Pragi

iRelevant

Pragi
The vst plugins are imo nearly as good as hardware devices for mixing
but I prefer hardware  devices for mastering :
Why ?
Fill a room with 10 people and play
1. one song mastered with hardware and
2. one song mastered digital (software)
 
Simply compare the body moves and facial expressions during this
test and you know why.

Is this something you have tried ? 
I'm currently working on building a hardware based multi-band compressor/limiter out of curiosity, using standard modules, and so fare it sounds good. But it's hard to compare the results vs software. I'm uncertain as whether it is my imagination, the flashing lights and moving needles that make it sound better. I guess I will have to do some A/B blind tests on myself once to see if there is something to it. 

Yes,
we tried that in a well known mastering studio  during a
3 years (mixing /audio ) education course.
 
To watch the body language of 10 people listening 
to several with software mastered songs in a way shocked me .
We had 2 songs in 2 versions ,mastered with software and hardware.
The body language of the group during  listening to analog mastered
tracks changed completely.
 
If you can manage, I recommend everybody to do such a test .
Since that experience it feels like  a crime to master a song with software for me .
 
Have to mention that I like to do mixing with
software cause there are really good plugins available.
 
sounds interesting,what kind od limiter /compressor are you building?
 

Thank you. Very interesting to hear. I'm not surprised though, there obviously is a difference between  something that is modeled and the model. As with a real piano and a modeled one. Both are enjoyable and have their uses of course. 
 
I'm trying to put together a multi-band stereo mastering limiter from stock modules. In essence it's just 3 stereo compressors connected to a crossover filter, connected to a dedicated mixer + a master parametric EQ. I have one tube compressor available, and I have located it on the lower frequency register. Think this is the best combination, but not entirely sure. Maybe a better location would be on the highest frequency range, to soften things up a bit. 

I've been trying out a great many software versions of the hardware I use, mainly looking for good plugin versions of an 1176, DBX160, and an LA3A, so I can use them more without having to bounce audio through the few I've got.
 
Whilst I've found Waves' CLA 1176 to be pretty accurate in terms of how it handles compression, it just doesn't behave like the real thing when it's abused, the hardware is in many ways imperfect, but it's those funky imperfections which make me reach for it. If I just wanted to transparently control dynamics or EQ, I'd use super-clean plugins (and do, for most things), but sometimes I just want that odd behaviour, that slight little crunch from the hardware, and that's something I've never found adequate in the plugin versions.
 
Of course, old harware varies a lot and like humans, goes a little deranged with age, so my vintage gear almost certainly doesn't sound like your vintage gear, and so on.

ooblecaboodle
I've been trying out a great many software versions of the hardware I use, mainly looking for good plugin versions of an 1176, DBX160, and an LA3A, so I can use them more without having to bounce audio through the few I've got.
 
Whilst I've found Waves' CLA 1176 to be pretty accurate in terms of how it handles compression, it just doesn't behave like the real thing when it's abused, the hardware is in many ways imperfect, but it's those funky imperfections which make me reach for it. If I just wanted to transparently control dynamics or EQ, I'd use super-clean plugins (and do, for most things), but sometimes I just want that odd behaviour, that slight little crunch from the hardware, and that's something I've never found adequate in the plugin versions.
 
Of course, old harware varies a lot and like humans, goes a little deranged with age, so my vintage gear almost certainly doesn't sound like your vintage gear, and so on.

Important points. What is being modeled is bigger and more varied, than the resulting models. 
 
 

IMO,
hardware is always superior to software.
 
usually, software is simply emulating the real thing, and didn't invent it, and can only approximate it.
 
there are some unique pieces of software that exist no where else, and those plugins are superior by virtue of the fact that they are unique and original.
 
i guess you can see how this opinion is going.......
 
my bits of hardware : RME Babyface Pro interface (talking the preamps here, as well as the converters), A Designs Audio MP-1 class A tube mic pre, DBX MC-6 compressor, ART DPS stereo tube preamp) are superior in every area compared to comparable vst's.
 
other pieces of hardware i've used in other studios (UA 610, UA LA2A, Distressor, avalon 737, focusrite isa1, grace 101) have all been superior to any similar plug i've used.
 
 
that all said,
it doesn't matter what gear you use,
you use what you can afford,
and get on with it.
 
will your listener EVER know what gear you used?
does it even matter?
 
no.
 
just use what you have, to the best of your ability, and when you WIN the lottery, call dave grohl, he has a piece of gear you need.
 

