ProChannel and the 76 vs 4K and Pure vs Vintage vs Modern

I will admit I'm at that intermediate stage (I guess?) of I think being able to use a compressor alright. I can hear what's going on with each setting and thus have a pretty good idea of where I'm going to get the dynamic control I want. What I DO struggle with is the so called "every compressor has it's own sound" thing. I have not really used it much till today, but I had a bit of a listen to the ProChannel and the variations. I listened to the 76 and 4K modes on a piano and a drum overhead recording. I matched the ratio/release/attacks. I then balanced the threshold as close as I could be looking at the gain reduction on the meters. I compared the two. It took a good 5 minutes but then I think I started to hear something on the piano track. The 76 sounded ever so slightly harshish in the high air. The 4K sounded slightly like it rolled that off and was a little smoother and warmer. But I'm talking such subtle differences. Can anyone ever really hear this in a track once you have fully mixed the whole thing? Does it really make that much of a difference? The drum overhead I felt was kinda the opposite and I thought the 76 maybe sounded a little smoother and the 4K a little more gritty. But I'm not sure.

I also compared the eq options of pure, vintage and modern. I can hear that fairly well as there is a noticeable change (visual and audible) of the Q. But once I do an adjustment of the Q so it matches what I hear in both options, I'm still really struggling to hear the difference. I think MAYBE the vintage sounds a little more brittle and the modern not quite so and the pure sounds smoothest. But that's also the order in narrow to wide Q when switching between. So I'm not fully sure I trust what I'm hearing. The gloss is quite apparent so I can hear the use in that. The tube sat options I find are also quite different so I'm happy with those.

So just a little observation. Wondering on how the hell people get so worked up about the sound quality of these things and I really struggle to hear it. Did a quick comparison of the Sonitus eq with the Pure settings on the GlossEQ. Mainly looked at surgical type high Q stuff so I could hear how they 'ring' differently. Definitely different. Wasn't able to quite work out what it was, but I think the GlossEQ maybe was a little more accurate in that the Sonitus seemed to be maybe getting some lower frequencies mixed up in the boost also. It sounded more 'tinny' (as you'd expect with the settings I used) with the GlossEQ and maybe a little bit fuller and slightly harsh with the Sonitus. Maybe a bit more ringing artefacts in the Sonitus. But ultimately, I'm not really sure what I heard.


So do I just need to train my ears a little more to hear these things? More experiments like this? Or just forget about it and let it happen naturally.. Try a few options when I'm mixing and if I can't hear a difference, choose one and use that. Then I guess over time maybe I'll start to lean towards a certain one for a certain instrument and mixing goal. I know the important thing is really just getting these things set right first, before even considering choosing the 'ideal' compressor or eq. Anywho. That's about it. Comments?


I'm using Yamaha HS80m's, by the way, so I imagine they should be decent enough to hear the differences going on here.

Well put. I have had the very same thoughts. 
One would think from the rave reviews there would be an obvious difference but I can't tell either.
But then I'm relatively new at this.
What I have noticed as I improve is that the difference between ordinary and great mixing/mastering seems to be an aggregate effect of a chain of choices. Not just one effect.
A great mic with a great preamp in a great room placed by an experienced engineer capturing an inspired and well played performance using great instruments with great and perfectly tuned strings for a start..Then, in the mix..well you get the idea.
I just might get close in 15 years or so. Lol

Wonderful thread going here. Will keep a watch on this one!!

mattplaysguitar




......So just a little observation. Wondering on how the hell people get so worked up about the sound quality of these things and I really struggle to hear it.....

I've been thinking the same thoughts as you sometimes. But maybe my ears needs moore training.
And the debate about boost 11 and the concrete limiter, (boost11 is useless and concrete is fantastic???) is another area I just don't get (yet).
 
Oh well, back to my ear training lesson
(nice song on your website, BTW)
 
 

With mixing many small improvements have a positive cumulative effect on the outcome.

I agree that ear training is likely a big part. 
I remember not being able to hear the difference in some subtle jazz chords when I was studying under someone and then one day, there it was plain as day. How could I not hear that! lol.
And yes your "my best" is a fine song. It holds my interest right to the end. Nice tracks and mix.
(I admit to listening to a LOT of songs for a max of about 10 seconds.)

Yeah, cool song

Interesting pointers you have here. I have worked on many live shows in many different venues with a lot of different equipment and with talents ranging from the all out professional to schoolkids amateurs. Sometimes I've had excellent gear to use, other times I've had some busted Behringer stuff with hums and crackle sound and very little control over the details. However, I will dare my self to say that nothing ever sounded really bad coming out of the speakers when I've done the live mix.

