Hhhmm well I guess you'll get some comparison to the real hardware at some point. I've been asked so I guess I should really try to deliver.
this is particuly hard bacause the attack is very sharp on the comp*x unlike anything I've heard before.
One thing I will say is that my comparisons are usually done direct out A/B's and there is a benefit to hearing it this way. I would say that the hardware will have a slightly more harder slam on attack. But to be honest it's slamming down better than I've heard before.
Tone and gain reduction is there..as well as release. Attack is much better than before. I'm trying to be honest as possible. I will say it's not perfect but very good!
Ok I have some examples of the Compex vs Tim's Nebula Complex - I arranged the files so they are blind so you can listen without bias and compare...guess which you think is the Nebula Program and which is the hardware!
There is a Crushed example (with fast attack and release) and a Slower attack example (still fast release). They are intended to be pushing the limits a bit to examine compression action.
Best thing is to put it into your DAW - its a 2 bar loop - line them up one per track and solo between them...
Thanks, SWAN for doing this listening test - and for doing it "blind", so we really have to listen! My preferences: Compex Crush B Compex Slow B
I think the hihat sticks out a little in the A-version, and I like better how the B-version compresses/treats the crash cymbal in the beginning of the loop. I think there is more punch/suck in the snare of the B-version too.
Oh, and most importantly.... This is closer than any Algo will ever come. I don't care what anyone says... algos have a fuzzy hash that comes with them. It is exactly the artifact that Nebula absolutely does not have. Plain and simple.