 

iRelevant

Starise
Hardware-expensive
Software- Not so much
They can sound similar or almost exactly the same.
 
As a result of the above ^^ a natural selection has occurred. People with less money naturally select to work ITB.
Old and nostalgic folks like to at least mention hardware every now and then. It gets me to see a well known engineer advertising a software plugin or instrument whilst sitting in a studio loaded to the gills in expensive hardware.
 
Is there a tradeoff? It's very negligible. You might not notice.
 
It's always a good idea to have a decent hardware signal chain going into the box. Not everyone does.
 
 

Hmmm ... so in essence it is hardware for the rich, software for the poor. Do you recall any comparisons you've made yourself, and what you observed ? I have an old RE-201 collecting dust, as I'm using the newer RE-20 instead. I've yet to check out any RE-201 VST's, but I understand there are plenty around. The newer RE-20 sounds good and is more practical, but I would say there is noticeable difference in sound, particularly on the spring reverb and tape saturation sound. 
I'm wondering what the big studios are using theses days ? Is it all VST's and in the box as well you think ? 

 
The average person can go out and sink money into hardware I suppose just like if I wanted a boat or a motorcycle I would have one. I consider myself to be average. People blow money on all kinds of things. If you don't have the money someone somewhere will lend it to you, so I don't see is as necessarily a rich man/poor man kind of thing.
You could set an amount, say $30,000 for studio hardware and go on a gear buying spree.
 
Ok now............. to let the work you do be heard you still need a computer. In fact it is now difficult to exclude the computer from the studio. I see it as more of a decision usually based on payback to the studio unless you decide this doesn't matter, in which case just have fun and buy stuff.
 
I don't have the details mentioned earlier on the comparison. Were the listeners aware of which thing was hardware and which wasn't? The placebo effect could easily come into play. Not only that, I am of the opinion that in many cases older studio gear makes nice eye candy to a potential customer. They don't need to actually use most of it.
 
This all begins to look a lot like the Mac/PC debate. Why even discuss it? There are advantages and disadvantages to both. One huge advantage to software is configurations can be saved. Analog hardware with knobs just won't do that to the exactness software can. Entire mixes complete with all plugins can be save and chains can be created and saved for other projects. I view software much like recording itself. Did the recording sound like you? It's usually very exacting using a good computer setup ITB. Same kind of thing with plugins. Did that sound like a so and so? It's usually very close.
 
If software were hands down inferior the pros wouldn't be using plugins to make hit records. I don't think a solid argument stands against software.
 
Probably the best comparisons between the two are old recordings made by good engineers. Do you think the old recordings are light years ahead of the new recordings done with plugins? I tend to lean the other way.
 
I was on another website recently where they have a "show us your desk" thread. Some of these setups were huge for private studios. All kinds of old hardware synths and controllers. I had to kinda smile about it because I can take one of my 15 dollar software synths and get something similar. If a dude gets his jollies buying up old gear and he has the dough I say go for it. Those things would gather dust in my studio though. I would fiddle with it off and on and that would be it. I suspect there are a lot of expensive paperweights laying around in studios.

batsbrew
IMO,
hardware is always superior to software.
 
usually, software is simply emulating the real thing, and didn't invent it, and can only approximate it.
...
that all said,
it doesn't matter what gear you use,
you use what you can afford,
and get on with it.
...

Of course, you use what you have. I was more curious if anybody was able to sense a difference between the two (SW/HW). With "vintage" prices going ballistic, I was wondering if I was missing out on something obvious here. I've been nowhere near the equipment you mention, maybe one day. Then again, maybe I won't notice any difference :) Thanks for your input.

Starise

iRelevant

Starise
Hardware-expensive
Software- Not so much
They can sound similar or almost exactly the same.
 
As a result of the above ^^ a natural selection has occurred. People with less money naturally select to work ITB.
Old and nostalgic folks like to at least mention hardware every now and then. It gets me to see a well known engineer advertising a software plugin or instrument whilst sitting in a studio loaded to the gills in expensive hardware.
 
Is there a tradeoff? It's very negligible. You might not notice.
 
It's always a good idea to have a decent hardware signal chain going into the box. Not everyone does.
 
