MClass Compressor vs Rack Extension Compressors

[RandomSkratch]

The Moo is totally clean. No tube emulation. Although I am a huge saturation lover I love the Moo for it's cleanness

Maybe he means the tubes have been cleaned?

[selig]

The Fairchild was the first compressors I'm familiar with that has these qualities, which the Manley "Vari-Mu" was loosely based upon.
http://www.manley.com/products/view/mslchp

This is in addition to the "tube" sound they both embody.

The Moo is totally clean. No tube emulation. Although I am a huge saturation lover I love the Moo for it's cleanness

Indeed - I didn't mention the Moo in my post though, I was referring to the Fairchild and Manley hardware.

[selig]

The Moo is not entirely "clean" but it IS very subtle. You have to crank the Threshold way down to get distortion, and all of the distortion is focused on the lower frequencies.

Here's the most extreme example, with the threshold all the way down (-48 dBFS) and the input level coming into the compressor at 0 dBFS, and indicating almost max GR (gain reduction) beyond the meter scale but not quite pegging the meter:

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 11.34.04 AM.png (136.98 KiB) Viewed 4102 times

Here's a less extreme example, with the threshold set to 12 o'clock (-24 dBFS) and seeing 8 dB GR according to the meter:

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 11.23.25 AM.png (132.14 KiB) Viewed 4102 times

Changing attack/release/output didn't change much at all, indicating it's more about how much gain reduction is taking place than any knob settings.

Translation: There's less than 1% THD at the most extreme settings, almost all of it occurring below 100 Hz, with 2% THD down at 20 Hz where there's hardly any energy anyway (so it's probably not worth considering).

Also worth noting, for all McDSP compressors there is an overall (and very subtle) EQ curve applied which also increases with GR. Here is what the Moo looks like, noting that at the most extreme setting (which is unlikely to be useful in most cases) there is no more than a ± 2.5 dB change in frequency response. The top curve is the more subtle compression above (8 dB GR), the bottom the more aggressive:

Screen Shot 2017-11-29 at 11.30.44 AM.png (144.5 KiB) Viewed 4102 times

What you get is similar to a head bump from an analog tape machine; a slight boost at around 100 Hz, an even more slight dip at 30 Hz, and a broad dip at around 2 kHz. Since there is gain reduction applied, it's difficult to be sure where the original "flat" response should line up with this. Meaning, it could be all dip, all boost, or more likely something in between as described above.

[RandomSkratch]

The Fairchild was the first compressors I'm familiar with that has these qualities, which the Manley "Vari-Mu" was loosely based upon.
http://www.manley.com/products/view/mslchp

This is in addition to the "tube" sound they both embody.

The Moo is totally clean. No tube emulation. Although I am a huge saturation lover I love the Moo for it's cleanness

But... the "Mu" compressors are tube compressors are they not?.. are you saying that tube = saturation?

Also - the vari-mu (according to the information I've read on it) is a very warm/rich/creamy sound - not transparent.

[RandomSkratch]

On a side note - without purchasing UAD cards are there any good 1176 RE's or VST's that won't break the bank? Been wanting one for some time now but haven't had much time for digging.

[Emian]

On a side note - without purchasing UAD cards are there any good 1176 RE's or VST's that won't break the bank? Been wanting one for some time now but haven't had much time for digging.

FET


Verstuurd vanaf mijn FEVER met Tapatalk

[RandomSkratch]

On a side note - without purchasing UAD cards are there any good 1176 RE's or VST's that won't break the bank? Been wanting one for some time now but haven't had much time for digging.

FET


Verstuurd vanaf mijn FEVER met Tapatalk

Ha Softube FET breaks the bank for me . Would love it though.

I think I actually have one from CM magazine - Hornet Fat Fet. Need to give it a try.

[123repeater]

Contrary to my old ways I try not to compress most things now (especially when you have the masterbus compression on a little bit anyways). To me its so much more important to make sure the levels and EQ are right.

If I do decide to compress it always starts with the SSL mixer. On vocals I'll sometimes add an extra M-Class. When I do that I make sure to go really light on both of them. If its not good enough still I'll do a parallel compression channel and really go to town on that but not use much gain from its signal, just use it to boost the original one.

I also subscribe to the theory that an M-Class Compressor combined with a touch of either:

1)Audiomatic
2)Pulveriser
3)Synchronus (this one gets wacky if you're not careful)
4)Scream

Can add a lot of the harmonic overtones (or distortion if you will) that are often described/fabled to be what sets analog gears "pushed gain" sound.

