Well...if we're going to talk about totally subjective, abstract metaphysics then by all means let's talk "magic" which is no more than a semantical construct to explain the " unexplainable". By your definition it matters not whether what "works" is hardware, software or just plain undefinable "mojo". It's just "right". Right?

I mean it wouldn't matter if "what worked" was a $5000.00 piece of hardware or a freeware plugin some nimrod hipped you to...right? As long as it provided the "magic" to you...and your particular needs ands biases.

This, as an argument, has absolutely nothing to do with whether hardware solutions are intrinsically better than software solutions.

Yes! Not even die-hard multi-billion-dollar-a-piece hardware fans will deny that plugins can be used if they "just work", or "have mojo", or... you name it. The other point is, how faithfully plugins emulate their hardware counterparts. Here is where "plugins-are-great" folks will agree that software emulation is close, sometimes close enough to be useful, but almost never spot-on.
Peace!

Plus, software plugins are easier to tote around if on the go. They are only as heavy as the computer loaded on; and they take up less physical space too. Even if not "perfect" they become highly appealing quickly.

I think hardware emulation is similar for compressors as for other stuff. Would you use a guitar or a guitar synth?

Guitar synths may be good, but a guitar, well, it is the thing itself.

Synths are definitely convenient and midi is great.

I use TH3. I use plugins. And I use guitars and guitar amps and drums and real compressors.

Make music with what you have.  It wasn't the LA-2A or the Neve console that made the music.  It was the musicians and the recording engineers.
 
So what if that software emulation doesn't sound *exactly* like that vintage piece of gear.  Guess what - John Q. Public, who is listening to the music doesn't even know what a compressor or tube pre is, let alone that you used a *god forbid* software emulation of it.
 
Bottom line if it sounds good - it is good, regardless of how you got there.  And good doesn't have to mean exactly like X piece of vintage gear.

gswitz
I think hardware emulation is similar for compressors as for other stuff. Would you use a guitar or a guitar synth?

One thing I think too many people are missing though is that emulation is not what all, or even most, plugins are about. So we can argue about how accurate an emulation can be, but one of the great things about plugins is they don't have to be bounded by the limitations of hardware and that can be very desirable. You don't always want the sound or characteristics of a specific pace of hardware, sometimes you just have something you want to do and software may make it much easier.
 
Particularly for precision work. Like you have something where you need to EQ a narrow range of frequencies, and you need to maintain phase linearity. Well that is essentially impossible in the analogue world. Building really steep filters is difficult enough and you can't do linear phase. However a software EQ can do that easily.
 
Emulation of physical gear is not always, or perhaps even often, the goal.

As far as I'm concerned, plugins and hardware each have their role.

I don't like digital guitar amp emulators because I find them lacking in something, though at times I can't quite put my finger on what. One day I can set one up and think "actually, that sounds pretty good", go back to it the next day and think "that sounds horrible". I don't get this problem with amps, or at least so rarely that I can put it down to a "bad tone day."

I can set up in Amplitube an exact "replica" of hardware I have and regularly use, and it sounds, at best, not much like the original. As one example I have an early Orange Tiny Terror, one of the first batch of 1,000 that were made in Korea. It is quite different in tone, saturation characteristics and response to the "official" Amplitube model. I like Fuzz Face circuits, but they can't be accurately modelled because the guitar itself is part of their circuit, which is why they don't work correctly unless they're the first thing the guitar "sees". The circuit responds very differently depending on the guitar pickups and tone/volume control settings because the overall input impedance the pedal sees changes. Something which emulations can't do.

Though I admit I have heard very good results from people who use amp and fx sims entirely. Jimi Hendrix sounded amazing using a Strat and a cranked Marshall, while all I get out of that setup is a thin, bright, grating noisey racket that makes me wince. What works for one person doesn't always work for someone else.

I use hardware analogue synths for the same reason - and because they, again, have something about them that's lacking in digital emulations. My microQ is a computer in a box, and computer-based synths can do similar things and I do use a couple of them for their digital quality. Another advantage I find in hardware analogue synths is that from a programming point of view they are much simpler than most software synths which makes getting the sound in my head out of them far easier.

Effects and processors however, are a different matter to sound generation sources. The D16 Deluxe Electric Mistress emulation, for example, isn't quite the same as my original, but close enough to use and has the advantage of less noise, the settings being reproducible and a more complex interface with more options. Same with delays and reverbs with the possible exception that a Fender valve reverb unit does mono spring reverb like nothing else, no emulation coming close to it (though Springage is pretty good).

To me it's all about picking the best tools available for the desired result, bearing in mind I can run as many 1176s, Fairchild comps or Pultec EQs as I want in the box, but buying one good example of each would cost a fortune.

cclarry
I disagree..there IS magic in hardware...

