Hardware Compressor vs. Software Compressor

[Bob's Mods]

This is for the experienced recorders out there. For those that have used a fair amount of hardware compressors AND software compressors, which do you prefer and why?

Bob the Mod Person

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think you need a third choice that says "Both, but for different things".

For me, I generally prefer outboard compression by a long shot. But there are some plugins that are really good and do things that don't have a comparable match in hardware. Like the PSP Vintage Warmer for example. Or PSP's excellent new MasterComp.

 

[chessrock]

Software compressors for ease, convenience and transparency.

Hardware for the sound quality and uniqueness/color.

.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Sonic,

Does this include the holy grail of all software compressors....the UAD-1 card?

I put this poll out for the reason you state, a decent hardware compressor seems to have more horsepower than software ones. I've been using the Kjaerhus Golden Compressor and it sounds like a reasonable vintage hardware one once you figure out how to set it. However a friend, who has been a pro (musician) for a good part of his life uses an Oktava Mk-319, Blue Tube pre, Cake Home Studio, Sound Blaster 16 and an RNC compressor. I've invested a lot more in my rig and yet his stuff sounds extremely good for the chump change he's invested. I figure its that RNC hardware compressor that makes the difference. A high quality hardware compressor seems to be able to compensate for other lesser gear in the chain to a greater degree than one would reasonably assume without hearing the mixes. It makes me wonder if I should pick one up and be done with it.

 

[SonicAlbert]

Well, I just voted for hardware compressors for the reasons that Chessrock states, the sound quality and color.

Also, I feel that analog hardware in general responds better when pushed to extremes. Or at least, you can still get amazing and sometimes magically cool sounds by pushing the hardware past its limit. Most if not all plugins I've used do not have this ability, when pushed past their limits they just kind of fall apart.

If you get a hardware compressor Bob, be sure to get a good one. Or at least know the kind of sound/response you are after. Hardware compressors are each very unique and have their own tone and response curve. That's what is great about them, and why owning a collection of different compressors is such a nice luxury to have.

 

[OhSh1rt]

You can't beat the price of a software compressor that is in a bundle, and, being in expierenced, I have to mess with them a lot to get the right sound, doing this while tracking just takes far to much time for me


Depends on the application.


-jeffrey

 

[chessrock]

Hardware comps can lend an awful lot of personality to a sound source. That's not to say that software comps can't ... just that the personality isn't always as natural. They're much more ... symetrical? Is that a good term to use? Perhaps more mathematically precise or predictable?

That's not to say that software comps aren't capable of having personality. To the contrary, I have to agree with SonicAlbert on the PSP comps. They have personality to them up the wa-zoo. You can get some of their plugins to pump, breathe, splat, and bip and bap. But even then, there's just something a little too perfect / mechanical with the way it goes about doing even that; like a fun novelty. Nothing beats hardware for personality, but some plugins can do a pretty admirable job of faking it.

.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Nothing beats hardware for personality, but some plugins can do a pretty admirable job of faking it.

My Kjaerhus Golden Compressor has this analog deficiency knob that adds that element of analog imperfection. Once I started using it and cranking it up to about 80%, I started hearing the kinds of compression I was after. I dinked with this control before but never really cranked it up. Without using it, the compressor is nothing special, once you crank this control way up, it adds that missing analog looseness that none of the "analog" modeled plug in compressors seem to really get. And Sonic, your right about the horsepower aspect of plugins. I learned that about a year ago. Being a newby in 2000 at this, I was going crazy trying to achieve that professional sound which those "analog" modeled plugs couldn't provide. Only I didn't realize it at the time. A lot of plugins are mathamatically clinical in their response AND do not possess the horsepower to effect deep changes. Nor do they always impart a color. All these elements are crucial to, at least to the older recordings, to achieve similar results.
For a home recor in a spare bedroom, having to much outboard gear kinda defeats the purpose of trying to achieving studio results. Keep the rig simple and as much in the box as possible for minimum footprint and max flexibility. Software plugs-ins should simulate their analog counterpart to every detail and not just graphic. This has been one of the great deceptions of the software plugin. For people like myself who have never worked with real studio gear I had no basis of comparison. When you buy a plug expecting it to simulate its analog brethren but don't realize it really can't, it fustrates the sh*t out of you when you wonder why you aren't getting a more commercial sound. The Kjaerhus is the first software plug in I've owned that appears to approach the way a real hardware compressor responds. Are there any others?

