timidi
Max Output Level: -21 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5449
- Joined: 2006/04/11 12:55:15
- Location: SE Florida
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/23 01:51:59
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
timidi
as I would have the verb returns coming in thru a digital mixer. But then, that's digital. Hmm? But, for some reason I think I still get some sort of summing benefit through the digital mixer. Anyway, so I don't know if it's the analog reverb or digital summing/separation that sounds better.
You are not imagining this. It is not the hardware reverbs that are sounding better but the digital summing in a digital mixer. I can sum all internally inside Studio One but even when I send digital stems out to my digital mixer, with no processing applied anywhere just the summing in the mixer being used, the image sounds wider to me and slightly nicer.
This was also backed up by the engineer who engineered James Taylor's latest CD in an article in SOS. I thought I was imagining this until I read it from him too.
As far as reverbs go ITB I can get them sounding as good if not better than any hardware reverb I had. Lately I have been working with the Waves H Reverb and just loving it.
good to know I'm not alone. Thanks Jeff
|
Rbh
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2349
- Joined: 2007/09/05 22:33:44
- Location: Indiana
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/23 05:37:00
(permalink)
Bats Brew - you're the only other person I've heard mention the MC6 - I bought one a couple years ago and liked it so much that I searched for and found a second just to have on hand. I've recently kept one dedicated to a bass rig..... I think they're a great front end for both guitar / bass into amps as well as my DAW. I really wish they would re-introduce this in a pedal format.
|
Jim Roseberry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9871
- Joined: 2004/03/23 11:34:51
- Location: Ohio
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/24 15:52:08
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
This was also backed up by the engineer who engineered James Taylor's latest CD in an article in SOS. I thought I was imagining this until I read it from him too.
The wife and I are friends with JT's live FOH engineer Barry Damron. Not sure if he's the one mentioned in the SOS article... Barry is a great engineer... and also an excellent drummer.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/25 03:47:22
(permalink)
Hi Jim no it was Dave O'Donnell. And he talks about the fact that bringing stems out of the DAW and summing them digitally gave a wider image with more depth which is weird considering. So summing mixers in the analog domain are not the only things that can do this apparently. Digital mixers can as well.
That experiment I did with SmallSToneFan where we compared OTB analog summing to internal summing proved to be impossible in the end to tell the difference, yet with the digital mixer it is way more obvious.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
cclarry
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 20964
- Joined: 2012/02/07 09:42:07
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 00:48:16
(permalink)
I've had this argument too many times, and we ALL know that
Opinions are like Buttholes...everybody has one. What everyone does
NOT have is COMMON SENSE. I don't care what ANYBODY says,
they are NOT going to give you "The same sound" of a $10,000 hardware unit
in a $50 plugin. Sorry...never going to happen.
They talk about "Circuit modeling" and blah blah blah. You are NEVER EVER
going to get the "real sound" of hardware in a plugin. There is an EFFECT
that takes place within the wiring, tubes, circuits, and transformers of a
HARDWARE UNIT that CANNOT be replicated with a "Software" plugin.
Recording Studios and Movie Studios would STOP buying HARDWARE if that were the case...
BUT THEY DON'T!!! As a matter of fact they are STILL ordering HUGE consoles and
$10,000 compressors and Limiters, etc!
WHY?
THE SOUND!!!
They wouldn't invest a MILLION DOLLARS into a console if they could
"do the same" with a $50 plugin...sorry...that's just COMMON SENSE!
I'm with the OP. NO BUSINESS is going to "give you" their "secret weapon" for
PENNIES that they paid THOUSANDS for. You're not going to get the "same" summing
and analog "sound" of an SSL 4000 or 9000 Console in "software" format. NOT GOING
TO HAPPEN. SSL would be OUT OF BUSINESS. HARRISON would be OUT OF BUSINESS.
NEVE would be OUT OF BUSINESS. API would be OUT OF BUSINESS. Trident would be OUT OF BUSINESS.
