Here is something to consider about those hardware digital FX.

How do they do it.
Well I suspect they have :-
1. An A to D converter
2. An algorithm run by a processor probably a DSP (algorithm read program)
3. A D to A converter.

Do some of those bits sound familiar.

Whilst some hardware boxes do use discrete components, resistors, transistors, capacitors etc.  Most digital hardware has used DSP's or something created using TTL or CMOS chips to create DSP for many years.  Even my old Tape based Watkins Copycat has Op Amps (chips) in it.

my experience only!
 
On the input side microphone selection and placement is the most important factor, followed closely by the preamplifier, and not quite so closely by other processing (e.g. compression & EQ). I have an Apollo Twin, and I have to (grudgingly) acknowledge that their Unison(tm) voodoo works well. Preamplifiers that run as Unison plugins do sound different than when run as regular old plugins. No idea why, and while they are cool I still end up using hardware preamplifiers most of the time.
 
Tracking is a different animal entirely. All of the sudden other factors become important - most notably repeatability and recall. If I'm using a compressor while mixing it is almost always a plugin. Even if you ignore the extra work required to get signals out and back the difference is small and - especially in the context of a mix - I can't hear enough of a difference to warrant the extra effort.

Execpt for reverb... and I can't explain this either, but I have a PCM-90 in the rack, which is certainly not the flagship, and I prefer it for the overall reverb more often than not. I like it better than my UAD Lexi 224 even. I think I'd probably like the 224 even more???

I can describe, in stupid, vague terms, the difference between the PCM-90 and any reverb plugin I own or have tried. But that's kind a pointless. I think a large part of that preference is familiarity too - I've been using the PCM-90 for a while now<G>!

I will also concede that the Exponential Audio plugins give the PCM-90 a real run for its money. As I learn more about both Phoenixverb and R4 I can imagine that I could retire the hardware.

Even more surprising, to me at least, Valhalla VintageVerb is up there on the list too. And for $50! Almost seems like it shouldn't be possible.

Which is where I start to split hairs -
 
The PCM-90 is simply the smoothest sounding reverb I own. I'm not saying it sounds like a chamber or a space, but it sounds like what I expect reverb in a recording to sound like, regardless of what I'm trying to accomplish. I just like the sound, and I can tweak it pretty quickly (never thought I'd say that when I first got it!)
 
The Exponential reverbs have a very similar character and sound, and any difference is likely my inexperience with them. I use them on individual tracks and stems a lot. (Of course they are plugins, so I can, that's gotta be a factor!)
 
The VintageVerb? It doesn't sound like any of the above, but it does sound remarkably cool, and I can use it on a track, stem, or even mix and get good results.

So I've taken to looking at it as a variety of tools at my disposal,  and I'd hate to get rid of any of them.

wst3
All of the sudden other factors become important - most notably repeatability and recall. If I'm using a compressor while mixing it is almost always a plugin. 

you realize, of course, that if you are using a plugin compressor AFTER the input preamp,
you are compressing a signal AFTER it has already hit the converter,
which in my mind, 
misses the whole point of putting a compressor on a signal PRE-converter.

batsbrew
you realize, of course, that if you are using a plugin compressor AFTER the input preamp,
you are compressing a signal AFTER it has already hit the converter,
which in my mind, 
misses the whole point of putting a compressor on a signal PRE-converter.

I'm missing something here... my tracking signal chain would be microphone to preamplifier to external processing to A/D converter. How am I missing the point?

Or perhaps you are referring to using a compressor during mixdown? I do that sometimes - mostly for effect, but sometimes to further smooth out the level variations in a way that sounds different than riding the fader.

So I'm still not sure to what you refer.
 
And even when I use compressors pre-converter I'm seldom using them to control levels, I'm using them because I like the sound they impart on the signal itself, or the envelope.

I remain confused!

yes, using them before conversion would be the proper way.
 
a lot of folks confuse using them for color when creating the sound,
versus changing the sound in the box.
not the same thing.
 
you have it right, external processing. your not confused!
 

batsbrew
you realize, of course, that if you are using a plugin compressor AFTER the input preamp,
you are compressing a signal AFTER it has already hit the converter,
which in my mind, 
misses the whole point of putting a compressor on a signal PRE-converter.

