THIS is why plugins are the way forward.
#31
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #31
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Actually - although Georges sentiments are right, and his intentions good - his reasoning is wrong.
#32
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #32
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Why is that? Can you explain, because after reading his interview below it made sense to me.

For George, vocal sound


Quote:
Originally Posted by joaquin
Sorry for the intrusion, but his is my loose interpretation of GML statement:
6db is the amount of dynamic range you get for every bit.
the original, recorded signal is using it's determined (fixed) amount of bits at each sample, once it goes in to the Plugin, you end up adding more information to the original signal even though you are not going any "louder" than the original peaks.........................Joaquin.



" wow. that's pretty confusing let's start again.

think about what you do when you "compress" a signal. what you're doing is first adding some gain, then evaluating the signal level and reducing the gain when the signal rises above some set "threshold". right? so, think about that stage where you add gain; it doesn't come from nowhere...you're bringing up low level signals. in a digital word there's only so much there. in fact, every time you add 6.0206dB of gain, you're shiifting the digital word one bit left. what goes into bit 0 at the far right of the word? zero. there's no more resolution there.

anyway, if you (like me) are compressing 24dB or more you're reducing your dynamic range by 4 bits. get it? "

George
#33
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #33
Lives for gear
 
Nowak's Avatar
 

"To may toe, To mar toe, let's call the whole thing off"
#34
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #34
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post

...I also agree that it's a game of inches ...but it is still better,provided the pilot is capable of flying the eurofighter....
Inches can make the difference between landing and missing the runway and having to abort the landing to fly around and try again.


Regards,
Frank
#35
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #35
Gear maniac
 
WalkoftheEarth's Avatar
 



Tools, Tools, Tools. They are ALL JUST TOOLS. Move on and make music!!
Quote
1
#36
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #36
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by WalkoftheEarth View Post


Tools, Tools, Tools. They are ALL JUST TOOLS. Move on and make music!!
Well, yeah, there is that
#37
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #37
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
I just got done demoing Equality for whatever the demo period was and was duly impressed with it, and most likely will buy it - both being impressed with the sound as well as the ease of use.

That being said, recently I had a chance to play with an Elysia Museq. Ten minutes twiddling with that beast and I've now got a massive bug up my ass that I have to have it!

I have no idea if it's the sound, if it's the look, the feel or all three but I'm actually looking over my rack and figuring out which pieces, even if I love them, can I do without to help fund my insane GAS to have the Elysia.

No, I didn't A/B it against Equality and I don't care to - this isn't about which is better. I still like Equality and how it works but there was just something about my ten minute experience with the Museq that has me on the verge of selling a kidney to get one.

Personally though I haven't played with a plug-in that has given me that feeling before. Actually, to be honest there isn't much hardware that has given me that feeling either, aside from my Obsidian on the mix bus...

Regards,
Frank
#38
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #38
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yotonic View Post

anyway, if you (like me) are compressing 24dB or more you're reducing your dynamic range by 4 bits. get it? "

George
Holey shamoley!!!!!!!!!
Really?
#39
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #39
I don't know why these discussions are always either/or when in reality it's in addition too. horses for courses... I work hybrid, some ITB, some OTB inserts. Use what's needed to get where you need to go...

that being said however... I'm done with chasing plugins, today most of it is overkill... no one needs 12 cores to run a word processor and we're pretty much there now with audio as well.

over the long run (and people will experience this themselves) a few well picked pieces of hardware will will be a better investment and serve you better than all the plugins you will replace and upgrade.

hardware is not OS or platform dependent and my SPX90II is still in my rack 25+ years later...

when someone offers a single price plug-in with a 20 year free upgrade license, I'll start looking at them again.
Quote
1
therealbigd
Thread Starter
#40
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #40
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Thread Starter
I never, in starting this thread, wanted to make it 'better or worse'. I just said 'plugins are the WAY FORWARD'.