 

Hmmm ... so in essence it is hardware for the rich, software for the poor. Do you recall any comparisons you've made yourself, and what you observed ? I have an old RE-201 collecting dust, as I'm using the newer RE-20 instead. I've yet to check out any RE-201 VST's, but I understand there are plenty around. The newer RE-20 sounds good and is more practical, but I would say there is noticeable difference in sound, particularly on the spring reverb and tape saturation sound. 
I'm wondering what the big studios are using theses days ? Is it all VST's and in the box as well you think ? 

...
This all begins to look a lot like the Mac/PC debate. Why even discuss it? There are advantages and disadvantages to both. One huge advantage to software is configurations can be saved. Analog hardware with knobs just won't do that to the exactness software can. Entire mixes complete with all plugins can be save and chains can be created and saved for other projects. I view software much like recording itself. Did the recording sound like you? It's usually very exacting using a good computer setup ITB. Same kind of thing with plugins. Did that sound like a so and so? It's usually very close.
...

I'm more wondering from curiosity. And also from the perspective of using limited resources wisely. When I see ... say a second hand HW mastering compressors being sold secondhand for a price that is magnitudes higher than it's SW equivalent I start to wonder. If the difference is negligible, it not even anything to consider. 

There are no absolutes.
It's a matter of what inspires you, what you can afford, how you like to work, etc.
 
IMO, Where hardware makes the most difference is on the font-end (recording) side.
A world-class Channel-Strip makes everything you plug into it sound better.
 
One of the best musical purchases I've made is getting a Neve Portico-II.
It was like getting an upgrade of all my mics and instruments.
Was searching for years for a great DI bass tone.  Boom! 
Straight off the preamp, zero EQ, maybe slight compression... the bass just sound great.
Condenser mics that could sound a bit strident with lesser preamps suddenly sound balanced/amazing.
 
If a piece of gear inspires you (hardware or software), use it.
 
The best software emulations are pretty good.
That said, I'm not sure anything will ever beat the original.
As great as sampled drum-kits, pianos, etc have become (and they're amazing), if you have the space for the real-deal (and the know-how to record/mix it well), it's almost always going to come out sounding more "alive" (fill in your favorite positive adjective).
 
To tie into Bat's point, we all have to live within some type of means (even if you're a rock-star/wealthy).
Many (most?) of us would like more/better gear.
At the end of the day, the gear is but a tool.
It's down to the individual to make music.
 

iRelevant
 
Of course, you use what you have. I was more curious if anybody was able to sense a difference between the two (SW/HW).

i you have never worked in a real studio,
then you wouldn't know.
for those of us who have, it's an obvious difference.

"I'm more wondering from curiosity. And also from the perspective of using limited resources wisely. When I see ... say a second hand HW mastering compressors being sold secondhand for a price that is magnitudes higher than it's SW equivalent I start to wonder. If the difference is negligible, it not even anything to consider. "
 
 Even if you have limited resources, and at some point we all do, you could likely purchase nice preamp that could make a  difference if you track instruments into an interface.Warm audio has them for much less and they come highly recommended. Hardware preamps usually have more amplification than the inputs of a typical interface, so you get a higher level clean signal going in without needing to crank the input all the way up. This means less noise at the input.A few db can make a big difference. This difference isn't really a fault of software but more a difference in the design of the interface as compared to hand built hardware using top end components. This is all very subjective and I think it is negligible. This doesn't mean it might not be worth it to you. I track acoustic instruments through two mics about 18" from the instrument. I'm using the inputs on an old Presonus Firetube studio. I've been too lazy to see if tracking through my new Focusrite makes a huge difference. I'm happy with this setup because A. I never turn the inputs up high enough to hear noise and B. I still get plenty enough amplification tracking at 6db or less. You might not get a result you're happy with using your interface. If so looking at a preamp isn't such a bad idea. Here's a mix I'm working on now where I tracked a Martin Acoustic Guitar and a bouzouki using only the preamps on my interface. I think it's ok ( not the tune) but the way the acoustic comes across. I need to mix it some more but this should give you an idea, also it's an mp3 with all of those losses in the codec but this would likely be your end result too after it's put online. Everything is subjective. I can make this pop a lot more if I want to but I kept it back some. A later mix might have the acoustic put further in the background.
Mix