Im all in on not using external VSTS and in 35 years believe its much more about "WHAT" is being compressed than "WHAT PLUGIN".

[selig]

Contrary to my old ways I try not to compress most things now. If I do it starts with the SSL mixer. On vocals I'll sometimes add an extra M-Class. When I do that I make sure to go really light on both of them. If its not good enough still I'll do a parallel compression channel and really go to town on that but not use much gain from its signal, just use it to boost the original one.

Im all in on not using external VSTS and in 35 years believe its much more about "WHAT" is being compressed than "WHAT PLUGIN".

I believe it’s more about WHY.
If you know WHY you want a compressor on a source, you’ll know if/when that question has been answered (and what device answers the question best).

It will always be about “what plugin” for me, just as it will always be about what color for a painter, or what movement for a dancer.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RandomSkratch]

Contrary to my old ways I try not to compress most things now. If I do it starts with the SSL mixer. On vocals I'll sometimes add an extra M-Class. When I do that I make sure to go really light on both of them. If its not good enough still I'll do a parallel compression channel and really go to town on that but not use much gain from its signal, just use it to boost the original one.

Im all in on not using external VSTS and in 35 years believe its much more about "WHAT" is being compressed than "WHAT PLUGIN".

I believe it’s more about WHY.
If you know WHY you want a compressor on a source, you’ll know if/when that question has been answered (and what device answers the question best).

It will always be about “what plugin” for me, just as it will always be about what color for a painter, or what movement for a dancer.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I had a bit of an "ah-ha" moment the other day which goes in line with what you said (even though I've been involved in music for many years) which involved processing and what to use. It seems the why for many people is "to make it sound better" without even knowing what better is. In my opinion, visual things are much easier to process than audible so when painting for example, if your sky isn't blue enough to you, make it bluer. But with audio - unless you have something glaringly obvious or have an excellent trained ear, it's so hit and miss all the time. Plus watching youtube videos or even working in a studio with seasoned professionals can sometimes give you the wrong ideas without knowing the why. Although I know what a compressor does, I'm the last person to ask what kind of compressor to use for any case (but then again, it's all subjective right?). Look at painting brushes. There are so many different ones to use and it's (to me at least) very obvious to see what ones would work better for what cases but audio processors (dynamics) can be confusing if you don't understand what they can do. (Sorry rambling)

[selig]

I had a bit of an "ah-ha" moment the other day which goes in line with what you said (even though I've been involved in music for many years) which involved processing and what to use. It seems the why for many people is "to make it sound better" without even knowing what better is. In my opinion, visual things are much easier to process than audible so when painting for example, if your sky isn't blue enough to you, make it bluer. But with audio - unless you have something glaringly obvious or have an excellent trained ear, it's so hit and miss all the time. Plus watching youtube videos or even working in a studio with seasoned professionals can sometimes give you the wrong ideas without knowing the why. Although I know what a compressor does, I'm the last person to ask what kind of compressor to use for any case (but then again, it's all subjective right?). Look at painting brushes. There are so many different ones to use and it's (to me at least) very obvious to see what ones would work better for what cases but audio processors (dynamics) can be confusing if you don't understand what they can do. (Sorry rambling)

Not rambling at all! Most pros don’t verbalize the “why” when doing tutorials, one of my biggest pet peeves with video tutorials. That’s the FIRST question I want to ask! I was lucky the guys I worked for in the early years always explained the “why” when they were showing me things. It all starts with a “why” IMO!
As for painters, they are the same as engineers in this way: paintershave their favorite brushes based on experience, just like engineers have their favorite compressors. I agree colors are either more subjective or more literal, so I use brushes to demonstrate that example here instead of colors! And each brush/compressor had a certain effect that you cannot (in many cases) get with another. So you choose the right tool for the job.
So you may choose a compressor because you know what it does based on experienced. I may grab an LA-2a for a vocal because I know what I want and what it will give me (smooth compression). Or I may grab an 1176 for a different reason (a more aggressive vocal).
For me it’s more about the device than the settings, in that one compressor will almost automatically sound a certain way regardless of the settings. Using the previous example, an LA-2a almost always sounds smoother, an 1176 almost always more aggressive. It’s not that settings don’t matter - they DO! But you start with choosing the right tool for the job and you’re more than half the way there in my experience.
[emoji3]