Maag would be OUT OF BUSINESS. The list goes ON AND ON. And you wouldn't see producers
diligently searching for "Special Consoles and hardware" if they could just "model one" and do it for
pennies, rather than hundreds of thousands, and you wouldn't see RACK UPON RACK UPON RACK of
HARDWARE UNITS, all "patched in" in Major Studios...THINK ABOUT IT! They would just buy high end I/O
units and be done if it were "the same".
These guys are SALESMEN. They will tell you "exact modeling"...etc.
They are out to SELL product - that is all. And they PAY for BIG NAMES for "endorsements" and for
"ads" featuring BIG NAMES to get you to BUY so that they can "make money", not only
off the BIG GUY, but ALSO off of the LITTLE GUY...not because "it's the same"!
I'm not saying you can't, or won't, get "Great results" in the box, BUT, it will NEVER EVER be the same as
the PHYSICAL HARDWARE, because you simply can't "model" what they REALLY do, and what REALLY happens,
in a HARDWARE UNIT. You can get a binary proximity match, but it will not be, or sound, "identical" - EVER.
As Jim said...QUALITY of what's going in and coming out make a HUGE difference, and THAT is ALL dependent
on HARDWARE!
Let the bashing begin...because I know everyone wants to believe that their "Plugin" sounds every bit as good
as "the hardware". Common sense and REALITY says...NOPE.
|
synkrotron
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5263
- Joined: 2006/04/28 16:21:21
- Location: Warrington, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 01:10:20
(permalink)
Excellent rant and I can only agree... For me, though, well, I simply can't tell the difference...
http://www.synkrotron.co.uk/Intel Core™i7-3820QM Quad Core Mobile Processor 2.70GHz 8MB cache | Intel HM77 Express Chipset | 16GB SAMSUNG 1600MHz SODIMM DDR3 RAM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M - 2.0GB DDR5 Video RAM | 500GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD | 1TB Samsung 850 Pro SSD | Windows 10 Pro | Roland OCTA-CAPTURE | SONAR Platinum ∞ FFS| Too many VSTi's to list here | KRK KNS-8400 Headphones | Roland JP-8000 | Oberheim OB12 | Novation Nova | Gibson SG Special | PRS Studio
|
space_cowboy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9813
- Joined: 2007/07/20 14:49:31
- Location: Front and center behind these monitors
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 01:11:17
(permalink)
CCLarry
I am fortunate enough to own a Waldorf Wave (the big one), a Linntronics Memorymoog (it works all the time!), a Synthi AKS and a DSI OB6. They sound totally huge compared to the VSTs. I agree that a $200 plug in is never going to give you the sound of a $4000 Eventide box. I figure whatever they are selling in plugin format, has to be a tiny subset of the big box. Otherwise the big boxes would totally disappear. My Sweetwater Engineer says they still sell a bunch of the big boxes, though it is obviously down.
Another factor to consider, the 500 series modules are hot commodities. What are they? Preamps, EQs, Compressors...If a Neve plugin gave you the sound of a 500 box, why would anyone buy the 500?
Some people call me Maurice SPLAT Pro lifetime, ADK 6 core 3.6Ghz with 32 GB RAM, SSD 1TB system drive, 3 3TB regular drives for samples, recordings and misc. Behringer X Touch, UAD Apollo Quad. 2 UAD2 Quads PCI (i think - inside the box whatever that is), Console 1. More guitars (40??) and synths (hard and soft) than talent. Zendrum!!!
|
JohanSebatianGremlin
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 402
- Joined: 2016/03/17 22:27:15
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 12:56:04
(permalink)
Most of your rant was easy to agree with but a few points do come to mind. First off, the OP was talking reverbs specifically but the thread has kind of morphed into all plugins vs all hardware. That's no bodies fault but I think its worth pointing out that when you break it down into hardware type, you find certain things that software is able to replicate fairly well and other things that software can't seem to come close to pulling off IMO. For example I've personally got no complaints about the results I get from software eq. And I defy anyone to tell the difference between a DX7 and an FM8 playing the same patch in a blind listening test. On the other hand, I fail to understand why anyone bothers to use any kind of software console emulator. I've experimented a bit with them but I've still never heard one that imparted any meaningful improvement, or even difference, in the sound. Like I said, good rant and I mostly agree. But then at the end you added this bit: cclarry
Let the bashing begin...because I know everyone wants to believe that their "Plugin" sounds every bit as good
as "the hardware". Common sense and REALITY says...NOPE.
