Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Larry Shelby

New Plugin Boutique Freebies for December

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Brian Walton said:

normally you set an attack or release time in milliseconds.

On Turbo Comp you have 0%  - 100% as values to adjust those controls....no actual "time" fuction, percentage instead.

 

0% is less time   100% is more time, but no idea what time value it correlates to.

Lets say I open up Plugin A and set it to 62% (and lets arbitrarily say it equates to 73ms); if I set the similarly named control on Plugin B also to 62%, would that also equate to 73ms? or does it differ by plugin?

Sounds a bit like the concept behind the Blindfold EQ by AudioThing to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, antler said:

Lets say I open up Plugin A and set it to 62% (and lets arbitrarily say it equates to 73ms); if I set the similarly named control on Plugin B also to 62%, would that also equate to 73ms? or does it differ by plugin?

Sounds a bit like the concept behind the Blindfold EQ by AudioThing to me

No clue, and I'd imagine tryign to measure the attack and reelase time accuratly in something that is normally captured in ms...would take a bit of wizardry to figure out.

Indeed, it is a use your ears situation...which is good and bad.  Even trained ears can struggle with suble adjustments of this stuff.  You take it to extremes and you can hear it, but less extreme you end up spending more time wondering if what you are hearing is what you are hearing....(at least in my case).

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who among us has not spent minutes tweaking a compressor plug-in's settings, getting it juuuuust right, and then noticed the thing was bypassed the whole time?

Anyway, when I mix, I use my brain, my eyes, and my ears. My brain knows what has worked in the past and we start there. If it sounds like it could use some adjustment, then we make some adjustments. It's like cooking to taste, you start out with roughly the same ingredients and proportions of them that you've had success with in the past and then start adjusting the flavor.

To my mind, this is like a cookbook saying "add 2% paprika" instead of "add one tablespoon of paprika." It's not a standard way of measuring that parameter.

Especially with a dozen modeled vintage compressors, if I'm turning the knobs and something unexpected is happening, or it sounds like poo, how do I know whether I just don't like that compressor, or it's not the appropriate one for the job, or I'm not setting it up correctly because I can't figure out how to set a 5mS attack, 100mS release, and 4:1 ratio?

I call myself a Meldamoonie, I really like my Meldaproduction FX and utilities, but this is kinda chafing me. Doing it "the Meldaproduction way" is fine to an extent, once you get past the FreeFXBundle they're mostly not for beginners. But why put in a needless obstacle to understanding how it works? No doubt it's a fine plug-in, but the learning curve for the advanced Meldaproduction products is steep enough already. I'll take this to the Meldaproduction forum instead of moaning here....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Starship Krupa said:

Who among us has not spent minutes tweaking a compressor plug-in's settings, getting it juuuuust right, and then noticed the thing was bypassed the whole time?

🤣   I hate when that happens!! 🤣

1 hour ago, Starship Krupa said:

...I call myself a Meldamoonie, I really like my Meldaproduction FX and utilities, but this is kinda chafing me. Doing it "the Meldaproduction way" is fine to an extent, once you get past the FreeFXBundle they're mostly not for beginners. But why put in a needless obstacle to understanding how it works? No doubt it's a fine plug-in, but the learning curve for the advanced Meldaproduction products is steep enough already. I'll take this to the Meldaproduction forum instead of moaning here....

100% agree!  I've had MTurboCompressor now for 2 years - got it with MTurbReverb for $99 from AudioPluginDeals! (I think?) ) but it just hasn't grabbed me yet.  I've been thinking I really need to give it another try though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's my review of MTurboCompLE:

I snagged it the first day, no surprise, and I think that as long as one takes it on its own terms, being a plug-in with a dozen or so modules that are set up to sound like classic hardware compressors, but that don't look and feel or even sound exactly the same, it can be a useful tool. Vojtech, the proprietor of Meldaproduction, has a well-known disdain for the idea of chasing the sound of hardware from an imagined past when everything sounded better because the parts used to build it were imperfect. This is one of the things I find refreshing about the company, they're a good antidote to when I go to Plugin Alliance and see them asking hundreds of dollars for those myriad channel strip emulators. I use a bit of console emulation myself, but feel no need to track down the perfect emulation of some specific board. Nothing wrong with it, it's just not my interest.