If nobody has noticed the cost-cutting going on in this industry, you need to wake up.

All I meant was, that with becomes THAT cheap (IE the link), with so much cost-saving measures over their hardware counterparts (space, maintenance, electricity), plus some extra functionality, at the cost of relatively small sound change - which of course - may be a change that the funding (IE the buyers) may be unaware of / not bothered about; it will no doubt gain popularity with many people whom, when plugins were all ££££, stuck with hardware.

I think at this price, we will begin seeing studios sell, rather than repair; and begin to see a much larger divide of analogue studios, and digital studios, as it becomes uneconomical for studios to upkeep their analogue gear when for so little they could take on very similar sounding plugins with no further costs.
Quote
1
#41
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #41
Lives for gear
 
badmark's Avatar
 

Pah! Plug-ins are so LAST YEAR.

The cloud is the future, no?

Microsoft and Apple both seem to be agreed on that

You won't even need your software studio then, cos it'll all be "in the cloud" aka a bunch of servers in nowheresville next to a big power station

Quote
1
#42
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #42
Gear interested
 

we have to remember as engineers ITS ABOUT THE SOUND. plug ins might be able to go around the world in 80 days but the listener cant hear that.

the listener cant hear the convenience, versatility, or price of a plug-in.
so it is biased to compare a hardware behringers vs. uad/waves/softube plug-ins based soley on price. lol the listener can't hear how much money we saved on going Waves.

at the end of the day no plug-in can can beat a fine piece hardware. at $300, yes. but remember it is not about the money, ITS ABOUT THE SOUND. were engineers, not accountants
and true, unfortunately, theres no way around a good piece than to lay down some dollars.. but its about the sound remember

and considering you do your job well as an engineer, the listener CAN hear the difference. even its its subconscience because they dont know better lol.. but its there and it matters.
#43
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #43
Gear interested
 

its about the sound.. and its worth it
#44
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #44
Gear addict
When I win Power Ball, depending upon the amount of the payout, I will probably go whole hog and buy a Neve Console for recording and an SSL for mixing. I will also buy a bunch of vintage microphones, hardware outboard gear, and a couple of quality 24 track tape machines and finally build my dream studio.

Until then, Plug-Ins make the most sense for my budget, my workflow and my level of talent.

Do Plug-Ins sounds as good as hardware? Probably not. Does digital sound as good as analog? Probably not. Is it likely that one day digital and plug-ins will sound as good as their hardware and analog predecessors? I don't know but my guess is yes.

I have read articles where famous Producers and Engineers have stated that digital and plug-ins are great and that they use them all the time. Unless they are being deceitful, I certainly cannot argue the fact as they are Pro's who would know far better than I.

I realize there will always be folks who take a hard line in one direction or the other. I also realize there will always be folks in the middle.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

For me, since I cannot afford the expensive stuff, I have opted to go with ITB and Plug-Ins for the most part. For me, it allows me to get close to the real expensive stuff for a lot less money. And since I do not have the real stuff to compare to, I cannot state one way or the other whether the sound truly is close or not.

If people can tell the difference for real, and they can afford the real stiff - more power to them and they have my respect.

I have also seen where people who claim they can hear the difference be wrong in shoot outs.

My point here is that over all, it really only matters if you want it to or in some professional situations, perhaps it matters in other ways like bringing in clients and maybe even getting a better end result.

I will bet that folks like Bruce Swedien could record and mix an incredible record if they came to my home studio - in fact I'n certain of it. Why? Because they know how to make things sound good and as long as the performance and song is there, regardless of the equipment they use, they know sound and will find a way to make it sound good.

I wish I had the opportunity to work with one of these guys as I'd love to learn to be that good. Since that is unlikely to happen, I have used my money, I think wisely to buy enough real mics and channel strips to provide me the ability to get quality recordings if the performance is good. And for the mixing, since I cannot afford the real stuff, I have also chosen wisely by investing in quality plug-ins. My SSL mixing console is ITB Pro Tools9 and the UAD-2 SSL E Channel Strip with the SSL G Buss Compressor on my 2 mix. For a guy lie me, this is so amazing as there was a time when a Tascam Portastudio was my nirvana.

