Compressor Question

[Tobor]

I've got a Behringer PowerPlay Pro XL headphone amp (four different modules) that has been worth it's weight in gold over the years and I don't recall seeing anything like it from another manufacturer.

Re: compression, I've got a Distressor and it's fantastic but lately I record direct from preamp to track just as often. The Comp sims from MOTU, Waves, and IK are so fantastic and flexible that IMHO you really don't need an external comp going in.

[James Steele]

The Behringer x-32 is one of the best digital boards on the market. (Our church has 4 of them now!)

It uses licensed Midas preamps and is stock full of features. I used to hate Behringer but this board is putting them in the "good" column...

A friend of mine has a video studio that can do live streaming music concerts. He has one of these boards. I was blown away by the kind of features they can include these days for the money.

[Kubi]

Biggest problem with using outboard compression is twofold, I think:

One, you need a killer compressor to best the best software comps out there. Even an RNC costs real money, and it's merely a great little compressor *considering the price*. For the same or less you can get compressors by Softube and Plugin Alliance that are definitely better than that. And you can use infinite instances of them. Now to get outboard that is actually better than the best software, you're looking at at least close to four digit investments.

Two, the most expensive outboard sounds, well, a lot less expensive when fed with, and returned with, cheap converters. What good is a $1000 compressor when you are using $25 converters to get the audio to it and back? (Do the math on your 24 channel interface for $800... There are no miracles. May sound surprisingly good *for the price*, but that is still a relative statement.)

So unless you got great gear, and a AD/DA great chain to get audio to it and back, I say you're better off using state-of-the-art virtual.

[James Steele]

That's why I'm sort of intrigued by the UA Apollo. I understand you can TRACK with their plug-ins with no latency which would be the advantage of hardware normally. I've just recorded in 24-bit for wide dynamic range and applied compression after the fact, but sometimes some compression going IN is nice... especially for the vocalist. Hearing a pleasing sound in one's headphones can make for a better performance (for example, I have a hardware "vanity" delay/reverb for tracking vocals.)

[James Steele]

BTW, I actually have a RNC that's been in a closet for years. I think about busting it out for tracking, but like you said, software plugs are better and on top of it, I engineer myself and can't make adjustments myself while tracking my own vocals.

[Tobor]

And to add, when tracking yourself sometimes you're not watching the meters and it's easy to hit the front end of the compressor a little hard in the heat of the moment. So you can't undo that compression going in.

You can undo the ITB compression or fiddle with it after the fact to better fit the track. And latency is so low that you can enjoy the sound during record as well.

[Phil O]

How many of us are still using outboard compressors?

I do from time to time, but I'm finding that my outboard gear is getting used less and less as plugs become better (and more efficient) and CPU's become more powerful.

Phil

[HCMarkus]

I usually track vocals thru my UA LA610 with just a touch of compression, then compress further, as necessary, with Waves RenComp as I mix.

[Kubi]

I've become a big fan of tracking without compression. I think it often makes for better performances - well, if the player is good. Just a touch of reverb for monitoring (easy to do even if you're using Direct Hardware Playthrough, see below) and keep those levels LOW!!!! (Peak at around -10 dB is perfectly fine. Relaxed levels make digital sound better. Trust me.)


Here's the Direct Hardware Playthrough reverb trick:

1. Set your Input monitoring to direct hardware playthrough, and record-enable your track.
2. Create an aux track, set its input to the source of your audio
3. Instantiate a reverb with zero predelay on this aux. the latency will create a predelay, which with most reverbs is actually quite nice. If it's too much predelay, lower your buffer.

Voila, direct hardware playthrough with a software reverb, all without cracking open cuemix. In fact, I don't even know how to use cuemix because of this trick. I probably should learn it.

[James Steele]

Hey thanks, Kubi. I have an MPX-100 that just sits in my rack ONLY for vanity reverb during tracking. Maybe I can do without it now.

