Moving away from the box

[steevio]

You can get fairly cheap hardware compressors that punch above their weight. I used a focusrite compressor at uni once and i really liked it. I can't remember the model but I think it was cheap. I'll have to check my notes.

you're probably thinking of the focusrite compounder, theyre rubbish imo.

both me and my mate have got them and never use them.

i'll echo what AK said and say that project studio compressors are a waste of money, you'd be better off buying analogue filters.

i've got a bunch of project studio compressors ( Focusrite, dbx, TLA, Alesis ) that rarely get used, i think you need to spend upwards of £1000 for anything that is any good. not a good investment when you could be buying much more useful stuff.

like AK says i dont use compression, and i know ive banged on about it on here before, but a recent development is worth mentioning. although i stopped using compression while composing years ago, ive always assumed that a small amount of compression would always be required at a record cut to get the level up to the kind of levels and density that others are working too, but my instict told me that could well be a myth in itself. so for the first time i decided to put my money where my mouth is and for my latest release i would use no compression, or EQ, whatsoever from my kit to the vinyl, and asked the engineer to cut the record with no processing whatsoever including hi and low shelving (which is usually required when cutting vinyl) or even mono-ing the bass.
when the tPs came the other day i was really worried that i had maybe gone too far, till i dropped the needle on the record, it sounds massive. i compared it to about ten records which i consider to be well produced and loud, and it sounded equally as loud and in some cases louder, but much clearer and phat (to my ears) the other tracks sounded squashed, grainy and distorted in comparison.

the only problem is that this effect may not be repeatable in the digital domain, i havent compared it yet, but i can only assume that this only works because of mastering to vinyl, and that the same tracks wouldnt be able to compete with the levels attained in digitally released music. but we will have to see.

one thing that is often forgotten when considering loudness on vinyl, is the fact that there are many different factors involved, for instance - say you put two tracks on a side, that combined come to 12 minutes long, and on the onther side the combined length is 13 minutes, you would have to cut the first side 2 dB quieter for the two sides to sound the same level. 2 dB is a lot !
so more important than using compression etc. is simply the length of the tunes on the vinyl.

sorry for going off topic there, but just relaying info, i hope its some use.

edit
please dont think that i think my stuff sounds way better than everything else, far from it, there is lots of better produced stuff out there, my stuff is pretty raw and basic, all i'm saying is that you dont necessarily need to use compression and EQ to get your stuff up to a level that can be released.

[tone-def]

You can get fairly cheap hardware compressors that punch above their weight. I used a focusrite compressor at uni once and i really liked it. I can't remember the model but I think it was cheap. I'll have to check my notes.

you're probably thinking of the focusrite compounder, theyre rubbish imo.

both me and my mate have got them and never use them.

i'll echo what AK said and say that project studio compressors are a waste of money, you'd be better off buying analogue filters.

i've got a bunch of project studio compressors ( Focusrite, dbx, TLA, Alesis ) that rarely get used, i think you need to spend upwards of £1000 for anything that is any good. not a good investment when you could be buying much more useful stuff.

like AK says i dont use compression, and i know ive banged on about it on here before, but a recent development is worth mentioning. although i stopped using compression while composing years ago, ive always assumed that a small amount of compression would always be required at a record cut to get the level up to the kind of levels and density that others are working too, but my instict told me that could well be a myth in itself. so for the first time i decided to put my money where my mouth is and for my latest release i would use no compression, or EQ, whatsoever from my kit to the vinyl, and asked the engineer to cut the record with no processing whatsoever including hi and low shelving (which is usually required when cutting vinyl) or even mono-ing the bass.
when the tPs came the other day i was really worried that i had maybe gone too far, till i dropped the needle on the record, it sounds massive. i compared it to about ten records which i consider to be well produced and loud, and it sounded equally as loud and in some cases louder, but much clearer and phat (to my ears) the other tracks sounded squashed, grainy and distorted in comparison.

the only problem is that this effect may not be repeatable in the digital domain, i havent compared it yet, but i can only assume that this only works because of mastering to vinyl, and that the same tracks wouldnt be able to compete with the levels attained in digitally released music. but we will have to see.

one thing that is often forgotten when considering loudness on vinyl, is the fact that there are many different factors involved, for instance - say you put two tracks on a side, that combined come to 12 minutes long, and on the onther side the combined length is 13 minutes, you would have to cut the first side 2 dB quieter for the two sides to sound the same level. 2 dB is a lot !
so more important than using compression etc. is simply the length of the tunes on the vinyl.

sorry for going off topic there, but just relaying info, i hope its some use.