This to me is an entirely different argument than does software faithfully replicate hardware. Getting a software 1176 to sound and behave exactly like a hardware 1176 is one thing and I would agree you'll probably never get it truly exact. Of course to be fair, comparing one hardware 1176 to another hardware 1176 isn't going to exact either. But like I said, to me 'sounds every bit as good' is a different argument entirely. On the face of it, this argument would suggest that one simply cannot achieve world class results any other way than using hardware. That's not a bet I'd ever place money on. In fact I'd place money on the opposite. Put a rank amateur weekend warrior in Abby Road with stems and put <Insert world class engineer name> in front of a well stocked computer with the same stems and I would bet money the world class engineer will produce results that are not only 'every bit as good' but more likely worlds better than what comes of Abby Road at the hands of the weekend warrior. Hardware/software only gets you so far. At the end of the day, you either have the talent to bring the goods or you do not.
If gear was the determining factor, we would all have a shelf full of Grammies and a pocket full of change. -microapp i7, 32gb RAM, Win10 64bit, RME UFX
|
synkrotron
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5263
- Joined: 2006/04/28 16:21:21
- Location: Warrington, UK
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 13:18:59
(permalink)
JohanSebatianGremlin
On the other hand, I fail to understand why anyone bothers to use any kind of software console emulator. I've experimented a bit with them but I've still never heard one that imparted any meaningful improvement, or even difference, in the sound.
Glad to see I am not on my own in this regard...
http://www.synkrotron.co.uk/Intel Core™i7-3820QM Quad Core Mobile Processor 2.70GHz 8MB cache | Intel HM77 Express Chipset | 16GB SAMSUNG 1600MHz SODIMM DDR3 RAM | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 675M - 2.0GB DDR5 Video RAM | 500GB Samsung 850 Pro SSD | 1TB Samsung 850 Pro SSD | Windows 10 Pro | Roland OCTA-CAPTURE | SONAR Platinum ∞ FFS| Too many VSTi's to list here | KRK KNS-8400 Headphones | Roland JP-8000 | Oberheim OB12 | Novation Nova | Gibson SG Special | PRS Studio
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 13:29:23
(permalink)
Me too on the all the emulators. I find it mostly puts a haze on the sound. When I have used it (seldom), most of the time I take it off the next time I visit the mix.
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
JohanSebatianGremlin
Max Output Level: -82 dBFS
- Total Posts : 402
- Joined: 2016/03/17 22:27:15
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 16:46:02
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby pwalpwal 2017/09/26 17:07:43
This thread can be neatly boiled down to three points. 1. Use whatever gets you the results you're looking for. 2. The results you're looking for might not be the same as the results I'm looking for. 3. Mediocre tools paired with excellent talent/skills will always outgun excellent tools paired with mediocre talent/skills.
post edited by JohanSebatianGremlin - 2017/11/08 14:32:42
If gear was the determining factor, we would all have a shelf full of Grammies and a pocket full of change. -microapp i7, 32gb RAM, Win10 64bit, RME UFX
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/26 21:33:35
(permalink)
☄ Helpfulby abacab 2017/09/27 00:17:54
It might be a good time to point out different uses of hardware and software.
Hardware is and often used in tracking. In this case most often distortion is being introduced. One could argue that connecting the input source directly to a quality transparent (transformerless) Mic pre and going straight into digital is actually superior. It just depends on how you look at it. Instead of putting the hardware option on top as the ultimate method the moment you reverse the situation and put a clean signal path straight into digital as the ultimate approach then hardware suddenly looks worse. e.g. for recording a guitar or bass for a rock track then yes the hardware option might sound good. Not for a clean digital synthesiser though. It can make it sound worse. Depends on the music.