The classic compressor that I've long  been trying to find a good inexpensive emulation of is the dbx 165. There was a guy calling himself de la mancha who put out a most excellent one, but it stayed at 32-bit when the programmer got into other things and folded the company. Vojtech tips his hand about how serious his efforts were to chase vintage verisimilitude with MTurboComp; the information box for the dbx-flavored one says: "We listened to the DBX-160 [sic] and then we forgot about it and came up with the DBMeld 160." Uh, well, okay, if I had paid the full licensing fee for an emulation of a compressor that the developers said they deliberately put out of their minds before designing the algorithm, I'd be a bit bemused by their marketing efforts.

So don't expect to be fooled by the emulation. If you think of it in terms of tribute bands, MTurboCompLE is more like one of those outfits that have their own take on the band being tributed, like Koi Division, Dread Zeppelin, or Nudist Priest than it is one of the ones that tries to deliver as close a set to the original band as they can.

It's not a good compressor for learning how compression works and what the usual parameters do due to the idiosyncratic labeling and workflow. IMO, the best one for that is their MCompressor, which combines straight-up Attack and Release (in mS), Ratio (expressed as a number followed by a semicolon and a "1"), Threshold (dB) and Gain (dB again) with a very informative graphical display that shows how the compressor is set and what it is doing to the signal. Oddly, some of the models of compressor in MTurboCompLE have their controls labeled in mS and dB and ratio, so it's not impossible. The developer says that he didn't do it because those numbers don't really mean what they say on other compressors. I say, fine, who cares, then, why not just let us use them anyway? It's not like it hurts anyone to believe that we're actually dialing in microseconds and precise ratios. The important thing is that we already know what to expect from "10mS" attack and "8:1" ratio. Percent is fine for Dry/Wet controls. There is already a convention for "meanlingless place markers," which is labeling 1-10 or higher, with no units.

In order to really "get" this compressor, I think it's necessary to read the manual, but don't worry, if you're familiar with Meldaproduction documentation, you won't be surprised to learn that the description and information specific to use of MTurboComp fits comfortably on a single page while the other 150 pages (I am in no way exaggerating or stretching the truth, really I wish I were) are generic boilerplate that describes features common to most Meldaproduction plug-ins, like modulators and multiparameters. There's not even the slightest description of what a compressor does. There is no mention of the Ratio control, and Threshold is only mentioned in passing to distinguish MTurboComp from other compressors, ones that don't have the Mighty Compression Knob.

I've complained in the friendliest way about the Meldaproduction product manuals in the past. Their ad copy boasts about how their products are the MOST advanced, forward-thinking tools for modern music production, yet the comprehensive instructions on how to use all this power to, y'know, make music, seem to be missing. Go to their site and try to figure out what MSpectralDelay does from reading the ad copy or manual. I know what it does on my system because they gave me a license as a loyalty award. It makes things sound weird in a warpy, filtery, repeaty way, like one of Glitchmachines' delays. This happens to be useful to me in my endeavours, but if there's something else it can do besides scroll presets hoping to happen upon the perfect "glurtch" it's lost on me. MFreeform Phase? No idea. It's not a "phaser," at least. MFreqShifter? MSpectralPan? MWaveShaper? I don't know what they're supposed to do and the documentation is no help. Trial and error.

Another thing that distinguishes this product from other compressor plug-ins and some hardware units is that nowhere are we given access to knee shape or RMS time. With MTurboComp, we do get precise bar graphs for input, output, LU, and gain reduction as well as a very detailed animated histogram (also common to all of their processors) that can be configured to plot all of these things and more. Pls. see pps. 2-151 of manual. I'm sure there's a description of setting it up somewhere in there.

To extrapolate from the crumbs offered by the manual, MTurboCompLE for the most part seems (I'm guessing, there is no canonical way to actually know) to combine Ratio and Threshold controls into one bigger knob called "Compression," and the idea is you put this thing on your track or bus, pick a compressor model and if the stock settings need to be tweaked, you hit the attack and release controls, but stay away from ratio and threshold and instead use the big "Compression" knob. You can watch the meter to see how much gain reduction you're getting. On some of them you can get at the ratio and threshold, but they're labeled as a percentage, but a percentage of what, they don't say. How do I dial in a 4:1 compression ratio? No idea. Do I need a calculator? 5mS attack, 150mS release? Nope, no help.

