Hardware compression or plug in?

bluedaffy

bluedaffy

New member
I am trying my first mastering project and I'm using Studio One Pro to complete a CD that my band recently recorded.

I know that some people love hardware compressors and processors and some people think they can get by just fine without them, what are the pros and cons of using hardware vs plugins for master compression? I'm just curious because I have a few different software compressors and one rack compressor and I'm curious about what some of you more experienced folks think.

The compressors I currently have at my disposal:
(If you have any opinions on the quality or the qualities of these, please speak up, I'm interested to hear what you think!)

--plug ins--
Studio One compressor (stock)
Garageband compressor (stock)
Studio One multi band dynamics compressor (included in upgrade to Studio One Professional- mastering version)

--hardware--
Behringer Multicom Pro 4400

I've heard that even though the multicom isn't a very expensive unit that it does a good job. I have always been happy with it when using it live but I've never used it with recording/mixing/mastering. I thought if I used it for anything it might be to just squeeze the tracks just a little bit before further processing because it only has an auto option for attack and release. What do you think? Is an average rack compressor going to beat an average stock compressor every time?

Thanks
 
Ahhh...it's not really that cut-n-dry....."hardware VS software".

Everything is going to have its flavor, and therer are better/worse versions in both hardware and software, so it depends on what you are after.

Persoanlly, I've been using a hardware Overstayer Stereo VCA comp on my console master buss....but then I like to also touch the final digital mix with an L2, just to give it some level lift, nothing dramatic.
 
I'll take pretty much any plugin over that particular compressor. In my opinion you'll have to spend many times the price of that unit to get something worth the trouble.

Assuming the quality is equal (which isn't the case with that compressor) a plugin offers more precise and repeatable settings, unlimited instances, no patching, user presets and no conversions.
 
Thanks. I have both heard that different compressors will affect the same source in multiple ways and I've also heard it myself. I know this will come across lazy but the reason I asked was because I am in the middle of moving and also have a rough deadline to finish this master in the not too distant future, so I just want to see what kind of replies I get on this because if I used the hardware I'd have to unpack it (currently packed for moving) along with the required cables ect. Learn how to use hardware with my interface and DAW (probably not too hard, but I haven't had to do it yet). So I wanted some advice from people more experienced at mastering if it would even be worth it to jump through the hoops to use an average piece of hardware to do subtle compression or if just using a stock plug in might do the job just as well. I guess I'll just have to try it, or maybe I won't :eatpopcorn:

I'm the guitar player and the tracks on the album are 90% amped and miced & only 10% are using Guitar Rig, Ampire, Amplitube (plug ins) because I have learned from experience that almost always do I prefer the sound affected in the analog domain and lightly processed in the digital vs. vice versa. The same goes for guitar pedals and their relatives. Even though I have heard some good imitations of the Tube Screamer (Amplitube), I've never heard one that is quite as good as one on the floor. So that is the reason it's hard to let go of the idea of having a hardware compressor, even though the Behringer Multicom is digital I believe. I'm not as educated in the world of compression.
 
I totally agree with getting your guitar tone before the computer. There's something dead and artificial about playing through a computer, especially with latency. Playing through real hardware is a different experience that really affects how you play. Effects like distortion are best done in analog if at all possible. When I use an amp sim I generally have recorded two tracks, one clean and one that's a miced amp or a hardware modeler. That way the player gets amp sound with no latency while playing and I get a dry track I can reamp as needed.

But mixing is different. For one thing you're not generally adding a lot of distortion. Things like compression can be best done in the computer, at least when you're on a budget.
 
bluedaffy said:
The compressors I currently have at my disposal:

--plug ins--
Studio One compressor (stock)
Garageband compressor (stock)
Studio One multi band dynamics compressor (included in upgrade to Studio One Professional- mastering version)

--hardware--
Behringer Multicom Pro 4400

Is an average rack compressor going to beat an average [digital] compressor every time?
Click to expand...
I can't directly comment on the particular plugs you have (other than I wouldn't consider using the maul-the-band compressor unless the mix is so screwed up that nothing else will fix it - and in that case, assuming they're your mixes, go back and fix the mix).

That said -- with the current info, I'd suggest sticking with plugs.
 
Bouldersoundguy - When you record 2 tracks of the guitar, what is your setup? Do you use a signal splitter of some kind?

MassiveMaster- Thanks for the advice, I'll try to leave the multi band alone, but I do like to play with stuff :listeningmusic: May I ask why you don't advocate multi band compression? Is it because I am still a mastering beginner? Even if someone was proficient with mastering, compressors, ect. would you still not be behind multi bands?

Thanks
 
I actually don't know a mastering engineer that uses one with any sort of regularity.

I know that every plugin developer out there markets them as some "secret weapon of mastering" -- And no doubt, especially "back in the day" (as in, when you hooked up a 3-way crossover network feeding a trio of compressors and then mixed them back together), sometimes it was the only way to "fix" a mix that was otherwise beyond repair (this was also "the day" when you may have had to wait another month to get studio time to try to salvage the mix).

But it's a band aid for a broken leg. BAND aid... Heh...

There isn't a single situation I can think of that couldn't be avoided by correcting an earlier step. Guitar has "thwumpies" -- Well, mic the cabinet right or change the core sound. Piano has low-end overdrive? It was tracked too hot or the mic was too close. Vocalist has sibilance? Adjust the mic (or teach the vocalist a little technique). And don't get me wrong -- I've used MBC's during mixing in all of those situations and dozens more when I was given less-than-wonderfully recorded source tracks.

But to throw one over an entire mix... And again -- I've done it more than a few times myself (although only once that I can think of in the past year or so was something so amazingly whacked that it needed it), unless it's something that's really, really subtle (and 90% of those times, I'd MUCH rather automate an EQ as it's usually much less intrusive), it's just "too much tool" for a "default" --
Is it because I am still a mastering beginner? Even if someone was proficient with mastering, compressors, ect. would you still not be behind multi bands?
Click to expand...
The only people I know that use them regularly are those that AREN'T proficient.
 
bluedaffy said:
Bouldersoundguy - When you record 2 tracks of the guitar, what is your setup? Do you use a signal splitter of some kind?
Click to expand...

I use a direct box. Most of them have parallel input jacks so you can split the signal right there.

Guitar -> DI #1 -> mic input #1

DI #1 parallel out -> pedal board -> amp -> mic -> mic input #2

or

DI #1 parallel out -> amp modeler -> mic input #2 (if the modeler has XLR out)

or

DI #1 parallel out -> amp modeler -> DI #2 -> mic input #2 (if the modeler does not have XLR out)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top