Once inside then we can do a lot. I feel that trying to copy old analog gear is actually somewhat silly in some respects. Yes they can get close with some things but not so much with others I agree on that for sure. At least copying old analog stuff is giving us some interesting plugins. Which can be used just as creatively as the original hardware, perhaps in a slightly different way. What is cool is that by starting there and emulating old analog gear has led us into new plugins. What about the new wave of digital plugins that do things old analog gear could never even dream of. In that respect they are leaping ahead. Taking us into territory we have never even explored yet. Amazing stuff. Personally I find that exciting.
Mixing wise you don't need an SSL console either to get a great mix. The fact that many top name engineers are all ITB says it all. When a multitrack is sent out to multiple engineers and the one they pick and love is actually all ITB (compared to the others that were all done on large consoles with tons of hardware outboard etc) then who cares how it was done. That is talent taking over there, not gear related.
Then there are synthesisers. They are doing an amazing job on those. When they are emulating previous synths they do sound amazingly close, so much so that you don't actually need the hardware in many many cases. But what about those that are going way beyond anything that existed before. e.g. Serum for example sounds like no hardware in existence. It is way ahead in that regard. So on another level the digital software is light years ahead.
There is all analog hardware, all digital and a combination of both. The reality is no one approach is better than the other. They are all great and sound excellent. What is boring is people constantly putting one approach on top and thinking everything else is so much worse. They are stuck in a rut with that thinking. They are all great!
And back to the OP. Yes you can get a beautiful sounding all ITB reverb. There are tons of them out there. Thinking that the only way you can get a nice reverb from hardware is very short sighted. It is up to how you drive that reverb plugin and set it and use it creatively. The solution lies with you not with the hardware or software.
You have got the sculptor, the chisel and the finished piece at the end of the day. We are talking about chisels here!
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Joe_A
Max Output Level: -81 dBFS
- Total Posts : 458
- Joined: 2008/07/06 23:16:14
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/27 17:43:19
(permalink)
Being an electronic engineer I can add there are things that can be done with (some) outboard eqpt that can't be done with software as fast and in keeping with a live and active recording session. If one is recording the clean and the end point of the tracks the best of both worlds is achieved.
Now there is some software that can be used. The all or nothing grouping is not applicable in today's performing environment.
But choosing by intended use, outboard for live stage performances can be a necessity.
Someone mentioned above....know your tools and intentions.
jambrose@cfl.rr.com Sonar Plat. Lifetime. Started in Sonar 4, each through 8.5.3PE. Scarlett 18i202nd gen., Edirol FA-101, M-Audio Firewire 410, AMD Phenom II 1045T six core processor, 8GB DDR3, AMD Radeon HD 6450, dual displays, 1.5 TB SATA HD, USB 2, Firewire 1394A, 1394B, 18/22 mixer, EV Q-66, Yamaha HS50M monitors, few guitars, Fender Cybertwin SE, Fender Cyber foot controller, Boss RC20-XL, misc pedals, etc. Win Home Prem 64 bit.
|
space_cowboy
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9813
- Joined: 2007/07/20 14:49:31
- Location: Front and center behind these monitors
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 03:29:48
(permalink)
Joe_A
Being an electronic engineer I can add there are things that can be done with (some) outboard eqpt that can't be done with software as fast and in keeping with a live and active recording session. If one is recording the clean and the end point of the tracks the best of both worlds is achieved.
Now there is some software that can be used. The all or nothing grouping is not applicable in today's performing environment.
But choosing by intended use, outboard for live stage performances can be a necessity.
Someone mentioned above....know your tools and intentions.
Hey A former EE here too. I was an analog engineer before I got my MBA - transistors, op amps, inductors... I know a custom SHARC or other DSP processor can be tailored for an application - like the UAD stuff - and run rings around native stuff unless you have the 2017 equivalent of a Cray 1. while a lex or tc or eventide reverb may use something besides SHARC processors (not sure), they are custom built for the application at hand. I used to have some $2000 reverbs (cheap vs the top end) and there was way more control than I find in say a Lexicon 224 from UAD. I am not saying that plug ins are bad, they are just not pari passu with their rack mount brethren.
