THIS is why plugins are the way forward.
Old 5th February 2012
  #2011
Gear interested
 

$$

Quote:
If plugins cost the same as hardware, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The convenience, the recall, the features, the sound... none of it would matter if the average plugin cost $2000. Hell, the first time your $2000 plugin broke from an OS upgrade you'd never buy one again.

Plugins are 'the way forward' for one brutally simple reason: they're cheap. Disposably cheap, actually.



Gregory Scott - ubk
Agreed.

http://soundcloud.com/elintmusic/cell-phone-radiation
Old 12th April 2012
  #2012
Gear Head
 
obolewis's Avatar
 

I have a thought, why are we so obsessed with "multiple instances"? Most of the great mixers over the years didn't have tons of outboard. They had a normal amount. Most probably only had one or 2 of a certain box. They did fantastic mixes! Why do we all of a sudden need 40 1176's to do a good mix? Why not just get one and track with it on multiple sources. How about riding the fader rather than just whacking another plug on it. Making these decisions early on while recording will make more difference to your mixes than what plug in bundle you are using.
Old 12th April 2012
  #2013
Lives for gear
 
Beyersound's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obolewis View Post
I have a thought, why are we so obsessed with "multiple instances"? Most of the great mixers over the years didn't have tons of outboard. They had a normal amount. Most probably only had one or 2 of a certain box. They did fantastic mixes! Why do we all of a sudden need 40 1176's to do a good mix? Why not just get one and track with it on multiple sources. How about riding the fader rather than just whacking another plug on it. Making these decisions early on while recording will make more difference to your mixes than what plug in bundle you are using.
Some of us don't usually get to make the tracking decisions. As a mixer, I seldom get track what I mix. Many times I need "multiple instances" to deal with tracking issues in the mix. I agree that you can get 70-80% of the mix done while tracking, and make the mix process easier, more streamlined, shorter, and a lot more fun.
Old 12th April 2012
  #2014
Gear maniac
 

And that argument is based on the person rather than the plug in. Just because you can use xx amount of a plugin doesn't mean you have to. Maybe we have to think and work differently, in the old days people had to use what they had to get a good sound, perhaps these days we have to work in the opposite direction, we have to learn how to use less of what we have to get a good sound. Just because we have auto tune doesn't mean that we should stop doing take after take until the vocalist gets it right because we know that there is a quick fix.

Talking about internet statistics, what percentage of an audience listens to a track and can tell whether analogue or digital was used?
Old 12th April 2012
  #2015
Lives for gear
 

"Talking about internet statistics, what percentage of an audience listens to a track and can tell whether analogue or digital was used?"

The big "tell" is 3D (depth/imaging/expanded stereo field) vs. flat. Train people to listen to that aspect and it becomes easy. Given the above question though you could easily substitute what percentage can name the basic instruments on a given track and I'd bet you come up with about the same percentage as your question. Whatever methods and tools you choose to use it still boils down to an engineer's skill level. There are some who will be happy with bad or middle of the road work and others will produce work equal to or better than the great stuff that is already out there. It's not that hard to compare your work to that great stuff out there already to see where you fall. Most will not measure up and will have to decide for themselves if they will strive to be better or be happy with bad or good enough.
Old 12th April 2012
  #2016
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
The big "tell" is 3D (depth/imaging/expanded stereo field) vs. flat. Train people to listen to that aspect and it becomes easy.
3D vs. flat? The objectivity is priceless. "Tell them to listen for the 'magic' or the 'sparkle'".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Given the above question though you could easily substitute what percentage can name the basic instruments on a given track and I'd bet you come up with about the same percentage as your question.
Sorry, this is certainly a distortion on the general public you have fabricated.
Almost everyone I've ever met can identify a guitar vs. drums or a piano. Any blind test I've seen on digital vs. analog mixing comes back close to 50/50.
Old 12th April 2012
  #2017
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by obolewis View Post
I have a thought, why are we so obsessed with "multiple instances"?
Multiple instances are the very value point that makes plug-ins 'worth it'. If plug-ins could somehow NOT be instantiated on many tracks at once, their bang-for-the-buck would be starting to drop back down into the hardware range and people would be looking (listening) a lot closer at the sonics.

as u b k said:
Quote:
if plugins were as expensive as hardware then they'd never have gotten off the ground.

Quote:
Why do we all of a sudden need 40 1176's to do a good mix?
Need often has little to do with it. It's often about Want. How many guitarists "need" a modeler with a simulation of 'every guitar amp ever made' inside it? They used to do just fine with one or two amps. But still how cool: every amp ever made!

I never need 40 compressors in a mix, but if you are using 5 and you suddenly decide you want 6, you are in the exact same situation, really.