I know these threads and posts will go on and they are fun as I am enjoying writing my own blather in this post. The reality is the plugs and digital stuff makes grammy winning product as does the analog and vintage stuff. Those that are fortunate enough to have the ability to use the real stuff are incredibly lucky. And those like that have to rely on software? - Well if you think about it, where incredibly lucky too. OK, maybe not AS lucky but heck, complaining about software when you can't get you're hands on the hardware seems dumb.

The one awful part in this ongoing debate is that the average listener is clueless and could care less. That is the real bummer!

Pdot
#45
6th June 2011
Old 6th June 2011
  #45
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Inches can make the difference between landing and missing the runway and having to abort the landing to fly around and try again.


Regards,
Frank
Yup! You got it!
#46
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #46
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by yotonic View Post
Why is that? Can you explain, because after reading his interview below it made sense to me.
He said it reduces resolution - which it doesn't. It increases noise floor... but this is that start of the round-a-bout.... so careful out there
#47
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #47
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcb4t2 View Post
This is hilarious..... the hardware-only crowd will hang on to this for as long as they can, but you can't seriously believe that digital will *never* be able to accomplish the analog sound... it's not like you're talking about a vibraphone with real tone-producing parts that move air vs. a soft-synth. The hardware in question is just electrical circuits..... to believe that another electrical system can't eventually reproduce the same effect is ludicrous. The sonic differences are shrinking with each new release, how long do you really think it'll take before they're equal? "Never!" shouts the old school, but that's seeing things on a short timeline, imho. Video has gleefully hopped over the digital fence years ago, it's only a matter of time before we do the same. The upsides of recall, zero maintenance, vastly reduced costs, etc etc should not be shrugged off so lightly.

I'd rather spend my money on quality sources to record than stress the thousands-of-dollars difference for some perceived small benefit in processing, while at the same time crippling my workflow.

An analog recording will always sound more like an analog recording than a digital recording. A mic is a mic, you cant get that sound with a plugin. You can’t get tape sound with a plugin. You can’t get the sound of a pre/comp/eq etc closer than the actual thing. I’m all for low budget recording, but in favor of keeping it simple on tape with an old quirky board than using a ton of tracks in Pro Tools with your fake helios etc. plugins, where the room you work in has less and less of an effect on the recording.
#48
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #48
Gear addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by reezy2 View Post
we have to remember as engineers ITS ABOUT THE SOUND. plug ins might be able to go around the world in 80 days but the listener cant hear that.

the listener cant hear the convenience, versatility, or price of a plug-in.
so it is biased to compare a hardware behringers vs. uad/waves/softube plug-ins based soley on price. lol the listener can't hear how much money we saved on going Waves.

at the end of the day no plug-in can can beat a fine piece hardware. at $300, yes. but remember it is not about the money, ITS ABOUT THE SOUND. were engineers, not accountants
and true, unfortunately, theres no way around a good piece than to lay down some dollars.. but its about the sound remember

and considering you do your job well as an engineer, the listener CAN hear the difference. even its its subconscience because they dont know better lol.. but its there and it matters.
Exactly. The job of the engineer is to record sound, not worry about which new piece of gear is cheaper.
#49
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #49
There's an awful lot of talk about being able to know the difference between plug-ins or analog processing used in a well made mix but no evidence to back it up.

I dare, I double dare, NAY, I DEFY anyone to be able to say definitively that a plug-in was used in an agreed upon good quality mix, simply by listening.

Have not seen it done yet.

All this talk of analog being so obviously "better" is kind of extreme I think. I'm not even convinced that anybody can say whether or not a mix was done analog or digital once it has been rendered to CD, simply by listening.