Just like, no matter how hard they've tried, they
just can't seem to get "real tube" sound...they 
are getting better at it...but not "There" yet...

The magic is in electrons flowing through wires and 
circuits and Diaphragms and etc...into a multi-thousand 
dollar console and then, either on to "Magnetic Tape",
which they have yet to really "nail", or into a console and
then back out to outboard gear, and then back to the console
and then back out again to a PC...etc...

ALL of those variables, and "Chaos Theory" are what make 
for a great deal of the "sound", which an algorithm simply
isn't going to reproduce.  And THAT is one of the reasons 
that certain consoles are "revered"...

The MEER THOUGHT that a $50 plugin is going to "give that
to you" is ridiculous IMO...

HALF of the magic in the plugins comes from the "gear that
was used to sample it", and not from the "algorithm" per se...
but that's not going to replace "hardware" or they'd just stop 
building Hardware, and STOP USING IT...common sense...as Plugins are 
dirt cheap...

Most people can't tell the difference between an actual tube and and a Kemper recorded using the exact same profile setup.  A number of blind tests suggest this.
 
Outside of your Tube Amp argument there are also things that can be done in the box with plugs that you just can't do in the analog world.  What hardware do you have that can do what melodyne 4 studio does?  
 
Also look at reverb.  What hardware are you using that sounds as good as what you can get in the box these days?  
You probably think vinyl sounds better than high res digital despite the fact it is proven that Vinyl has a lower dynamic range and the fact that click and pops are all over even the best sources as it is inherent in the process, the list goes on.  

Brian Walton
 
Most people can't tell the difference between an actual tube and and a Kemper recorded using the exact same profile setup.  A number of blind tests suggest this.
 
Outside of your Tube Amp argument there are also things that can be done in the box with plugs that you just can't do in the analog world.  What hardware do you have that can do what melodyne 4 studio does?  
 
Also look at reverb.  What hardware are you using that sounds as good as what you can get in the box these days?  
You probably think vinyl sounds better than high res digital despite the fact it is proven that Vinyl has a lower dynamic range and the fact that click and pops are all over even the best sources as it is inherent in the process, the list goes on.  

This is about "sound", not functionality... there are many things that plugins can do
because they are not as limited by the constraints of hardware...

In regards to Reverb, there is NO PLUGIN that sounds like a Bricasti or an LX480 hardware
unit...

There is NO AMP SIM that sounds like a "real mic'd amp"...they sound good, but not the same...
The Kemper is kind of a hybrid, as it is both Hardware and Software.  But a sampled Amp will not
sound precisely the same as the "real" amp that has been mic'd, as the entire "chain", and the hardware 
in that chain ALL impact the quality of the sound...and it's far better to "go to tape" with a good 
tone, then to have to tweak the crap out of it to get there with plugins...

YMMV

cclarry

Brian Walton
 
Most people can't tell the difference between an actual tube and and a Kemper recorded using the exact same profile setup.  A number of blind tests suggest this.
 
Outside of your Tube Amp argument there are also things that can be done in the box with plugs that you just can't do in the analog world.  What hardware do you have that can do what melodyne 4 studio does?  
 
Also look at reverb.  What hardware are you using that sounds as good as what you can get in the box these days?  
You probably think vinyl sounds better than high res digital despite the fact it is proven that Vinyl has a lower dynamic range and the fact that click and pops are all over even the best sources as it is inherent in the process, the list goes on.  

This is about "sound", not functionality... there are many things that plugins can do
because they are not as limited by the constraints of hardware...

In regards to Reverb, there is NO PLUGIN that sounds like a Bricasti or an LX480 hardware
unit...

There is NO AMP SIM that sounds like a "real mic'd amp"...they sound good, but not the same...
The Kemper is kind of a hybrid, as it is both Hardware and Software.  But a sampled Amp will not
sound precisely the same as the "real" amp that has been mic'd, as the entire "chain", and the hardware 
in that chain ALL impact the quality of the sound...and it's far better to "go to tape" with a good 
tone, then to have to tweak the crap out of it to get there with plugins...

YMMV

I don't think you really get it.  The Kemper is a computer, period.  The Bricasti or LC480 are also computers.  They are NOT analog hardware.   All three are no different than an interface into a computer.  
 
Here I thought you were talking strictly about Tubes and capacitors, transformers being magical.  Apparently your ears just want it to be in a box that doesn't have an 21inch computer monitor hooked up to it.  
 
The Kemper samples the chain...amp, cab + mic, this is why there are so many profiles.  And while I get to play through one of the most valuable and best sounding tube amps that has ever been created.  I'm also the first one to tell you that in a blind listening test you can't always pick out the real thing from something like the Kemper, which is just a computer profile of the real thing.  
 
And I'd disagree, there are plugins that sound like those reverbs, they have done convolution impulses from both units that you wouldn't know the difference in a mix in a blind test.