[Prime Mover]

I absolutely agree... Although I do sometimes track vocals with my RNC, it's no necessity. The only hardware thing I don't get is why the vast majority of preamp interfaces don't have a bricks wall limiter build in, one that you're not supposed to hit, but could save your take from a momentary clip if it happened. Compressors suggest something that you're purposefully using to smooth out the sound, and that is becoming more and more obsolete as digital compressors become better. But no digital plugin can save you from a digital over. I could even imagine a design where it's a digital process in the DAC stage that over samples the signal, then rides the samples down before sending them up the cable; no analog circuitry required. Digital overs would be a thing of the past.

Another cool idea I just had was a system that had a "semi-auto" gain selector. It would track the input level of a signal for the last 10 seconds and keep track of the peak. You press a button, and the input trim is automatically set to the optimal level, wih maybe 6db of headroom above the highest peak (you could set this figure somewhere). I shoot a lot of video, and it strikes me as the way many modern videographers use autofocus. I don't want the camera riding the focus while I'm recording, but it's great to momentarily turn on while setting up your shot. Same deal here, let the converter choose an optimal level before recording.

[Kubi]

I see your point, but a lot of units actually do have a limiter against overs and I think they often end up being a worse scourge on audio. Yes they prevent digital overs, but they introduce these massive clamps on the levels instead. And the person tracking (often monitoring on mediocre monitors in imperfect rooms, or on headphones, which make it hard for many people to hear compression artifacts, plus many people have a problem identifying compression artifacts anyway...) has no idea the track is (semi)useless. A digital over would have sent the clear message to back off on the level and do it again. Plus, since the limiters do need some headroom to function, they actually kick in a decent bit below 0dB. Now I have to explain to the poor folks why the track with the great performance sounds like (semi)arse and there is nothing I can do about it...



I am convinced that in the 24bit age, if you get even close to being in the danger of getting overs, you are simply tracking too hot. By about 10dB. Everybody, please forgive the preachy tone, but you've hit my current pet issue in modern digital audio:

Hey everybody, back off on your levels!
Set peaks to about -10dB. (They will get a little hotter in performance, they always do. But even if they don't, -10dB gives you all the resolution you'll ever need.)

Then listen in amazement as all your mixes open up.

[Prime Mover]

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

As for mixes opening up... I'm hopeless. I'm terrible with level creep. It's not so much tracking as mixing. For my last album, on a few tracks I finally gave up trying not to clip the master, and just threw a -9db trim on the master fader. I know it's just bad form, but here's the rediculous reality of modern floating-point digital mixing: volume is completely relative until you hit the master! Yes, blasphemy, but sometimes I find it's faster to throw the rules out the window than to try and go back and relevel your track, and accidentally throw off the level of the pre-fade sends, and whatnot.

I'm getting better, but I'm also not worrying about it as much as I used to. I used to hate myself for banging the master, but it actually doesn't hurt anything (unless you leave it like that and don't turn the master down).

I blame today's incredibly complex mixing options. If all you have is four sub mixes and 2 reverbs, then you have no excuse for not turning it down. But if you have 8 submixes, and 6 reverbs, some of which are sent pre-fader, some of which get mixed back into the submixes, and some that don't, you're in for some serious butt-hurt when you go back and try to evenly turn everything down that 6dB.

[Phil O]

+1 on what Kubi says.

As for level creep while mixing, I'm a firm believer in calibrated monitors. When your monitors are calibrated properly all you have to do is use your ears. If the mix is getting too loud, you'll know it without looking at any meters. I've been working this way for years now and I never have a problem with creep. Try it. You'll like it.

Phil

[Prime Mover]

Meh, I think my level creep has less to do with monitor calibration and more to do with my mixing habits and the ease of adding rather than subtracting audio. A lot of my music uses a lot of additive arrangement builds, and I often chide myself for doing a poor job of releveling music when more instruments come in. Eventually, I'll go back and deal with it, but by that time, it's easier to raise the sections with less instruments (because there's less tracks to level), than to lower the louder sections. This tends to push my mixes towards the loudest point. I've realized this and am a lot better than I used to be, but I still could work on it. But then again, when it happens, I work around it and I don't believe that my mixes suffer from it. I try to use meters as little as possible during mixing, they're pretty irrelevant, so I'm only really concerned with internal balance. On the album that I just finished, only a few of my tracks hit 0dB. Ironically, I decided that I wanted to master from a peak of -6dB, so even those that were well under I trimmed down in the end.