Some people call me Maurice SPLAT Pro lifetime, ADK 6 core 3.6Ghz with 32 GB RAM, SSD 1TB system drive, 3 3TB regular drives for samples, recordings and misc. Behringer X Touch, UAD Apollo Quad. 2 UAD2 Quads PCI (i think - inside the box whatever that is), Console 1. More guitars (40??) and synths (hard and soft) than talent. Zendrum!!!
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 05:14:00
(permalink)
Here is a quote from a SOS question about are reverb plugins as good as hardware: Hugh Robjohns replied: Up until recently, most native reverb plug-ins used relatively simple algorithms and were often audibly inferior to even quite modest hardware reverbs. The advent of software convolution has improved matters considerably, and many of these new convolution reverb plug-ins sound as good as hardware units in many situations (to my ears at least). Another very good alternative is to use embedded hardware processing like the TC Powercore or Universal Audio UAD1 cards. These offer dedicated DSP power to avoid clogging up the host processor, and allow advanced algorithms (often transcoded from hardware processors) to be run. The advantage is that everything is still under computer control, and so settings can be instantly saved with specific projects, which makes remixing or revising a project later on much quicker and easier than trying to find your settings notes (if you remembered to write them down!) and/or reconfiguring a hardware unit. This was in 2005! 12 years ago. Things can only be better right now. I am tending to believe Hugh. Don't forget there are some incredible convolution algorithms that are of the amazing great hardware of the past and they can sound sensational. They are out there. You just need to research, purchase and use them. In a blind A/B test where the reverbs are being used subtly and being returned to the mix at modest levels I think it might be very hard to pick a hardware unit. Some more reading for those interested: https://www.getthatprosound.com/the-10-best-reverb-plugins-in-the-world/
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
Slugbaby
Max Output Level: -33.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4172
- Joined: 2004/10/01 13:57:37
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 13:01:02
(permalink)
synkrotron
Excellent rant and I can only agree... For me, though, well, I simply can't tell the difference...
This is exactly what I was going to write. I can tell the difference between talent, but not between the $10K hardware and the $50 VST emulation. So i'm happy with the VST. Same reason I choose $10 cigars over $100 ones and $2 coffees over $10 coffees. Sure, they will be slightly better, but the value just isn't there for me.
|
AT
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10654
- Joined: 2004/01/09 10:42:46
- Location: TeXaS
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 16:00:33
(permalink)
Whenever the bartender sez "What kind of gin?" I say whatever is in the well. It's gin.
https://soundcloud.com/a-pleasure-dome
http://www.bnoir-film.com/ there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
|
brconflict
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1891
- Joined: 2012/10/05 21:28:30
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 17:08:40
(permalink)
Yep, every has an opinion. What I see with hardware vs. software: Benefits of hardware- Can handle certain levels of energy that software cannot when audio is passed through it. Same reason a Line 6 modeled guitar amp cannot correctly emulate a Marshal stack, but rather sound like a recorded marshal stack played back through a well-designed PA speaker. Hardware can be variably pushed harder in ways that will make it sound different.
- When modeling plug-ins, there is still an A/D process that goes on to 'grab' the character of the hardware. That process might be inaccurate to the most discerning ears. After it's done, that same piece of hardware can be tweaked differently the next day, and the plug-in won't capture that next day's vibe. Even variances in power of the hardware might affect the audio.
- Every piece of hardware is different, even if ever-so-slightly. Just because Chris Lord-Alge has a killer 1176 blue stripe, doesn't mean he has the best unit. A small studio in Louisville, KY might have a far superior unit. The plug-in might beat out CLA's 1176 if it were modeled after the one in Louisville.
- People still rely heavily on great hardware. It's a 'thing', and that keeps the hardware manufacturer's in business. Will that change? Who knows?