My point is, You have different gear for different purpose. For a mix I'm usually after something transparent that moulds the mix into place. On quad tracked guitars I really don't care about using a $3000 compressor or the VST equalient to compress each track and it's probably not even desired. A compressor that compress and do very little else will do. However, on the guitar bus perhaps a gentle touch of a LA2A or TubeTech is nice. On the lead vocal for example, the choice of processors are more cruicial because of whatever sound coloring and the amount of compression defines the sound a whole lot more. I usually target (in order of priority) Vocals, Kick, Bass, 2nd vocal (if present) other solo instruments, not guitar) with more high end stuff that adds some colour to the tone. The rest, I'll be happy as long as it works. For EQ I usually only have whatever is on the mixer and this is where I usually judge a mixer as well. In Sonar Producer/Expanded we're blessed with the PC EQ which is absolutely fantastic in my ears. My Fabfilter EQ, Sonitus etc hardly ever touches a mix these days.

However, when doing sound design there's a different story. All effects adds something to the sound - or seriously screw it up - so this is where I pay attention to gear and this somewhat goes hand in hand with how I usually prioritize the limited amount of hardware I have at hand in a live setting. And in the studio, it is for this I use the Fabfilter EQ and so forth. Sound design, to me, is either sculpting a sound and create its tone rather than just fiting it into a mix. These are the sounds that everything else has to gel with. The high end stuff will alow me to let a sound be as free and natural as possible, which is the case of singers etc, but I need to have it in full focus and this is where you'll notice a difference in quality of the gear you use. Everything else is mixed in relation to that. I do sometimes, take lead sounds and carve away at it with EQ's and compressors to have it cut through without taking over the soundscape - different projects need different sollutions. So if I have a female voice with lots of dynamics and a huge range, I'd use a compressor with smoother attack and release than your average Behringer. However, on the latest Black Metal vocal sensation I'd use something that distort a lot more, probably even add an exciter, and compress the living (hrm) out of it with fast and brutal attack. For a rapper I might do something in between.

My point is, learning the different qualities of gear, hardware or software, is a good idea. When I get something new I test it quickly with both subtle and extreme setings just to get an idea of what they do. Then I use them according to my criterias above. Sometimes it takes a gig to realize that I thought it could do something it can't so thankfully, in a studio I get time to experiment. But when it comes down to it, as long as the gear works, you can create a decent mix. High end quality gear just makes it easier and when the time comes that you lean into the sound design territory the amount of color a processor adds to the sound becomes more crucial.

IMO of course

Interesting stuff :)

So, using the compressors in X1, how would you sum up the sound of each, and what you would use them for? Which ones are neutral and which add color?

If I had an idea of a compressor available to me that is very neutral, and one that adds a really distinct color to the sound, that would be really good to use for a little comparison so I can hear (and others too) what this whole 'color or a compressor' concept is all about!

What do we have (not including special purpose multibands and limiters)..

Sonitus
VC-64
ProChan 76
ProChan 4K

I'm not at my DAW, so can't remember what else there is.. Any free ones out there with a very distinctive sound for listening/testing purposes?

Hi Matt. I think the point of the different Q curves is that they emulate the behaviour of certain familiar implementations, so if you're used to an EQ that changes Q in a certain fashion as you change the gain, then you'll be on familiar ground. To some extent, EQ is EQ, and the shape of the slopes is all that substantially differs between them. It's hard to make a "universal" EQ out of electronic components, but much easier in software, and that's what the ProChannel EQ is, more or less. So yeah, the different modes are just emulating different approaches to the electronics of the gain / q relationship.

Oh no. I get it now. With a small boost, like 3 dB, I noticed that pure was ALWAYS wider than Vintage, but when I boost it to say 18dB, pure stays more consistent but the vintage becomes wider - demonstrating the non-linearity behaviour of the vintage design. So they should all get the same result in the end (except in the extremes), just a different way to get there depending on how you like to use your eqs. But if you're automating eq, one particular type may be more suitable to your goals and remove the need to automate frequency/level AND Q. Pretty sure I understand it now. Vintage may sound more musical when automating gain, or at least different.

Thanks :)

As to your second post: yes, that's it exactly.

Hybrid is one of the others

 
My personal favorite mode right now...   The Q is wider as you boost, and narrower as you cut.   Makes sense to me.