Comp plugins with "character" a myth ?

[Dork Lard]

Hey guys. So for years I tried all sorts of fancy plugin Compressors, nearly all the ones you could name I think, and while I did prefer one plugin for a particular aspect I'm now doubting there's any real "character" to be found in those.

This past week I randomly discovered the "stock plugin" 'JS 1175 Compressor' and thought I'd give it a shot. I compared it to other third party 1176 clones I had, and lo and behold... I got better results with the light/cheap looking JS. A cleaner compression. I compared it with other compressors: API2500, SSL, the fancy Slate Digital ones... cleaner, or at very least, the same.

I realized - and you lot are going to LOVE love love this next bit - I must've been wasting time all these years looking for "character" with larger and nicer looking plugins and all along should've just picked this simple one and got the basics down and relied less on the plugin to do the work.

Do you use specific compressor plugins for a particular sound ?

[Coachz]

MJUC has many characters

[foxAsteria]

"Character" can include lack of precision and distortion. Isn't always what you want... But a good character compressor imo will color the sound even without doing any compression. If I choose a "character compressor," it's usually for the way it distorts when pushed.

Different types are also suited to different tasks, some are very fast and clinical while others are slow and "musical."

But yea, knowing what you're doing is more valuable in audio work than the rarest and most coveted of character compressors.

[JamesPeters]

With the recent fix to 1175, it's become a very useful compressor and it has a nice sound.

ReaComp, as of the "weird knee" fix (be sure to un-check that box!), also is very useful with a nice sound.

The only other compressor I have for its character is DynaStrip by MrElwood: https://mrelwood5.wixsite.com/plugins/dynamics

Oh also I also use some of Witti's "transient_shaper" plugins for their character (if you reduce attack and enhance sustain): https://stash.reaper.fm/v/25168/js_plugins.zip

I wouldn't say character is a myth so much as lots of compressors that aren't considered to have character actually do. 1175 and ReaComp previously unfortunately had quirks which made them mostly useful for "cleaner compression" duties, otherwise they could overreact, each in their own way. Unless you wanted them to overreact in their specific ways (which some people liked).

Exactly what that character is though seems to be a matter of opinion. Some would think that unless a compressor is specifically trying to emulate a piece of hardware in all its distortion character, it's not really valid to call it character. The thing is, a lot of what we consider character comes from the general functionality of the hardware unit, which can be described in a plugin's code, without requiring the code to emulate transformers or tubes or power supply non-linearities and so on. I've found there are some differences in compressor plugins meant to get character, but they're usually minor (by comparison to 1175 and ReaComp, with the right settings) and those differences tend to vanish in a mix. With a bit of EQ before and/or after 1175 and ReaComp, you can accomplish a lot.

So you can obsess about it and use more CPU in the process with these specific so-called character compressor plugins, which can diminish your ability to use very low latency with lots of plugins (especially with open MIDI editors running drum and synth plugins), or you can appreciate any compressor that gives the character you want (including ReaComp and 1175).

I think it's far more important to understand what the process of compression is and how to control it, than whether it's meant to emulate a certain piece of hardware. Second to that, it's important for you to feel comfortable with the workflow of a plugin. I'd argue that it's worthwhile getting accustomed to plugins like 1175 and ReaComp since they use so little CPU but are so useful and flexible. (As a tangential point: also ReaEQ, when compared to many other EQs, is worthwhile getting accustomed to for the same reason.)

If there were hardware units made to sound identical to 1175 and ReaComp, I'm sure people would love them for their character too.

And sometimes it's doubtful whether a particular "character compressor" has any specific code to introduce character beyond what something like 1175 or ReaComp does. If they have a fancy-looking UI that looks like a photograph of a hardware compressor with glowing tubes and transformers sticking out of it (etc.), that can do a lot of the "heavy lifting". People will hear more character if they believe the plugin provides it. I'd say you made a good realization today.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

With the recent fix to 1175, it's become a very useful compressor and it has a nice sound.

interesting read. I just came to the conclusion those fancy compressor plugins were just all marketing, or just about. I know because it's just so damn easy to get lost in a brand new compressor interface with shiny buttons and functions to try. But as far as what I and most ppl doing rock are trying to achieve with a comp, that is enveloping snares or toms in that sort of "plastic wrap" that makes the drums sound more round and smooth and tamed, or just simply adding a bit of basic compression to a bass guitar + giving it some transients, there's nothing those other compressors could do the 1175 can't.