Benefits of plug-ins- Use as many as you want.
- Close an open projects on the fly (ask Andrew Scheps!) and never have to document hardware settings.
- Many plug-ins are modeled after hundreds of thousands of dollars of hardware most users can never afford, and specific units you can't likely ever own, yourself.
- They're cheap in comparison, even though that sounds redundant of the previous point.
- Use them as many times as you want.
- Hardware varies in character. Plug-ins typically do not.
I personally believe the difference largely revolves around money more than quality, and there's a highly subjective nature to which sounds better. Blind tests are always better comparison than mentally knowing which you are listening to. The best hardware won't provide good results with bad engineering. A faulty hardware unit might also be inferior to a good plug-in. The D/A and A/D conversion might not be good enough to reap the benefits of hardware. If you don't have a huge budget, you can get every bit as good (or better or worse) of an end-product from plug-ins as you can from hardware, where you can spend more time using software at lower cost, and go right back again in a year and revisit the mix with very little effort. Remember, it's not about what you hear, it's what they hear. If I could afford all hardware, I'd have it. I've had great hardware and loved it. I no longer need it because most clients I see don't know the difference, or don't care. 9/10 sessions I have are all in the box, including Mastering.
Brian Sonar Platinum, Steinberg Wavelab Pro 9, MOTU 24CoreIO w/ low-slew OP-AMP mods and BLA external clock, True P8, Audient ASP008, API 512c, Chandler Germ500, Summit 2ba-221, GAP Pre-73, Peluso 22251, Peluso 2247LE, Mackie HR824, Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3tl w/upgraded Soniccraft crossovers and Goertz cables, powered by Pass-X350. All wiring Star-Quad XLR or Monster Cable. Power by Monster Power Signature AVS2000 voltage stabilizer and Signature Pro Power 5100 PowerCenter on a 20A isolation shielded circuit.
|
Sycraft
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 871
- Joined: 2012/05/04 21:06:10
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 17:18:59
(permalink)
Just another example of going "in the box" for major production: I saw The Book of Mormon in London's West End when I was over there. Being a major play in one of (if not the) best theater districts in the world, production values were top notch, no expense was spared. Live music, of course, which was excellent. After the show I had a look in the pit. It was a pretty small group, less than 20 musicians, a drummer, a few brasswind players, a few woodwind players, a few strings players, and two keyboards... hooked in to iMacs running samplers.
Here you had a production that could have anything, and did (seriously the sound system in the theater was amazing, gave powerful, present, distortion-less, sound in every seat without loud and quiet zones) and computers were what they chose for doing the instruments they weren't going to have actual copies of.
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 21:45:13
(permalink)
Another situation where software is very interesting is when it not only emulates hardware very well but it will often extends it and takes it into new territory. Something hardware can never do. It is fixed and reached the end of its line usually. For example here is an emulation of the famed Lexicon 480L: http://relabdevelopment.com/product/lx480-complete/ Not only have they given it all the original 480 algorithms but they have extended it well beyond and added new ones. Same with synths. They often have classic and extended versions. And the extended versions are usually amazing and take an old synth into totally new territory. Very cool and interesting. Non software believers might want to check this out as well. Pretty revealing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNDQzFTPcj8
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
davdud101
Max Output Level: -69 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1058
- Joined: 2010/07/15 13:30:44
- Location: Detroit, MI
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 22:26:16
(permalink)
I don't own ANY hardware, and don't plan to invest in any.
But someone previously stated that the physical inputs, converters, etc. on a hardware module at $10,000 are going to be far better than using, maybe a $300 interface with converters NOT necessarily designed for it, which I'd guess cold ultimately give a plugin a different sound than its hardware counterpart.
I'd also guess that having things like compressors and EQ's in the chain pre-conversion could make a big difference in the sound, something that doesn't even seem to be an approaching possibility with plugins.
But really, they're all just different tools for different jobs and different end-products. YES, you won't get the same sounds. YES, you're allowed to use whatever combination you like....