It's a bunch of malarkey. Use what works for you. Analog is awesome, but it's not always practical and it's NOT automatically nor obviously "better" provided the person working with the digital tools knows how to use them effectively.
Quote
1
#50
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #50
And on top of that. A lot of these analog die hard folk's mixes ain't sounding all that great anyway......so, there's that too.

Plug-in or not, if you can't mix you can't mix.

Plug-in or not, if you CAN mix then you can mix.
Quote
2
#51
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #51
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by therealbigd View Post
100+x Pretty-much-as-good-as Helios EQ

really?
#52
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #52
Lives for gear
 
TranscendingM's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post

Plug-in or not, if you can't mix you can't mix.

Plug-in or not, if you CAN mix then you can mix.

Agreed.

It's all about a result.
The means is your personal preference, not a determining factor
of the results.
#53
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #53
Gear addict
 

If you’ve heard a Neve board you will get it. I’ve only head a few, but yeah, that’s where its at.
#54
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #54
That's where what's at? Hazy, thick, lacking in detail yet punchy and mid forward?

Yeah I get that all of the time when I run too many channels through a Neve board.
Quote
1
#55
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #55
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
There's an awful lot of talk about being able to know the difference between plug-ins or analog processing used in a well made mix but no evidence to back it up.

I dare, I double dare, NAY, I DEFY anyone to be able to say definitively that a plug-in was used in an agreed upon good quality mix, simply by listening.

Have not seen it done yet.

All this talk of analog being so obviously "better" is kind of extreme I think. I'm not even convinced that anybody can say whether or not a mix was done analog or digital once it has been rendered to CD, simply by listening.

It's a bunch of malarkey. Use what works for you. Analog is awesome, but it's not always practical and it's NOT automatically nor obviously "better" provided the person working with the digital tools knows how to use them effectively.
Man, you polarise things quite a lot don't ya?
#56
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #56
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
That's where what's at? Hazy, thick, lacking in detail yet punchy and mid forward?
lol ... don't start another subjectivist argument in the midst of an already healthy one :p
Quote
1
#57
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #57
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by timlloyd View Post
lol ... don't start another subjectivist argument in the midst of an already healthy one :p
she does that a lot.......
#58
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #58
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
Man, you polarise things quite a lot don't ya?
Not intentionally, but I'm kind of sick of analog die hards dominating the conversation over signal processing as if "it ain't real unless it's analog." That's simply not true.
Quote
2
#59
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #59
Lives for gear
 
FreshSkweez's Avatar
 

We're in the business of selling emotions...

Which is the toughest business I can ever imagine. But it is nevertheless a business, so the financial aspect has to be accounted for which is where price/quality ratio comes into play. And from that point on it's all about what tools you need (regardless of how vintage or cutting edge) to deliver the artist's message with no noticeable compromise.

If you ever find yourself in a position trying to explain to a client that track X sounds the way it does because you didn't have a $60,000 piece of gear around to make it sound the way they wanted it to, you can be sure they'll be taking their business elsewhere once they get a better budget. Until then, you're golden regardless whether you're working with walls of outboard or Cakewalk9 stock plugs ;-)

IMHO as always
#60
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #60
Lives for gear
 
The dman's Avatar
 

I'm no analog die hard I have hardware and I mix ITB, hybrid or mix to a console depending on the project. The following is concerning amp simulators

I had a guitar player in here the other day who has been playing with amp simulators the last few years and he about crapped his pants when he recorded through my Marshall. Just sat there with a big dumb look on his face saying omg over and over and it did sound sweet.

The point I'm trying to make is I use simulators when I need to and there's some excellent ones out there but when I want that sound I heard the other day there's no other way around it.... and when I want "that sound" I don't want to settle for an imitation.
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Similar Threads
Thread
Thread Starter / Forum
Replies
Jules / So much gear, so little time!
62

Forum Jump
 
Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.