The 'incredible', almost 'insane', VALUE of the Virtual Products is the main thing keeping them competitive with hardware. If an 1176 plug-in cost even close to the price of a real 1176, and you only got ONE, how many people would still say the sound is "close enough" and not simply buy the hardware?

compressor A vs compressor B - A sounds slightly better = no brainer
compressor A vs FORTY compressor B's - A sounds slightly better = something to think about

How many people would go for the plug-in solely because of the 'ease of recall' and the 'integration with the DAW' and those other "reasons" that people give? None of those other reasons matter at all, if you didn't get that practically 'something for nothing' aspect....


The Multiple Instances Thing IS the value of plug-ins.
Old 13th April 2012
  #2018
Lives for gear
 

If you can't hear 3D then you are in the wrong biz. If you choose to make a 2D flat overcompressed product as an artistic CHOICE then that's a different matter but I don't think many are. It's not even having to have an expensive monitering chain, just one setup correctly (it's not hard to run a LEDR test if you can't do it by ear). I've got a couple small KLH speakers ($25 for the pair) set up by my internet screen that I run radio and CD's through and I can clearly hear when material has 3D and when it does not. While you can get 3D out of digital you have to work harder to get it and frankly a good portion of the digital stuff being put out there is very flat. You are correct that it is just my opinion and I put it out there as such but I can easily train anybody what specifically to listen for with 3D/depth/stereo field and they can pick it out too. Listening to music is a set of skills you learn. While most regular people don't listen to Jazz, Classical, or Opera, with some training about the music and what to listen for then many of that group start to and enjoy it. Before the training it was just a bunch of noise to them. Once you have a good monitering chain and especially moniters that don't hype/make everything going through it sound nice then you can really hear the good productions from the bad. That's why we get paid the BIG BUCKS (LOL) because we have listening skills and equipment to take advantage of it.
Old 13th April 2012
  #2019
Lives for gear
 
shortstory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beyersound View Post
Some of us don't usually get to make the tracking decisions. As a mixer, I seldom get track what I mix. Many times I need "multiple instances" to deal with tracking issues in the mix. I agree that you can get 70-80% of the mix done while tracking, and make the mix process easier, more streamlined, shorter, and a lot more fun.
He makes a good point here- most mixing is polishing turds which require as many plug-ins as possible not to mention time-stretching, drum replacement, effects, harmonic manipulation/distortion, auto-tune, and all the other wonderful software applications available.
Old 13th April 2012
  #2020
Lives for gear
 
VT-MHE's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
If you can't hear 3D then you are in the wrong biz. If you choose to make a 2D flat overcompressed product as an artistic CHOICE then that's a different matter but I don't think many are. It's not even having to have an expensive monitering chain, just one setup correctly (it's not hard to run a LEDR test if you can't do it by ear). I've got a couple small KLH speakers ($25 for the pair) set up by my internet screen that I run radio and CD's through and I can clearly hear when material has 3D and when it does not. While you can get 3D out of digital you have to work harder to get it and frankly a good portion of the digital stuff being put out there is very flat. You are correct that it is just my opinion and I put it out there as such but I can easily train anybody what specifically to listen for with 3D/depth/stereo field and they can pick it out too. Listening to music is a set of skills you learn. While most regular people don't listen to Jazz, Classical, or Opera, with some training about the music and what to listen for then many of that group start to and enjoy it. Before the training it was just a bunch of noise to them. Once you have a good monitering chain and especially moniters that don't hype/make everything going through it sound nice then you can really hear the good productions from the bad. That's why we get paid the BIG BUCKS (LOL) because we have listening skills and equipment to take advantage of it.
I agree 100% with everything you said.
Old 13th April 2012
  #2021
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
If you can't hear 3D then you are in the wrong biz. If you choose to make a 2D flat overcompressed product as an artistic CHOICE then that's a different matter but I don't think many are. It's not even having to have an expensive monitering chain, just one setup correctly (it's not hard to run a LEDR test if you can't do it by ear). I've got a couple small KLH speakers ($25 for the pair) set up by my internet screen that I run radio and CD's through and I can clearly hear when material has 3D and when it does not. While you can get 3D out of digital you have to work harder to get it and frankly a good portion of the digital stuff being put out there is very flat. You are correct that it is just my opinion and I put it out there as such but I can easily train anybody what specifically to listen for with 3D/depth/stereo field and they can pick it out too. Listening to music is a set of skills you learn. While most regular people don't listen to Jazz, Classical, or Opera, with some training about the music and what to listen for then many of that group start to and enjoy it. Before the training it was just a bunch of noise to them. Once you have a good monitering chain and especially moniters that don't hype/make everything going through it sound nice then you can really hear the good productions from the bad. That's why we get paid the BIG BUCKS (LOL) because we have listening skills and equipment to take advantage of it.
If you think "3-Dness" can have objectively significant measurable differences between analog and digital , you are in the wrong business.
Old 13th April 2012
  #2022
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
If you think "3-Dness" can have objectively significant measurable differences between analog and digital , you are in the wrong business.
The day someone can quantify "3-Dness" is the day before someone will build a plug-in to do it for you.

