Plug ins vs hardware

This question has bugged me for a long time.  
 
I can buy an Eventide, TC, Lex... reverb and spend $1000s.  Or I can buy a plug in for a couple $100s.  
 
Reverb is algorithmic or impulse based.  it would seem that whatever the box is doing, the software could do.  
 
yet boxes still sell.  
 
I have decided that the plugins - no matter how good they may sound - have to be inferior in some way or all of the boxes would be out of business.
 
Any thoughts?
BTW - I love my UAD reverbs.  Maybe my ears cannot tell the difference.  And I sold my rack boxes.  I had TC and Lex reverbs before.  
 
 

Most of the pro mixers get tracks that are recorded thru high end hardware by pros whose hearing is trained to use said hardware.  I was testing the new Warm mic today with a guy with various gold records hanging in the hallway.   he could describe the differences between it and his pair of c12a's and original c414 eb's in exacting detail - slopes and frequencies etc.  (ps. The warm won on 2 outa 4 sources).  so much of the pro recorded material already has a lot of the tone built in, or should.   good hardware might not be needed when mixing, but it sure helps when tracking.

AT there is no question when it comes to mics and pres.  I have a bunch of great mics (Neumann, BLUE, Manley...) and I have a UA LA 610 pre/compressor/eq.  There is nothing like the immediacy of it when mic-ing stuff.  
 
I am specifically curious on reverbs - where pretty much all of the internals of the box are digital - so software could be able to do the same work in the PC.  

I guess it would come down to processing power. The question I would ask is does my Lexicon MX 200 have more available processing power than what any given plug in demands of my CPU? 
And therefore, if the answer was hardware has more processing power than most plug ins-- it would explain the quality of that effect. I've just never gotten the depth of field in the plug in reverb that I have gotten from any of the hardware. Even my old Alesis Multi verb sounds better to me. 

Digital reverbs are, of course, mostly computer.  And the modern computer handles convolution reverb pretty easy, where convolution used to choke off a song until you froze the track.  Now REmatrix has 4 convolution engines in one instance, along with all the algorithmic effects it includes.  And even on a computer several years old I can use more than the one instance at a time.  However, just like the "computer" in your UA card, a hardware reverb/effects unit is optimized for calculating the sound, not running an OS and writing with Word and running email and a internet browser and finally SONAR running a reverb.  It just simply spits out the process for the sound.  And that helps, just as UA generally sounds better than many "in the box" effects.  The soft SSL buss comp in SONAR works great, so much so that I don't usually mess with other buss comps, but hardware DSP in general can sound better.  I know the DSP reverb in my TC Konnekt 48 sounded great, smoother than any computer-based algorithmic reverb I had.
 
Some of that was the conversion too, which added its own character to a reverb.  And some of it is just price, or was back a few years ago before conversion got so damn good.  If you are buying a $5000 Eventide unit it better have superior ADDA.  And for that price, it ought to share a cigarette after and maybe call to take you out to dinner. '-) 
 
I have no doubt if I bought one hardware effects unit I'd be buying more, whether to supplement the effects in #1 unit or to upgrade it.  So just buy the Eventide H8000 and get it over with, Maurice.  The reverb is calling calling calling you.  It has delays too.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.
 

Well Bats I do respect your opinion because you create good music and produce it very well.  What compressor are you using in terms of hardware.  Have you go a VST that is based on that same compressor.  One thing I do think is that a lot of plug-in compressors actually all sound different. Not in tone so much but more so in the amplitude envelope. 
 
I have just got the Klanghelm DC8C and I must say it one of the nicest plug-in compressors I have used.  But I am really into transparent compression and this is definitely one of those.  Another real nice one is the API2500. 

I use plugs 99% of the time in a mixing / recording environment. I rarely find myself using more than one reverb in the console - but individual instrument tracks might have a specialty effect on it. In a composing situation as well playing live - or just jamming with others in the studio I use hardware. Plenty of room for both depending on the situation. I have 4 lexicons , a tape echo and a TC delay2 that are patchable to guitar racks or an O2R that I use for a synth rack. There are some effects chains that are easier to achieve in hardware in my opinion.

I have a Lexicon VST reverb and I borrowed a Lexicon reverb unit for testing.  The physical Lexicon reverb unit was much better than the software version.

i've previously used: art pro vla, warm audio wa2, a urei la 2a and 1176 clone, distressor (maybe my favorite i've used but don't own)

In the end, hardware and software are just tools.
There are advantages to both hardware... and software.
Hardware by its very nature is "immediate".  
There are knobs/faders/buttons/etc that you can simply reach out and tweak.
 
I'll use Line-6's Helix as an example... as it's available in both Hardware (Floor, LT, and Rack) and Software (Native).
Some folks think that the hardware version of the Helix sounds better than the Native version.
Often, these folks are comparing hardware vs. native... using a cheap audio interface to run Helix Native.
When you break it down, that's not surprising.  The Hardware version has a quality front end that was designed specifically for DI electric guitar.  It has low noise-floor, wide dynamic range (to avoid clipping), and the impedance is matched for this specific purpose.
 
It's the same with top-tier hardware reverbs.
Those algorithms are well designed... and the box as a whole is designed/tweaked to work well as a whole.
 
With plugins, the quality is not just about the algorithms... but is subject to the user's front/back end.
A cheap audio interface isn't going to have A/D D/A (or analog circuits) equal to those in a $10,000 outboard processor.
 
More expensive gear generally has significantly lower noise-floor.
On one track, it may be hard to hear the difference.
When spread across 24-48 simultaneous tracks, it can be a HUGE difference.
It's literally like pulling a veil of noise off the audio...
 
In today's world, most folks strike a balance; using select high-quality hardware on the front-end (while recording)... and using plugins for mixing.  You get the best of both worlds (hardware and software).