Turns out I was wrong about the focusrite, it was the Red 3.

That's interesting about the vinyl loudness. The records with one track per side often sound better to my ears.

[::BLM::]

So many people dont know about that loudness thing on the vinyl its surprising. My last ep I had to say no to adding more tracks because I prefer 1 track per side because of the quality dip when you press up say 14 mins per side. I once pressed up 14mins on each side and I was not happy at all with the results at all.

On the flip side, it make me laugh when I see people moaning about having to pay 7.99 for 2 tracks on vinyl or even 1 track. The quality is at its best then when the track is say 8mins long on 1 side of vinyl so you would think vinyl buyers would be happy.

[tone-def]

The D&B scene have got it right. It's always 1 track per side and their track are normally shorter than 7 minutes.

[steevio]

So many people dont know about that loudness thing on the vinyl its surprising. My last ep I had to say no to adding more tracks because I prefer 1 track per side because of the quality dip when you press up say 14 mins per side. I once pressed up 14mins on each side and I was not happy at all with the results at all.

On the flip side, it make me laugh when I see people moaning about having to pay 7.99 for 2 tracks on vinyl or even 1 track. The quality is at its best then when the track is say 8mins long on 1 side of vinyl so you would think vinyl buyers would be happy.

the actual loudness isnt the issue really because as we all know it only takes a 5 degree turn on the gain knob to compensate for the difference, the issue is as you say the quality of the sound.

if you're trying to cram 14 minutes of music on a side, you have to use the entire width of the record and the distortion levels rise the closer you get to the centre, the grooves are being bent out of shape in smaller and smaller circles, and the grooves are closer together and there is less plastic between the grooves and more crosstalk.

but the main problem is that more compression is required to get the level up to a competetive loudness.

ive found that 11 to 12 minutes at 33 rpm is ok to avoid distortion.
so any less than that and cutting at 45, is only going to give you more loudness, not necessarily that much more quality, which can be easily compensated with gain.
but for bass heavy material like D&B where frequencies can go down as low as 27 Hz, the grooves are so much bigger and require more space on the record.
if your lowest note is say C (65 Hz) you require less space to reproduce your bass.

vinyl quality and pressing is also very important. there can a large difference in loudness between a record pressed on a good quality press on good quality vinyl and another done on the cheap somewhere. at the cutting room ive just been to, the engineer told me he wouldnt use any other pressing plant in the UK other than Vinyl Factory which is where i get my records pressed, and he added that they arent necessarily the best worldwide, but in the top half of the league table..

again sorry for derailing the thread..

[JonasEdenbrandt]

So Steevio to connect what you are saying with what I am trying to do. You got exactly the sound you were after without compression at all. But you work with a modular system were you have complete power over the soundsources. While I work on a sampler sampling old records. Could I also "get it right from the start" and not have to use compression (or similar processing).

Also I'm thinking of putting my money somewhere else then a compressor but I might look into it in the future.

[steevio]

So Steevio to connect what you are saying with what I am trying to do. You got exactly the sound you were after without compression at all. But you work with a modular system were you have complete power over the soundsources. While I work on a sampler sampling old records. Could I also "get it right from the start" and not have to use compression (or similar processing).