 

[tarnationsauce2]

My Kjaerhus Golden Compressor has this analog deficiency knob that adds that element of analog imperfection. Once I started using it and cranking it up to about 80%, I started hearing the kinds of compression I was after. I dinked with this control before but never really cranked it up. Without using it, the compressor is nothing special, once you crank this control way up, it adds that missing analog looseness that none of the "analog" modeled plug in compressors seem to really get. And Sonic, your right about the horsepower aspect of plugins. I learned that about a year ago. Being a newby in 2000 at this, I was going crazy trying to achieve that professional sound which those "analog" modeled plugs couldn't provide. Only I didn't realize it at the time. A lot of plugins are mathamatically clinical in their response AND do not possess the horsepower to effect deep changes. Nor do they always impart a color. All these elements are crucial to, at least to the older recordings, to achieve similar results.
For a home recor in a spare bedroom, having to much outboard gear kinda defeats the purpose of trying to achieving studio results. Keep the rig simple and as much in the box as possible for minimum footprint and max flexibility. Software plugs-ins should simulate their analog counterpart to every detail and not just graphic. This has been one of the great deceptions of the software plugin. For people like myself who have never worked with real studio gear I had no basis of comparison. When you buy a plug expecting it to simulate its analog brethren but don't realize it really can't, it fustrates the sh*t out of you when you wonder why you aren't getting a more commercial sound. The Kjaerhus is the first software plug in I've owned that appears to approach the way a real hardware compressor responds. Are there any others?

Hmm, I should try out that Kjaerhus Golden Compressor some time. I keep hearing about it.

Software compressors that remind me of analog compressors:
T-Rack's compressor, It's not that bad just as a compressor. The EQ/stereo expander/limiter are rubbish IMO.

PSP Audioware Vintage Warmer. Probably my favorite. But maybe even too much character / color.
PSP Audioware MasterComp

 

[Bob's Mods]

ProTools - expensive software plugs

What about those very expensive ProTools plug-ins? Is their simulation of hardware compression worth the price for those willing to pay? Software for the ProTools crowd is mighty expensive. I would think it damn sure better simulate what it says it simulates. This points out a big problem with software plugins, they don't really simulate the analog gear as well as they should. Their advertising would lead you to believe this is true. With so many new people coming into the world of recording, we really don't learn about the weakness of software until long after we've paid for the stuff. There is a steady stream of guppies with money to burn.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Results

As of this writing the score is 15 to 1 in favor of hardware compressors. Very compelling. I think we may be on to something here.

 

[chessrock]

Being a newby in 2000 at this, I was going crazy trying to achieve that professional sound which those "analog" modeled plugs couldn't provide. Only I didn't realize it at the time. A lot of plugins are mathamatically clinical in their response AND do not possess the horsepower to effect deep changes. Nor do they always impart a color. All these elements are crucial to, at least to the older recordings, to achieve similar results.

It's different tools for different jobs, Bob. Newer tools aren't necessarily designed to get "older" sounds, nor is it something that they can or should excel at.

Software plugs-ins should simulate their analog counterpart to every detail and not just graphic. This has been one of the great deceptions of the software plugin. For people like myself who have never worked with real studio gear I had no basis of comparison. When you buy a plug expecting it to simulate its analog brethren but don't realize it really can't, it fustrates the sh*t out of you when you wonder why you aren't getting a more commercial sound.

"Comercial sound" doesn't have a whole lot to do with it. It's just two different things / approaches for two different types of jobs. To ask a software compressor to sound more "analog" is kind of like asking a camel to be more like a horse. Is it really practical or even desirable? Maybe if you're traveling in the midwest, but if you're traveling in a desert, nothing is going to beat that camel.

