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!

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.

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.

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. 

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!

REMINDS ME OF THIS:
 

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. 

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.

Those of you lucky enough to own a Distressor, do try Slate's FG-Stress. Virtually identical.

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! :)