THIS is why plugins are the way forward.
#61
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #61
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

When striving for sonic excellence one uses the best tools and abilities available to you. Your own skill set, the room you have and your years of experience contribute to that hugely. You also use the equipment (using your judgement) to get "the product".

On the whole, with todays lower budgets, that often means using your own place rather than hiring a mix room. Even with the joy of your own space, recall is very important. When budgets allow, OR if you own your own high end studio, you can have the luxury (yes it is a luxury) of working with top end gear to get things "just so".

It isn't about being able to tell that something was done on an 88R or in Reaper... it's about the ends justifying the means - or more accurately - the means to get to an end.

In my case -

a) sometimes it means recording at Abbey Road, sometimes it means recording in my place
b) sometimes on location, sometimes at a clients place
c) sometimes it means mixing at a triple A facility, sometimes at mine
d) sometimes it means mixing on my console, sometimes ITB
e) sometimes it means using a UAD plate, sometimes a real one.
f) sometimes to tape, sometimes in Logic/PT
g) sometimes it's mastered at Soundmasters, sometimes in Ozone
i) sometimes the budget is £200k, sometimes it's £5k.

Additionally, just because I don't own it doesn't mean to say it isn't useful. Equally just because I DO own it (and I own a lot!!) doesn't mean to say it's the only way.

More examples - the best monitors are not "what you own" (oh boy - the number of times I see Dynaudio BM15s recommended as a high end solution....) the point being - a lot of people defend plugins because it's what they use. Equally a lot of people big up consoles when they have no experience and assume it's a magic solution OR it's some kind of badge of excellence. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The SSL4000 didn't make Andy Wallace but he sure as hell used 'em!! The B&W 800D didn't make my last score recording but sure as hell used THEM.

High end consoles and high end gear IS sonically better and the great majority of it is analogue (although Weiss, Katz and Sony have snuck a few digital lovers in there). Plugins haven't reached maturity yet - mic's and amplifiers reached it years ago. We are still some way off plugins and DAWs being able to match the capabilities and characteristics of a high end outboard solution. BUT - both solutions ONLY reach great results when used by those of experience, taste and with the right jobs..... that much we agree on. I enjoy reading most posts on GS but the constant striving for a justification of the low end bettering the high level equipment is amusing at best and, at worst, insulting to those of far more experience as well as designers of the wealth well designed hardware. ONLy when plugins provide us with something not available in the more expensive world are they actually a preferable choice! A great example is the Duende X-Eq. Or the Fabfilter delays.... Nothing like either of them in the "real world".

I've yet to attain the sonic excellence of some of the masters out there (and some in here) but my work is on over 200 million sales units as of this year and I've used the money from that to build a better work environment. Why? Because I can, because of competitive edge, and because of a drive to improve sonic quality. Nearly all of that has been spent on the rooms and on analogue hardware. Now I've made a lot of money doing this - and some of it was made with a bloody O2R.... but times have changed and competition has moved back into quality results.... hardware is on the up, plugins are raising their game. My company is developing a range of plugins for professionals (if you know me you'll understand that a little better ) but that's mainly because my target market (oooh even more cryptic) cannot use outboard. So... I'm not plugin hater - but I am from a scientific background and by luck have a lot of experience in this game. Sonically : Plugins ain't it - yet! - BUT I use them daily. Work is always a compromise!

The limiting factor in my work is MOSTLY me but SOMETIMES it's the project budgets which invariably lead to corner cutting - no-one is getting a mix on my Neve without paying the right fees. I certainly won't go out and buy an esoteric bit of kit for a budget project - whereas I just bought a Red Rooster to stick on the percussion buss of my last job because there is NOTHING in plug in land to do it.....

So there we go - an unfocussed outburst from your old friend Narc....
#62
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #62
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
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.
yeah - well I can agree with that!
Quote
1
|-|
#63
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #63
|-|
Lives for gear
 
|-|'s Avatar
 

*YAWN*

You like hardware?
Use hardware

You like software?
Use software

You like both?
Use both
Quote
1
#64
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #64
Moderator
 
narcoman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by |-| View Post
*YAWN*

You like hardware?
Use hardware

You like software?
Use software

You like both?
Use both
7 months and bored already!
#65
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #65
Lives for gear
 
NEWTON IN ORBIT's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
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.
jeebus....


