Why isn't all compression equally good?

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Feb 2005 19:02:53 -0800, "Nat" <natjordan@gmail.com> wrote:

>I mean, it's just a bunch of algorithms that define how to compress
>sound. Since compression is an old concept, it seems that everyone
>would have figured out pretty well by now which algorithms to use, and
>all compression software would be equally good. Barring recent
>breakthrus in compression theory, of course.

Perhaps if everyone wanted absolutely transparent compression, sure.
But people like different flavors of compression, so what is "good"
becomes subjective.

Al

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Hi Nat
I'll gladly send you a PDF on Comp/limiting
It's based only on my experience and not gospel
kevin


Nat wrote:
> I mean, it's just a bunch of algorithms that define how to compress
> sound. Since compression is an old concept, it seems that everyone
> would have figured out pretty well by now which algorithms to use,
and
> all compression software would be equally good. Barring recent
> breakthrus in compression theory, of course.

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On 26 Feb 2005 19:02:53 -0800, "Nat" <natjordan@gmail.com> wrote:

>I mean, it's just a bunch of algorithms that define how to compress
>sound. Since compression is an old concept, it seems that everyone
>would have figured out pretty well by now which algorithms to use, and
>all compression software would be equally good. Barring recent
>breakthrus in compression theory, of course.

So there are established techniques, but someone might improve them?
Yes, it's difficult to argue with that :-)

CubaseFAQ www.laurencepayne.co.uk/CubaseFAQ.htm
"Possibly the world's least impressive web site": George Perfect

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Nat wrote:
> I mean, it's just a bunch of algorithms that define how to compress
> sound. Since compression is an old concept, it seems that everyone
> would have figured out pretty well by now which algorithms to use,
and
> all compression software would be equally good. Barring recent
> breakthrus in compression theory, of course.

I am no expert on the issue but in the analog domain, if you are using
all the same types of components in the chain, in the same signal
design, then the difference will be the grade of the components.

Again in the analog domain, there are different mechanisms for
triggering the compressor. Optical, VCA? etc.

In the digital domain as long as the source is the same, and the
algorithm is the same, and the bit depth is the same, and the buss
mixing architecture of the software is the same, and the sampling rate
is the same, well there would be no difference. But obviously, there
are a bunch of variables.


Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"David Grant" <NO_SPAM_PLEASE_jmd_2003@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nOpUd.5122$If1.833530@read2.cgocable.net...

> Right. In the digital domain there's only really one compression
> algorithm.
> You have a curve determined by threshold and ratio settings, and this
> curve
> is the transfer function.

No, that would not be a compressor but a distortion device. In order to
compress you have to add attack and release times to the the algorithm.

> An identical curve for two compressor plugins
> should produce identical output provided the plugins aren't trying to do
> anything extra with the signal.

Only if they use the exact same algorithm ... and algorithms are mostly
intellectual property and therefore copyrighted.

/Preben Friis

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Yeah, but you can reverse engineer. Seems like there's been enough
time in the compression software industry that everyone should have
this down.

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Generally, my question springs from reviews and advertisements that I
see for compression software: "The best compressor for under $2,000"
-- and so on. I appreciate the fact that there is and always will be a
great divide between novices and pros. After all, on the internet
anyone can use the same html tools and even copy the exact same page
source from the pro websites, like nytimes, but amateur sites will
always, always, always be amateur.

My question is one I've had for awhile, and it's just about the tools
themselves. I find it hard to believe compression plugins (and other
old standby effects) are not pretty doggone close to each other in
quality. I went to a mic workshop once where fifteen different mics
between $1,000 and $10,000 in value were demo'ed, and everyone in the
room was nodding along as the speaker explained the sound differences
between them, and I could only tell the difference between one or two
obvious ones. Probably there were some differences I couldn't
perceive, and probably the emperor lacked clothes in some of those mic
demos. I couldn't tell ya.

But I digress. I know there is a difference between recording and
editing software because there is so much to get right in terms of
usability, zero latency, and so on. It just seems to me that the
engineering world has collectively figured out most age-old plugins,
and the only real difference in their quality comes from the user.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"david" <ihate@spamo.com> wrote in message
news:270220052200114996%ihate@spamo.com...
> This conversation is mostly by folks without much experience with
> outboard, analog compressors. I've been twiddling them for 25 years,
> and own a whole bunch of them. Why own a bunch of different
> compressors? Because they each do something damn well. (Or out the door
> they go.)
>
> And I think the answer to the implied question about digital plug-in
> compressors was answered recently when George Massenburg, who creates
> both hardware and software, who said there wasn't enough DSP available
> yet to do it right.

Not yet enough DSP meaning what? Not yet enough processing power to handle
the algorithms that SHOULD be used, or the algorithms aren't yet developed
sufficiently (or both)?

Dave

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Nat" wrote ...
> Dynamic range, sorry.

[And that is ALL he wrote! Nothing snipped.]

Yo, "Nat".

Perhaps you are new to usenet newsgroups, but if you don't include
("quote" ) at least a little bit of the message you are responding to,
your postings all seem like random statements. Even the people you
are responding to may not know which of your messages is a response
to which posting??????

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Mark <makolber@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>My guess would be that in any decent compressor (analog or digital) the
>signal chain and VCA (analog) or multiplier (digital) should be
>basically perfect.... any sonic diffrences come mostly from different
>threshold detection logic, and attack and decay delays and filters.

What is perfect? Sometimes you want massive overshoot... sometimes you
don't.... sometimes you want a VCA that is logarithmic, sometimes you
want one that is more linear. In a perfect world you'd be able to adjust
this stuff... hey, wait, with the Distressor you can...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Perhaps you are new to usenet newsgroups, but if you don't include
> ("quote" ) at least a little bit of the message you are responding to,
> your postings all seem like random statements. Even the people you
> are responding to may not know which of your messages is a response
> to which posting??????

Not new so much as bad. But I shall reform my sloppy ways!

Archived from groups: alt.music.home-studio,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

> Have you ever in your life used an analog compressor?

One I am meaning to sell...

> How in the world can there
> be "age-old plugins" when plug-ins were born yesterday?
>

Yesterday in history years perhaps, but that's a century in computer
years. Anyway, I imagine plug-ins mostly same algorithms that digital
outboard compressor algorithms do/did, and those have been around for
longer.