On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:04 PM, Mathieu Bouchard <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:matju@artengine.ca">matju@artengine.ca</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Tue, 18 May 2010, Martin Peach wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
chris clepper wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Unfortunately,  DSP compression is absolutely horrid compared to analog boxes like an API 2500 or ADR Compex - let alone the old tube gear like a 176. <br>
</blockquote>
Why do you think that is? What is missing in the digital version?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div></div>
the digital version doesn&#39;t sufficiently deviate from the theoretical model...<font color="#888888"></font><font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br>More like the digital version lacks sufficient complexity in response.  </div>
</div>