I guess making friends isn't a high priority?
That's nice.


Best wishes.

john

btw...where do you display your grammies...on your mantle?
#66
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #66
Lives for gear
 
Nowak's Avatar
 

You say Po tay ta, I say Po tar ta, let's call the whole thing off.
#67
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #67
Harmless Wacko
 

Use whatcha got.

Have fun. Make music. Get paid for it(if possible).

For me that means NFW am I using plug-in's where I have hardware in many cases.

Most cases really.

But that's me, and my situation.

Yerz may be a different world.

Many thanx to Narcoman for his explanation(s) on his take of the subject at hand.

He actually addresses the HOW and WHY of where many of us think the software stuff still has a distance to travel in terms of SONICS in a lucid form.

Something I simply don't have the will(or probably skill - HOHOHO) to do here.

Best regards,

SM.
therealbigd
Thread Starter
#68
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #68
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Thread Starter
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.
It may be about the sound to you, but it's not about the sound to everyone.

RTFQ - it says 'Way Forward'. The way forward of the music recording industry has been defined by the record buying industry for a long time.

The audience may not be able to hear the cost, nor the portability of it. But they can just not buy the record when it costs $50 because when they wanted to move the engineer and his 48ch Helios desk to work with the band in the UK, they couldn't just spend $500 on his plane ticket and have it move in his bag. No they had to call in RockIt Cargo to move the thing.



That's why I said WAY FORWARD. This whole thing is a business, and business is about more than just nice things. That is why car seats aren't all made out of leather. Yes it's nicer, and yes, the buyer would rather have them. But the buyer, often, would rather save some money and have some slightly less comfortable seats. So if the label decide that their record sales will not change by using cheaper, all-ITB studios, they will do so, as believe me, record labels prefer money to the 'OTB sound' which is all a load of GS hype anyway.

Please for the last time I want to clarify this thread is not about what's better. I don't give a flying f!!k about what sounds better. I have my preferences, others have theirs, it's all happy days. This is simply about, the evolution of plugins, the price they can now put on them, and how this will affect the next 10 years of how studios are chosen and hired. The A vs D argument is older than the sun and is properly boring.
#69
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #69
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
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
I'm certainly no expert in this area. But I do understand the simple idea of resolution and how more "little bits" make a more detailed picture. And I can "see" it with my ears going from 16 bit to 24 bit. It's real to me.

And I can hear my signal or original sound, lets say a vocal degrade as I pass it through plug-in after plug-in. It reminds me very much of using a Xerox copier. The first Xerox copy off of the original has excellent resolution and as you make a copy from each copy the detail and image gets worse.

What I interpreted George to be saying (in spirit) was, "if you know you are going to be reducing that image down ten times in your final layout don't do it by running it through the Xerox copier 4 or 5 times but get the original art/photo/sound reduced as close as possible to what you want before you put it into the digital domain and your computer program".
(don't handle it so much it's going to introduce loss, error, noise, whatever, the end result is it doesn't sound as good)

It seems to make a lot of real world sense to me and I see it in a lot of places with digital media. From copying jpegs already on a computer to talking to Dan Lavry regarding the efficiency of converting or copying anything digital. It's nice to believe that the magic computer box can copy anything with no loss, but in reality I haven't seen that. And I know in the graphics and printing business we often call things a perfect duplicate when we know technically it's not but for practical purposes it's as good as you can get and no one will notice.

In George's scenario I definitely agree with the idea of getting a sound as close to what you want to hear before you go into the box so that you don't have to manipulate through four different companies plug-ins to get it where you want it. And I do "see"/hear the difference. I don't want to get caught up in "word games" of noise floor versus resolution, when to me (a simple guy) it just clearly sounds degraded the more you run it through digital plug-ins. And you know what the same thing happens in the analog world when you start running through a bunch of outboard gear. That old saying of "get it right at the source and make it as direct as possible" has always bore out for me. I feel like plug-ins make it easy to forget this and overuse them. I know this isn't 100% on topic but just something I struggle with because I like my plug-ins for a lot of the aforementioned reasons. I like my pretty boxes too and I'm trying not to patch through so many of them as well
#70
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #70
Lives for gear
 