The really cool feature is that MTurboCompLE's Compression knob sort of has MCompare built into it, so while you're dialing more compression, the plug-in is calculating the makeup gain based on loudness. This eliminates having to fiddle with makeup gain manually, and keeps you out of the perceptual sandtrap of louder usually sounding better. It is so humbling once one tries out something like MCompare or GainMatch and realizes that one's skills at improving a track via the psychoacoustic magic of compression too often may have amounted to being over generous with the makeup gain knob. One need not disclose how one knows about this, but one does know about it.

This does seem to be a processor oriented toward "using your ears," and I mean that in a positive way. With the gain compensation built in, I think it will allow me to focus more on what effect the Mighty Compression Knob is having rather than fussing with milliseconds and ratios. If I want I can shuffle through 14 different compressor types in a minute, turning the knob back and forth, and choose whatever sounds best. That's how I hope to use this thing. 14 quickie compression solutions that resemble classic hardware units. Fun fun.

Another unexpected treat is the inclusion of a 4-band multiband compressor that is said to be based on the 1176. Unfortunately it has no metering beyond the aforementioned bar graphs and histogram, which would make dialing in individual bands kinda fussy.

I think part of the issue that some people seem to have with MTurboCompLE is that we've come to expect something different from the company, which is very painstaking signal processing coding wizardry and endless control and configurability. They didn't seem to be overly concerned with precisely emulating the units they say they're trying to emulate; we're mostly supposed to set them up with one knob, and the more granular controls aren't even labeled in the standard way. Those things don't seem very "Meldaproduction" to me. I was expecting to see a dbx with "the industry's most stunningly advanced accurate emulation of the old hardware VCA" and then, if anything, even more control over each compressor parameter. That's not what this is. I guess the non-LE version allows you to assemble your own compressors out of parts of the other modules, but that isn't really the point of good hardware emulation. Nice, but not what vintage emulation is primarily about. This is a Meldaproduction compressor made to sound like vintage hardware, not a vintage hardware emulation with Meldaproduction features included.

Hard to beat the price, and, oh, I tried the dbx on my guitar track and it sounds killer, and actually quite dbx-y.

-Erik "Starship Krupa" Miller

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thanks for the detailed review @Starship Krupa I appreciate the time you must have spent on it 👍

I finally bought MIDI Madness 3 using some rewards and virtual cash and chose MTurboCompLE as my freebie.
Looking forward to trying it out and especially the dbx on my guitar tracks!

  • Like 1
  • Great Idea 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say it is kind of philosophical topic... Typical for vintage hardware was every single piece of hardware were a little different. 

So if every 'copy' was different which one was sounding most vintage?  And if every copy was different how can anyone be sure a given emulation is not emulating that one which was very rare and not met by person who is judging what is sounding vintage and what is not?

It is obviously some of range of sound with some similarity each to other to be in a family...  But how can anyone be sure (including top mixers) that he has had or heard the best copy ever produced? Maybe somewhere in garage in small country a hobbyist has the one? 

But if so why not make emulation which cover whole range of similar sound not just following exact copy but rather trying to emulate signature matching sound for every family member?

And even going further... How can anyone assume the best possible copy for any family was ever made?

Because of that randomness it is possible - for instance - that if part X1 has 581 value not used in range for given part tolerance 480-550 it would sound the best and magical?

So concluding I share the point of Vojtek in that matter, no special reason to focus strictly on emulation of exact hardware as it is limiting in fact to some - maybe great and proven -  paths but still it is blocker for evolution and finding something even better... What sounds great but like nothing what was made before... and whenever...

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too find it interesting when people try to sell emulations of "classic" compressors as a selling point. Being old enough to actually be around when compressors were in use, I remember the dbx 160 to be ok in the studio but flaky on tour, couldn't get on with Valley People comps, my favourite was the drawmers which don't get the same amount of love in the virtual world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, ZincT said:

Wow, thanks for the detailed review @Starship Krupa I appreciate the time you must have spent on it 👍

I finally bought MIDI Madness 3 using some rewards and virtual cash and chose MTurboCompLE as my freebie.
Looking forward to trying it out and especially the dbx on my guitar tracks!

