Q : SSL individual channel compressor
Hi
I ve noticed that there is no " attack " parameter for the individual SSL channels compressor.
Is there a specific reason for this ?
Thanks
I ve noticed that there is no " attack " parameter for the individual SSL channels compressor.
Is there a specific reason for this ?
Thanks
- vocoderboy
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 24 Jan 2015
thats how it was on the physical ssl
There IS a two position attack control, with the "fast" setting being 3 ms per 20 dB reduction. Not sure what the slow setting is, but I use it most of the time (mainly on drums to add the classic SSL smack).Ayello wrote:Hi
I ve noticed that there is no " attack " parameter for the individual SSL channels compressor.
Is there a specific reason for this ?
Thanks
Remember the channel dynamics were designed to be as generic, simple, and useful as possible (typical description for console EQ or dynamics). They had to fit in a small form factor, and they had to have a low impact on the power supply as there were often 80 of them per console!!!
This is in contrast to a "rack" compressor or EQ, which can be larger in every respect (panel controls, features, power supply, etc.).
Selig Audio, LLC
Thank you guys , this answer to my question..
There's something to learn everyday
There's something to learn everyday
I understand the "peak" button gives even faster attack than the fast button. But then again, I might be totally wrong, because I always thought something was wrong about this.
Cheers!
Fredhoven
Fredhoven
I must say I rarely ever hear the hardness of a knee. I try changing it once in a while, but most of the time it does nothing to improve the sound at all (or I can't hear it). Basically, if the compression is too hard, I change the threshold and/or ratio.Gulale wrote:What I don't understand is that, why PH put the Knee so hard. That only make it useful on Drum only to be more specific. I wish they could add knee control.
Cheers!
Fredhoven
Fredhoven
If the "fast" setting is 3ms, what is the "knee" setting? even faster attack? 0.1ms or something?
What settings do people use? I used to use the fast setting on drums, but now i know its 3ms i feel like thats too fast sometimes, when u want more gentle compression.
What is the slow setting in that case? 10ms? 25ms?
I want to use the ssl stuff more, as i am used to using the m-class stuff to eq and compress.
What settings do people use? I used to use the fast setting on drums, but now i know its 3ms i feel like thats too fast sometimes, when u want more gentle compression.
What is the slow setting in that case? 10ms? 25ms?
I want to use the ssl stuff more, as i am used to using the m-class stuff to eq and compress.
Peak means that the detector section is "peak sensing" vs using an 'average' or VU/RMS type response (slower) for the detector section. So in a 'sense' it is a faster response and more like other compressors, yet the attack rate remains the same.Gaja wrote:I understand the "peak" button gives even faster attack than the fast button. But then again, I might be totally wrong, because I always thought something was wrong about this.
Selig Audio, LLC
The short answer is because SSL made it that way and it's an accurate model. LOVE this compressor for drums myself - if you could have a compressor that sounded "average" on everything vs one that sounded great on at least one thing, I'd choose the latter over the former every day!Gulale wrote:What I don't understand is that, why PH put the Knee so hard. That only make it useful on Drum only to be more specific. I wish they could add knee control.
Selig Audio, LLC
Yes there is some sort of auto makeup gain involved with the SSL channel comp, and like all "auto" functions it doesn't always work as expected! IIRC, it's more about the position of the knobs than an ability to look at the actual input signal, so when using a side chain input it's reasonable to expect things to get even more "tricky" as far as having "expected" results.zakalwe wrote:i've been trying to figure the SSL compressor out for myself. does it apply make-up gain? when i side chain a bass to a kick, it seems like it's louder with dynamics on (off the beat obviously)
Selig Audio, LLC
Gaja wrote:I understand the "peak" button gives even faster attack than the fast button. But then again, I might be totally wrong, because I always thought something was wrong about this.
Thanks that makes senseselig wrote:
Peak means that the detector section is "peak sensing" vs using an 'average' or VU/RMS type response (slower) for the detector section. So in a 'sense' it is a faster response and more like other compressors, yet the attack rate remains the same.
Cheers!
Fredhoven
Fredhoven
Gulale wrote:What I don't understand is that, why PH put the Knee so hard. That only make it useful on Drum only to be more specific. I wish they could add knee control.
The knee can typically be better heard when using higher ratios and with faster time constants, and on material that obviously goes above/below the threshold in a regular and recognizable manner. Soft knee settings will also cause gain reduction to begin at a lower threshold than hard knee curves, which becomes obvious once you see the comparison graphs:Gaja wrote: I must say I rarely ever hear the hardness of a knee. I try changing it once in a while, but most of the time it does nothing to improve the sound at all (or I can't hear it). Basically, if the compression is too hard, I change the threshold and/or ratio.
Sadly IMO, the MClass soft knee doesn't work like this (I've reported it as a bug years ago, but that's not going to change!), so it's not the best example of how this feature should behave IMO.
