Differences between 670 Fairchild & LA-2A

[AcousticDreams]

I am a huge believer in Compressors. I play guitar, sing with a large dynamic range. Grew up with a hardware 1176LN. However for a novice like myself, with little experience, it is not absolutely clear what the real value differences are between compressor styles. Sometimes you just got to own, in order to test out in every situation possible. The most important lesson I have learned in life...is "What works for one person, may not work for another "

Recently I got UA's LA-2A plugins...and from the small amount of testing...I really like it. Smooth city. I have used it a bit on virtual pianos. And I know Doug Young says he uses it on his Guitar recordings, so that alone sold me. As he gets the most lovely acoustic guitar tone.

I hope to buy Arturia Fet 76 when it goes on sale( did not happen for BF! ) Only because I remember the 1176 let through some of the dynamics of my voice. However...that was years, and years ago. My guitar playing style has dramatically changed. And my voice...(well I have not been practicing for years...but the little I am doing is probably more controlled now.) Regardless...just to have the ability to test...I will buy the Arturia 76 plug in. I had to do the same thing with a good Reverb Plate emulation. Turned out...that what I liked backed in the 70's doesn't compare to what's available now with the newer reverbs. Well, that is not quite correct, it does have value...I still like it for some things...but I rarely use it now compared to my other reverbs. That was a $100 plug in on sale. However, my usage right now is just with virtual instruments. When I start recording acoustic guitar and voice...my opinion may again yet change on what is best.

I also have Fab's compressor. Hmmm? Incredible graphics, and lets you see exactly everything going on. But I am not sure I understand how to get the best sound out of it yet. Seems like I can get a good sound straight away with the LA-2A. Not as easily with FabFilter Pro-C. Right now, FabFilter Pro R is my favorite Reverb.

UA has their Fairchild 670 on Sale for $39. It seems like a No Brainer to buy at that price. Reviews from White Sea Studios are good. Still, I would like to know what real value it would be to own a 670 over my LA-2A. Is there really enough difference to warrant this purchase?

Interview with Geoff Emerick from a UA forum quote way back in 2006:
"“My one favorite piece of gear if the Fairchild 660 limiter because it just adds a certain presence. It was great for guitars and it was great for John's(Lennon) voice, and any voice, really. It just puts a lot of presence on it."
"Fairchild is a lovely vari-mu, with different time constants. It can also be very
fast (strong compression). Totally different from LA2A, which can´t."

One of the great realizations I have come to:
What sounded great in yesteryear...sometimes is still the best...and sometimes not. 60's and 70's music was so present. Today music is so open. Each has is value. What do I really need? Maybe a combination of both?
But back to the question at hand: Does the 670 offer something that will be of value to me over the LA-2A?

[midwinter]

My understanding is that the primary difference is that the LA2A is an optical compressor and the UA Fairchild plugin is an emulation of a Fairchild "vari mu" compressor, which does its magic with vacuum tubes instead of an optical light detector.

I guess the simplest answer to your question is this: the Fairchild should be able to do its gain reduction with much less (or at least a very different) coloration of the sound than the LA2A and it should be able to be quite a bit quicker than the LA2A.

If you'd like to A/B the Fairchild with other vari mu compressors, check out the Pulsar emulation of the Manley Vari Mu, which is also on sale. Kush Audio also makes a great vari mu emulation of the Lisson Grove AR-1 (I use this a lot and it's also still on sale). But the Fairchild really does have a sound that can be pretty awesome—I love the UAD Fairchild.

I have a hardware Retro Revolver vari mu compressor and it's a joy on acoustic sources. The thing can knock off 8-10db and it's almost undetectable. It's wild.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by midwinter

My understanding is that the primary difference is that the LA2A is an optical compressor and the UA Fairchild plugin is an emulation of a Fairchild "vari mu" compressor, which does its magic with vacuum tubes instead of an optical light detector.

I guess the simplest answer to your question is this: the Fairchild should be able to do its gain reduction with much less (or at least a very different) coloration of the sound than the LA2A and it should be able to be quite a bit quicker than the LA2A.

If you'd like to A/B the Fairchild with other vari mu compressors, check out the Pulsar emulation of the Manley Vari Mu, which is also on sale. Kush Audio also makes a great vari mu emulation of the Lisson Grove AR-1 (I use this a lot and it's also still on sale). But the Fairchild really does have a sound that can be pretty awesome—I love the UAD Fairchild.

I have a hardware Retro Revolver vari mu compressor and it's a joy on acoustic sources. The thing can knock off 8-10db and it's almost undetectable. It's wild.

Thanks so much midwinter for your great explanation on the differences.

I listened to the Demo of Pulsar on their site. If I am not mistaken, the Pulsar sounded more open in the transients than the UA. The Pulsar adds that "Punch" ( a term I hear a lot). I did not hear that with the UA 670...what I heard was "Presence" as previously described. The UA was Smoother(rounder), & the Pulsar offered Punch. Would you say that is a reasonable description between the two? A wild guess after hearing the two..I would think that Pulsar is better on a mix/master buss( as it would add punch and makes things stand out), and the UA might be better on solo instrument or voice?