If I'm looking for a more aggressive solution fast, I'll just use the Waves API2500 because it just snaps. But that's not "character", it's just super boosted transient-oriented compression. I could achieve that with perhaps two instances of 1175.

Now plugin EQs are a different story. I'll make the exact same moves on three different EQs, say a 4db boost at 8K, and all three will sound different. Will affect the 8K differently. But with comps I think it's mostly our eyes being seduced by the buttons and meters and everything.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

If I'm looking for a more aggressive solution fast, I'll just use the Waves API2500 because it just snaps. But that's not "character", it's just super boosted transient-oriented compression. I could achieve that with perhaps two instances of 1175.

Or a single instance dialed in appropriately.

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Now plugin EQs are a different story. I'll make the exact same moves on three different EQs, say a 4db boost at 8K, and all three will sound different. Will affect the 8K differently.

Different EQs can arrive at the same shape, but you're probably going to be dialing it in differently. A lot of different compressors can achieve similar results, but may require you to dial in each one differently. It's basically the same story.

[Dork Lard]

you're surely more experienced than me, but my feeling right now is it's more difficult to achieve the exact same results with ANY EQ plugin, although it is closer to the truth than you can achieve any result with any comp plugin. Partly due to: Comp is fairly straightforward. EQ is vast. You can make an instrument a little better with good Comp settings, but you can absolutely transform any instrument with EQ moves. I know any time I want to add some shine to an instrument I'll boost some 12-16k on a parallel track and use a good plugin for that, coz I don't get the same results with just boosting some high end on FabFilter. But I'll use FabFilter for everything else, just not specific tasks like that one.

[serr]

The early analog hardware units often had distortion/saturation characteristics. The aim was always to compress cleanly. The end result was sometimes a compromise. And sometimes two wrongs make a right as it were. Someone may not have been going after saturation to begin with. But the hardware compressor that did some saturation along with compression sounded right. Now it's sought after.

These kind of devices just invited some cryptic bs along for the ride!

Fast forward to the early digital systems.
Early digital compressors sucked. I don't know what the exact big shortfall was in the early coding. Something with lack or precision over a large dynamic range? Whatever it was, early digital compressors (and plugin versions) sucked.

UA had the first "real" compressor plugins that were almost like using the older hardware units again. That was Protools TDM only initially. And then 5 or so years later all of a sudden people could code compressor plugins that simply worked. Like Reaper ReaComp.

If you were used to using the older hardware units and liked the saturation/presence element you could dial up, you might find that missing from the digital tools. And that would be a fair point. You might just have to start thinking about those elements separately and find the saturation tool you like? Or turn to the emulations of older hardware compressors by the likes of UA.

The cheapo emulations out there kind of suck in their own way. I know of 3 that are absolutely terrible: Bomb Factory, T-Rax, and Waves. ReaComp and any distortion plugin (if saturation is needed) will wipe the floor with any of those.

"Character" is no myth! It's also not very well defined and not an end all be all! (It usually means distortion.)

[Glennbo]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Do you use specific compressor plugins for a particular sound ?

I use Presswerk by U-He a lot for its tonal shaping capabilities.

First, when using parallel compression, the uncompressed side has a pair of additional controls that aid in tone shaping. They are a highpass filter for removing bass from the dry side, and a variable expander. What I like to use that for is to slightly expand the brighter side of the parallel compression when the other side is being compressed. This keeps the ineligibility up by putting an edge on the track when it is being compressed.

Second, Presswerk has a saturation section that can add saturation with dynamics or as warmth in general, each independently adjustable with a master above them. The saturation section can be pre or post compression.

Third, the detection logic has a fader control between hard and soft knee, and a fader between linear and non-linear curves.

I use Presswerk on my individual drum tracks and on most prominent tracks in my mixes.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by serr

The early analog hardware units often had distortion/saturation characteristics.

interesting. Character was a flaw before, now it's sought out.
And yes 'character' usually means distortion, but not always, some times a certain plugin will bring a natural EQ modification. I just never have heard that on Compressor plugins. Other plugins maybe, but not compression. I don't know of a comp plugin that, say, compresses but also adds a bit of high end shine. Or conversely, a particular sense of warmth either.