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[RandomSkratch]

Not rambling at all! Most pros don’t verbalize the “why” when doing tutorials, one of my biggest pet peeves with video tutorials. That’s the FIRST question I want to ask! I was lucky the guys I worked for in the early years always explained the “why” when they were showing me things. It all starts with a “why” IMO!
As for painters, they are the same as engineers in this way: paintershave their favorite brushes based on experience, just like engineers have their favorite compressors. I agree colors are either more subjective or more literal, so I use brushes to demonstrate that example here instead of colors! And each brush/compressor had a certain effect that you cannot (in many cases) get with another. So you choose the right tool for the job.
So you may choose a compressor because you know what it does based on experienced. I may grab an LA-2a for a vocal because I know what I want and what it will give me (smooth compression). Or I may grab an 1176 for a different reason (a more aggressive vocal).
For me it’s more about the device than the settings, in that one compressor will almost automatically sound a certain way regardless of the settings. Using the previous example, an LA-2a almost always sounds smoother, an 1176 almost always more aggressive. It’s not that settings don’t matter - they DO! But you start with choosing the right tool for the job and you’re more than half the way there in my experience.
[emoji3]


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

Yeah I think we're saying the same thing here I've always been a "why" person - cannot accept "just because" for an answer - my old boss hated me for this when he was showing me the ropes for my current job...lol

Sculpting your sound can be very difficult when you can't see what you're doing - and if your ears aren't trained (or even capable) to hear what you're doing things can get messy quickly. Music production is a harsh mistress

Learning what your tools can actually do takes a lot of time and in this day people want results yesterday so just throw OTT on everything and call it a day haha..

[normen]

Yeah I think we're saying the same thing here I've always been a "why" person - cannot accept "just because" for an answer - my old boss hated me for this when he was showing me the ropes for my current job...lol

Sculpting your sound can be very difficult when you can't see what you're doing - and if your ears aren't trained (or even capable) to hear what you're doing things can get messy quickly. Music production is a harsh mistress

Learning what your tools can actually do takes a lot of time and in this day people want results yesterday so just throw OTT on everything and call it a day haha..

It is a constant learning process and it's one thing that isn't really obvious to people starting out. You really can only understand something if you see it - or in this case hear it. So you start to build up a kind of analytical hearing but at the same time you have to keep your ability to just listen to the whole impression of the song without analyzing too much.

But I'm sure that Giles will agree that even after years and decades theres always moments where even with the best monitoring system you just listen and think "WTF am I hearing? What is the problem here? Why does part X sound meh?" and you just don't get it. And then later when you found the issue and switch back and forth you see - or hear - it clear as day and wonder why you didn't in the first place.

[selig]

It is a constant learning process and it's one thing that isn't really obvious to people starting out. You really can only understand something if you see it - or in this case hear it. So you start to build up a kind of analytical hearing but at the same time you have to keep your ability to just listen to the whole impression of the song without analyzing too much.

But I'm sure that Giles will agree that even after years and decades theres always moments where even with the best monitoring system you just listen and think "WTF am I hearing? What is the problem here? Why does part X sound meh?" and you just don't get it. And then later when you found the issue and switch back and forth you see - or hear - it clear as day and wonder why you didn't in the first place.

It happens constantly! I still have the occasional “turning the knob on the device that is bypassed” experience, I still tweak a compressor to death only to bypass it and find it sounded better before, I still get lost in a mix and have to put it away only to come back to it and hear the obvious ‘fix’ that evaded be previously.

That’s actually part of what makes music production fun for me - the fact that what you did yesterday is NOT guaranteed to work today (or even come close in some cases). I’d die inside if I had to do the same thing everyday…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[123repeater]

Contrary to my old ways I try not to compress most things now. If I do it starts with the SSL mixer. On vocals I'll sometimes add an extra M-Class. When I do that I make sure to go really light on both of them. If its not good enough still I'll do a parallel compression channel and really go to town on that but not use much gain from its signal, just use it to boost the original one.

Im all in on not using external VSTS and in 35 years believe its much more about "WHAT" is being compressed than "WHAT PLUGIN".

I believe it’s more about WHY.
If you know WHY you want a compressor on a source, you’ll know if/when that question has been answered (and what device answers the question best).

It will always be about “what plugin” for me, just as it will always be about what color for a painter, or what movement for a dancer.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

I'd agree with you and hope the WHY is always before the "WHAT" or "WHAT PLUGIN". I absolutely agree that each compressor can be related to paint brushes or colors. However I think that using M-class or another one at the right time for the right reason gets you a great finished project (for the public) the same as choosing a different compressor for every single choice can also get a great finished project (though one could argue doing so potentially involves more room for error if you don't truly know the plugins, which takes time in itself). I believe it was Dave Pensado or one of his guests talking about how more important than having many compressors is to know how to use 1 really good. I guess it all depends how far you are into your mixing journey, I know you are further along than myself and appreciate you taking the time to be active here

I think a big problem with taking advice about any given mixing technique is that every song is sonically its own unique universe. Where the rules of other songs universes never fully translate (Even if its the same genres and instrumentations or even band and session). You can watch the best video about why the 1176 compressor is the right paint brush for a particular situation. But then when you do it in your own song maybe it doesn't work (due to the other tracks characteristics). Or then you watch a video about how they prefer some other plugin over the 1176 for exactly the situation. In the end its all taste and I think you are right in saying that ultimately there IS more control to be found, but I believe for many people they are better off trying to get the MOST out of their existing one until they themselves understand the limitations and need to spend more money.

[selig]

I'd agree with you and hope the WHY is always before the "WHAT" or "WHAT PLUGIN". I absolutely agree that each compressor can be related to paint brushes or colors. However I think that using M-class or another one at the right time for the right reason gets you a great finished project (for the public) the same as choosing a different compressor for every single choice can also get a great finished project (though one could argue doing so potentially involves more room for error if you don't truly know the plugins, which takes time in itself). I believe it was Dave Pensado or one of his guests talking about how more important than having many compressors is to know how to use 1 really good. I guess it all depends how far you are into your mixing journey, I know you are further along than myself and appreciate you taking the time to be active here

I think a big problem with taking advice about any given mixing technique is that every song is sonically its own unique universe. Where the rules of other songs universes never fully translate (Even if its the same genres and instrumentations or even band and session). You can watch the best video about why the 1176 compressor is the right paint brush for a particular situation. But then when you do it in your own song maybe it doesn't work (due to the other tracks characteristics). Or then you watch a video about how they prefer some other plugin over the 1176 for exactly the situation. In the end its all taste and I think you are right in saying that ultimately there IS more control to be found, but I believe for many people they are better off trying to get the MOST out of their existing one until they themselves understand the limitations and need to spend more money.

Couldn’t agree more - read my previous post to see why!



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[manisnotabird]

There is also the difference between how different compressors calculate attack/release rates, some using a 20 dB reference, many not. Remember, attack/release is a RATE, not a TIME parameter, so there are three parameters involved in calculating it (though the front panels only show one). There is the Time, the Distance, and the Rate. For example, the SSL channel comp's Fast attack time is spec'ed at 3ms per 20 dB, which is the "Rate". The "Time" is 3ms, the "Distance" is 20 dB. All to say that matching the attack/release settings of different compressors (even when the settings are given in ms) will not always give you the same results.

In the video I posted earlier where it was demonstrated that parallel compression with the MClass is the same as changing the ratio on an insert MClass seems to suggest that the attack and release are time (as opposed to rate) parameters. The parallel channel MClass was doing far more dB of gain reduction than the insert one, but they both "arrived" at the maximum compression amount at the same time, and released in exactly proportionally scaled ways (hence the ability of them to null one another with one's polarity flipped).

[selig]

There is also the difference between how different compressors calculate attack/release rates, some using a 20 dB reference, many not. Remember, attack/release is a RATE, not a TIME parameter, so there are three parameters involved in calculating it (though the front panels only show one). There is the Time, the Distance, and the Rate. For example, the SSL channel comp's Fast attack time is spec'ed at 3ms per 20 dB, which is the "Rate". The "Time" is 3ms, the "Distance" is 20 dB. All to say that matching the attack/release settings of different compressors (even when the settings are given in ms) will not always give you the same results.

In the video I posted earlier where it was demonstrated that parallel compression with the MClass is the same as changing the ratio on an insert MClass seems to suggest that the attack and release are time (as opposed to rate) parameters. The parallel channel MClass was doing far more dB of gain reduction than the insert one, but they both "arrived" at the maximum compression amount at the same time, and released in exactly proportionally scaled ways (hence the ability of them to null one another with one's polarity flipped).

OK, I'll try to explain this, but it's a difficult concept so bear with me!

Note: this "trick" in the video ONLY works for the parallel compression when both versions being summed (compressed and non-compressed) are the same level. If you lower the compressed track before summing, it will not null with the other track (the one that is not parallel compressed).

First things first: the summing of the compressed and non-compressed tracks is done BEFORE the tracks are nulled. When you sum the non-compressed track with the compressed track, you add 6 dB overall gain. Thus you must reduce the gain of both channels by 6 dB so that it's the same as the original. You end up with the same amount of gain reduction when you do this, and we know that the attack rate is tied to the amount of gain reduction. It is because of this gain reduction and summing that the measured time ends up being the same in the end.

But let's explore this further, and see what a "time based" compressors would actually look like (if it was possible to do).

Lets compare two cases. In one case we'll assume 20 dB of gain reduction. That is determined by the settings on the front panel, AND by the level of the input coming into the compressor. Now let's change the input level at the source (not on the compressor) so we now get only 10 dB gain reduction - same settings on the front panel, right? If the attack/release are time based, let's say they are both 3 ms in both cases, that would logically mean that one must move FASTER (the 20 dB GR version) than the other to achieve the greater GR in the same time as the lesser GR (10 dB).

In other words, assuming a "time" factor: if you visualize it, the slope would be different for the 20 dB GR vs the 10 dB GR. But what is changing the slope - we've not adjusted anything on the front panel! How does the compressor know to apply a different slope? In other words, the ONLY way you can have a constant time is if you know the total distance that will be traveled in advance, which in our case is the input level. But that's impossible because the compressor can't know how loud the signal is going to get in the future, for each and every time it crosses the threshold.

To put it another way, how can the slope change from the start when the "end" of the slope is not yet known?

Now, consider the attack/release are a rate, which means the slope will be the same no matter the input level. That's easy to do, the compressor doesn't have to know anything about the input level ahead of time. Once the signal crosses the threshold, the attack rate is in effect no matter how far the input signal goes above the threshold. Even if the signals goes down (but not below the threshold) then back up again, the same rate is always going to be in effect.

What may be confusing is that there are some envelopes that are "time" based - but think about it: they DO know the end level before they start because they work on a Time + Level concept, and all the envelope settings are known before the envelope is triggered. So they can easily adjust the slope for each stage of the envelope. In contrast, a compressor works on a threshold concept, so that it is "level agnostic" so to speak, meaning it can handle ANY input level in real time. The only way it can do this is to employ a constant slope/rate. Make sense?

[manisnotabird]

In the video I posted earlier where it was demonstrated that parallel compression with the MClass is the same as changing the ratio on an insert MClass seems to suggest that the attack and release are time (as opposed to rate) parameters. The parallel channel MClass was doing far more dB of gain reduction than the insert one, but they both "arrived" at the maximum compression amount at the same time, and released in exactly proportionally scaled ways (hence the ability of them to null one another with one's polarity flipped).

OK, I'll try to explain this, but it's a difficult concept so bear with me!

Note: this "trick" in the video ONLY works for the parallel compression when both versions being summed (compressed and non-compressed) are the same level. If you lower the compressed track before summing, it will not null with the other track (the one that is not parallel compressed).

First things first: the summing of the compressed and non-compressed tracks is done BEFORE the tracks are nulled. When you sum the non-compressed track with the compressed track, you add 6 dB overall gain. Thus you must reduce the gain of both channels by 6 dB so that it's the same as the original. You end up with the same amount of gain reduction when you do this, and we know that the attack rate is tied to the amount of gain reduction. It is because of this gain reduction and summing that the measured time ends up being the same in the end.

But let's explore this further, and see what a "time based" compressors would actually look like (if it was possible to do).

Lets compare two cases. In one case we'll assume 20 dB of gain reduction. That is determined by the settings on the front panel, AND by the level of the input coming into the compressor. Now let's change the input level at the source (not on the compressor) so we now get only 10 dB gain reduction - same settings on the front panel, right? If the attack/release are time based, let's say they are both 3 ms in both cases, that would logically mean that one must move FASTER (the 20 dB GR version) than the other to achieve the greater GR in the same time as the lesser GR (10 dB).

In other words, assuming a "time" factor: if you visualize it, the slope would be different for the 20 dB GR vs the 10 dB GR. But what is changing the slope - we've not adjusted anything on the front panel! How does the compressor know to apply a different slope? In other words, the ONLY way you can have a constant time is if you know the total distance that will be traveled in advance, which in our case is the input level. But that's impossible because the compressor can't know how loud the signal is going to get in the future, for each and every time it crosses the threshold.