MIDI Madness 3 looks interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lawajava said:

MIDI Madness 3 looks interesting.

It's a lot of fun in a mad, MIDI kind of way 😁 I fired up 3 instances of Chromaphone 3 and MM3 and quickly had some interesting ideas going.

What looks more interesting though is that you can use it for generating CC data. One of his later videos demonstrates this.

Here's an intro video.

 

Here's UncleAge doing some stuff with it... https://youtu.be/za2g-X4oqT8?t=1

Edited by ZincT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone confirm whether successive purchases will get you your choice of the remaining freebies? The last deal was like that, I wound up with both Animate and Drumazon.

I'll pop for another five buck Glitchmachine to get it and W.A. Fundamental Bass. I've been experiencing the discreet charms of W. A. Production's plug-ins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Starship Krupa said:

Can anyone confirm whether successive purchases will get you your choice of the remaining freebies? The last deal was like that, I wound up with both Animate and Drumazon.

I'll pop for another five buck Glitchmachine to get it and W.A. Fundamental Bass. I've been experiencing the discreet charms of W. A. Production's plug-ins.

Yes...they do.  You can take one for each consecutive purchase until you've used all 4 freebies

Edited by cclarry
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/4/2020 at 2:53 PM, Piotr said:

I would say it is kind of philosophical topic... Typical for vintage hardware was every single piece of hardware were a little different. 

So if every 'copy' was different which one was sounding most vintage?  And if every copy was different how can anyone be sure a given emulation is not emulating that one which was very rare and not met by person who is judging what is sounding vintage and what is not?

It is obviously some of range of sound with some similarity each to other to be in a family...  But how can anyone be sure (including top mixers) that he has had or heard the best copy ever produced? Maybe somewhere in garage in small country a hobbyist has the one? 

But if so why not make emulation which cover whole range of similar sound not just following exact copy but rather trying to emulate signature matching sound for every family member?

And even going further... How can anyone assume the best possible copy for any family was ever made?

Because of that randomness it is possible - for instance - that if part X1 has 581 value not used in range for given part tolerance 480-550 it would sound the best and magical?

So concluding I share the point of Vojtek in that matter, no special reason to focus strictly on emulation of exact hardware as it is limiting in fact to some - maybe great and proven -  paths but still it is blocker for evolution and finding something even better... What sounds great but like nothing what was made before... and whenever...

 

 

It depends on how they created the emulation.  Some use the actual unit, others are emulating a schematic, etc.

No matter which way it is done, I don't think anyone expects it to be the exact copy of the best unit in existence.  

I also don't think the people creating the plug-in have ears like Ken Fischer did.  So the idea that these plug-in creators are even capable of creating something that is the greatest audio processing unit of all time is equally unrealistic.  

I appreciate the notion of going beyond a clone of the hardware in this digital age.  I don't want to have unnecessary limitations, etc.  But I also don't have unrealistic expectations that these coders have better ears than the giants of the audio world.  

We have reached a point where the audio tools for many effect processing tasks in box are good enough in the right hands.   I did not believe that was the case 20 years ago.  

If I buy a 670 on the internet, I don't expect it to be the best one ever made, nor do I expect a plug-in to sound exactly like it.  I don't even expect two guitar amps that came off the same assembly line to sound identical.  But they will have more similarities than dissimilarity as part tollerences even on sensitive circuits yield "minor" differences in tone, sound, and responsiveness.  And typically it takes a controlled environment and A/B to call out and really notice the differences. 

Which plug in makers can tell you what comp or eq was used on some random album track that was recorded by someone else by ear alone.  I'm going to bet not one single person can do it with even 80 percent accuracy.

 

 

Edited by Brian Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

I also don't think the people creating the plug-in have ears like Ken Fischer did. 

Sure, but does it really matter?

17 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

So the idea that these plug-in creators are even capable of creating something that is the greatest audio processing unit of all time is equally unrealistic.  

I disagree with it. ;) They only need to discover method and implementation. About sound they will just hire top mixers for help about decreasing range possibilities to reasonable etc... In fact this is the way how many signature series of plugins were created... Do you believe CLA was programming  algorithms or even create methods of measurements? 