Originally Posted by Glennbo

I use Presswerk by U-He a lot for its tonal shaping capabilities.

I see, nice. I rate U-He stuff, although they're always pretty CPU-hungry plugins. I'd like to think I can just get away with using just JS or Rea plugins in the near future and not requiring to use any fancy plugins. Just nice/clean and fundamentally sound mixing. Buuuuuut for now eh what the heck I'm going to give this one a shot. Thx for the heads up.

[JamesPeters]

Compression has a lot of parameters, and most plugins don't let you adjust a fair number of them. Even ReaComp, I mean, what's the attack and release curve shape? (It "is what it is" and you can't change it.)

EQ, for the most part, is a matter of getting the curve you want. If I use an EQ curve analyzer and get the same curve with 2 different plugins, I've achieved the same thing. That's possible for me to do most of the time (I've tested this more than enough times, lol). The rest of the time: slight differences remain, or I need to add an extra band in ReaEQ so that I can make its low shelf more like a resonant low shelf by adding a band at the corner and dialing it in. The main differences that I notice in an EQ plugin: does it have the workflow I want (is it quick for me to use, which ReaEQ is, despite it lacking features in other EQ plugins that I've used). Aside from that, does it have the features I want. Something as simple but overlooked as: how does it sound when it's automated. (Hint: ReaEQ's bands aren't stable when they're moving around quickly, and that can cause glitches in the audio. But when those bands aren't moving, it sounds as good as any other EQ I've used.)

Anyway despite the differences in various compressor plugins, it can be easy to get similar results among many of them. Each might have something it does better than the rest. That part takes longer to learn. I guess you can also say learning what curves of an EQ to use (and why you might need to compensate for a particular curve that doesn't exist in ReaEQ) can also take time.

[mixer.x]

you have been reading too much marketing

com·pres·sion
/kəmˈpreSHən/

noun
the action of compressing or being compressed.
ie..the reduction in volume (causing an increase in pressure) of the fuel mixture in an internal combustion engine before ignition

[serr]

Today? Yeah, watch the gasli... sorry, "marketing"!

The myth has roots though. Hardware compressors were fiddly to begin with. Early digital tools were apparently even more difficult to create.

And this was one of those weird situations where digital exposed some curious workflows that were going on in the analog world that REALLY didn't translate to digital. Using tape dynamic limits as a compressor is the big one. Using certain hardware compressors as distortion boxes is another.

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Compression has a lot of parameters, and most plugins don't let you adjust a fair number of them. Even ReaComp, I mean, what's the attack and release curve shape? (It "is what it is" and you can't change it.)

EQ, for the most part, is a matter of getting the curve you want. If I use an EQ curve analyzer and get the same curve with 2 different plugins, I've achieved the same thing. That's possible for me to do most of the time (I've tested this more than enough times, lol). The rest of the time: slight differences remain, or I need to add an extra band in ReaEQ so that I can make its low shelf more like a resonant low shelf by adding a band at the corner and dialing it in. The main differences that I notice in an EQ plugin: does it have the workflow I want (is it quick for me to use, which ReaEQ is, despite it lacking features in other EQ plugins that I've used). Aside from that, does it have the features I want. Something as simple but overlooked as: how does it sound when it's automated. (Hint: ReaEQ's bands aren't stable when they're moving around quickly, and that can cause glitches in the audio. But when those bands aren't moving, it sounds as good as any other EQ I've used.)

Anyway despite the differences in various compressor plugins, it can be easy to get similar results among many of them. Each might have something it does better than the rest. That part takes longer to learn. I guess you can also say learning what curves of an EQ to use (and why you might need to compensate for a particular curve that doesn't exist in ReaEQ) can also take time.

I'm sure you're right about EQ. One EQ plugin might give you better results simply because it achieves those results faster, where it would take a bit more fiddling with another more basic EQ. The one area where this is different, is whenever Dynamic EQs are introduced. If you haven't tried it, give 'Soothe 2' a shot (an intelligent dynamic EQ). I'll slap it on a track, listen, and it always gets rid of some of the problematic action going on, and I'll check which frequencies it's mainly cutting out, and then open an EQ and manually dial in those cuts myself and yet it's rarely as clean. Also using FabFilter Q3, I'll often use the Dynamic function on my EQ moves to make the changes more subtle. Sometimes taming a frequency area by pulling down a Dynamic band is just what an instrument needs, vs a regular band and its drastic cuts.