The Lisson Grove AR-1..I am not sure where this sits in comparison. Kushes' demo video of this did not quite make it clear other than it has great versatility with using tone & distortion controls.

Wow! your hardware Retro Revolver looks very cool! At $3695, I will very unfortunately have to pass. I would love to hear this on acoustic guitar. Sounds like it would be perfect for me as I go from finger style to heavy strumming. The wider undetectible compression of 8 to 10 db would be most useful for my style. Is there a plug in that comes close to your Retro Revolver in its ability to be undetectible at higher gain reductions? ( This may not be necessary for me as I will track with my Velox compressor first. Then add a plug in compressor later. However...always interested in a plug in that would accomplish transparent reduction and keep the transients.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Thanks so much midwinter for your great explanation on the differences.

You're welcome!

I listened to the Demo of Pulsar on their site. If I am not mistaken, the Pulsar sounded more open in the transients than the UA. The Pulsar adds that "Punch" ( a term I hear a lot). I did not hear that with the UA 670...what I heard was "Presence" as previously described. The UA was Smoother(rounder), & the Pulsar offered Punch. Would you say that is a reasonable description between the two? A wild guess after hearing the two..I would think that Pulsar is better on a mix/master buss( as it would add punch and makes things stand out), and the UA might be better on solo instrument or voice?

The Pulsar is an emulation of the Manley, and yes. I'd usually put it on the master bus (that's where my Retro lives, but I have access to both sides independtly if I want).

[qute]The Lisson Grove AR-1..I am not sure where this sits in comparison. Kushes' demo video of this did not quite make it clear other than it has great versatility with using tone & distortion controls. [/quote]

Kush looooves saturation.

Wow! your hardware Retro Revolver looks very cool! At $3695, I will very unfortunately have to pass. I would love to hear this on acoustic guitar. Sounds like it would be perfect for me as I go from finger style to heavy strumming. The wider undetectible compression of 8 to 10 db would be most useful for my style. Is there a plug in that comes close to your Retro Revolver in its ability to be undetectible at higher gain reductions? ( This may not be necessary for me as I will track with my Velox compressor first. Then add a plug in compressor later. However...always interested in a plug in that would accomplish transparent reduction and keep the transients.

It's a really great compressor. I wanted something very transparent. I was looking for a low-serial number Manley Vari Mu but I just couldn't bring myself to shell out what folks were asking (they knew what they had with those). The Retro presented itself at what I thought was a reasonable price and I pounced.

To answer your question about plugins close to it: I failed to mention Klanghelm's MJUC, which is actually 3 compressors in one. This thing is on just about every "in the box" mix I do, and I believe that one of the models is an emulation of the Altec 436, which is what the Retro is based on.

EDIT: I'm wrong. The MJUC MkI setting is "early variable-mu designs from the 50s," MkII is based on the "more complex designs of the 175 and 176 from the early 1960s, the all-tube-predecessors of the classic 1176 FET compressor" and MkIII is a weird hybrid vari mu (that's the one I use the most).

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by midwinter

It's a really great compressor. I wanted something very transparent. I was looking for a low-serial number Manley Vari Mu but I just couldn't bring myself to shell out what folks were asking (they knew what they had with those). The Retro presented itself at what I thought was a reasonable price and I pounced.

To answer your question about plugins close to it: I failed to mention Klanghelm's MJUC, which is actually 3 compressors in one. This thing is on just about every "in the box" mix I do,
The MJUC MkI setting is "early variable-mu designs from the 50s," MkII is based on the "more complex designs of the 175 and 176 from the early 1960s, the all-tube-predecessors of the classic 1176 FET compressor" and MkIII is a weird hybrid vari mu (that's the one I use the most).

The Klanghelm compressor has long been touted by so many (I have their VUMT Meters). Considering that you own and use great hardware compressors and still use The MJUC, well that is quite some recommendation. I suppose I have pushed it back in my want list, thinking that it is priced so reasonably that surely there are others out there better. Apparently not so.

Does the UA Fairchild 360 plug in have anything over the Klanghelm MJUC? That would warrant its purchase as well? Or can they sound relatively similar using the right setting in the MJUC?

I googled and found this Gearspace thread.
https://gearspace.com/board/music-co...dtm-670-a.html

Of course they not comparing to the UA670.

[midwinter]

I don’t think the MJUC and the 670 are in the same ballpark—just different animals.

I’ll be in my room later and can take both for a spin for you.

[midwinter]

Here you go. MJUC v Fairchild 660 on an acoustic guitar with a little dynamics. Both are knocking off about 3-5db at the most. Did my best to match them.

Fairchild:



MJUC:




Guitar: Waterloo WL-12
Mic: Schoeps CMC-6
Preamp: DAV Broadhurst Gardens No. 2

[AcousticDreams]

Who doesn't love " Can't find my way back home " Great test! You're the man Midwinter, for doing this comparison. Thanks so much. And since I own a pair of Schoeps it is easy to tell what is going on.

I spent a lot of time going back and forth between various parts. But it was very easy to hear the differences straight away.