Therealbigd, the reason you use "Monitors from PMC, Wilson Benesch + NS10Ms (plus some interesting monitors!), Amps from Bryston and Cyrus." instead of a set of powered Mackie nearfields is presumably a difference in sound quality. That quality difference is meaningful to you and your customers so that's why you have picked those tools over the just as usable, much cheaper Mackie setup. Hardware users hear the same difference over plugs and it's meaningful enough to them to them to pay the price. To muddy the waters even more, digital and analog have a different sound to them so the "apples and oranges" posters are right and additionally the weight given to either price or sound quality varies with each buyer. Doing price comparisons you have to look at total cost of ownership over X number of years. Software is not only the initial cost but upgrade costs and ALL your time costs for each install / update and dealing with bugs which can easily cost more than the plug itself. Given OS changes and software orphaning it's can be hard to get 10 years out of a software product, something else to factor in. So when running the numbers look at all the costs for both platforms over a long term INCLUDING your time costs. In regards to how studios are choosen and hired over the next 10 years. My prediction is that picking the person due to results, relationships, location, and budget/terms is going to continue to be the far more important factors over the specific tools available. What the future holds is at best just a guess, in the present sharing our own experiences with the tools we are using (the good and the bad of the specific tool) to help others here may be a more fruitful endevor.
#71
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #71
Lives for gear
 
Konketsu's Avatar
I can fix my hardware with a soldering iron and a multimeter when it craps the bed.

I can't do that with NI Reaktor, as much as I love it.

I have some hardware that is older than I am and still works great.

Is there anyone out there who is still running Opcode Studio Vision or TurboSynth? Anyone remember how awesome those were?
therealbigd
Thread Starter
#72
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #72
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Therealbigd, the reason you use "Monitors from PMC, Wilson Benesch + NS10Ms (plus some interesting monitors!), Amps from Bryston and Cyrus." instead of a set of powered Mackie nearfields is presumably a difference in sound quality. That quality difference is meaningful to you and your customers so that's why you have picked those tools over the just as usable, much cheaper Mackie setup. Hardware users hear the same difference over plugs and it's meaningful enough to them to them to pay the price. To muddy the waters even more, digital and analog have a different sound to them so the "apples and oranges" posters are right and additionally the weight given to either price or sound quality varies with each buyer. Doing price comparisons you have to look at total cost of ownership over X number of years. Software is not only the initial cost but upgrade costs and ALL your time costs for each install / update and dealing with bugs which can easily cost more than the plug itself. Given OS changes and software orphaning it's can be hard to get 10 years out of a software product, something else to factor in. So when running the numbers look at all the costs for both platforms over a long term INCLUDING your time costs. In regards to how studios are choosen and hired over the next 10 years. My prediction is that picking the person due to results, relationships, location, and budget/terms is going to continue to be the far more important factors over the specific tools available. What the future holds is at best just a guess, in the present sharing our own experiences with the tools we are using (the good and the bad of the specific tool) to help others here may be a more fruitful endevor.
I don't contend any of this. I like nice sounding speakers so I buy them. You buy nice sounding hardware because you like it. Whatever. That's fine, never contented it.

Point is only that if you can buy unlimited instances of outboard like the PYE, Helios etc (assumably others - SSL, API, Neve, Fairchild, Pultec, etc will follow suite in time), for $150 a go, when just one instance of any of those would cost you at least 10x that; it is reasonably obvious that high quality studios will be able to form, and run, at a fraction of the cost of others, due to their equipment overheads being so low.

The question "Does analogue hardware sound better than it's digital plugin equivalent? (A: Yes, or no)" is UTTERLY, UTTERLY irrelevant. It is no more relevant than "does SSL sound better than Neve?"

The relevant question is "does plugin software get mixes to a standard where they can be commercially released and make profitable sales?" and the answer is absolutely, yes. If the mix is good enough, the label, who are essentially your (as a studio) employer, couldn't give a flying turd how you got there, and whether it was in the box, out the box, round the box or up the boxes arse. It sounds good, they can release it, job done.

This is the reality when working with material at corporate level, rather than for fun.

Take an alternative. Taxi to the airport. You could use a standard family saloon, or a top-brand sports car. They can both reach the speed limit, they're both safe, both air conditioned, both hold all your luggage. But one has lovely leather reclining seats, a big powerful engine, sport suspension, race tyres, the works.