[Greg Savage]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

Do you use specific compressor plugins for a particular sound ?

All the time. In fact, that's the only time I deviate from stock tools.

[JamesPeters]

Originally Posted by Dork Lard

...Also using FabFilter Q3, I'll often use the Dynamic function on my EQ moves to make the changes more subtle. Sometimes taming a frequency area by pulling down a Dynamic band is just what an instrument needs, vs a regular band and its drastic cuts.

Beware that basic static EQing is important. Dynamic EQ can be good but it can also make for an oddly dynamic mix in a way, if it's overdone. So you'll still want to get each track where it needs to be for EQ first, re-visit each track's EQ as necessary while you assemble your mix with other tracks alongside it, and then possibly have an EQ on buses, before you start using dynamic EQ.

Dynamic EQ can be a creative effect too, so that's another aspect of it that directly contradicts what I said above. In a way.

Yeah I'm aware of various dynamic EQs. I don't use them much anymore. You can also set up ReaXcomp with as many bands as you like, each with a subtle setting, and that'll help. Multiband compression sounds different from dynamic EQ, but I'm able to accomplish what I want with multiband compression when I'm after that general sort of subtle "balancing".

[Dork Lard]

Originally Posted by Greg Savage

All the time. In fact, that's the only time I deviate from stock tools.

Please give me your examples. Which plugin, what types of settings basically, and what effect you get.

Originally Posted by JamesPeters

Beware that basic static EQing is important. Dynamic EQ can be good but it can also make for an oddly dynamic mix in a way, if it's overdone. So you'll still want to get each track where it needs to be for EQ first, re-visit each track's EQ as necessary while you assemble your mix with other tracks alongside it, and then possibly have an EQ on buses, before you start using dynamic EQ.

Dynamic EQ can be a creative effect too, so that's another aspect of it that directly contradicts what I said above. In a way.

Yeah I'm aware of various dynamic EQs. I don't use them much anymore. You can also set up ReaXcomp with as many bands as you like, each with a subtle setting, and that'll help. Multiband compression sounds different from dynamic EQ, but I'm able to accomplish what I want with multiband compression when I'm after that general sort of subtle "balancing".

Ooh another hidden gem from the Rea stock plugins, hadn't seen that one. Will try for sure tomorrow. I had success with the Waves MB comps, but then settled for Fabfilter Q3s dynamic option.

I'll give you an example of how I use Q3s dynamic bands: the most common issues for me with instruments are low mids (350-600hz specifically) and then the higher range of 3-7K. If the problem is too obvious, I'll use regular bands. But If an instrument sounds alright but just needs a bit of correction, a nice dynamic drop around 500hz with a pretty wide Q will remove the boxiness without making it too aggressive that it yet again changes the tone of the instrument.

[JamesPeters]

Yeah if I need some obvious sculpting, usually an EQ is called for. Good old ReaEQ, it does a lot for me. Learning to use wider bands, tilts, somewhat "larger-seeming" moves including boosts which seem larger than I'm comfortable with (from looking at them onscreen), was a bit tough. Once I realized a lot of hardware EQs did just that, I started rethinking how I used plugins and why I thought ReaEQ wasn't very good. I was wrong.

Dynamic EQ or multiband compression to control the frequency balance works well, but it's probably best used subtly and to help clashing spots among tracks (which you don't want to "carve too much") get along better when they overlap. You can also use sidechain compression on those tracks too. Using sidechain compression on bass guitar, fed by kick drum signal, is a very common process (used on more songs than you'd probably realize, since it's very hard to notice even when you know about it, and it helps clear up the energy-gobbling lows of a mix), and I can even recognize snare drum sounds in a particular Havok song being ducked by the electric guitar (for overlapping midrange). Usually the less you have to rely on something like dynamic EQ or multiband compression, the more the mix "already works" and sounds more balanced in the most important ways that people immediately "feel" when they listen to music. They will describe it more subjectively, like how the acoustic guitar is "airy" etc. without realizing you just lopped off the low end and used a +8 dB shelf on the highs.