I found the Fairchild's to round the notes. Also, coloring & compressing the low end more than the MJUC. Does the Fairchild have a built in Side chain where it can bypass compressing the low end?

The MJUC was way more natural. No rounding of the notes, less coloring of the low end, and let the dynamics/transients through while still compressing.

So for myself, this is now an easy choice...the MJUC. And even though I did not hear this on voice...I would suspect that I would also choose the MJUC on voice as well.

[midwinter]

Glad to help! I can easily add a vocal part tomorrow if you want.

And yes. The MJUC is really solid. I could route both guitar and vocal through a side of the Retro as well, if you'd like a sense of how it sounds relative to the MJUC.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by midwinter

Glad to help! I can easily add a vocal part tomorrow if you want.

And yes. The MJUC is really solid. I could route both guitar and vocal through a side of the Retro as well, if you'd like a sense of how it sounds relative to the MJUC.

Yeah that would be great to hear voice through Fairchild & MJUC. There could be a desirable thickness to the Fairchild on vocals. However I am guessing I will still like the MJUC better for its naturalness.

At first I was going to say...NO, NO..don't show me the Retro....I don't want to hear what I can not afford. I do not want to hear the ultimate sound that I can not have...ha ha...but...after serious though...yeah..would love to hear it through that unit.

[DupleMeter]

As has been said, they operate under different principles, opto vs tube (variable mu) detection circuits mean they have different compression characteristics.

The LA-2A is known as the "do no harm" compressor for good reason. It just can't react fast enough to pump like any modern compressors. The Fairchild is interesting because it's also quite slow by modern standards, but reacts in a different way.

Also, a real LA-2A always did something to the low-mids. It gave them a "bloom" or low bump, even with no compression happening. The Fairchild, on the other hand, had a darkness to it that also had some grit. Probably one of the reasons it was loved for drum buses.

Where the 2 compressors become different is in the compression onset (aka knee) characteristics.

The thing about the LA-2A is that it did this thing that became referred to as a "dogtail". When compression started on the LA-2A it overreacted and then eased up a little too much, and then settled into it's compression curve. This became known as the dogtail (it "wags" like a dog's tail). Because the LA-2A is too slow to grab the transient onset of most anything, it had this way of letting the sound start, clamping it out of the way & then letting it come back up & sustain out.

On the other hand, the Fairchild did not have this over-reaction characteristic. It was still too slow to grab an initial transient, but it very smoothly compressed & released after that. Where it got interesting was the grit, which added some additional saturation to the signal, in a way that added body.

They are both great to have because they are different and fill different roles. In fact, there are benefits to having more than one type of each kind of compressor, because they all have their own character.

The 5 main types are:
Optical (LA2A, Opticom, Millenia, JoeMeek)
Vari-Mu (Fairchild, SPL Iron., Manley Vari-Mu)
FET (1176, ADA Compex, API 525)
Diode Bridge (Neve 2254 or 33609)
VCA (SSL, API 2500, Vertigo)

Having at least one of each is ok, but having a couple of each type gives you options. I love compressors, so I could go on all day about them.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Yeah that would be great to hear voice through Fairchild & MJUC. There could be a desirable thickness to the Fairchild on vocals. However I am guessing I will still like the MJUC better for its naturalness.

At first I was going to say...NO, NO..don't show me the Retro....I don't want to hear what I can not afford. I do not want to hear the ultimate sound that I can not have...ha ha...but...after serious though...yeah..would love to hear it through that unit.

No worries. Plus, I just remembered that I tracked that in a random session file I was experimenting with, so it'll be identical on the guitar side.

Mic preference? Ribbon? Condenser? Dynamic? Just use a Shoeps?

I'll run whatever through the same preamp as the others. I'm trying to get to know that DAV BG2 better, and the more I use it, the more I love it.

[AcousticDreams]

Originally Posted by midwinter

No worries. Plus, I just remembered that I tracked that in a random session file I was experimenting with, so it'll be identical on the guitar side.

Mic preference? Ribbon? Condenser? Dynamic? Just use a Shoeps?

I'll run whatever through the same preamp as the others. I'm trying to get to know that DAV BG2 better, and the more I use it, the more I love it.

Any LDC that is familiar/widely known= Easy to recognize. That makes it easier to evaluate the compressors effect and tone.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Any LDC that is familiar/widely known= Easy to recognize. That makes it easier to evaluate the compressors effect and tone.

414 B-ULS it is!

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by AcousticDreams

Any LDC that is familiar/widely known= Easy to recognize. That makes it easier to evaluate the compressors effect and tone.

OK. Here you go. I didn't save the last session, so the guitar is just the MJUC.

Mic is an AKG 414 B ULS. Preamp is a DAV Broadhurst Gardens No. 2.

Zero EQ or processing. All the compressors are knocking off 5-7db at the most.

Apologies for the vocal; this is right at the spot in my range where I have to get a little "yelly" to hit the notes.

Fairchild:


MJUC:



Retro:



Soundcloud does some compression, I'm sure. I can make these available as WAVs if you want to hear them better.