Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 5:18:53 GMT -6
well .......spill the beans ....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2016 0:27:04 GMT -6
*&***^%^$££$%^
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 9, 2016 7:00:13 GMT -6
PM sent
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 9, 2016 14:16:12 GMT -6
The big reveal is....... Im kinda laughing thinking about how the posters who Know the answers have responded... makes me think we all picked Slate as the best for this example... Then again this is one mix by one AE and none were mixed thru from the start ok no more excuses/ justification ( from me about the picks haha ) bring em on jcoutu1
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Nov 9, 2016 19:44:54 GMT -6
Knowing the answers.... For me, the hardware does something I really like that the plugs do not do. However, in this example I liked the hardware least on the mix because after hearing the raw track I would not want any more of what the hardware was doing....
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 9, 2016 20:20:26 GMT -6
Knowing the answers.... For me, the hardware does something I really like that the plugs do not do. However, in this example I liked the hardware least on the mix because after hearing the raw track I would not want any more of what the hardware was doing.... I can't lie I really liked the Slate example here and my second choice was the Stam... On the big compressor thread there is way more variation and I have to say when comparing against others comps HW and SW the same Slate didn't fair as well for me.. This means two things... The larger pool of choices had tougher competition and maybe a different style of compression was better suited for this mix ( vari mu, fet, opto ).. IDK, IMO that Phoenix mastering comp sounds amazing on this mix on the big thread and jcoutu1 will have to clarify but I think it's the most expensive comp as well
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Nov 10, 2016 11:33:01 GMT -6
I think on this example the Stam was WAY overcompressed too...
|
|
|
Post by stam on Nov 10, 2016 11:40:00 GMT -6
May I ask which one is mine? lol
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 10, 2016 13:21:40 GMT -6
I think on this example the Stam was WAY overcompressed too... They are all compressed to be pulling about 4dB based on the metering, and using the same or as close to the same settings as possible. They are all more compressed then I would generally use on the buss, but that's to highlight what's actually happening with the compression. If I was just tickling the meter, the differences would be much less drastic.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 10, 2016 13:21:52 GMT -6
May I ask which one is mine? lol PM'd.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 10, 2016 16:17:26 GMT -6
I think people need to listen to the big thread as well.. that big thread reveals a lot if one wants to learn... This was also a great learning example for me too! Very excited for my Stam sa4000... come on export sticker thingy
|
|
|
Post by sozocaps on Nov 10, 2016 18:13:50 GMT -6
I have STAM's 2 here... I can run the dry file through some Apogee converters for a second blind attempt
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 10, 2016 18:35:26 GMT -6
I have STAM's 2 here... I can run the dry file through some Apogee converters for a second bling attempt I don't really see the advantage to running it through again. All the units saw the same mix, conversion, and settings. Running again differently would muddy the waters in my eyes.
|
|
|
Post by stam on Nov 12, 2016 10:48:58 GMT -6
I have STAM's 2 here... I can run the dry file through some Apogee converters for a second blind attempt That would be cool man, mine seems to be way over compressed. If the VU meter was taking as a reference then there is a 20% tolerance or more on those Sifams considering all factors. I don't know of anyone that uses the vu meter as a reference in these things, it's all settings and ears. This said, props for the work and posting this here.
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 12, 2016 11:17:07 GMT -6
I have STAM's 2 here... I can run the dry file through some Apogee converters for a second blind attempt That would be cool man, mine seems to be way over compressed. If the VU meter was taking as a reference then there is a 20% tolerance or more on those Sifams considering all factors. I don't know of anyone that uses the vu meter as a reference in these things, it's all settings and ears. This said, props for the work and posting this here. For the shootout, I ran the mix through 13 different compressors. The only realistic way to do this is by using the metering on the units, not by memory and listening tests. Here's the full thread. realgearonline.com/thread/6060/big-compressor-comparison-threadIf you think yours is the only one that sounds overcompressed, perhaps better metering is needed for future builds. In general, I think the software sounds a bit lighter because the metering is too accurate compared to hardware, but I think the majority of these sound overcompressed, which was on purpose to highlight the characteristics.
|
|
|
Post by ChaseUTB on Nov 13, 2016 2:20:02 GMT -6
So wait we aren't suppose to use the meter as a guide for gain reduction? And if the meter has a 20% tolerance what does this mean in relation to GR? If it says -4db of GR is that really almost -6db of GR? 🤔
|
|
|
Post by stam on Nov 13, 2016 4:33:55 GMT -6
So wait we aren't suppose to use the meter as a guide for gain reduction? And if the meter has a 20% tolerance what does this mean in relation to GR? If it says -4db of GR is that really almost -6db of GR? 🤔 As a guide, yes, but your ears have to decide, as with anything. 20% is the worst case scnenario, mine are calibrated as tight as possible. That means 4.8 by the way, not 6db. 20% of 4 is 0.8
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 13, 2016 7:33:59 GMT -6
So wait we aren't suppose to use the meter as a guide for gain reduction? And if the meter has a 20% tolerance what does this mean in relation to GR? If it says -4db of GR is that really almost -6db of GR? 🤔 As a guide, yes, but your ears have to decide, as with anything. 20% is the worst case scnenario, mine are calibrated as tight as possible. That means 4.8 by the way, not 6db. 20% of 4 is 0.8 So if we're talking about 4.8dB of reduction vs 4dB, it shouldn't be sooooo over compressed that it needs to be redone. It's not like I was pulling down 20dB on these samples.
|
|
|
Post by jeremygillespie on Nov 13, 2016 8:44:35 GMT -6
4db isn't really THAT much on an SSL comp depending on the attack and release settings...
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 13, 2016 10:17:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bluenoise on Nov 15, 2016 12:45:53 GMT -6
I can't vote on this tapatalk app. My vote goes to x. Which is which? Btw jcoutu1 thanks a lot for taking your time for this!
|
|
rjr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by rjr on Nov 29, 2016 15:48:07 GMT -6
Hey Jesse! So which one's mine? It might be worth noting whether or not you had the Lundahls engaged, as that'll have an impact on the sonics. And just FYI to those watching this thread, yours is a Rev 2. I'm currently serving the Rev 4, so changes have been made to the circuit since the comp used in this test was built. Make of that what you will, folks!
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Nov 29, 2016 16:01:33 GMT -6
Here's the results for all you playing at home!
Lundahl's in the RJR were engaged.
W Slate FG-Grey Software X Cytomic The Glue Software Y Stam SA-4000 Hardware Z RJR Sick Sick Sick Hardware
|
|
rjr
New Member
Posts: 14
|
Post by rjr on Nov 29, 2016 16:07:15 GMT -6
Looking at M57's metering results, I think you're due for a calibration. How many years has it been...3 or 4 I think? Shoot me an email and I'll run you through it.
|
|