It is just expanding idea leaving limitation about similarity for given hardware piece.  API 2500 compressors have their own signature and SSL E their own but what about something what can freely move from feature of any compressor still keeping that hardware like feelings... etc... There are already some plugings which are trying  to have a few algorithms to pick like an option. I am thinking about something just bigger and not limited to discrete settings.  To eliminate total rubbish (so to avoid infinity of readings) neural network could be used to support the process.

 

17 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

I appreciate the notion of going beyond a clone of the hardware in this digital age.  I don't want to have unnecessary limitations, etc.  But I also don't have unrealistic expectations that these coders have better ears than the giants of the audio world.  

But they don't need to... Waves for creating CLA series asked CLA for help not leaving sound judgment for programmers or app designers or PMs :)

 

18 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

Which plug in makers can tell you what comp or eq was used on some random album track that was recorded by someone else by ear alone.  I'm going to bet not one single person can do it with even 80 percent accuracy.

Well, on the end of the day, the most important is just result. No matters if anybody can recognize   used hw model or even preferable if it is not possible ;)

It is all about music, and additionally tastes are changing. We like sound of heavy compressed vocals in pop as we are used to hear them from our childhood (and it is an way to let it hear in dense mix at all ) so it sounds for us right. We are trying to keep  some proportions expected for  a given genre. Until somebody crash the rules but keeping it sounds great  in a way that can attract us. Just like mixing different styles of music.  Before gothic metal gained appreciation how ridiculous could sound idea of mixing heavy metal with opera?  Mixing behavior of different hardware existing or not existing is giving infinite possibilities so something great is probably waiting for us still hidden ;)

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Piotr said:

Sure, but does it really matter?

I disagree with it. ;) They only need to discover method and implementation. About sound they will just hire top mixers for help about decreasing range possibilities to reasonable etc... In fact this is the way how many signature series of plugins were created... Do you believe CLA was programming  algorithms or even create methods of measurements? 

It is just expanding idea leaving limitation about similarity for given hardware piece.  API 2500 compressors have their own signature and SSL E their own but what about something what can freely move from feature of any compressor still keeping that hardware like feelings... etc... There are already some plugings which are trying  to have a few algorithms to pick like an option. I am thinking about something just bigger and not limited to discrete settings.  To eliminate total rubbish (so to avoid infinity of readings) neural network could be used to support the process.

 

But they don't need to... Waves for creating CLA series asked CLA for help not leaving sound judgment for programmers or app designers or PMs :)

 

Well, on the end of the day, the most important is just result. No matters if anybody can recognize   used hw model or even preferable if it is not possible ;)

It is all about music, and additionally tastes are changing. We like sound of heavy compressed vocals in pop as we are used to hear them from our childhood (and it is an way to let it hear in dense mix at all ) so it sounds for us right. We are trying to keep  some proportions expected for  a given genre. Until somebody crash the rules but keeping it sounds great  in a way that can attract us. Just like mixing different styles of music.  Before gothic metal gained appreciation how ridiculous could sound idea of mixing heavy metal with opera?  Mixing behavior of different hardware existing or not existing is giving infinite possibilities so something great is probably waiting for us still hidden ;)

 

 

 

CLA the same guy that doesn't even use his own "signature plugins?"

I've been around enough collaborations between the the "expert/artist" and the company that is doing the product development to know the product developer still needs good ears to interpret the jive the expert/artist speaks in.  

It is great that we have wonderful tools and an internet of both experts and hobbyists that can call out snake oil or genuinely useful tools.   But most plugins don't have a world renown engineer behind them....and those that do also have a pile of money being paid to do so.  

I also know Grammy winning engineers that are very good at what they do, but don't have the ability to discern very minor changes in sound, such as the ratio or attack and release times in a compressor in the context of a mix.    

 

If a plugin maker doesn't have good enough ears to discern certain characteristics and changes in sound then, yes, I'd say that kind of matters if they have a goal of creating something that basically sounds like something else.

The problem with audio is there is a ton of snake oil.  You can make a simple one knob plugin that simply compresses and adds eq at a certain frequency range and as long as you pick a frequency range that is in a non-harsh range you have a plugin someone will think is magical as it can bring out or emphasize something in the mix.  Look at the Aphex Exciter....that thing was considered magic and yet you push it a little to far and it the most awful thing you will ever hear.  All you have to do is simply change the sound and there is someone out there that will like it, even educated people.  