I only do the studio stuff for fun, arranging is more of my cup of tea.... so I'm sticking with plugins!
Mics: MXL 990, MXL R80, 2 x MXL Tempo XLRs, Cobalt Co9, SM48, iSK Starlight Cans: Hifiman HE4XX, AKG M220 Gear: Cakewalk BBL - PreSonus Firepod - Alesis Elevate 3 - Axiom 49 DAW: Win10, AMD FX-8300, 16GB DDR3
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/28 22:40:46
(permalink)
davdud101
I'd also guess that having things like compressors and EQ's in the chain pre-conversion could make a big difference in the sound, something that doesn't even seem to be an approaching possibility with plugins.
bingo.
|
jackson white
Max Output Level: -85 dBFS
- Total Posts : 283
- Joined: 2008/02/19 21:35:13
- Location: BOS
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/29 20:05:24
(permalink)
In addition to having eq/compression pre-conversion is the ability to adjust the input impedance for various microphones. Haven't seen that modeled anywhere yet.
-------------------- Some pieces of wood with wires and bits of metal stuck in them, silicon and plastic
|
Jeff Evans
Max Output Level: -24 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5139
- Joined: 2009/04/13 18:20:16
- Location: Ballarat, Australia
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/09/29 21:33:18
(permalink)
This is getting off topic a little. It is not about the hardware getting in and out of the DAW, I think it is specifically aimed at what can happen inside your DAW e.g. reverb. Check out my earlier posts on the Lexicon 480L for example. The OP thinks no reverb software can rival the hardware. I say otherwise. It certainly can.
Specs i5-2500K 3.5 Ghz - 8 Gb RAM - Win 7 64 bit - ATI Radeon HD6900 Series - RME PCI HDSP9632 - Steinberg Midex 8 Midi interface - Faderport 8- Studio One V4 - iMac 2.5Ghz Core i5 - Sierra 10.12.6 - Focusrite Clarett thunderbolt interface Poor minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas -Eleanor Roosevelt
|
brconflict
Max Output Level: -56.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1891
- Joined: 2012/10/05 21:28:30
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/10/12 19:24:52
(permalink)
Here's something I'm doing at the moment. So, there's an artist I'm co-mastering some music for. Co-mastering as in that my background is in harder edged music, while another engineer is better suited to lighter styles. I'm relatively new to the field (less than 10-years experience in Mastering), while the other engineer is Grammy Nominated and has been working for a much longer time. He uses almost all expensive hardware, and does this work for a living. I do this on the side, and I'm 100% ITB using plug-ins.
What I'm doing now is, having an exported Master of a song from his work to reference, I'm Mastering my copy of the same stereo mix he received to see how close to his Master I can get. When I'm done, the artist will see if they can identify who's Master is which, and then, to see which Master they prefer. So far, the Masters are extremely close!
Brian Sonar Platinum, Steinberg Wavelab Pro 9, MOTU 24CoreIO w/ low-slew OP-AMP mods and BLA external clock, True P8, Audient ASP008, API 512c, Chandler Germ500, Summit 2ba-221, GAP Pre-73, Peluso 22251, Peluso 2247LE, Mackie HR824, Polk Audio SRS-SDA 2.3tl w/upgraded Soniccraft crossovers and Goertz cables, powered by Pass-X350. All wiring Star-Quad XLR or Monster Cable. Power by Monster Power Signature AVS2000 voltage stabilizer and Signature Pro Power 5100 PowerCenter on a 20A isolation shielded circuit.
|
batsbrew
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 10037
- Joined: 2007/06/07 16:02:32
- Location: SL,UT
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/10/12 22:03:23
(permalink)
REMINDS ME OF THIS: 
|
jude77
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1146
- Joined: 2013/08/27 21:31:34
- Location: South Saturn Delta
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/10/16 16:20:56
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
Its all about skill and talent. Not really dependant on whether something exists in hardware or software.
Average engineer in a room full of hardware = average result
Great engineer all ITB = great result.