Software compressors are superior to analog compressors in many ways. An analog comp cannot even approach the transparency and/or sheer mathematical precision of software. A hardware comp can only react, and can't "look ahead" and be proactive in that manner. It can't "re-draw" an entire wave form. That's powerful stuff, when you really think about it.

At the same time, how practical is it to ask a software algorythm to be more "random" and less precise? Are you asking a horse to be more like a camel? Is it like asking an anal retentive neat freak to "mess up" his room or office a little bit, and be less neat? In a lot of ways, it defeats the purpose, while simultaneously ignoring a very powerful tool by working against it's strengths rather than with them.
.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Chess,

Insightful reply. I find you a very bright guy. You are a guy....? Me, I'm a throw back to the mid 60's and 70's era with a tad of 80's thrown in for good measure. I like those colors. Thats what I strive for. Alot of the younger crowd prefers the more current methods of little or no reverb/echo and over the top compression. The list is a little longer. I would like software to help me simulate those vintage recordings. Thats what I'm after. I'm part way there.

Bob

 

[SonicAlbert]

I think the TDM plugs are more expensive mostly because it is a captive audience. For example, plugins that are available for TDM and native are the same code. But there are plugins available for TDM that simply aren't available for native systems. Some of those might be better, but even then I'm not sure. The George Massenburg eq comes to mind.

But just because it is for TDM doesn't necessarily mean it is better than it's native counterpart.

 

[chessrock]

I would like software to help me simulate those vintage recordings. Thats what I'm after. I'm part way there.

Why do you want to use software to emulate what was achieved with hardware? Why not just use hardware? Again, it's like you're trying to use a spoon to do the job of a knife, your fridge to do the job of your stove, while simultaneously trying to train your cat to play fetch and beg ... and your dog to sit around and act indifferent to you.
.

 

[Bob's Mods]

Sonic,

No plug in EQ is worth the price of that Massenburg EQ. Its outragous what its cost is. I'm sure its good but I doubt its THAT much times better than what I'm using. On top of it, its very tough to sell software you no longer use. Your stuck. Some software companies lets you sell the rights and other companies do not. At least with hardware you got a box to resell when you no longer use it. So those poor TDM slobs have to shell out way huge doe for plugs that may be no better than my native stuff and with no secondary market to boot all because they are a captive market.

Chezz-bo,

I do want to use software to simulate the vintage colors. Its easier and takes up less space. At least with software that lives up to its claims at a reasonable price. Yah, I eat my peas with a knife, and no, I don't stab them one by one.

 

[n8tron]

I think the TDM plugs are more expensive mostly because it is a captive audience. For example, plugins that are available for TDM and native are the same code. But there are plugins available for TDM that simply aren't available for native systems. Some of those might be better, but even then I'm not sure. The George Massenburg eq comes to mind.

But just because it is for TDM doesn't necessarily mean it is better than it's native counterpart.

i thought TDM plugins were more expensive because they had to be programmed and optimized to use with the accell hardware so it doesn't take a load off your cpu

 

[n8tron]

i should also say this about hardware vs. software compressors.

i could honestly never really tell much of a difference for quite some time when I was using software compressors. I mean, all i could tell that the softer parts were louder, but thats it! now with my rnc It just makes such a difference, where you set the attack, how much compression.... the difference was unbelievable to me

 

[Bob's Mods]

now with my rnc It just makes such a difference, where you set the attack, how much compression.... the difference was unbelievable to me

Another believer in hardware boxes.

 

[BRIEFCASEMANX]

I bought an RNLA and did some testing with it versus the UAD LA2A and I liked the plug better, but maybe it's because i'm just really used to the sound of the plugin. I remember when I first got the UAD and I tried it against the software comp i was using previously I thought the LA2A just sounded really weird, but the more i used it the more i grew to like it. The RNLA sounded kind of chalky. At school I used a dbx 166 on vocals at a 2:1 ratio and it sounded SWEEEEET though, better than any of my software stuff, so i'm gonna vote hardware.