Outboard Compressors VS Plugins

  • Thread starter Thread starter ambi
  • Start date Start date
A

ambi

New member
Currently im using softwear plugins for all my effects, i don't have any external fx boards or anything. But i was considering a compressor. I was wondering if it would really make any difference if i had a good compression plug, for say, logic audio, or if i bought one. Im guess that if i had an outboard one, it would make my recordings cleaner, and more leveled, so i could get them at an optimal level, and louder, easier. But if it was a plugin, i would have to do it after recording, and not beable to get an optimal level. Well, what do you all think of outboard fx boards compared to plugins and softwear fx?
 
I switched to hardware compressors and EQ because I thought the software variety degraded the sound. I've not used top level software, though, so I can't say for sure.
 
you dont want to compress while tracking though. How do you know how much the track needs unless you are hearing it in the context of the mix?
 
Maybe I'm crazy, but I'll usually track the vocals, and sometimes acc. guitar through the RNC with a light compression setting. All I'm really trying to do is even out the track a little and nip those transients before they clip.

I've found that when I do this, even if I do have to compress the track again with the plugins, they don't have to work as hard and sound better.

(shrug) compression is compression. Sure, the different methods have different sounds, but...well, using any effect is going to be a trade-off between what you want it to do and what other things that it does. I've found that between good performances, decent mic placement, and light use of hardware and/or software compresssion (when needed) it isn't hard to get a decent track.

Take care,
Chris
 
I always like realtime compression, because its easier to change settings, and hear the results quickly. It's not THAT expensive. You can get a good compressor, like the dbx166xl for around 200 bucks.
 
hmm, maybe i'll look into that, but i don't have a rack, do i need a rack?
 
ambi said:
hmm, maybe i'll look into that, but i don't have a rack, do i need a rack?
Click to expand...

Not if you have a table top :)

Rack is just for convenience- you can securely stack a lot of units onto one relatively samll footprint. No law says you have to use one, just because the gear is 19" with ears.

Getting back to tracking with compression - if you are recording 24 bit digital, the dynamic range is probably big enough so that you don't need to use compression for safety from clipping - and can wait until mixdown. Just record at lower levels. At 16 bit, however, noise floor gets to be more of an issue, and you may want to do some light limiting on the way in as a safety net so you can record hotter signals.

The other reason for tracking with compression is to impart a desireable color to the audio. But this is almost always done with far more expensive units like a Distressor, LA2A, 1176, Manley, or Pendulum Audio. If you don't have something of that ilk, and are recording at 24 bit, I'd leave out the compressor and wait until mixdown.
 
hmm

thats a really good point, thanks for bringing that up. the only experience recording ive had is with an art mp studio preamp, into a sblive, in 16 bit, So it cliped easily, and i found certain instruments such as a bass guitar, to record very quietly, except for a few notes that totaly cliped, so i was forced to record at a very low level. Anyways, thanks for your advice. I will most likely just use softwear. And i will defintaly wait until i have my delta 44/mackie 1202 (maybe 1402 if i can justify spending 300 dollars for sliders) until i make further decsiions about purchasing outboard fx. thanks
 
Either way, I'd still say an analog, outboard compressor is a must, expecially if ur going to record and compress at the same time.
 
Slight variation on theme

but...suppose the choice were between the hardware and software version of the "same' compressor. For instance, the LA2A can be had in a plug-in version from Bomb Factory and I believe one other manufacturer and of course, one can purchase the hardware version from Universal Audio. Notwithstanding sales hype that claims the plug-in nails the sound of the original, is there a difference between the hardware and software versions, is it inherent in the fact that one is hardware and on is software or, is the sound, I mean the real sound of the LA2A part and parcel of the circuitry used in the hardware box and so, therefore, to really get the right sound, one does in fact need the hardware box and...does this explain the difference in cost.
 
I would always take hardware over software, unless its for editing, because of several reasons. Software really taxes your computer system impairing its ability to do what it really needs to do. Another thing is you do have problems with it being digital because it only outputs what the frquency settings are set at. I didnt word that very well, but its like the reason they still use jumpy, blurry film in the movie theaters instead of stabilized digital images. There are only so many dots in digital video. Typically 640 x 480, or 800 x 600 in Hi Definition TV. With film, its light captured. You can make it as big as you want, and it wont degrade the picture. Whereas when you make a digital picture bigger, you start to see the dots. With film, it's all there. Just like analog. But with digital, you can always broaden the requency spectrum. Lastly, it's easier to hear the way your audio changes with a compressor thats in realtime. It doesn't take a couple of seconds for the sound to change, or reapply. And once you do it, it can be hard to undo it. Or if the software has a preview, it only previews the first ten seconds or so, and you cant hear how the rest of the track sounds. In other words, choose the hardware. It can be a little more expensive, but its worth it. Its just more versatile.
 
One other thing I forgot to say is, it is going to SOUND very different too. It's just like those mic modelers that make you think you can get the sound of a Neumann out of your old Radioshack Highball mic. It wont even come close. If it did, Neumann wouldn't be able to sell their $3000 mics. Everyone would go with modelers.
 
Just S I am Clear

So, with a software version of a device, there are inherein limitations becuase of the medium. Digital does not have infinite reolution either in film or sound and therefore analogue is better in certain applicationsor areas. Is that what you are trying to say and if so, do others agree? Is this the reason why the hardware version of the same device is often much more expensive?
 
I use both hardware and software compressors and I'd be unhappy if I didn't have both. However, if someone had to take one away and leave me with only one option, I'll keep my hardware comps, thank you...

There are good and bad compressors in either variety. I have 3 hardware comps that I use, and one that I don't cuz it doesn't sound as good. I only have one software comp that I use cuz it sounds great and the rest I've tried don't sound as good. Here's what I have...

Hardware:
dbx 166 (original blackface): good easy to use, smooth, darkens the sound just a tad (in a nice way), has a gate.

Fmr RNC: more transparent than the dbx, but not as warm. Good for stereo sources.

NTCL: great smooth compressor that can squash the snot out of anything and still sound beautiful coming out the other side!

Software:
Waves Rennaisance Compressor: This is by far the best and smoothest software comp that I've used. Powerful compression without degrading the sound. Unfortunately it uses LOTS of cpu power so I can't run more than a couple at a time.

Here's what I have and DON'T use: Alesis 3630 (I keep it around just for the gates until I buy a Drawmer, but even then I haven't plugged it in for a couple years), any other software compressor that's on my computer. I'll use the channel compressors in Cubase sometimes if I need to, but never on anything real important. They just don't sound that good.


...What was the question?... Oh yeah... Dude, get yourself a decent hardware compressor. Like you said, you'll be able to get a hotter overall level into your computer. There's nothing wrong with compressing a little on the way in, and then again later in the computer. Actually, multiple stages of light compression usually yields better results that trying to heavily compress all at once.


Now before you go out looking for an NTCL, I'll tell you you can't find them. Well, at least not one just like mine. Why? Cuz I made it myself! It's basically an LA-2A that I made by hand using Dave Jahnsen's book as a guide. http://home.earthlink.net/~djahnsen/ I haven't been able to A/B it with the real thing, but I do know it sounds great. Take a look: http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/naokiman...order=&.view=t&.done=http://photos.yahoo.com/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top