The MClass Compressor, OTOH, like at least a few other things in Reason, takes a somewhat different approach (still don't know why…). Here you can see that with a soft knee setting you'll actually get a different RATIO (end result, less compression). In contrast, if you compare the graph above you'll see that with a soft knee setting you'll actually be getting MORE compression (what I'm used to hearing).
The more you know!
- Attachments
-
- Screen_Shot_2015-03-22_at_12.06.41_PM.png (42.43 KiB) Viewed 3649 times
Selig Audio, LLC
Thanks again Selig!
It makes sense to see it as a graph. And with your explanation, I understand why I didn't hear knees well, because I thought they worked differently, therefore listened for other things
I'll see what else I can learn, next time I'm in front of a compressor with a variable knee.
It makes sense to see it as a graph. And with your explanation, I understand why I didn't hear knees well, because I thought they worked differently, therefore listened for other things
I'll see what else I can learn, next time I'm in front of a compressor with a variable knee.
Cheers!
Fredhoven
Fredhoven
I would describe the MComp as a "utility" compressor, not one I'd use for it's sonic qualities. In fact, I don't think I ever use this for audio compression, but I absolutely LOVE it for generating a CV signal from audio signals (enveloper follower) - best in Reason for this application IMO.gak wrote:Hmm. Well, though I've gotten some lovely results from this comp, I'm still not quite sure "if" (put meme here)
I still feel like I'm searching for "that" comp (and not sure what to try next)
What to try next, if you haven't already: any LA-2a and 1176 emulation. These are classics that became classics because of their flexibility and sound, and you may well recognize compression "sounds" that are quite easy to get with these devices (but near impossible to get with others). IMO, of course!
LA-2a and similar in Reason:
RE-2a
Moo Tube
Tube Tech Classic Channel (just the compressor, of course)
1176 and similar in Reason:
FET
FRG-4RE
Also worth considering in any exploration of classic compressors, any Fairchild style compressor.
In Reason there's only one to date, from McDSP: C670.
Sadly there are no DBX compressor models in Reason, the DBX model 160 often considered one of holy trinity of classic compressors (after the LA-2a and 1176).
That's a good start. Even if you can't afford any of these right now you'll still know if they're worth saving up for you.
Selig Audio, LLC
Just to ask Selig, Haven't you tried the Red Rock Sound and FXpansion compressors? aren't they worth a try? FYI, I have all that you have mentioned except FET. I liked it but I was not willing to spend that much money while I can use the Red Rock sound C1-L1 vintage compressor. take care
Gulale aka Bereket
I just mentioned some classic starting points to try if you're not familiar with the basic compression choices out there. I have the C1-L1 and while I can't really say anything bad about it, I don't even remember it's in my collection most of the time. I REALLY need to give it another chance, but IMO on the first time around I found it was an "almost" compressor.Gulale wrote:Just to ask Selig, Haven't you tried the Red Rock Sound and FXpansion compressors? aren't they worth a try? FYI, I have all that you have mentioned except FET. I liked it but I was not willing to spend that much money while I can use the Red Rock sound C1-L1 vintage compressor. take care
What I mean is it was "almost as good as an FET", and it was "almost as good as an LA-2A", or a Fairchild, or a DBX, etc. In other words, it was a great "second choice" compressor, but I already had a load of "first choices" that never let me down. So I never end up using it!
IIRC, a similar thing happen with the FXpansion compressors, but that was a long time ago now.
Selig Audio, LLC
selig wrote:
gak wrote:Hmm. Well, though I've gotten some lovely results from this comp, I'm still not quite sure "if" (put meme here)
I still feel like I'm searching for "that" comp (and not sure what to try next)
selig wrote:
I would describe the MComp as a "utility" compressor, not one I'd use for it's sonic qualities. In fact, I don't think I ever use this for audio compression, but I absolutely LOVE it for generating a CV signal from audio signals (enveloper follower) - best in Reason for this application IMO.
What to try next, if you haven't already: any LA-2a and 1176 emulation. These are classics that became classics because of their flexibility and sound, and you may well recognize compression "sounds" that are quite easy to get with these devices (but near impossible to get with others). IMO, of course!
LA-2a and similar in Reason:
RE-2a
Moo Tube
Tube Tech Classic Channel (just the compressor, of course)
1176 and similar in Reason:
FET
FRG-4RE
Also worth considering in any exploration of classic compressors, any Fairchild style compressor.
In Reason there's only one to date, from McDSP: C670.
Sadly there are no DBX compressor models in Reason, the DBX model 160 often considered one of holy trinity of classic compressors (after the LA-2a and 1176).
That's a good start. Even if you can't afford any of these right now you'll still know if they're worth saving up for you.
Can you elaborate on the different situations in which you would reach for those compressors? I've heard that the LA-2a is great on vocals and things that need a more soft, subtle compression, while the FET is good for squashing and parallel compression. Which I guess I understand because of their attack and release behavior (FET has a very fast attack, right?). But I'm still just having trouble "feeling" the differences in compressors, besides the character/saturation added to the modeled ones.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests