

But if you are satisfied, there is no reason for us to discuss this any further. If we all agreed on everything, this forum wouldn`t be that fun!

 

[barefoot]

Re: quick question..

DAC? ADC?

acronyms.. blah.

Sorry

Analog to Digital Converter
Digital to Analog Converter

barefoot