until then, "3D" is just another in an endless series of pseudo-technical terms for "I like it", just as "2D" is a pseudo-technical term for "it sucks".
Old 13th April 2012
  #2023
Pretty sure I was able to hear 3D when I saw "Captain EO" in 1989
Old 14th April 2012
  #2024
Pragmatic Snob
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by joeq View Post
"3D" is just another in an endless series of pseudo-technical terms for "I like it", just as "2D" is a pseudo-technical term for "it sucks".

Can't speak for anyone else, but I like plenty of music that's two dimensional, and I have no love for a lot of music that's heavy in the depth department.

I think depth is a very real, very identifiable quantity in sound, as are wetness and softness. These are terms of art, useful guideposts in our attempts to qualify and talk about the otherwise abstract and esoteric. I don't think the fact that they're difficult to define with scientific precision makes them less real, it just makes makes them more subjective, more prone to discussion and disagreement.

3D is arguably the simplest of the bunch. You sit between two speakers and listen. Can you visually perceive some sounds as coming from a more distant place than others? Is there a front to back illusion accompanying the left to right illusion? Does a given sound seem to be both upfront and stretching back into the distance? Boom, you got 3D.

Is this really something engineers dispute nowadays?


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 14th April 2012
  #2025
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
3D is arguably the simplest of the bunch. You sit between two speakers and listen. Can you visually perceive some sounds as coming from a more distant place than others? Is there a front to back illusion accompanying the left to right illusion? Does a given sound seem to be both upfront and stretching back into the distance? Boom, you got 3D.

Is this really something engineers dispute nowadays?
there does seem to be a dispute as to whether this is a product of the engineer's skill or if it is a product of the equipment he uses...

Your definition of 3D is something I can feel comfortable with. But when people say 'digital has less depth' or some such, it implies that there is a quantifiable aspect to depth that say Tape, has more of.

If such a thing exists, and we do learn to quantify it, then everybody would be able to do it.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2026
Gear Guru
 
joelpatterson's Avatar
 

To say something "sounds 3-D" is like saying something sounds "interesting," a term that is wholly defined by the perception of whoever's talking.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2027
Gear addict
 
ghostwriter's Avatar
 

Could people start posting their all digital mixes that sound as good as their hardware counterparts? I "read" a lot of type on this forum, but seldom "hear" anything posted and we're discussing music.

Oh the irony.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2028
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghostwriter View Post
Could people start posting their all digital mixes that sound as good as their hardware counterparts? I "read" a lot of type on this forum, but seldom "hear" anything posted and we're discussing music.

Oh the irony.
I get you. I wish people would post their all hardware mixes that sound as good as a major label mix. I "read" a lot of type on this fourm about all the hardware people own but seldom "hear" anything. When they do, the mixes never sound as good as a major label mix, even though they're both done with hardware.

Oh the irony.

Regards,
Frank
Old 14th April 2012
  #2029
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post

I think depth is a very real, very identifiable quantity in sound, as are wetness and softness. These are terms of art, useful guideposts in our attempts to qualify and talk about the otherwise abstract and esoteric. I don't think the fact that they're difficult to define with scientific precision makes them less real, it just makes makes them more subjective, more prone to discussion and disagreement.
Depth is obviously a very real element in music production. I spend plenty of time modifying reverbs, high and low pass filters, width of stereo sources, and micro-delays in the Haas window in order to paint a mix using the psychoacoustic principles of sound localization. During the tracking stage you can obviously spend a lot of time micing a space in order to provide perspective on your source.

Now, my issue is not with the notion of the awareness of 3 dimensions in sound production, it is with the unprovable claim that analog devices somehow are superior at capturing or reproducing this. Saying tape "sounds more 3D" is akin to saying it squirts magic fairy dust. There is only so much lee-way to provide for subjective claims and "majikmojophat" descriptions.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2030
Lives for gear
 
mizzle's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by u b k View Post
Can't speak for anyone else, but I like plenty of music that's two dimensional, and I have no love for a lot of music that's heavy in the depth department.
Hmm... that is a strange aesthetic preference. I personally, love both approaches, often in contrast to one another, but are you really saying that you don't enjoy Pet Sounds or Motown recordings?
Old 14th April 2012
  #2031
Lives for gear
 