To my mind using a compressor before the AD convertor is done for two reasons. One being to control the level of the incoming signal and the other to add whatever distinctive character (or none) the compressor adds.

Using a compressor at the post-tracking mixing or mastering stage is done for the same reason - controlling levels and adding the characteristics of the chosen compressor/plugin.

The two things are not an “either or”. They fulfil two similar but different functions. One big advantage of using a compressor plugin post-tracking is that it’s adjustable or can be replaced by a different compressor. You can’t do that if you print the compression as part of the audio recording.

As for hardware or plugins my thoughts are “it depends”.

A hardware digital processor or digital synth is basically a dedicated computer in a box. Now, that dedicated computer may have a sound that no plugin does, or it may simply save computer resources by doing its processing independently. But I can’t see a reason in principle why code that runs on a processor in a rack case couldn’t be written to do the same thing on a computer. Where there may be an impact on the sound the plugin doesn’t have might be because the plugin doesn’t emulate the convertor chips and the supporting circuitry. Or emulate the circuitry in the audio interface that’s sitting between hardware processor and computer.

I do agree though that sometimes digital hardware can have a punch, clarity or some quality a plugin doesn’t.

I’d hate to try to programme something like Alchemy or Waldorf’s Nave without a computer-like display though. The Alesis Micron is a decent sounding synth with a lot or depth to it, but the tiny interface makes programming it a real pain.

Plugins that emulate analogue hardware can sometimes be very realistic to the hardware and sometimes rather less so. In the end hardware vs software is a choice based on sound, ease of use, reproducability, space and cost. I use several voltage-controlled synths that have MIDI only to the extent of triggering notes, if that. I am aware that every time I set “the same” patch up it will be slightly different to the patch the last time I set it up, which for me is part of the charm. And I tend to find the analogue hardware, like real guitar amps, better at giving me the sounds and feel I’m looking for.

And I like digital wave-table sounds as well.

But if I needed instant patch recall for a gig involving lots of patch changes in the middle of songs then I’d be very tempted to use Korg’s iMS-20 app on an iPad, with it’s preset recall, than my MS-20mini and a bunch of wires, sketches and photographs. The app isn’t the same as the hardware synth, but in that kind of situation compromises become necessary.

As for things like 1176s, LA2As, Pultecs etc. then plugins win that fight for me. The hardware is expensive and bulky and I can’t afford 32 of the things so I can drop one on each track.

tlw


I do agree though that sometimes digital hardware can have a punch, clarity or some quality a plugin doesn’t.

i guess i'm talking exclusively about analog gear.
that's what i use, what i like....
 
but putting a compressor on a track that's already been recorded without the compressor,
is a completely different end result, than printing a track that was run thru a compressor outside of the conversion.
 
 

batsbrew
but putting a compressor on a track that's already been recorded without the compressor,
is a completely different end result, than printing a track that was run thru a compressor outside of the conversion

 
Not necessarily fact.  Only opinion.  Yes I agree if the plugin compressor is nothing like the hardware one being used prior to conversion.
 
What if the plugin is such an incredible model of the compressor that is being used prior to conversion.  There have been blind A/B tests with some UAD plug-ins compared to hardware that no one could pick.  I also read an interesting article with Rupert Neve on how well Yamaha have modelled one of his famous compressors.  Even he said he was amazed at how close it was. 
 
Plugins are getting better and closer every minute!  Read  my first post.  Many famous engineers much better than us have gone all ITB.  Including tracking without anything. 
 
I think analog synths in a way are very hard to emulate yet they seem to be doing it very well. That is also a good sign.
 

it's ALL just opinions, jeff...
that should go without saying.
 
i know that my wave forms look different when i apply external compression,
than not.
 
and then, trying to apply the same compression effect i WOULD have used going in, after the fact,
well,
it just don't look the same,
or sound the same.
 
so, for whatever my 'opinion' is worth, take it with a grain of salt.
and figure out your own best path.