I think that's perfectly said. Put me in Abbey Road with all that magical vintage equipment and I'll give you an average recording. Put Geoff Emerick in my home studio and he'll give you magic. IMHO Pro-level hardware certainly doesn't hurt, but it's not what makes the difference between a recording made with hardware and one made with plugins.
You haven't lived until you've taken the Rorschach. Windows 10 Home Edition 64-bit /6th Generation Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-6700 Processor (8M Cache, up to 4.0 GHz)/16GB (1x16GB) DDR4 2133MHz SDRAM Memory/ NVIDIA(R) GeForce(R) GT 730 with 2GB DDR3 Graphics Memory/ Dell KB216 Wired Multi-Media Keyboard English Black/ 802.11ac + Bluetooth 4.0/Integrated 7.1 with WAVE MAXXAudio Pro/Wireless 3165 driver
|
DrLumen
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 621
- Joined: 2005/07/05 20:11:34
- Location: North Texas
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/10/16 18:47:54
(permalink)
Larry, you have to admit that there is a lot of inertia and impetus and incentive for the salesman of the $10k boxes to continue with the status quo. Even if there were a plugin that could match or even outperform their hardware they would never admit it. They have commission on the line.
The old skool engineers are likely to continue with what they know (self preservation and all) and with an almost unlimited hardware budget there is no need for them to try plugins or some other untested solution.
I have used outboard gear (when there were no plugins) for live mixes and know they have a place there. Since plugins came along I haven't had the hardware to do actual comparisons so I know I can't say either way.
Ultimately, and I know this is sacrilege to say, but IMHO it depends on the color of the sound. Simple as that. Once you start adding reverb or limiting or ... in whatever form or method you are coloring the source(s). Given enough time, money and tinkering, I have no doubt that some digital plugin can model/duplicate any hardware solution. Like was mentioned, there are differences between boxes. While a plugin for a big box may not currently exist, in the end it is just sound waves and recreated and compared as such digitally.
-When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.
Sonar Platinum / Intel i7-4790K / AsRock Z97 / 32GB RAM / Nvidia GTX 1060 6GB / Behringer FCA610 / M-Audio Sport 2x4 / Win7 x64 Pro / WDC Black HDD's / EVO 850 SSD's / Alesis Q88 / Boss DS-330 / Korg nanoKontrol / Novation Launch Control / 14.5" Lava Lamp
|
Fleer
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 8715
- Joined: 2014/08/29 10:17:45
- Location: Boston/Cambridge
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2017/10/16 19:32:33
(permalink)
Those of you lucky enough to own a Distressor, do try Slate's FG-Stress. Virtually identical.
"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl" (Wish You Were Here)
|
smallstonefan
Max Output Level: -48 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2724
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:41:35
- Location: Papillion, Nebraska
- Status: offline
Re: Plug ins vs hardware
2018/10/12 19:44:29
(permalink)
Jeff Evans
Hi Jim no it was Dave O'Donnell. And he talks about the fact that bringing stems out of the DAW and summing them digitally gave a wider image with more depth which is weird considering. So summing mixers in the analog domain are not the only things that can do this apparently. Digital mixers can as well.
That experiment I did with SmallSToneFan where we compared OTB analog summing to internal summing proved to be impossible in the end to tell the difference, yet with the digital mixer it is way more obvious.
I'm going to necro this old thread because I was searching for info on Lexicons and ran across this reference to our great summing experience! :) I continued to play more with the analog summing and there is definitely a difference. The kicker was I was comparing music that had already been mixed, and to me the summing is something you want to mix into not slap on after the fact. Enough to matter? That's completely subjective and why I never posted more about it. I added a Stam Audio SA4000 SSL clone between the Midas and the UAD Apollo and it's a lot of fun. I decided to go outboard with reverb too and just ordered a PCM 91. I'm really enjoying hardware - whether or not it's better. One reason I went with the outboard Lexicon is I know I'll never spend the time to learn how to deeply program it, so there is an inherent limitation in options that appeals to me. That and I like the old Lexicon sound. Anyway, keep rocking everyone! :)
|