Optimaster or Vinco

diminu · Post by **diminu** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:18 am

Hi,
I am considering about buying the Vinco. I own the Optmaster and wnat to know, if the Vinco has any advantages over the Optimaster. What are the differences between those tools and would you give an advice to buy the Vinco or not.
Greetz
diminu

wayne · Post by **wayne** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:03 am

Greetings, diminu

The vinco is a very different beast to optimaster, and you would be likely to use it more on individual tracks than the whole mix.

it is a very nice-sounding and easy to use compressor, modelled somewhat on a famous hardware unit.

It has it's own sound, different to stock compressors and others.

IMHO a very useful tool, and worth the money

diminu · Post by **diminu** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 10:12 am

Thanx! Any other opinions?
Greetz
diminu

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: diminu on 2004-08-22 11:13 ]</font>

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:01 pm

I love Vinco (and if you do a search here on Planet Z you'll find lots of other users in the same boat).

In terms of ratios, attack / release speeds and what-not, and appearance too

, Vinco is modelled on the Urei 1176. However it doesn't "sound" like the 1176 -- plugins never sound like outboard gear. Vinco is relatively very transparent. It's a different beast, but a lovely one nonetheless.

In one thread someone actually mentioned using the RMS detection feature of the Vinco for mastering compression. I can't find the thread offhand, but it's an intriguing idea.

But certainly Vinco's most common use is on individual tracks. It works well on just about every instrument, and it's quite easy to use, too.

My only complaint is that the buttons can't be MIDI automated!

Cheers,

Johann

diminu · Post by **diminu** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:11 pm

Thank you for the reply.
greetz
diminu

valis · Post by **valis** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:01 pm

On 2004-08-22 13:01, blazesboylan wrote:
I love Vinco ...My only complaint is that the buttons can't be MIDI automated!

Check under your 'Mixer' set of devices in the top bar of SFP and look for 'AuxRack'. Alternatively you can use just a 'Channel' or download EarlyFirst's 'MIDI IZER' (essentially just a smaller version of AuxRack):
http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... forum=16&0

Shayne White · Post by **Shayne White** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:42 pm

Or you can use "MultiFX" (located in Effects --> Stereo --> Other).

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 9:28 pm

Yes I am aware of those. But I repeat: you cannot assign MIDI ccs to the buttons in Vinco.

Try it.

EDIT: sorry if that seemed grumpy... didn't mean to, I just typed it in a rush...

(Usually I mean to sound grumpy!

)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: blazesboylan on 2004-08-23 01:31 ]</font>

valis · Post by **valis** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:18 am

Funny I've never actually tried assigning before, just right clicking. Once u go to assign BOOM-you're correct.

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:38 am

Come on, why would you need to? Compressors are not supposed to be automated, they are supposed to save you from having to ride the volume fader.

If it is for controlling with a midi-controller then excuse me, but I don't see the point of this either when SFP is what it is. Also, you would likely use a vinco on all your tracks at once, and with 4+ buttons on each that would quickly exhaust your midi CC's.

So, don't let this be a problem for any of you.

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:04 am

maybe like me johann hates adjusting parameters with a mouse on a dial. It makes precision changes difficult. I find myself having to type values for precise amounts, and that gets old pretty quickly.

mice and dials don't mix!

R

nprime · Post by **nprime** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:12 am

Also, you would likely use a vinco on all your tracks at once, and with 4+ buttons on each that would quickly exhaust your midi CC's.

Oh please dear god tell me that everyone doesn't compress everything by default?!?!

What an odd assumption that you would need a compressor on every channel (unless it's a live thing and you are using compressors to guarantee that nothing will overload)...I have learned that overcompression of everything leaves you with a very dull and lifeless mix.

What"s the point of having the dynamic range offerred by current digital technology if you are only ever going to use last 3 dB of that range?

Sorry to rant, and nothing personal meant here, just spouting my opinion!

R

Post by **garyb** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:04 pm

it depends on where you playback. digital may have a (relatively) large dynamic range, but car stereos, boom boxes and most home stereo don't(110db possible, 80db realized and the scale is logarithmic, each step 10X the last). compressors aren't required on EVERY track, but probably most live tracks.....it depends on the source material used and the effect desired in the final analysis, of course....

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:08 pm

On 2004-08-23 10:38, voidar wrote:
Come on, why would you need to?

Because I like to have everything remote-controlled.

Not a major problem, but a problem for me nonetheless.

What an odd assumption that you would need a compressor on every channel

I agree, even if you love compression (like me

), there isn't always a need for individual track compressors. And most tracks never get individually compressed in my world -- only kick, snare, bass. Much of the rest do generally go through bus compression though. And these days I always start mixing through a 2 bus compressor from the start. It saves some of the need for individual track compression and it sounds great.

Anyway I agree with you Rod that compression is over-used, but I think it's more the way it's used: 2 compressors at tracking, then another one (or even 2) during mixing, plus 8-bus compression, plus 2 bus compression, plus mastering compression...! You end up with a Britney Spears square wave.

I like lots of compression, but only 1) to even out erratic playing and 2) to add some colour (with outboard compression). I don't like compressing to the point that the dynamics are sucked out! It has to be subtle.

FWIW I think EQ and reverb are more heavily abused than compression...

Cheers,

Johann

blazesboylan · Post by **blazesboylan** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:14 pm

On 2004-08-23 13:04, garyb wrote:
80db realized and the scale is logarithmic, each step 10X the last

But hearing is also logarithmic, so the increase from 90 dB SPL to 100 dB SPL does *not* "sound" 10 times louder... Unless it's Hatebeek you're listening to.

Besides what you brought up is exactly a reason not to use too much compression: the boombox / car stereo speakers compress the crap out of the signal anyway.

Only someone with a decent set of speakers gets the original full dynamic range, and chances are they don't want to hear a square wave to begin with.

Cheers,

Johann

voidar · Post by **voidar** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:31 pm

The dynamics of digital, especially SFP, is overkill. Of course, the amount of compressors and compression to use depends on your preferences and the kind of music you are doing. But anyway, you still have to assign these CC's with your mouse before you can use any of these dull-looking controllers.

Post by **garyb** » Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:59 pm

On 2004-08-23 13:14, blazesboylan wrote:
On 2004-08-23 13:04, garyb wrote:
80db realized and the scale is logarithmic, each step 10X the last
But hearing is also logarithmic, so the increase from 90 dB SPL to 100 dB SPL does *not* "sound" 10 times louder...

yes, but i wasn't really talking about LOUDNESS per se. i was refering to DYNAMIC RANGE, the difference between the loudest and quietest perceived sounds.