Now, your wealthy VIP, who wants to arrive in style, might choose the sports car. But the corporations sending employees to the airport, who, at the end of the day, are in the game to make money, don't care if the engine has enough beef to double the speed limit. The drivers' not allowed to. So, if the standard saloon is going to be sufficient to get their man to the airport, they'll use it.

This is what I'm pointing to. It doesn't matter how much YOU prefer your hardware. You do not pay your own wages. The sound ONLY matters to those paying your wages. So, if you can achieve a sound which they are content with, at half the price, they will begin to filter over to your yard in time, as they realise the cost savings available. And it will become more viable to businesses, in time, to use the companies creating an equally good sound (that is DIFFERENT, but not BETTER or WORSE) ITB, at half the price.

I say again THIS IS NOT A SOUND COMPARISON

please please please leave your sound comparisons at home. this is about where business is going, at $150 for 2 quality plugins and prices only going in one direction, I find it hard to believe that hardware is going to remain the king in a declining industry, based on the fact that when A/B'd with the source material it's sound is arguably better.
therealbigd
Thread Starter
#73
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #73
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Konketsu View Post
I can fix my hardware with a soldering iron and a multimeter when it craps the bed.

I can't do that with NI Reaktor, as much as I love it.
Same with our HW API2500 and our Waves one.

But the Waves still gets used more often. Because we can use 20 of them in the same mix, save the settings and recall them later. The HW one doesn't do that.

All ups and downs.
therealbigd
Thread Starter
#74
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #74
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
 

Thread Starter
Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post

It isn't about being able to tell that something was done on an 88R or in Reaper... it's about the ends justifying the means - or more accurately - the means to get to an end.
I think this is something people forget. A/B a source between Reaper and an 88R, yes there's a difference. But what's a difference? Who cares? As long as the Reaper one sounds good, it is good.

"If it sounds good, it is good"

Joe Meek said that before DAWs were invented. It's still true. Doesn't matter how it gets there, if it gets there, you win. Like football... there's no points for how the goal is scored! As an Arsenal supporter I know this too well. We often score 2 great goals in a match, problem is, other team score 3 rubbish ones, and still win the match.

Great mixes can be achieved with or without hardware. Difference is, without can be done cheaper and quicker (and quicker means cheaper) due to the benefits plugins bring. And in a declining industry with no money, I see these factors driving plugins much further than the sonic differences found in analogue hardware.
csj
#75
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #75
csj
Gear Head
 

lol you guys are forgetting one main point that plays a big roll in this...hardware just looks alot better then software...lol... its just point n saying that you have a Helios EQ
#76
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #76
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by narcoman View Post
3. the top mixers in the world are all over 40 (it tales 20 years to get to that level)...
That is the absolute truth, no doubt about it. Now there is at least one non-debatable statement in this thread!
#77
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #77
Top mixing engineers are top mixing engineers because the records that they work on happen to become hits. They get chosen to work on those projects because they've been around long enough to develop enough connections to be on the short list of some record company's picks for mix engineer. It ain't always about the quality of their work. It's about who they know and where they happen to be working.

Hits and projects associated with big dollar and/or big name productions win awards.

The assumption is: "Well that guy has a grammy so he must be doing something right." But since when is a grammy a great indicator of skill? Thousands of cutting edge, excellent mixes go unnoticed, not because the people that mixed them suck, but because the songs aren't hits or big name projects. Besides that making hits isn't the job of the mix engineer.

I think this industry is full of pretentiousness and sucking up to people to "get over". But really if we're honest (honesty being in short supply in the music business) most of the big name guys aren't responsible for their name recognition due to their contribution to the project. You work and you take on work until the work you take on gets noticed. If it never does, you never get noticed. Not because you can't mix. But because you don't get attached to hit projects.

