Jump to content

51m0n

Members
  • Content Count

    5,775
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

51m0n last won the day on December 14 2017

51m0n had the most liked content!

Total Watts

283 Excellent

About 51m0n

  • Rank
    Dark Wizard of the Knights Martial
  • Birthday 26/05/1970

Recent Profile Visitors

2,734 profile views
  1. The reasoning is as follows:- Compression at the start of the fx chain is likely to mean that all fx that follow will get a steadier signal, especially good for tracking fx like synths and octavers. Less obviously useful for overdrives and distortions (can depend because a compressor is a transient shaper). The limiter at the end is basically there to stop peaks from certain fx damaging speakers/pa. In normal use nothing should be causing the limiter to start limiting, but a heavy filter sweep or whacked out synth or octaver patch is going to be protected against. I know @pantherairsoft used to use a pretty mad board for his EDM stuff and I think he told me he was investigating this approach at a bassbash years ago. I wouldn't exactly call this a common approach for less ambitious setups though.
  2. From the Keeley page:- With feed forward compressors that use this type of true-RMS detector you use a single time constant parameter So we have no idea how long that detector is averaging over. In short I cant answer you with a simple yes/no,but its using a chip closely related to the on in the Becos. Probably not a 'true' limiter circuit then. Can you set it up to behave like a limiter with a slower attack time though, well no, you dont have an attack control so not at all.
  3. Even the fastest attack setting on a compressor circuit is not truly a limiter. Likewise a slow attack setting on a limiter does not behave quite like a compressor.
  4. Nah its more simple than all of that really. The circuits must be different to truly be a limiter vs a compressor. Its all about how the device measures the input level. A compressor will average the input level over a (sometimes very) short time so an RMS over a few milliseconds (although longer in some circuits ie opto just because it takes time to light up the element). So if your compressor measures level as an average of the level over the last n milliseconds it can never truly limit the front edge of a transient, because that is not the point in time when the average level over time has actually changed to exceed your threshold. A true limiter circuit is designed to measure level in a far more instantaneous way, obviously there is always some delay but an 1176 can have attack times in micro seconds only because it is measuring the input level super quickly. An La2a cant possibly be as fast, but then it isnt a limiter at all.
  5. Nah its more simple than all of that really. The circuits must be different to truly be a limiter vs a compressor. Its all about how the device measures the input level. A compressor will average the input level over a (sometimes very) short time so an RMS over a few milliseconds (although longer in some circuits ie opto just because it takes time to light up the element). So if your compressor measures level as an average of the level over the last n milliseconds it can never truly limit the front edge of a transient, because that is not the point in time when the average level over time has actually changed to exceed your threshold. A true limiter circuit is designed to measure level in a far more instantaneous way, obviously there is always some delay but an 1176 can have attack times in micro seconds only because it is measuring the input level super quickly. An La2a cant possibly be as fast, but then it isnt a limiter at all.
  6. Yeah, but a comp even set really fast isn't a true limiter.
  7. I would always advocate many stages of compression each doing less than you can notice for specific areas of the entire envelope of a sound. Especially a complex sound (mixed types of envelope). Super especially if you want the end result to be ultra transparent....
  8. It might take a couple of minutes fiddling to figure it out yes 🤪🤩
  9. Oh my! https://becosfx.com/product/compiq-twain-dual-band-stacked-pro-compressor-for-bass-and-guitar/ That is just, awesome!!
  10. No reason not to try it. In mixes/masters I find many layers of gentler compression on channels/groups or in parallel often produces the desired effect a lot better (ie with less unwanted artifacts) than one crashingly heavy dollop of compression in one go...
  11. Unless you are willing to pay big bucks just don't bother, use a vst. Seriously, never heard a tube pre that does noticeable 'magicks' that wasn't eye-wateringly expensive. Tubetech pres are frickin awesome
  12. Yep it's a form of filtered parallel compression that acts as a kind of exciter, used almost exclusively on vocals IIRC. Dead easy to do in a DAW.
  13. Anyone interested in the compression used in Motown recordings check out this link, especially the box about the kit in snakepit https://www.soundonsound.com/people/four-tops-reach-out-ill-be-there-classic-tracks A whole lot of compression as a result of a tube console, tape and even available mics... Also the di that Jameson used, was a tube di... They also said used Fairchild compressors for mastering.
  14. Jameson's bass tone definitely included being pushed hard to tape for saturation and tape compression.... And then there's the mastering compression after that....
×
×
  • Create New...