Ive been using then programs from my user area download with server on mac..
experimenting with various prgms
FOR THE MOMENT: Im getting reductions varying between -1.8 to -5 on various drum parts, all set with thresholds -18 and below
..now some of these prgms innitialize with ratio at 99.1/1.99..
working a threshold below anything under-15db I surely would of thought, with such a massivily high ration would completely reduce a signal to a blatant squash..........but its not....
I havnt been quite hitting near peak light with nebula but these extreme rations would surely bring significant reduction with thresholds-15 below
I like the smoothness I feel with nebula, but if I tried previous software tools again tomorrow ration of anything near 1.10 hitting thresholds of -15 db under would be alot more obvious in the effects of such settings, why am I experiencing such mild compression all the time can anyone think of? Scott
I'm not sure which compressor programs you're referring to specifically, they're each pretty different and it seems that different developers have slightly different methodologies in NAT as well. So, for example, Cupwise claims that his gain reduction numbers are very accurate (I have no idea if this is the case because I don't really set and adjust compression numerically but if he makes that claim it leads me to believe that he has measured and verified this claim and it's likely true). Other developers have specifically said in their manuals not to trust the gain reduction readings and to adjust aurally. And to be fair many of the units being sampled are themselves not numerically accurate. Keep in mind these aren't mathematical solutions they are the capture of a signal passing through electronics. But if you're looking for a very numerical approach to compression then you might be better suited by a compressor that was coded with that approach in mind; most of the Nebula libraries are, in contrast, all about trying to nail particular popular and/or rare hardware units.
But that's a different issue than the 'squash' of the compressor itself I think although that also varies not only from developer to developer but also from one library to the next. I'm not sure if you've kept up with some of the newer offerings but the trend I'm seeing is faster attack and more realistic (and extreme if that's what you want) 'squashing'. Some of the newer offerings are among the best plugin compressors I've ever used (Cupwise's Smooth 609 would be the top of my list right now).
ETA: I see you said from your user area; it has been a while since I checked out the commercial library (I installed Nebula in like 2008 heh) but I think most of those compressors are very, very old. And I don't recall any of them grabbing me at the time, they seemed odd and hard to use. The third party compressors are, by comparison, pretty close to their hardware units for the most part (there are a few fast compressors whose accuracy might be questionable at the fastest settings).
Thanks for reply, Im going to try out some of the third party stuff now, in next few weeks.
For the moment I think I wont read too much in to setting & use my ears, still early days getting use to nebula and some prgms
& I cant say I knew for quite sure, "traditional" settings etc
..In fact, I also might now of adjusted some things like attack/release accurately enough, & I think if I forget any aprehensions like threshold settings a min(working with stock prgms) and regardless of "accurate" reduction meters, Im sure I can adjust to get good enough results for my relative experience for now!