Hardware compressor - thoughts?

[alex1fly]

Hey all. I run a semi-sophisticated home recording setup. A few industry standard microphones (SM57 and a condenser) go into a Apogee interface, into Ableton Live, various sets of speakers, blah blah blah.

I work with mostly electronic music and solo vocalists. Record occasional keyboards and guitars and other random instruments & sounds that I create.

I've been reading about recording technique, how its so important to "get it right at the source"... and while my Apogee interface gives me a pure & clean signal, I'm wondering if I shouldn't get a hardware compressor to put between the microphone and the interface.

I know how easy it is to overdo compression. I listen to my old mixes quite a bit, and almost always there's a compression issue. Of course, living and learning is the best way to go. I use compression a lot, considering much of my music is electronic & loop-based.



For those recording enthusiasts, how much does a hardware compressor help or hinder your efforts to record great, smooth, quality sound? Because of course using compressor plug-ins *AFTER THE FACT* is different than compressing the recording as its happening.

Thanks in advance. I'm looking at CL, and there are some 2-channel compressors for sale in my area for around $50. Would be a pretty cheap experiment.

 

[zenmindbeginner]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

What you want is limiting to get a bolder and more powerful signal. Compression can too often lend itself to pumping, breathing and unnecessary timbre alteration IMHO.

If you give the computer a good, solid and clean signal... you should be able to use software limiting to much greater effect than a $50 hardware compressor.

For your budget, the half rack DBX 163X(A) over easy compressor would be an excellent choice. It's mono but would be great for vocals or individual instruments and just has a simple slider for perfect settings every time without a lot of pumping, breathing and unnecessary timbral alteration.

 

[alex1fly]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

DBX is one of the compressors for sale in my area.

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

What you want is limiting to get a bolder and more powerful signal. Compression can too often lend itself to pumping, breathing and unnecessary timbre alteration IMHO.

If you give the computer a good, solid and clean signal... you should be able to use software limiting to much greater effect than a $50 hardware compressor.

For your budget, the half rack DBX 163X(A) over easy compressor would be an excellent choice. It's mono but would be great for vocals or individual instruments and just has a simple slider for perfect settings every time without a lot of pumping, breathing and unnecessary timbral alteration.

This is not true. Limiting and compression are two very different techniques, and compression is what he wants to be using on the way in. Half of the reason you use a hardware comp while tracking is to get pumping, breathing, and timbral alteration.



Honestly Alex, I don't think your setup really needs or would inherently benefit from a hardware compressor. If you're dead set on something, an RNC would be perfect as it's relatively color-less and straightforward.

Any compressor that is going to positively benefit your chain is going to cost more than $50, unfortunately. Otherwise, you're better doing it all ITB after recording.

 

[zenmindbeginner]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

This is not true. Limiting and compression are two very different techniques, and compression is what he wants to be using on the way in. Half of the reason you use a hardware comp while tracking is to get pumping, breathing, and timbral alteration.

Limiting and compression are very much the same thing.

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Limiting and compression are very much the same thing.

Only in the sense that a handjob and anal are the same because they're both a form of sex.

 

[zenmindbeginner]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Only in the sense that a handjob and anal are the same because they're both a form of sex.

And now you're an expert on packin' fudge too?

You need to spend more time in the studio and less time bent over with your pants around yer ankles kid.

The next thing you'll be telling me is that chorus and flanging are two completely different things... or that phasing and wah wah are two distinct phenomena.

 

[Vasshu the humanoid typhoon]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

-...-

 

[cream123]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

How about a source!!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_range_compression#Limiting

Compression and limiting are not different in process but in degree and perceived effect. A limiter is a compressor with a high ratio and, generally, a fast attack time. Most engineers consider compression with ratio of 10:1 or more as limiting.

If you trust wiki that is, which I do. I've got a book at home that I'll post something from when I get around to it.

By this definition zenmindbeginner is right.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Limiting is a type of compression. A limiter is, in technical terms, a compressor with a very high ratio (usually 10:1 or more), high threshold, and (usually) fast attack.

That said, limiting is not used in the same situations as compression, which is why many people think of them as completely different things.

Personally I like to have a hardware compressor in front of my interface whenever possible. I am of the firm belief that it's a good idea to get your source as "nice" as possible before it hits the DAW. For me, this usually involves a good pre and a good comp. For most things I like a 4:1 ratio with a fairly slow attack - something to leave the transients (peaks) relatively intact while boosting the softer parts. Some like to limit tracks on the way in, but I think this approach reduces the overall dynamic range too much.