Also I'm thinking of putting my money somewhere else then a compressor but I might look into it in the future.

ok yes i'm sorry mate, i think that sampling is different, absolutely, but there are similarities, if you get grerat sounding samples, then they may be more present than ones which have been compressed t.f. less distorted etc.
i think envelopes and filters are way more important, and analogue ones generally sound sweet and fat.

you can overdrive a filter with a nice envelope shape, or modulated envelope shape etc etc. and you a similar effect to compression but nicer and with more creative control imo.

but i also think that budget compressors can sound worse than software ones.

and if youre releasing on vinyl you can avoid compression at the cut which may alter your beloved sounds, by making your sounds have the right dynamics in the first place. (of course you have to take your monitoring environment into account.)

thats pretty much what i was saying in less rambling way

[AK]

So Steevio to connect what you are saying with what I am trying to do. You got exactly the sound you were after without compression at all. But you work with a modular system were you have complete power over the soundsources. While I work on a sampler sampling old records. Could I also "get it right from the start" and not have to use compression (or similar processing).

Also I'm thinking of putting my money somewhere else then a compressor but I might look into it in the future.

I happen to have the same opinion about hardware compressors ( the budget range ones ) as steevio. I probably haven't used as many as some people, mainly dbx type compressors and other untis below £500 and if I were into compression, I seriously wouldn't particularly favour those over some of the better software available nowadays. It's potentially a fair amount of money to fork out just to stick over a stereo out and it's not really the solution you are looking for from what you have said at least. You said you wanted to move away from being in the box so presumably you still have a computer? Don't you still use the computer for recording because if that's the case, what's preventing you trying out compression on your mixes in the box? You're not creating music in the box but you can at least check to see how the effect of compression works and if it's something you really think you will benefit from.

The best results I have ever found when using compression was actually ITB where I have used a lot of compressors doing small amounts over busses etc rather than a single unit slapped over the stereo out. Doing that tends to force the compressor to work harder and you can potentially end up with more issues than you may have had to begin with. When the source sounds have been gently compressed throughout the mix, I never found the need to put anything over the entire stereo mix but I didn't really understand then that simply by using envelope shapes and keeping velocity sensitivity in check on my source sounds I'd be in control of my dynamic range which for me, removed a lot of my desire to use compression at all.

Anyway, I'm not going to keep harping on about compression because I don't think that's the answer to your needs at all, even moreso when you are considering it over your stereo out, you mentioned you are into sampling/samples yet you have not considered for a second about extending that part of your set up? How come? That's why in a previous post I suggested that you look at something along that line way before something like a compressor. If sampling is your prefered method of working it makes total sense.

I'm going to have to mention this again because of the specs. The link I posted last time had the original retail price as it was an old review so bear in mind these units change hands for about £250 to £300.

Emu E4XT Ultra:

Just check out thse specs:

128 voice polyphony and is 32 part multi timbral.
3.2 gig HD expandable to 9 gig.
8 outs including the main stereo out.
a 48 track sequencer
21 filter types
24 bit efx processors

That's just a few of the things, in the Ultra, any of 65 modulation sources can be routed to a choice of 67 destinations using 24 'virtual' patch cables per voice. The modulation sources include two multi-waveform LFOs per MIDI channel, direct MIDI parameter control over just about everything it makes sense to control, and three comprehensive envelope generators per voice. It can be used a synth ( using waveforms as oscillators ) drum machine, sampler and a sequencer in a single unit. The full review is here: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug99/a ... multra.htm

This thing was like nearly £2800 new and now goes for under £300, it could do as little or as much as you could potentially ever want from a sampler and being as you are into sampling, you should at least take a serious look. My own research led me to this as I still want one, I found nothing else that could touch it in this price range and with the instant looping features of your SP-404, this could work with it rather than replcae it. Tons of possibilities, the mind boggles.

With a unit with this much depth, you are going to be able to have a lot of control over individual sounds and one shots, having extensive parameters for things like single drum hits will allow you to set the velocity ranges of each sound, this almost works as 'manual compression' as you effectivel control the dynamic range of your parts, much like you can do with synths, the extensive filter and envelope types would allow you to almost mix as you create and build a track as you go along. I'm not sure if these possibilities are apparent to you or not, hence me mentioning them, but a lot of the issues you have described in this thread can be overcome by something like this. You wont even get a decent compressor for the price of this and anyway, there's just no comparison for me.