 

edit:   look at all the TS-9 or TS-808 pedals sold and the high prices for originals.  Anyone with half way decent hearing knows those things can destroy good guitar tone.  What they can do is cut through a mix by re-equing the guitar signal and adding not exactly world class harmonics/distortion, and compress so the guitarist doesn't have to control their own dynamic playing.   But people buy them because they read everyone uses them and SRV had one, and they are the only thing in his rig they could afford. 

Edited by Brian Walton
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

CLA the same guy that doesn't even use his own "signature plugins?"

I do not really  understand such argument. Often seen on different forums but how does it really matter? It doesn't prove anything. 

He has got his great SSL console and lots of other excellent hardware he has invested for years and sound great so why he should suddenly abandon his favorite path proven to give best results just for a sake of using his signature plugin. Especially he is really fast with it.

Does it really mean 'his' plugins are bad? I wouldn't say it. They did great job. CLA compressors have been used for years by many mixers including Grammy nominated.

In the end of the the skills matter not used gear/plugin. CLA could mix using only plugins with better result than avarage mixer with  all best hardware available.

But he doesn't need to prove anything. It would be childish challenge. He just earn money doing every time the best he can. Using the best things he have.

7 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

I also know Grammy winning engineers that are very good at what they do, but don't have the ability to discern very minor changes in sound, such as the ratio or attack and release times in a compressor in the context of a mix.

Yes, they are human beeings, Is really anybody able to hear different in mix between settings like 10 ms and 12 ms if it doesn't affect transient? 

And in fact how does it matter? They want to mix in a way that end result will sound great. If people feel they reached the goal how it matters if they are not hearing minor differences? If people listening to their mix are considering it as great but hearing those minor differences so maybe they are missing something in this art?

8 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

If a plugin maker doesn't have good enough ears to discern certain characteristics and changes in sound then, yes, I'd say that kind of matters if they have a goal of creating something that basically sounds like something else.

Well, I didn't consider just any plugin creator that just has a goal and that's it. Finding right method and implementation requires understanding topic.

If they are able to discover a method with use neural method to train it using thousands of examples of great mix they could create something. If their result would be promising just market natural selection would appreciate the result. If result is bad market will ignore it sooner or later (if tricked by other things like gui, marketing promises etc).

 

8 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

The problem with audio is there is a ton of snake oil.  You can make a simple one knob plugin that simply compresses and adds eq at a certain frequency range and as long as you pick a frequency range that is in a non-harsh range you have a plugin someone will think is magical as it can bring out or emphasize something in the mix.  Look at the Aphex Exciter....that thing was considered magic and yet you push it a little to far and it the most awful thing you will ever hear.  All you have to do is simply change the sound and there is someone out there that will like it, even educated people.  

But is it really snake oil?  There are many pedals which knobs are working bad only in 1 position even having big range. Lots of people are complaining as they expect it will sound great in any position. So are they snake oil? 

I think if there is even small range settings that sounds great and is giving something not met for other things it is not.

It could be not worth money for somebody. Understood.  But worthless?

 

8 hours ago, Brian Walton said:

edit:   look at all the TS-9 or TS-808 pedals sold and the high prices for originals.  Anyone with half way decent hearing knows those things can destroy good guitar tone.  What they can do is cut through a mix by re-equing the guitar signal and adding not exactly world class harmonics/distortion, and compress so the guitarist doesn't have to control their own dynamic playing.   But people buy them because they read everyone uses them and SRV had one, and they are the only thing in his rig they could afford. 

Yep, true, great example...  They can destroy if badly set but are they snake oil? Lots of great guitar players used it in the past and some continue to use, Do they sound bad? They know how to use the gear so know deeply when it sound bad and when it sound good. But some of pedals could be just a kind of lucky random creation.

But somebody who has good skills could test it and find a specific range when it shine...

Do you believe all hardware designers were truly aware about all sound consequences of their creation? In the past compressor were designed just to control dynamics, right? Was anyone thinking about warm or distortion in sound which would be heard as pleasing and helping in mixes?

They just were not able to create compressor which is clean at those times.

And its sound character was appreciated most when digital era started. As people felt lacking something.

But what if many years ago it would be possible to create clean and transparent compressor? And with possibility to move freely between different settings?

And people were used to hear compressed in that way music...?

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...