Thought you guys might enjoy this...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOu4jTDdLyw

I hear no diff at all. Will wait till it goes on big sale and...hopefully...use my jam points;-)



Of course, listening on an iPad. Will try again at the studio Monday.

yorolpal
I hear no diff at all. Will wait till it goes on big sale and...hopefully...use my jam points;-)



Of course, listening on an iPad. Will try again at the studio Monday.

lol Ol Pal be serious !! ...ahahh ij fact it was the same for me on my laptop until i plugged my DT 990 Pro and booum :: Depth was crazy with HW ...
My question in fact is is it really the plugin lacking or that PT project ...(and all the variables , PDC , routing , Bit def and sample rates ect ..)

Welp...as I said will REALLY listen tomorrow when back at the studio and see what's what:-)

yorolpal
Welp...as I said will REALLY listen tomorrow when back at the studio and see what's what:-)

;) 
Give us your valuable input on this ;)

While it's never optimal to judge these things based on a YT vid, I thought there was not enough sonic difference between the plug and the real deal to justify the price difference.  I mean, the plug can be had for about one-half of a percent of the cost of the hardware, but sounded at least 80% as good, I thought. 
 
A great-sounding plugin on its own merits anyway, one of the best software EQs I've heard.  Real CPU hog, though.  No way this can be used on multiple tracks in a typical mix on a typical system, thus the "mastering" designation.
 
Cheers,
Eddie

Zo
My question in fact is is it really the plugin lacking or that PT project ...(and all the variables , PDC , routing , Bit def and sample rates ect ..)

 
That would seem more likely for any real difference. The thing is, EQ really isn't magic. We understand how it work very well from an electronic, acoustic, signal processing, etc point of view. In particular minimum phase EQs, which is what physical EQs are, are very easy to implement digitally. If you have the circuit schematics of an EQ and know the values of its components, you can write a software version of it that is flawless.
 
The only thing then differentiating real and the software is the flaws the real unit will have. That you have to measure and model, if said flaws are desirable.
 
But it isn't like there's some magic juju that we just don't understand and thus can't emulate. If you want to see simulation taken to the extreme, look at a program like Cadence. It is how things get designed these days: Make the circuit in Cadence, test its parameters and refine it to get what you want, then build it in the real world and validate the performance.
 
So if there are major differences between hardware and software that is supposed to emulate it then either:
 
1) The software is poorly done. It is designed wrong, or fails to model something that matters. Now this can be deliberate in some cases, not poor design, for example the noise of an analogue circuit might not be modeled because really, who wants more noise?
 
2) There is an issue in the test setup. Something was not set consistently and that caused differences.
 

Sycraft

Zo
My question in fact is is it really the plugin lacking or that PT project ...(and all the variables , PDC , routing , Bit def and sample rates ect ..)

 
 
The only thing then differentiating real and the software is the flaws the real unit will have. That you have to measure and model, if said flaws are desirable.
 
But it isn't like there's some magic juju that we just don't understand and thus can't emulate. If you want to see simulation taken to the extreme, look at a program like Cadence. It is how things get designed these days: Make the circuit in Cadence, test its parameters and refine it to get what you want, then build it in the real world and validate the performance.
 
So if there are major differences between hardware and software that is supposed to emulate it then either:
 
1) The software is poorly done. It is designed wrong, or fails to model something that matters. Now this can be deliberate in some cases, not poor design, for example the noise of an analogue circuit might not be modeled because really, who wants more noise?
 
2) There is an issue in the test setup. Something was not set consistently and that caused differences.

I disagree SY.  You can design all you want on a PC Program.  It will NEVER give you the SOUND that
is created by hardware components...it will only "emulate" it.  If you listen to this, all things being equal,
the REAL unit is ALIVE and working it's MAGIC (mojo).  The plugin sounds dead and flat in comparison.  If you can't hear that, then you shouldn't be in the mixing business.

You cannot truly "emulate" the character imparted by physical components.  This is the reason that plugins
cost $100 and Hardware costs $10,000.  If plugins could truly emulate the actual "SOUND" of the hardware,
they would stop building the Hardware units, and the plugins would cost $10,000.

Furthermore, Studios would stop investing in hardware....as they could do the EXACT same thing for pennies on 
the dollar.  Truth is THEY CANNOT.  Software is only an "emulation" but will never truly sound like hardware.  While
they can get some of the "characteristic" of the hardware, they cannot replicate it in it's entirety (nor would they, 
as that would put the Hardware companies in a bad spot).  This is also the MAIN reason that a song mixed and mastered in a large studio with Hardware, will ALWAYS sound better then one done in a project or bedroom studio, unless they have the same Hardware used in the Large studio.  I'm not saying you can't get a great sounding mix.
I'm saying that it will NOT and CANNOT sound the same.

The guy in the video works in a Mastering house.  The Protools project is the SAME on both Hardware and Plugin,
and all things being equal, just switched between the plugin and the Hardware.

Like I explained before, you can ananlyze what a piece of hardware does to an EQ curve on an analyzer, but that analyzer will never tell you HOW the plugin or the hardware SOUNDS, because that is a byproduct of the choice
and quality of the hardware components used in the construction.  And software just simply CANNOT exactly replicate that SOUND.

This is pure fact.  

I'm not in the mixing business, I do computer support for an engineering school. So I've a reasonably good understanding of how electronics works, as well as computer simulation thereof. There's no magic to electronics, to sound, there's science and math. Analogue audio electronics are just composed of basic electronic components: resistors, capacitors, inductors, transistors, and so on. Those devices have predictable properties (they wouldn't be much use if they didn't).
 
Now none of that is to imply than a given plugin does a good job modeling something. They don't go an do SPICE circuit simulations or anything, just that if properly done they can indeed accurately replicate what the analogue device does to the signal. The question with any of them is how accurate is their simulation?

The thing that is missing from the "Emulation" equation is the fact that
all those "components" have a "sound" based on their material composition
that can NEVER be replicated in a software program.  You may replicate the
Math...but you have to consider what's NOT there...i.e...the flow of electrons 
through a conductive material or tube that is impossible to duplicate precisely
in an emulation...as chaos theory must ensue....

As I stated...all the science and programming expertise in the world will never
reproduce that...because it is inherent in the medium.