Speaking of good pre, if you want a hardware comp, you'll need a mic pre in front of it. There are two ways to do this:

1. Use the pre in the interface, and patch in the comp as an insert
2. Use an external pre, send that into the comp, and send that into the interface

I don't know which Apogee interface you have, but unless it's the Ensemble (or better) I don't think you have any real insert points. That means you'll need an external pre to go in front of your external comp, for any source that needs a mic. With that in mind, my suggestion is to get a channel strip instead of a comp. This gives you a mic pre and a comp (and quite often an EQ and other things) in a single unit.

A couple of good low-dollar channel strips I'm familiar with:

- ART Pro Channel II: a nice tube pre with a high plate voltage option, optical comp, and EQ. Intuitive controls and good metering. Sounds pretty nice out of the box, but a tube swap will take this thing into pro territory. Sounds very similar to a UA LA610, but is actually a bit cleaner-sounding (especially with high plate voltage). Lots of routing options too - you can hard bypass any aspect of the unit you want (e.g. bypass the mic pre and go straight into the comp when recording a hardware synth). Excellent choice for vocals and acoustic guitar; very nice on electric guitar as well.

- Presonus Eureka: transformer-coupled pre (similar to API or Neve), VCA comp, and EQ. Pretty different sound and behavior from the Pro Channel II. VCA comp is hard and fast, which is great for drums and certain vocal styles, but you can dial in a softer attack. There's something about transformer-couple pres that make everything sit well in the mix. Very versatile. Great choice for electric guitar, electric bass, and drums, but has no problems handling other instruments.

 

[uOpt]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

You can also split, records two tracks at the same time, one direct, one through the compressor.

The old dbx 166X and the likes can be had for cheap, sounds like a good investment. Of course they don't have a microphone input. Do you have a mixer?

 

[Virtual Kevorkian]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

You need to spend more time in the studio and less time bent over with your pants around yer ankles kid.

The next thing you'll be telling me is that chorus and flanging are two completely different things... or that phasing and wah wah are two distinct phenomena.

:laugh2: You're right, I spend no time in the studio and all my time jerking off, and my credits certainly attest to that.

Chorus and flanging are two completely different things. Chorus = tuning changes, Flanging = comb filtering via delay

Doesn't change the fact that limiting and compression achieve very different results and shouldn't be considered interchangeable, just like chorus/flange and phasing/wah.

Can you please explain to me why you would want to limit on the way in rather than compress? Are you trying to kill your dynamic range on the front end?

 

[alex1fly]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Limiting is a type of compression. A limiter is, in technical terms, a compressor with a very high ratio (usually 10:1 or more), high threshold, and (usually) fast attack.

That said, limiting is not used in the same situations as compression, which is why many people think of them as completely different things.

Personally I like to have a hardware compressor in front of my interface whenever possible. I am of the firm belief that it's a good idea to get your source as "nice" as possible before it hits the DAW. For me, this usually involves a good pre and a good comp. For most things I like a 4:1 ratio with a fairly slow attack - something to leave the transients (peaks) relatively intact while boosting the softer parts. Some like to limit tracks on the way in, but I think this approach reduces the overall dynamic range too much.

Speaking of good pre, if you want a hardware comp, you'll need a mic pre in front of it. There are two ways to do this:

1. Use the pre in the interface, and patch in the comp as an insert
2. Use an external pre, send that into the comp, and send that into the interface

I don't know which Apogee interface you have, but unless it's the Ensemble (or better) I don't think you have any real insert points. That means you'll need an external pre to go in front of your external comp, for any source that needs a mic. With that in mind, my suggestion is to get a channel strip instead of a comp. This gives you a mic pre and a comp (and quite often an EQ and other things) in a single unit.

A couple of good low-dollar channel strips I'm familiar with:

- ART Pro Channel II: a nice tube pre with a high plate voltage option, optical comp, and EQ. Intuitive controls and good metering. Sounds pretty nice out of the box, but a tube swap will take this thing into pro territory. Sounds very similar to a UA LA610, but is actually a bit cleaner-sounding (especially with high plate voltage). Lots of routing options too - you can hard bypass any aspect of the unit you want (e.g. bypass the mic pre and go straight into the comp when recording a hardware synth). Excellent choice for vocals and acoustic guitar; very nice on electric guitar as well.