Has nothing to do with gear. Has nothing to do with plug-ins. Has nothing to do with the console in your control room or your monitors or your golden ears. If my dog mixed a record that sold 10 million copies then there would be all kinds of clones trying to emulate the mix tactics and all kinds of magazine interviews and Waves would come out with Fido's collection of plug-ins and everybody would say; "That dog can really mix." It's all a bunch of hype that has nothing to do with reality. Reality being that skillful mixing and hit making are not directly correlated, while name recognition and association with hits are. The other point being that skillful mixing and the use of analog signal processing or exclusively digital or whatever are also not directly correlated, while a great sounding mix and a skillful engineer are, regardless of the tools used.
#78
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #78
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
Top mixing engineers are top mixing engineers because the records that they work on happen to become hits. They get chosen to work on those projects because they've been around long enough to develop enough connections to be on the short list of some record company's picks for mix engineer. It ain't always about the quality of their work. It's about who they know and where they happen to be working.
It ain't always about the quality, but it is with the mixers I speak of, and identify with. I do however, agree that some of the others are extremely well connected and lucky.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
Hits and projects associated with big dollar and/or big name productions win awards.

The assumption is: "Well that guy has a grammy so he must be doing something right." But since when is a grammy a great indicator of skill? Thousands of cutting edge, excellent mixes go unnoticed, not because the people that mixed them suck, but because the songs aren't hits or big name projects. Besides that making hits isn't the job of the mix engineer.
Awards mean diddly squat, I have done audio for far too many awards shows, watching many undeserving people win them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
I think this industry is full of pretentiousness and sucking up to people to "get over". But really if we're honest (honesty being in short supply in the music business) most of the big name guys aren't responsible for their name recognition due to their contribution to the project. You work and you take on work until the work you take on gets noticed. If it never does, you never get noticed. Not because you can't mix. But because you don't get attached to hit projects.
I for the most part agree, but many times if you are truly talented and stay the course, you will finally get noticed. 30+ years in this business has shown me that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enlightened Hand View Post
Has nothing to do with gear. Has nothing to do with plug-ins. Has nothing to do with the console in your control room or your monitors or your golden ears. If my dog mixed a record that sold 10 million copies then there would be all kinds of clones trying to emulate the mix tactics and all kinds of magazine interviews and Waves would come out with Fido's collection of plug-ins and everybody would say; "That dog can really mix." It's all a bunch of hype that has nothing to do with reality. Reality being that skillful mixing and hit making are not directly correlated, while name recognition and association with hits are. The other point being that skillful mixing and the use of analog signal processing or exclusively digital or whatever are also not directly correlated, while a great sounding mix and a skillful engineer are, regardless of the tools used.
I think you have pretty much nailed it here, nice post! There are actually quite a few big name mixers doing things more ITB, especially for some of those clients who lack the big budgets. It really is about the skills/talent, not so much the gear. It is interesting that I have heard many great mixes on records that were not "hits", but most of mixers that did them went on later to become "big guys".
#79
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #79
Lives for gear
 
tubehead's Avatar
OH MY GOD... I just read this thread and will not get that time back on my life, thanks. I quit, I'm going to jump out a window.
#80
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #80
Gear Head
 

Analog as front end.

I find it kind of baffling that when the whole analog/digital debate happens how the signal chain pre-converter doesn't come up. All of these comparison tests are of course in a mixing application so it's easy to see why the debates tend to move that way...

You can put whatever flavour of plugin you want on a signal it is not going to sound like it was tracked with that hardware. If I put down a track with a Neve pre I cannot make it sound like it was tracked with an API or a Martech by using a plugin...and especially not if it was tracked with some other budget pre. You simply cannot make a track recorded with Mackie pre sound like it was tracked like the aforementioned. The detail and timbre of the sound is significantly different. And if you're EQing pre converter you very quickly see that it's totally different than after A/D.

So to propose that high quality Analog is not part of the way forward seems a bit absurb to me. It will always be part of the recording process as long as instruments are moving air anyways...

Chad
#81
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #81
Lives for gear
 
TobyToby's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by tubehead View Post
OH MY GOD... I just read this thread and will not get that time back on my life, thanks. I quit, I'm going to jump out a window.
I've just read the whole thread because I have to wait until the paint is dry for the second layer and of course because I like Narc. I think I don't like any Plug In I know lol . . well I liked Ohm Boys half an Enneadekaëteris ago and I will surely like Valhalla because it's individual
#82
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #82
Gear addict
 
Fenris's Avatar
 

You don't actually get 80 instances of a plug-in for $400 or whatever you paid. It's sharing DSP with all your other plug-ins, and you can't use the same plug-in on every track or the crap factor starts to build up. You're getting more like 1 or 2 instances.

Then there's rapid obsolescence and the need to re-purchase all your plug-ins and replace all your hardware every 5 years or so. Computer hardware isn't designed to be repaired. And the endemic bugginess that afflicts ALL computer systems is a much bigger PITA than maintaining analog equipment.

Then there's the fact that even low-priced analog gear sounds better than any plug-in IN THE CONTEXT OF A FULL MIX. So much better that if I run out of hardware compressors or EQ's, I would rather do without than resort to a plug-in.

If you're moderately handy with electronics, you can build yourself a dozen channels of optical compression, inductor EQ, etc. for LESS than the cost of the equivalent plug-ins and DSP cards, if you're not trying to make a 100% authentic vintage replica.

So the answer is no, plug-ins are not the way forward. They're the way to mire yourself in a never-ending cycle of frustration and wasted money.

All the digital gear I ever bought is now junk and I regret every dollar I spent on it.
#83
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #83
Lives for gear
 
Analogue Mastering's Avatar
 

it's just another algorithm and GUI, nothing more, nothing less, even posting lifelike banners of real gear and smiling engineers won't change that.

Sometimes i just think people buy with their eyes, not ears.....
#84
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #84
Lives for gear
 



...
#85
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #85
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fenris View Post
All the digital gear I ever bought is now junk and I regret every dollar I spent on it.
Lol...I feel this similar pang every time I wander through my old backup folders of my old installs and see the install files for things such as Arboretum Hyperprism plugs and my opcode plugs like Fusion Filter and Vocode...

Good stuff, mind you but terribly outdated in terms of sound. Since the companies are no longer alive they're just abandoned and are stuck with their dated sound and funky artifacts which were acceptable 10 years ago but not today. :(

I also had Antares mic modeler back in the day when it was first released...maybe 99 or 2000 was it? Wow - another waste! hahaha...I really thought back then I could turn my old Shure beta to a Neumann...

Oh yeah...and the old DSP-FX! wow, that takes me back! That was my favorite reverb in the plug-in world back in '98 or 99! It sounded so good... I got the latest update of Sonar (X1) and the DSP-FX plugs are included free! If only I had waited 10 years!

Plugs have their place in terms of convenience. I would rather buy one or two hardware compressors and one good hardware EQ and limit myself to just that for my own stuff, but for example, I music direct this show every year and they also hire me afterward to mix the live show that's recorded on 24 tracks for the DVD sales. There's no way I'm running 24 tracks of 2+ hours of live audio two or three compressors at a time through hardware! I have no problem at all using plugs for that and rendering it all down. For that the convenience and speed that the plugs can render audio at, it is awesome.

Regards,
Frank
#86
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #86
Lives for gear
 
Nowak's Avatar
 

OK, seems we have a few oldies here when it comes to plug ins....... me being one of them....

QUIZ - does anybody remember PROTRON 3D plug in?, from 1995 when I jumped on the wagon.

S
#87
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #87
Lives for gear
 
Nowak's Avatar
 

(I'm now 1/2 off the wagon and mixing on a board again and outboard)
#88
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #88
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Lol...I feel this similar pang every time I wander through my old backup folders of my old installs and see the install files for things such as Arboretum Hyperprism plugs and my opcode plugs like Fusion Filter and Vocode...
I get the same feeling when I look at my rack of old compressors and EQs and stuff.

Oh no, wait. I don't.
#89
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #89
Gear addict
Fenris, great point about the software always cycling into oblivion while you continue to reacquire your stuff by paying into the abyss. I'm certain there will never be a market for vintage software.

I do believe, and perhaps "fear" is a better word, that eventually hardware will turn into antiques and only software will exist. It may not happen in the next 20 years but with technology progressing exponentially, one day the hardware won't make sense to the culture of the times. Just my thoughts of course.
#90
7th June 2011
Old 7th June 2011
  #90
Gear addict
 
Caramel's Avatar
yesterday I plugged a real TR808 drum machine into an ISA One then a DBX 160.Although the ISA and DBX is not considered high end , it sounded SO much better than any digital combo I`ve tried in the last 15 years.

I`ve mostly worked in digital dormain in the last 20 years, starting with a Yamaha dmp7 mixing desk.Then O1V etc. But as good as the waves API 2500 is, It does not come close to the character/sound of the hardware. It is alot of financial investment to slightly improve your mix and most cannot justify the expense as fewer people care. But that`s what separates the men from the boys.
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.