To put it another way, how can the slope change from the start when the "end" of the slope is not yet known?

Now, consider the attack/release are a rate, which means the slope will be the same no matter the input level. That's easy to do, the compressor doesn't have to know anything about the input level ahead of time. Once the signal crosses the threshold, the attack rate is in effect no matter how far the input signal goes above the threshold. Even if the signals goes down (but not below the threshold) then back up again, the same rate is always going to be in effect.

What may be confusing is that there are some envelopes that are "time" based - but think about it: they DO know the end level before they start because they work on a Time + Level concept, and all the envelope settings are known before the envelope is triggered. So they can easily adjust the slope for each stage of the envelope. In contrast, a compressor works on a threshold concept, so that it is "level agnostic" so to speak, meaning it can handle ANY input level in real time. The only way it can do this is to employ a constant slope/rate. Make sense?

I get the second part of this: why "time based" would be impossible, but I admit I still don't quite get the first part about the parallel compressed and insert compressed nulling.

[selig]

I get the second part of this: why "time based" would be impossible, but I admit I still don't quite get the first part about the parallel compressed and insert compressed nulling.

One thing to consider: if you get the second part, then the first part must also be true or it wouldn't cancel - right?

Could be my wording wasn't 100% clear - but the bottom line is that the total time is tied to the amount of gain reduction. For any set amount of gain reduction, the attack time is a constant "time".

For example, if the attack rate is 3ms for 20 dB, then the attack "time" is 1.5ms for 10 dB of GR.

For the examples in the video, we can assume the total gain reduction was exactly the same in both examples, or there would be no cancellation at all, correct? So if the total gain reduction is the same, and we have not changed the attack/release rates, then we can therefore assume the time will be the same in both cases.

It may also be helpful to think of Ratio as a 'depth' (or blend) control, with a 1:1 ratio equalling full "dry" and an inf:1 ratio being 100% "wet". That is why a ratio of 2:1, which is equal to 50% dry/wet, is what cancels the 100% inf:1 ratio. This is because of the 6 dB reduction mentioned earlier, which is equal to a reduction in level by 50%.

Basically when we take a 100% compressed signal and mix it with a 100% uncompressed signal, and reduce the result by 50%, we end up with what equals a 50% ratio, or 2:1.

I'm probably talking in circles and not making much sense - hopefully something here will stand out as making sense!

[manisnotabird]

Just focusing on attack (and a ridiculously slow attack time to make the numbers easier) for the sake of simplification:



So, it seems that the 50/50 mix of the dry signal and the ∞:1 is going to reach 5db of gain reduction just like the 2:1 signal, but it'll take two seconds to do so, while 2:1 insert compressor will take 1 second to do so, right? Make sense? It should null after those 2 seconds (with one's polarity flipped), but not before?

[selig]

Just focusing on attack (and a ridiculously slow attack time to make the numbers easier) for the sake of simplification:



So, it seems that the 50/50 mix of the dry signal and the ∞:1 is going to reach 5db of gain reduction just like the 2:1 signal, but it'll take two seconds to do so, while 2:1 insert compressor will take 1 second to do so, right? Make sense? It should null after those 2 seconds (with one's polarity flipped), but not before?

But, it DOES null before - I’ll see if I can create a diagram that makes sense of it when I get back home.


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[Reasonable man]

While were on the subject ...what's everyone's opinion of the pulveriser as a compressor . I know its ideal for parallel compression but so are many compressors for this . Anyone use it for vocals or drums?

[selig]

While were on the subject ...what's everyone's opinion of the pulveriser as a compressor . I know its ideal for parallel compression but so are many compressors for this . Anyone use it for vocals or drums?

Is there any compressor that is not ideal for parallel compression?!?

I actually don’t find the compressor useful for any of my work. I like every other compressor in Reason including the COMP-01! I love the other aspects of Pulveriser, just don’t find a use for the compressor section, that’s all.



Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk

[normen]

While were on the subject ...what's everyone's opinion of the pulveriser as a compressor . I know its ideal for parallel compression but so are many compressors for this . Anyone use it for vocals or drums?

Just the other day I bounced something out of Logic to put Pulveriser on the bass ukulele I even posted the video of the music here. Its a pretty dirty compressor but for this very dirty bass it was ideal to even out the jumpy dynamics.