- Presonus Eureka: transformer-coupled pre (similar to API or Neve), VCA comp, and EQ. Pretty different sound and behavior from the Pro Channel II. VCA comp is hard and fast, which is great for drums and certain vocal styles, but you can dial in a softer attack. There's something about transformer-couple pres that make everything sit well in the mix. Very versatile. Great choice for electric guitar, electric bass, and drums, but has no problems handling other instruments.

This!

So you're telling me... in order to run a compressor between a microphone and an interface, I need one of those "mic preamps" that I've been avoiding for years because they can be so darned expensive??

As far as a mixer, I have a 4 channel mixer with 48v phantom power. Could this play the role of signal booster/mic preamp?

As you mentioned uOpt, many of these compressors I'm looking at indeed DO NOT have XLR inputs. How does one get around this? I have a XLR to 1/4 cable, as well as an adapter.

Of course its not as easy as finding cheap gear on Craigslist and using it. Thanks again for your never-ending guidance, SDUGF

 

[uOpt]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

As far as a mixer, I have a 4 channel mixer with 48v phantom power. Could this play the role of signal booster/mic preamp?

As you mentioned uOpt, many of these compressors I'm looking at indeed DO NOT have XLR inputs. How does one get around this? I have a XLR to 1/4 cable, as well as an adapter.

XLR inputs don't have to be mic level. The dbx 19" compressors have XLR inputs that are also balanced but they aren't mic level.

What you would typically do is route through the effects line of the mixer. Or if you don't need the mixer for other things at the same time, abuse the whole mixer as a preamp. Typically mixers have good quality mic preamps.

To make that sure, 48 V phantom power isn't required and inputs can be mic level even if they don't have phantom power.

 

[ratherdashing]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

This!

So you're telling me... in order to run a compressor between a microphone and an interface, I need one of those "mic preamps" that I've been avoiding for years because they can be so darned expensive??

As far as a mixer, I have a 4 channel mixer with 48v phantom power. Could this play the role of signal booster/mic preamp?

As you mentioned uOpt, many of these compressors I'm looking at indeed DO NOT have XLR inputs. How does one get around this? I have a XLR to 1/4 cable, as well as an adapter.

Of course its not as easy as finding cheap gear on Craigslist and using it. Thanks again for your never-ending guidance, SDUGF

Basically, if your source is a mic, you need a mic pre. A line level source like a DI or a synth's output can go straight into the comp. The mic pre's job is to raise the mic up to line level so it can be processed by other gear.

So either:

Mic -> Mic Pre -> Comp -> Interface -> Computer

or

DI device -> Comp -> Interface -> Computer

A lot of interfaces come with mic pre's, so if you don't need any hardware between the mic and the computer, you're fine. If you want a hardware comp in the signal chain, you need the mic pre to be in front of that for mic sources.

That's why I recommended a channel strip - they're a cost-effective way to get a pre and a comp in one box. There are expensive ones, for sure, but like anything there are good deals to be had. The Pro Channel II is currently $269 on Sweetwater. Even after a tube upgrade you'll be coming in under three hundo.

IMO a mixer is a waste of money and space unless you're routinely recording three or more sources at once (i.e. a drum kit). You're far better off getting one or two good channel strips for what you'd pay for a decent mixer, plus you'll get a better pre and EQ than any home studio mixer could possibly give you.

XLR is just a type of connector. It has very little to do with whether the source is line or mic level. Typically a mic uses XLR and line level gear uses TRS, but this isn't a hard and fast rule by any means.

 

[SlyFoxx]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Alex1fly....VK's first post is your answer.

Ignore zen's advice.

Limiting during recording can be helpful but only in an emergency type of way. You might strap a limiter on a "live to two" recording to avoid levels over 0 but that's only because the limiting sounds better than digital distortion. Same goes for say tracking a vocalist you only have access to for a short time. Better a squashed track during the loud moments than a track ruined by a level that got too hot. Limiting is better than distortion or blown speakers but not really good for much else.

 

[DrNewcenstein]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

Alesis 3630.

 

[El Dunco]

Re: Hardware compressor - thoughts?

The next thing you'll be telling me is that chorus and flanging are two completely different things... or that phasing and wah wah are two distinct phenomena.

...They are completely different things. What do? Are you trying to be some really crappy troll?

If you would like to use a nice hardware compressor, there's no reason you can't record direct and clean into the box and then run your signal back through the hardware compressor on mixdown to taste. Take your time though.

Only in the sense that a handjob and anal are the same because they're both a form of sex.

Maybe it's closer to compressing being like a finger, gently pushing downwards in reaction to the movements and the limiter is the 9" dildo that doesn't let you have any say in the matter :laugh2: