This is kind of silly. It's a video claiming that pedal versions of rackmount compressors don't make sense. However you didn't play any of the samples through a pedal version of a rack mount compressor. I'm sure you can take the same circuit as the 1176 and tweak some of the component values to make it more suitable for a guitar pedal. And further, we don't know if the pedal makers did that or not. For as much knowledge as you clearly have, Mason, and as right I think you are about a lot of things, you sometimes make these claims and offer nothing to substantiate them. And that's what you did here.
@@VertexEffectsInc What does that non-sequitur have to do with his point that you had ZERO examples in the video of any of these un-named pedals that you claim "don't make sense?" What does his "background in studios" have to do with his objectively verifiable argument that you made a claim and offered NOTHING to substantiate it? These pedals make sense to the thousands of working guitarists who use them every day. Maybe your company could be as successful as Origin Effects one day if you spent more time LISTENING to musicians instead of trying to prove how much smarter you think you are than all of us. Nobody but an engineering geek cares about where something is placed in the signal chain as long as it's giving them the SOUND they're looking for.
@@VertexEffectsInc I've only used plugin versions of 1176's in Pro Tools. It's a go-to for me. And yes I understand it's a different animal than a Keeley, Orange Squeezer, or CS-2. I also have experience with ratio, knee, attack, release,.... I'd be keen to try a UA pedal version of the 1176, having some clue how they might work.
For me, as a bass player, these serve very distinct purposes: The pedal compressor right after the bass is set to a high ratio like 8:1, fast attack, fast release, to catch peaks an minimize the output difference between low and high strings. The studio one has a much lower ratio, 2:1 or 4:1 slower attack, fast release and threshold in a way that is almost always compressing making the whole bass tone very stable to always be there supporting the song.
Yes, however the world of bass players have also become akin to direct recording that might put the compressor after bass anyway. This is less common among guitarist and the use of external compressors almost always going into an amp and a compressor coming early in the chain.
A bizarre miss from a channel that usually gives really solid advice. As a professional studio owner who sees different artists on a weekly basis I can no longer count the number of guitarists and bassists who have come in putting an 1176 or LA2A style compressor in FRONT of their signal chain instead of the traditional position post processing that have gotten not only smooth tones in isolation, but equally importantly have gotten much better gain tones having fed those gain pedals a much better core tone courtesy of these kind of compressors. Yes putting this kind of compressor in front is relatively new. And? As an always on pedal it almost invariably- and by that I mean 99.9999 percent of the time- sounds better than just guitar > amp and for gain tones it’s almost always better. Mason I am an owner over at Hyde Street Studios across the Bay from you I think- come on over and have some beers and let’s do some cool A/B comparisons- I think you’ll become a believer my friend! :)
I love compressors up front when playing. Recording I do post unless I'm already running one in my signal chain while recording guitar/bass. I'm just a newbie though, I got with my ear O:-)
Don’t those studio compressors take line level instead of instrument level signals? Do you have to boost the instrument level signal to use them in your pedals chain?
This video comes a bit too close to saying "these were originally used for the studio, so that's where they shall stay". If I recall correctly, a lot of modulation effects were created by manipulating studio tape recorders, and there's no complaints that a flanger, phaser, or chorus pedal doesn't sound good in front of an amp. By this video's definition, there shouldn't be any modulation pedals - they should all be studio-or-rack devices.
Try using one in front of passive pickups and see what it does? Even with the rack chorus' etc. they were still being used after a line out being fed line level. A bit different than a compressors in that regard, in fact a DBX 160 was often used after the line out still, never after the guitar, always after the preamp if before the mic.
@@jnh73yep. Almost as ridiculous as the ludicrous quantity of twonks who state 'This is my Marshall amp into my Fender Stratocaster'. Don't those supposed gear nerd dimwits have any realistic notion of signal flow?? 🤓
I think it is a great idea to have studio applications addapted to pedal format as a new way to obtain new sounds and inspiration. I think a studio compressor pedal does not have to be applied in the usual way. Now that we have had an explosion of amp/IR sims (like Iridium), you can play with a huge variety of effects after the amp modelling which are usually applied at studio level. Technology is allowing us to break rules.
I think that this is a separate argument as to getting a certain sound that may be different from the norm. I think that’s a different video in a different topic altogether - this video is speaking more to the application of compressor pedals and how it would not be that different from see, putting a tube screamer in the effects loop of your amplifier to sound more like Stevie Ray Vaughan when it’s designed to be used in front of your amplifier.
yeah, like post analog pedal board amp sims .... where the EQD Warden is the closest thing to a post amp studio compressor, for the pedal format, that i know of.
Very interesting shootout. I've gone both routes over my career, mainly using a compressor pedal before the amp, but also having a DBX160X rackmount after the amp in my Bradshaw rig in the 80s. Eqach does its own thing - two different flavors of compression.
Yes! The DBX is kind of a different thing, and it was very typical to be used after the preamp before the power amp. They can sound quite good in that context, but I also think they were designed to be used that way as well or at least became a common used case throughout the 1980s and 1990s.
Hi There, i Like the Compressors with mix Knob, like Ego from wampler, in this video test, the time atack and release will make more diference in the sound more than a “color” from each comp model
I would argue position in the signal path will make a lot of difference too. In fact some of these you really can't use effectively in the reciprocal position (say after the mic versus in front of the amp). The mix knob is cool, but I don't think adds anything here to the comparison which is really talking about signal path more than anything.
Try Cali76 or Empress MKii and imediately you Will understando how low noise and transparent they are. Another important feature pro compressors offer is a control to mix dry and compressed signals.
@@VertexEffectsInc The video is a non-sequitur given the fact that nobody gives a rat's ass about where something is placed in their damned signal path as long as they're getting the SOUND they're looking for. SOUND! That's what matters. Not this anally retentive, cork-sniffing, tech nerd academic, gatekeeping pablum.
This is a weirdly presented argument. Who is actually subbing post mic studio compressors in place of a dynacomp other than in this video? Keeley, Origin, Empress... They're all knocking it out of the park with reimagining studio possibilities in pedal format.
Wait, let me get this straight. Once, guitarists really liked the sound of overdriven tube amps. They *really* liked running tube-based gain stages into each other for extra oomph. But actually manufacturing extra tube-based gain stages to run into amps was impractical. So folks built effects units out of other components that *simulated* an overdriven tube, and then they ran that signal into an amp. These effects units were easy to make and ship, and voilà, the overdrive pedal was born. Later, folks said "damn the impracticality", and manufactured overdrive pedals that actually contained tubes, like those original pedals emulated. Nobody blinked an eye - in fact, everyone was so happy with their extra tube-based gain stages that rainbows shone, kittens played, and rivers of chocolate fondant bubbled and frothed. Meanwhile, guitarists *also* really liked the sound of compression being used on recordings of their playing. They really wanted to put a compressor into their live rig! But putting large compression effects units into their signal chain was totally impractical. So, instead, folks built effects units out of other components to *simulate* studio compressors. These effects units were easy to make and ship, and voilà, the compressor pedal was born. Everything was accepted for a while. But later, some folks said "heck, let's give it a go" and managed to engineer the electronics of a studio compressor into a pedal that was now easy to ship. It looked like guitarists' original dream was realized. But no! The new pedals were taken as a sign of the end times, and pestilence swept the land, fire rained from the sky, and disparaging RU-vid videos were produced. Did I get it right?
There is a reason I have an Origin Effects Cali76 on my pedal board. Part of that reason is because I am a mixing engineer of four-plus decades. I have found it to be the best compressor pedal on the market for my playing style. I can really dial in my sound with it. That said... I agree with Mason's point that there is no way one can duplicate a rack version in a pedal format!
I think you’re making a different argument here than the video is making. It’s not saying that a compressor that states that it’s routed in a rack compressor can’t sound good. But rather, what it is saying is that there is no way that these pedals that are designed to be like a rack mount compressor can ever emulate the original units simply by way of the fact that it can’t put itself after the microphone, and therefore is disqualified. It would be like trying to get the Stevie Ray Vaughan sound by putting a Tube Screamer in the effects loop of your amplifier, instead of in front of it.
@@VertexEffectsIncyeah, except that you're comparing incomparable circuits. The point, which I do agree with, would've been better emphasized by comparing pedals like the Cali76 in front of an amp against the 1176. Again, I agree that compressing the guitar signal before it goes into the front end of an amp is completely different than compressing the signal from a microphone on a speaker. Two totally different things. But, again, the comparison would've been more convincing with more comparable circuits.
In my experience. I’ve used the traditional dynacomp(which is noisy) I’ve used the boss CS-3…etc. it wasn’t until I got my hands on an Empress Compressor that I was sold. Currently looking at the 1176 by UA. Just depends on the need but since I’ve had a studio compressor in pedal form I can’t seem to live without it.
Be nice to have seen some actual comparisons of the rack comps against the pedal versions but all this video did was make me think Vertex are salty they haven't got any good ones to sell.
I use both. Pedals before, rack after. My favorite is the dynacomp. I use it to remove plink or create a country type sound, as a boost, as a drive/sustainer, as a step-down. Most often as a step down clean from crunch, running into a classic non master volume amp. Compensates for a lack of sustain when volume is turned down.
to elaborate, if i'm running a 59 plexi or something similar on crunch or high gain, turning down the volume on the guitar gets plinky. so i put a dynacomp in front, volume down, sustain up, and i use it to "step down" into a clean sound without losing sustain. vice versa, i might turn the volume up and turn it into a boost. Most of what i do in the studio will also use BOTH the 1176 and la2a, especially on cleaner tones. I set the 1176 real fast to tame the transients, and the the la2a to smooth it out and bring up the level.
@@VertexEffectsInc yeah it does, most of the time. older single channel amps can get tricky but i prefer the organic feel. The dynacomp is super versatile and basically adds a channel or two if applied correctly. The rack stuff or fancier pedals could work in the same role, but i don't see the point in spending the money. if it aint broke.....
In my experience the orange squeezer type of compressor is my fave voicing for guitar compression. JHS Pulp and Peel V4 is what I use and I think it’s perfect. Sultans and Peg is all you gotta hear to know what it’s magic is. I use UAD 1176 in mix down or during tracking. Your take is spot on. The circuit is meant to be either post amp and usually after mic pre or in mix down.
It would make sense for his sound since all of his compression was occurring in front of the amplifier, but also he was using pretty typical guitar pedal based compressors like those from MXR, BOSS, etc.
Looks like Wampler was able to finally pull this off (and in doing so mentioned the same issues you did). I have yet to try it, but the demo's I've seen sound really good.
This shootout really doesn't make any sense. You needed to compare a Cali76 with a Keeley or done some crazy impedance switching to have a rack compressor before the amp.
I use a Dynacomp before the amp, but am interested in adding an LA2A pedal after the amp (well, pedal in my case - I'm ampless) for that studio sound. I agree with your point here, it's about the placement really
I've been finding with amp replacements like the Strymon Iridium or the analog Simplifier that putting a subtle compression on the guitar brings back some of the touch sensitivity of using a live amp in the room. Typically I use a studio-mode setting with the dry signal mixed in (parallel compression setting). This tends to be one of those "you feel it more than hear it" things but it does also help balance out the strings.
I am usually very picky when it comes to guitar tone and I hear the slightest differences. But in this case, I really had a hard time to notice when there was a switch between the different compressors. I guess when you dial them in to be transparent and just give you a little more presence in terms of ever so slightly "lifting" less dynamically played notes or chords, then it maybe doesn't really matter which one of these you use. Just my 2 cents.
There are of course difference and ideally you might be using both a pedal compressor with some sort of compressor or limiter in post. They can all sound great when used optimally.
These test results are skewed towards the point Vertex is making in the video. A test where all the compressors are in the same location in the signal path would yield different results that would (in some instances) contradict the point being made. A FET style 1176 compressor is most definitely capable of more aggressive, intense compression, if it were set aggressively (fast attack, high compression ratio, slow release) when fed by a guitar's signal. It's more than capable of sounding like a Dynacomp or Keeley Comp than what has been presented here. An optical comp like the LA-2A isn't really capable of this same kind of compression bc its a "slower" compressor, so I would agree with Vertex but not by the logic that is presented here. Vertex, though I wholeheartedly disagree with the premise behind the video, I actually enjoyed watching it. It's a well produced video with great playing examples from all the players and the quality of the video and audio is top notch. Killer video title, too. Good work on the production front.
We used each compressor in its designed location in the signal path. Doing otherwise would provide sub-optimal or even non-functional (unusable) sounds as a consequence (e.g. running a Dyna Comp at mic levels on the input). What you see is a comparison of the intended uses of each product. Sure, you could use an 1176 to get more compression or comparable compression to the Ross (Keeley) or the Dyna Comp, but to get the compression where it would need to be in the signal path, you'd have to have the guitar running directly into it, and then into the board. To match the signal path with effects coming after it and a tube amp are just not optimal ways to run an effect like an 1176 and although I'm sure someone has done it, that's not the best practice or the intended use case so for all intents and purposes, it's a mute point. I think you disagree with the premise of the video, because you've hijacked the premise to support an argument that isn't made in the video. My thesis is that no pedal that is designed to be an 1176 or an LA2A can never sound like those effects because you can't put them in a signal path in the same place. Just like you're not going to sound like Stevie Ray Vaughan if you put a Tube Scream in your amplifier's FX Loop. Sure you have the right effect (by way of simply having the Tube Screamer), but in the wrong place, it nullifies what makes the effect what it is and the sound it's recognized for. This isn't an argument to throw out your LA2A or your 1176 because you can use a Ross or Dyna Comp in their place. No. This is saying they do fundamentally different things and a pedal that claims to represent the rack unit can't do any better than any of the pedals we showed in the video. In fact, those pedals are more used than any rack compressor in front of an amp when we're talking hit recordings. And perhaps the LA2A or 1176 was used after the mic there too as it was intended, but never before the amp.
@VertexEffectsInc - Thanks for taking the time to write a thorough, detailed response. I understand why each compressor was placed where it was located in the signal path. I also understand that you intentionally placed them where you did to frame this sort of discussion as that's typically where each is located in their respective use case scenarios. It’s not hijacking the premise of your presentation to point out that the test method in the video yields skewed results. That’s simply accountability. If the issue is with “studio compressor pedals” why are are we using rack studio compressors in this test? I’m sure the fine folks over at Sweetwater could loan us an Origin Effects Cali 76, a UAFX Teletronix, UAFX 1176 (all studio compressor pedals) to shootout along side the MXR Dynacomp and Keeley Compressor between the guitar and amp. If your hypothesis is indeed correct, the conclusions would yield the same verdict, no? But for some reason the video is comparing studio rack compressors (post-mic) to select compressor pedals (post-guitar) to debate the validity of studio style compressor pedals? That’s use of a straw man tactic to make some claims that are objectively not true. IE, a Cali 76 (an analog, studio compressor pedal) or a UAFX 1176 (a digital, studio compressor pedal) are both totally capable of “completely obliterating the signal and taking it over with compression” and “squashing” the guitar’s signal when placed between the guitar and amp. That’s not to discount an MXR Dynacomp, Boss CS-3, or Keeley Compressor. You’re right to state these are also great, affordable pedals that will do a fine job at aggressive compression, but we shouldn’t diminish the usefulness of studio compressor pedal designs or worse imply they’re not capable of aggressive compression. That’s just not true.
I agree with you that this is the standard use for those units. But the example of (especially funk) guitar players going DI into the board and utilizing the 1176 might justify the use of comps like the Cali 76. Of course you would not run it into your amp, but directly into the board. I personally would not want to run it like that, but there might be people around who would prefer to do it that way. What I have actually done was to use rack compressors in the fx loop and I kinda liked it. Or when using my guitar volume to control the amount of dirt I get out of a drive pedal I might use compression behind it to even out the quite drastic differences in volume. I used my Ibanez Compressor for this (that was about 20 years ago). I guess a more transparent Compressor would be great for an application like this. I would definetly try parallel compression if I had a compressor with the option to mix in the dry signal. But of course, those are not the classic applications for a compression pedal. I rarely use compression on electric guitar at all. If I do it's either for the effect of a squashed signal or to thicken up the sound before running it through a chorus. BTW. Often times I prefer to use chorus as an insert effect on the mixing board rather than before the amp. Currently not planning to play live. But if I did, I probably would have to set up an FRFR system for my outboard effects, so I could use them like I do at home 😂.
I always use a NY type compression on my basses. 1/10 compression only on the mids and highs (1/4 for slow songs), nothing compressed under 120-150hz, mix 60-70% compressed signal with noncompressed. I have a simple pedalboard: TC Electronic PolyTune 3 Mini, Empress Bass Compressor MKII Blue, Darkglass Microtubes X Ultra and Tech 21 SansAmp BDDI v2.
I use the UA MAX dual compressor for this reason. It has two independent channels and three compressor types: Dyna Comp, 1176 and 2A. I run the Dyna Comp before my amp, and the 1176 after my IR loader.
For a budget player like myself who does not record (yet), I cant help but feel like the differences are subtle enough as to be imperceptible in a live mix. It is however, educational for me. Thank you Mason.
What about stacking the “rack” pedal following a stomp box comp? If the idea is to replicate a certain sheen or album sound the front end is only part of the sound; you also need the tape return with associated inserts. I would say this is application specific such as making a stage performance match a recorded one.
Yes, the design intent was to replicate the idea of going direct with a compressor, however, it was discontinued after about one year. You could make an argument to see that it fell into the same category, and on those merits, maybe should’ve taken more of a standardized compressor approach like he would see in an orange squeezer or Ross compressor.
@@VertexEffectsInc Why was it discontinued? At the time I thought it was a great idea. You had some serious players promoting it eg Tim Stewart, Adam Levy etc.. It’s a great pedal man don’t underestimate it.
That’s why these desk type compressors are more favourable. Sure ye auld MXR/Ross are cool but we are now in another dimension thang with a stomp box .
A local guitar player I admire said to me the same you just mentioned when I asked him about why he used both compressors ( pedal first and plug-in at mixing) "Dyna for the squash and 1176 for compression" referring how the 1176 actually made the leveling of the signal and the pedal was for the noticeable "punch"
This comparison is invalid because you put the pedals in front of the amp, and the rack comps after, thereby completely confounding a genuine comparison!
It seems to me that the point of this video is that it’s impossible to get the sound of a studio compressor after the mic on cabinet by placing a comp on the way in to an amp. I understand that. Are you asserting that people are putting the MAX or the Cali76 in front of the amps by being duped into thinking they are getting that famous studio sound? Even if someone thought that’s what they were getting if they bought such a pedal and liked the sounds they could get… do you see what I’m getting at? It’s entirely unclear to me what point you are making as you are coming into the comments saying you have nothing against the Cali76 or otherwise. If the framing of this video was more about establishing historical context for the normal use of studio style comps post mic it would make more sense. But the content of the video zeros in on the single sound of squashing, which is by no means the only sound front end or post fx comps are attempting achieve. It’s just a weird video, super unfocused and weirdly combative. The whole thing about the trend of studio compressors as pedals, is about putting it in front of the amp to create a unique sound. Not somehow duplicating the post effect sound. And it’s been clear in the marketing of these pedals like the MAX or the standalone 1176 are attempting to demonstrate how many diverse sounds compressors can make by experimenting with their placement. Asking the question “would it be cool to do a FET style 76 compressor on the way in” is a question worth asking and the trend is obviously paying off with people really liking the Cali 76 and Max.
It seems that some are fully understanding the point, especially those with a studio background. Others are reacting to the fact that they have a pedal that's based on a classic studio rack compressor and are attempting to refute the video on the basis that it says that their comp can't sound good because it's in the wrong place of the signal path (or some don't even go that far and are simply commenting without having watched the video but seen the title/thumbnail). Additionally, others may have no experience with a studio compressor whatsoever and are reacting to what they think it is never having used one, and therefore have no reference for commentary. Sure, you can have a compressor pedal that represents an 1176 or LA-2A in name and it can sound fine, even great. However, it can't sound like either of the above studio compressors because it's in the wrong place relative to the other effects in the series (presuming you're using other pedals like most players would). This would be equally true of someone trying to get the Stevie Ray Vaughan sound by using a Tube Screamer and then placing it in the Effects Loop of their amp. Sure, it's the right product, even the right circuit, but used after the preamp is a different signal path, and consequentially, results in an undesirable (or unfamiliar at best) relative to what a player might be attempting to represent by way of using that effect. The A/B comparisons are to show studio compressors and pedal based compressors used optimally for their signal path. We couldn't reasonably put the studio compressors after the guitar and run them into an amp as the levels on a passive guitar pickup just wouldn't be right for this application. Conversely, using the pedals after the mic would clip them so badly from the mic level, again they wouldn't even be comparable in the context of a studio compressor. I think just the logistics of this alone and the lack of workability use improperly should suggest that if you're using a pedalboard, and want a pedal-based compressor - best you go with a pedal design, e.g. Ross, Dyna Comp, Orange Squeezer, etc. as you're the effect and design as intended instead of attempting to invoke the qualities of a studio product which can't sufficiently be redesigned to be a "first in the chain" compressor without serious compromises to what makes it unique itself.
@@VertexEffectsInc If it helps I am a 10+ year studio engineer and own genuine 1176 and LA2As. I’d like to reiterate that I’m completely clear on what the thesis statement of the video is, and I definitely see people engaging with the content without having watched it. But it’s also obvious that the title/thumbnail/framing is going to spark these reactions to those who both watched and didn’t watch the video and it was completely avoidable on your part. Here is the facts in your video: Using a studio style compression after the mic on a cab is going to sound distinctly different than using a pedal compressor into your amp regardless of if that pedal is emulating a studio style compressor. The entire argument you’re making past the actual facts is based on the assumption that people are attempting to “invoke” this sound while failing to understand the history of the studio compressor. I don’t believe this to be true at all. That is truly an assumption of the least informed person possible in the context of guitar players who are watching RU-vid content dedicated to the nuances of guitar gear. I can’t make this point clear enough. You’re not reaching an uninformed audience, how on earth would it be even possible for someone to be this deep into music gear nerdom algorithm and be that misinformed. I am sure that it is happening on some level, but I would recommend treating your audience like they are informed adults who can make a big boy decision about why they buy a compressor pedal. Your statement “and they may sound good” when referring to these pedal style studio comps is directly contradictory to your double down “best to go with Ross, Dyna” for pedals because, in your own words, those pedals sound good. So why would anyone change that? The traditional pedal compressors don’t sound “better” they are just different. Attempting to accomplish different things. That’s the end of the argument. It reads as being miss-informed about what the actual products you’re talking about even are. The MAX is a preamp pedal with EQ internal 3 different compressor types including a dyna comp and the possibility to go series or parallel with two separate compressors. That is a seriously “unique” pedal. I know for a fact you know this information already, and that the standalone 1176 is far more attractive to Bass players. Also UAD is marketing the 1176 with the Jimmy Page sound of doing two series 1176s. So you know that might something people might interested in knowing more about from your expertise. Also in the world of modeling a MAX or a Cali76 might be phenomenal options after a Dream or in the Fx loop of a Helix to place after you amp. There are limitless reasons someone might use these products and I for my experience have been enjoying the more subtle sounds of these compressors going into amps. As well as utilizing post compression depending on whatever I’m in the mood for. I’m telling you, it’s just weird incomplete arguments being made by you and defending a poorly framed video isn’t making you better.
it's all about where they sit in the signal chain (pre-guitar vs post-amp/cab). I like a bit of both - nice transparent Keeley up front, with the 1176 in the rack at the end of the chain.
Whatever happened to "if it sounds good then it is good"? Guitar players are also getting more specific about what they want. You go try tweak the attack, release and ratio on either the dynacomp or keeley 2 knob
as a guitar player and producer, I had to laugh when I saw the marketing on these studio grade pedals. you nailed it. these will never give the "compressor effect" I love and need in my gtr signal chain. it almost makes no sense to me.
I don’t really understand why would you try to make 76 or 2A sound like dynacomp… it’s just don’t make sense to me. It’s like trying to make dumble sound like a console pre. What is exactly the point here ? You can’t make a bad sound with good equipment ?
Why was this video made? It's a bit embarrassing. It's like the kid in the corner pushing up his glasses with one finger while telling the other kids, "You're doing that wrong."😂
My approach in the studio is a combo of Nile Rodgers and standard process. Best of all worlds. For DI clean guitar, I use rack units 1176 and 175B in series. Guitar ->split signal (one to pedal board, one to DI)->signal to DI goes to DI of choice like a Moown DI ->Neve1084->1176-175B. Amazing clean sound. Signal 2 hits pedals including boost, comp, effects and get mic’d ->SM57->Neve or RCA preamp - > 1176. All in, 3 sets of compressors are used. One for DI, other before Amp with pedalboard, and lastly post Mic.
Hey I paid for a $20 Patron membership about a week ago and have received no responses to my question(s) nor have I seen one iota of activity over there whatsoever. What gives?
I’ve tried probably a dozen of the top compressors as well as the three cheap ones you showed and then I found the UAFX Max. Best pedal compressor ever. Noise is one significant problem I’ve found with those cheaper models and the UA, like the Cali76 has a much lower noise floor. The clarity and dynamics with this pedal are miles above the others. My tone improved at least 20% when I added the Max. I realize the Max doesn’t have the same circuitry as the rack mount units costing many thousands of dollars but for $300, UA emulates it extremely well and again, it’s head and shoulders above those cheap ones.
I really enjoyed the video. I think you're getting some comments that miss your point because you say that it's a bad idea for a pedal to aim for the sound of a rack compressor, but you only demonstrate positive examples and there's no failure case included. Everything sounds good, if anything the Keeley sounds a little rolled off in the upper frequencies. I'd rather get a pedal that aspires to sound like the LA-2A here and misses the mark than one that succeeds at sounding like the pedals based on what I hear in this video.
Well...it seems that too many folks are thinking this is a qualitative commentary on compressors or what might sound "best". However it's more about choosing the tool that's optimized for the place in the signal path and if you're using an 1176 first in the chain thinking you're getting a studio compressor imported from the control room to your pedalboard, you're disillusioned or don't actually understand what a studio compressor is or its intended use.
@@VertexEffectsInc You are absolutely correct. It's about the right tool for the right job. This sort of thing reminds me of how often you'll see a guitarist asking if every component in a pedal is germanium, because they heard that's a good thing somewhere. It's such a treat to see a video that mentions compressor pedals beyond saying "I don't like them," mentioning "chicken pickin'" and then playing a quick pastiche.
Using a studio style compressor after the preamp in the FX loop to simulate the way 80s rack setups were designed is a valid use case. I’m not even sure what kind point was being made in this video.
Use a studio style, always on, compressor at the end of the chain in a pedal based modeling rig. Also pair it with a JHS channel strip thing for that direct sound.
My favorite compressor is the Diamond CPR-1 compressor run at 18 volts. I’ve been playing guitar 48 years, most of that time professionally. I have owned and sold a ton of compressors thru the years including selling my Cali 76, Boss CS2, Wampler Ego, Mooer Yellow Comp, various old or reissue MXR Dyna Comps. I still own a Boss CS3, a Boss CPX1, a Line 6 constrictor, a Donner LAX Comp, I’m currently also trying out a used Suhr Koji Comp but not sure that I’ll keep it. I returned both Universal Audio pedal compressors to Sweetwater. All of those compressors were pretty good (especially the Mooer Yellow Comp) but again the Diamond CPR-1 running or powered with 18 volts has been the best compressor in my 48 years of chasing tone. I even used the Orange Squeezer comp in the late 70’s. I own an original silver Klon that I bought for around $350 from Bill Finnegan back in the 1990’s. The only reason I bring that pedal up is cause when I plug into my pedalboard and then into my Fender ML Deville to gigging volume usually around 2 1/2 to 3 1/2, the Klon doesn’t compress but with the Diamond CPR-1 in front of it, it gives that perfect slightly squeezed feel that is similar to the natural compression you’d get cranking a smaller wattage amp up. I own a couple rack compressors too 1176 copies but ya the different placement in the recording chain after the mic serves a different purpose and brings a different more subtle limiting effect in my mind instead of that squeeze that I like to feel when playing. The Diamond cpr1 comp is subtle if you want or more squeezed if you want that sound. So I think pedal compressors into the front of an amp are worth having on your board to help any pedals that could use a little help to get that slightly squeezed feel. At least I definitely like having one on my pedalboard. I play all styles but I’ve done a lot of country gigs through the years so the tele chicken pickin tone ala Brent Mason is greatly easier to get with some sort of compressor. I also think of the great tones Dann Huff, Mike Landau and others got on some of the Chicago albums Chicago 16, 17 and later recordings too. Anyway sorry I’m rambling on so much but my recommendation for best compressor is that Diamond CPR-1. I know the company disbanded but I heard somebody bought them and so hopefully they’re still making that model. And lastly, I wish you would have just looped the same lick and let us hear one lick on all the various compressors instead of switching at different points in a solo/song. Either way, great video
“You’re not using the circuit in the way that it was intended, it sounds different to the established standard and you’re wrong to do so”… *cough*ECHOPLEXJUSTFORTHEPREAMP*cough*
Look here, Sport. I don’t want to use a typical pedal compressor because I don’t want ANYTHING SCREWING up my dynamics before the amp sim I’m using (maybe a Tonex for example, or a UA Ruby) but I want a rack style compressor AFTER THE AMP/CAB sim so that when my guitar volume knob goes down to clean up my amp, it doesn’t get lost, and when I crank it up and pick hard, it doesn’t get too loud. This is not hard to figure out.
My Nyle compressor is still the only guitar pedal compressor that I use. Underrated! Great pedal, too bad it is discontinued. I do like that new UAD compressor though..
I have owned 8 different compressor pedals and tried dozens more over the years. It is my favorite effect/processor. I currently use a Cali76 Stacked Edition and it is absolutely the best compressor pedal I have ever used. I use it in conjunction with an active RMC hexaphonic (acoustic) pickup. From the same Godin guitar I send a mini humbucker signal into a Jackson Audio Bloom pedal as well, which has an optical compressor circuit. It also sounds great, especially with the more familiar sound of a magnetic pickup. I understand what you are saying, but now I am thinking of simply running a second studio rack grade compressor in a pedal AFTER my UA Dream '65, as that might just be a perfect combination of both types of compression in a signal chain. This way, I can have a polished studio sound and a switchable over the top compressed tone for songs that work with it. I wish you had shown that in practice in this video, rather than trying to throw shade at Origin Effects, Universal Audio, Source Audio, Darkglass Electronica and others for designing rack units in pedal form. Why not design and build/sell your own instead, or at least explore how to alternatively use this rather recent innovation? I will not be buying vintage amps and rack gear any time soon, but I am deep in the pedal market; as we are in a platinum era of effects and processing.
To be clear, this video isn't a commentary on how you might like a compressor or what sounds best generally or to you. You might prefer a specific compressor and that's great. You might even prefer using a studio compressor first, however, I doubt if you actually put an 1176 first or a DBX160X optical compressor first that you'd like what the actual circuits do to your sound when running several effects after and then into an amp and mic. That's not their design, that's not their strength.
@@VertexEffectsInc so, why not include in your video a demonstration of using the aforementioned pedal version of an 1176 AFTER an amp/cab emulator/IR pedal? As I mentioned before, what I plan to try next is partly based on your suggestion; to put a traditional stomp box compressor circuit at or near the beginning of my chain and then my Cali76 CSE after my UA Dream '65. Seems like a possible win/win? Wasn't your Nyle pedal based on a rack style compressor circuit? Where do you recommend placing that pedal in one's chain?
I agree pedal in front is the way to get the feel of a compressor while playing, but I have over the years used a rack compressor in the place of a pedal, the DBX 160XT, it is a feed forward compressor as well, I was using it simply because it had a lower noise floor for the not so quite old Marshall Super Lead a friend gave me when I was a teenager. But I still prefer the spank of the old MXR comps to boost the guitar's signal and sustain and leveling out my playing, the only downside is that if you hit the compressor really hard like I do, you lose the ability to control your dynamics with the volume knob. So to take full advantage of a good pedal compressor I use a nice gate in front of it and a volume pedal after it just to pull back if I need too with the loss of sustain on long notes.
You know what didn’t make sense to anyone at the time? Why you would take a guitar amp and play it so loud that it distorts the ‘authentic’ tone of the amplifier. But people loved that stuff and it changed music. Let’s look forward the future by making content saying ‘How to Maximize the Effect of Studio Compressor Pedals’ instead of ‘This is how the old breed did it and you’re all obviously trying to capture their tone so you’re wrong’
0:38 I was firing up my keyboard to "what about Jay Gradon's Orange Squeezer?!" when you beat me to the punch. Well played, Rig Dr you win this round...
The Dyna Comp was my first pedal in 1978. I kind of hated it but my crappy amp was 100% clean, and at least it wasn't a fuzz and I needed some sustain - at least it allowed me to rock. Touch one knob though, and it was all over; you had to adjust everything. I still hate it, but like a Uni-Vibe, chorus and phase, it failed to do what it was designed to do but still has a sound that allows it to still be a still relevant thing of it's own. I would like to have heard the guitar straight into the big boys. BTW the '80s chorus really got in the way of listening for differences. Brian Wampler recommends his 1176 pedal either straight in or in the FX loop.
Funnily enough I recently bought a UAFX Max thinking I could run it after their Lion (Marshall in a box) pedal, but it doesn’t work well at all in terms of signal levels. It clips super easily doing that, even if you back off the output knob on the Lion considerably. The Max seems to have been designed to go before the amp, even though the Dynacomp model is the only one that would make sense for signal chain wise.
I thought you were going to show using two dynacomps or two Ross compressors in series how to get those Jimmy Page Zeppelin overdrive fuzz tones. I'm not sure if the Dynacomp, Boss compressor, Ross, DoD compress pedals can do the same fuzztone effects as using two 1176 in series like what Jimmy Page did. Try to make a video about it
Those are cool tones too, Lowell George live used two Dyna Comps in front of the Dumble amp which is cool too. Even in the cases of using double 1176 it was still after the mic, not before the amp in the case of Lowell or any other guitar player I'm aware of.
@@VertexEffectsInc yes Lowell George used two 1176 in series for his slide guitar work in the studio but live I'm sure he had no choice but to use two Dyna Comp pedals. David Gilmour 78-81 would STACK a dyna comp + boss compressor pedal or Ibanez compressor pedal, different configurations of stacking these compressor pedals. When using the colorsound powerbooster pedal with stacked 2 compressors = Gilmour 78-81 clean tones which you should do a video lesson about.
Of all the compressors I own, the one I use the most for bass is the Nyle which you (vertex) made (discontinued) and is a clone of a studio compressor. Soooo, what are we doing here?
The Line6 Helix has an La2a compressor. I like using this at the end of the chain, after the amp and cab simulation when I’m playing along with a studio recorded backing track and I’m try to get my guitar to sit properly in the mix. I think that’s the situation where the emulation of rack gear in a pedal makes sense. But for typical guitar uses, sticking the compressor at the front of the chain, I agree it’s not really the same effect. And therefore, why does it need to be an emulation of rack mount gear at all?
I don't see how compressors are any different to overdrives, if they feel and sound good to the player, irrespective if what they were originally designed for
What I get is, if we want to use rack-comp based pedal, we have to put it in the right signal path like the real rack-comp normally does, which is after the amp. Is it right? Because I watch sweetwater demo video of LA2A based pedal, and the pedal is after the ampsim pedal, so it basically the same like the usual signal path when we use rack comp, amp, miced it, then goes to the rack. And I think the function is different than compressor pedal that is usually used to compressed the signal, because as I know rack comp is usually used to give the color, or saturation or harmonics content or whatever you wanna call, to make your guitar sound better
They couldn't be adequately compared since they are designed to exist in two different environments. Neither is optimal for the other circuits type of signal.
Your interview with Mariah guitarist is so Amazing 😍 because you kept drawing the interview back to Mariah and you knew your stuff both technical (did you approach playing on the studio recordings differently from the acoustic version of "Emotions") and historical (Mariah and Eric Claptons releases were the huge sellers of the MTV unplugged series) ❤❤❤❤❤
Yeah, I'm not really sure the point of this video lol... Just the description, "the compressor sound that most guitarists want isn't actually the sound of a vintage 1176 or LA-2A" you're making a large assumption there. As someone who mainly uses studio compressors when recording, I can say for sure the UAFX 1176 pedal suits me. Not to mention it's more tweakable than the Keeley or a Dyna Comp and completely different in terms of tone. With that said, you didn't even make any comparisons using studio compressor pedals lol. It would have made more sense if you to at least include the Cali76 or UAFX LA2A/1176. I just find this "testing" a bit odd.
I think you missed the point of the video was not to say that one pedal might be more tweakable than the other, or pedal X sounds better/worse than pedal Y, but rather that the signal path matters to the point where if you have an 1176 pedal that claims to be an 1176, then by default it can't exist after the guitar before the amp, before other effects presumably, and before the mic. That's not the sound of the effect and how it's best and commonly used. Just like you can't get the true effect of the TS808 by running it into the FX Loop of your amp and thinking that will sound like SRV. Placement matters, signal path matters. The point of the video is, if you want a rack compressor sound, use a rack compressor. If you want a pedal based compressor, use one that's used on the hit records like "Under the Bridge" "Sultans of Swing" etc. Those are pedal-based or module on the guitar-based compressors, not studio compressors distilled into pedals.
@@VertexEffectsInc The Cali76 doesn't "claim to be an 1176" any more than a Keeley Caverns claims to be a cavern or an EHX Canyon claims to be an actual canyon, or a tape delay pedal claims to be two reel-to reel decks or an Echorec. Your whole argument is pointless.
No doubt in the established world of electric guitar, new pedals that emulate studio gear might seem a little pointless. For acoustic players like myself who want a polished, full, natural sound, I think we're very excited with some of the pedals that are coming out recently. No more compromises, only better tone.
Pedals that simulate studio gear and studio recording techniques make up 75% of the entire effects pedal market. Mason doesn't have a point here. I guess phaser pedals and flanger pedals "make no sense" either because they're trying to reproduce studio techniques involving the manipulation of tape reels of already recorded sound (talk about the end of the signal chain) with a (gasp!) pedal placed between the guitar and the amp. I guess tape saturation pedals, tape delay pedals, and double tracker pedals "make no sense" either for these same reasons. I guess reverb pedals "make no sense" because how can sound reverberate off the back walls and ceiling of a cathedral before the signal even gets to the front of the amp? Somehow it does though. Man, those guys who think there's a real room, hall, or chamber inside that little pedal are gullible and ignorant of real engineering techniques! It can't work because it's in the "wrong place in the signal chain!" Sorry Eventide, Strymon, BOSS, Keeley, UA, MXR, JHS, EHX, TC, Catalinbread, Earthquaker, and everyone else who makes a reverb pedal! That ain't REVERB. Reverb comes AFTER the speaker in the signal chain...AFTER the signal is converted into audible acoustic sound waves. Please remove the word "reverb" from those devices and stop scamming these poor ignorant guitarists who don't even know what reverb is. If they want to sound like they're playing in a cathedral, they should go down to the parish rectory and talk to the priest. That's the only "right way" to do it. 😂🙄
After listening to the effect of Hundreds of compressor pedals on bass in working rigs. All I can say is Compressors all have a unique sonic signature. Subtle but significant. And harder to control effectively in the low end. To my ears the most effective ones are those you claim are not so. Yes many players are more than happy with the prehistoric, primitive & limited control of simple 70's & 80's pedal compressors. I'm definitely not one of them. The Origin Effects 76 Empress Effects, Caveman BC1 heck, even our local Aussie & frigging AWESOME Mozztronics CO2 @ just over half the price of the above exotica offer more CONTROL over the compression. The only one I've ever liked with simple compression controls is the JHS pulp n peel. I dont think the designers have lost track of where the original comps sit in the signal chain at all. Thus making the comp effect emulation they achieve even more remarkable. BTW the Caveman BC1 is designed to go @ the end of your pedal signal chain. My ears and the ears of thousands of others agree that the above makes for a more controllable & musical compression effect. To me the best compressor is the one that you DONT hear. They do their job in a subtle & transparent way. Just like the sonic signatures of the exotic studio gear they IMHO successfully emulate. So respectfully. What the hell are you talking about? "None are so stupid as those who delude thinking themselves intelligent" George Bernard Shaw
The compressor pedal that you’re referencing has a Dynacomp model for before an amp, and if you check out some other videos you’ll see the 1176 & LA-2A were meant to be put after an amp modeler pedal, or at least that was my understanding. I think you maybe missing the point.
Thank you Mason for making this video. A lot of people lose sight of the fact the studio comps are either plugged directly into or come after the mic'd speaker.
They don’t “lose sight of” anything. It’s just not relevant to guitarists who are trying to EMULATE a studio compression sound in a live application. Just like the thousands of people who have a Lex on their board haven’t lost sight of the fact that the pedal doesn’t actually pick up your amp cabinet and spin the speaker around. Or how people haven’t “lost sight of” the fact that a flanger pedal doesn’t contain a tiny reel-to-reel deck with a miniature engineer inside who drags his #2 pencil eraser along the reel’s flange. Or how people haven’t “lost sight of” the fact that an amp and cab simulator or a tape delay pedal are just emulations. This is the stupidest premise I’ve ever wasted time listening to, and probably among the top 10 most embarrassing things Mason has done, and that’s not an easy club to get into.
@@wulf67 All that's very well, however you seem not to have understood my point. Firstly, I did not mention anything about EMULATIONS or how people are deluding themselves because they're not using the real thing. That is stupid. Putting any effect, either before pre amp or in the effect loop will have a dramatic change in feel and sound. Yes, it is studio quality/style compression but it's not being used in the same way, being after the speaker and microphone and possibly after a studio pre amp, depending on signal chain. Have you ever recorded and put a compressor on the recording of your amp? it's completely different in sound and feel.
@@AlexanderWS92 It's a very slightly different sound but not a different "feel" for the musician because the track has already been recorded. It's not the same engineering technique: it's an EMULATION of an engineering technique JUST LIKE flanger pedals, phaser pedals, double trackers, tape delay pedals, tape saturation pedals, leslie pedals, etc., etc., etc. None of those pedals are "being used in the same way" as the original studio engineering techniques that inspired them. When you're in a live performance setting, you can't always put the drum kit in the stairwell like John Bonham did on "When the Levee Breaks." You don't have the luxury of post-production techniques used in everything that's been recorded for the past 100 years. You need a PEDAL that can GET YOU CLOSE enough. If you know of a pedal that a performing musician can buy to get them closer to the familiar sound of an 1176 Peak Limiter than the Origin Effects Cali76 (Compact Deluxe, Slide Rig, or Stacked Edition) then please grace us all with that elusive professional insider advice. This is the stupidest premise I've ever seen for a RU-vid video, and I've watched thousands of them.
@@wulf67 I don't understand your gripe. No one's disputing any of the claims of being an EMULATION, nor have I claimed to know better, all I've said was it makes no sense from a signal path point.
@@AlexanderWS92 It totally makes “sense from a signal path point” if you don’t “lose sight of” the fact that it’s a guitar PEDAL with a completely different circuit than an 1176, just like a Strymon Deco PEDAL is not really two reel-to-reel decks at the end of the chain in a studio: It’s a PEDAL being used into your amp! MOST guitar pedals are made to recreate the sound of studio engineering techniques, and the fact that they’re all PEDALS means that NONE OF THEM are going at the place in the “signal chain” as the original studio effect. Makes sense now? Why would anyone single out studio compression pedals when there are so many other examples on everyone’s board (including Mason’s) that no one is getting their panties in a bunch over? Phaser, flanger, tape delay, WARPED VINYL, tape saturation, double trackers, REVERB PEDALS. Did you know that a hall reverb pedal is not really a huge cathedral surrounding your speaker at the end or outside of your signal chain? It’s true. It’s really just a pedal placed (gasp!) between your guitar and your amp. Doesn’t make “signal chain sense” does it? But it DOES because it a circuit you can buy and put on your board so that you don’t have to buy an entire Gothic cathedral to play and record in.
Let’s make sense then I use an optical la2a type tube compression pedal and run it post helix and all of my other effects It works amazingly well in this role Gives me studio quality sound wherever I go
Excellent comparison and great presentation! Love the Keeley in front of the amp, LA2A in the mix for depth. Will have to get a Dyna Comp now, sounded amazing
Isn't the Keeley in that Dyna Comp lineage of circuits anyway? I do prefer the sound of the Keeley though, it's suprisingly a lot clearer sounding, but still has the right amount of squeeziness
Interesting to listen to. Perhaps if you had actually used a studio compressor pedal, as stated in the title, we would have heard a useful comparison. So why do studio compressor pedals make no sense? How can you make a conclusion when you aren't using one in the test? Before the amp compression and after the mic compression are two different things. Again, no studio compressor pedal involved in this test.
How many 1176 compressors have you used in your life? Secondly, when have you ever seen one used after a guitar, and before a dozen other pedals (all a -20) including distortion, overdrive, modulation, delay, reverb, etc. and then into an amp and then mic? You don't because they're not made for that. Secondly, you seemed to have not listened to what the video states. This is about signal path and how certain signal paths are required by certain circuits to use them properly, just as you need to use a Tube Screamer in front of an amplifier and not in the effects loop of your amp to optimize for a Stevie Ray Vaughan sound.
Most comments here are missing Mason’s point. He’s not out to make objective qualifications on compressor pedals vs rack mount originals. He’s doing two things. One, educating folks that haven’t put in tons of reps with a real 1176 or LA2A. Two, talking about the difference between pre vs post amp compression. Like he said, studio comps are commonly used as post processing tools and also have entirely different hardware signal expectations than a pedal format 1176 (like a Cali, great pedal, btw). Entirely different use cases. Now all that said, I am totally in the camp of not liking the sound of most pedal based compressors - but that’s because I don’t like pre amplification compression, generally. You tend to lose dynamic amounts of drive and harmonics in your signal. If you compress post amp, you will still “feel” the dynamics of varying drive levels/transient response into an amp - even as the signal is being dynamically compressed.
I couldn't really hear a great difference, though I suspect it's due to youtube video format. I actually prefer less colorful compression with my guitar. I want compression and a bit of boost without the color. I use a keeley GC-2 at the end of the chain, before my delay. dirt->dirt2->comp->delay->amp. Of course I have no idea what I'm doing, but I've been at it for 30 years or so. Rock on, bro.
As I understand it, that’s supposed to be more similar to a DBX160 rack compressor. I’m not sure what type of levels it can except but generally you would find these either after a preamp or after a microphone in a lot of the classic 1980s racks, you would see these after a preamp very typically, you could probably get pretty close to that by using it in an effects loop of a higher gain or channel switching amplifier.
I'm not someone who is trying to imitate famous tones. While I love the sound of the Dyna Comp, I highly prefer the sound of the classic studio compressors (based on these musical samples). My choice is the Strymon Compadre--Loads of presets with MIDI and two foot switch-able settings without MIDI. And it has a wide range of tonal/dynamics possibilities (PLUS a highly tweakable boost). That said, this was a great video and I enjoyed the playing!
Well you think you prefer studio style compressors. In fact, they're not really beyond the name as if you tried to use an LA2A or 1176 after your guitar, you'd be quite frustrated as the levels aren't even compatible. Beyond that there are some fundamental differences in the design and signal path that make it an order of magnitude different from what any pedal is doing. So much so that you'd be better of using classic pedal circuits to do the compression in most cases.
If you really want the effect, I think that’s the only way to go, also, there would be nothing against using them both simultaneously in their design positions in the signal path
@VertexEffectsInc . I 100% agree. The rack compression sounded like just a clean guitar. Nothing wrong with that. But with the pedal, I could hear more of the "effect". As a big fan of Paul Jackson Jr's tone...I like that effect.
Lovely demo. Apart from some slight EQ differences, all of them sound the fucking same; they compress. I'll just buy the cheapest one and call it a day.
I definitely felt like the rack compressors had much more of a subtlety. Also, just where they are in the signal path can create some differences on that alone, even if you could get the MXR or the Robert Keeley compressor to work at Line Level or mic level I suspect you would still have some differences in sound just based on where they are in proximity to the guitar.
They all sound great if used in the proper stop. The video makes no attempt to qualify the sound of each of them, only to say that they need to be used in the right location given their designs and to create a design to emulate a studio compressor in front of an amplifier is a misuse of the circuit on that alone.
I have no idea what the point of this video is. It contradicts itself from the thumbnail through to the end. Am I supposed to be using pedal compression or not? Only rackmount? Is it for the hobbyist player? The guy kinda seems pissy in his replies to people stating a different opinion... I don't have an opinion because i have no idea what is being said.
I must say…great video and nice single guitar arrangement of SOS Mason. I was waiting for the solo though. There’s too many overpriced overhyped comps out there. I’d bet most users don’t even know how to set a compressor with more than 3 knobs.
I tend to agree. I’ve played countless shows live with a keeley and countless with a cali76. I loved the keeley but the cali76 honestly doesn’t do it for me so much. Id rather run the pre in my amp a little hotter for the tube compression. I like using them for single coil guitars. I can’t get that classic chicken picken vibe with the cali76. Not to say its not quality. I already have an ox that has the 1176 software so it kinda feels unnecessary.
I use the red compressor, at amounts that don't exceed 50 percent sensitivity, precisely to avoid this crushing effect, although for solos with drive I sometimes increase it a little more to get that sustain that reminds me of Grary Moore solos. ...I hope I am right in my conceptions. Any tips?
Sure, but they're used in the right places. This is an argument to say that a pedal can't sound like an 1176 if it claims to represent one unless it's used after the mic as the original compressor was designed.