Why does every discusion around here need to be about qualifiying every engineering term to the hundreth's decimal place? All fields have their jargon, words that mean a collective understanding of some aspect or thing. Here is the simple explanation of "3D" and "Flat" sound for those not familar with engineering jargon. If all the sound is basically located on an imaginary line between the two speakers and sounds that are in the center of that line are slightly forward or behind that line in space, that is a "FLAT" sound. If the sound is located horizontally outside the physical placement of your left and right speaker, if sound is located up, if sound is located down (down is pretty rare though with most room/speaker setups), if sound is located behind your listening position, if sound is located far ahead in the distance, this is a "3D" sound. 3D encompasses sound in ALL directions in all three X,Y, and Z planes or to use words, the left-right plane, the up-down plane, and the forward-back plane in relationship to where you are. Again if you can not hear a difference between the two types of sound fields (3D or Flat) described by those jargon words you are in the wrong field. What is the point of jargon if it's not a common word to describe the SAME thing to many people. I don't see a need to revise these jargon words as when another engineer uses the word "Flat" sound field, I know exactly what they are talking about.

As to the endless debates about ITB vs. OTB/Hybrid or Digital vs. Analog. The best we can do is share our experiences from working with both. EVERY medium or working method has it's set of compromises/weaknesses. In my personal experience Digital's weakness is lack of 3D. Advertising even confirms this as with most advertising it is common practice to concentrate on a product's weakness to minimize it. When Toyota had all those cars that wouldn't stop when you wanted them to they ran a bunch of ads showing how safe their cars are (minimize a weakness). Now look at the current buzzwords for Digital's advertising and you will see "3D" thrown about. Same marketing priciples, just a different product. While some may have worked around this weakness the majority still have not as evidenced by the digital product being put out there. That's just my experience!
Old 14th April 2012
  #2032
Pragmatic Snob
 
u b k's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzle View Post
...are you really saying that you don't enjoy Pet Sounds or Motown recordings?

I'm not saying anything of the sort, you seem to have read more into my statement than I put there.

To be clear: I'm saying that I like a lot of music that's 2D, and don't care for a lot of music that's 3D. On the flipside, I don't like a lot of music that's 2D, and I like a lot of music that's 3D.

IOW, the depth of the recording is not a salient factor in whether I like a given piece of music. In fact, it's pretty much irrelevant, although if I do like a song *and* it has a lovely sense of space and depth, all the better!


Gregory Scott - ubk
Old 14th April 2012
  #2033
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Why does every discusion around here need to be about qualifiying every engineering term to the hundreth's decimal place?
Because it needed to be clarified if what you originally meant was fact or personal opinion. Literally moving things around in a 3D sound field can be achieved in either analog or digital. After your response it's been clarified that when you say 3D you're saying, "I like it" and when you say 2D you're really saying, "I don't like it." That's all.


Regards,
Frank
Old 14th April 2012
  #2034
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bassmankr View Post
Again if you can not hear a difference between the two types of sound fields (3D or Flat) described by those jargon words you are in the wrong field.
I am pretty sure I am in the right field, but thanks for your concern. It is not about hearing the differences. It is about assuming those differences come from the machine.

It's not the jargon word itself that is bullshit. It's the abuse of the jargon - whereby people use it to validate their subjective opinions - that I find to be bullshit.


Quote:
In my personal experience Digital's weakness is lack of 3D.
And here is where you make a staggeringly huge leap in logic that demands you now specify exactly how that happens.

'Depth' is not captured by a microphone, therefore the recording medium must be irrelevant. Set up one mic and record one track and you are saying all by itself, this one track will have more "depth"?

Relative to what other tracks? Ridiculous. If you are going to present your subjective opinions as "facts", then you DO need to be prepared to back them up to however many decimal places!

I say depth is put in there by the engineer. Careful placement of two mics. Careful mixing techniques.

You have left the jargon behind and plunged into your own world of subjectivity. You don't 'own' the expression "3D" and have no hard evidence to back up your claim that one medium naturally has more of it than another. Just your "impression".

You are trying to redefine "3D" as: "that which digital does not have". That's what I am calling bullshit. Like "warmth" or "musical" , the word has lost its meaning because of people like you.

Maybe you are trying to say you have an easier time MIXING on analog? Well, good for you! Try to keep in mind that what's good for you does not define the medium or even the jargon word.


Quote:
Advertising even confirms this as with most advertising it is common practice to concentrate on a product's weakness to minimize it.
I get it: don't blindly believe the ads, blindly believe the opposite of the ads!
Old 14th April 2012
  #2035
3 + infractions, forum membership suspended.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
Because it needed to be clarified if what you originally meant was fact or personal opinion. Literally moving things around in a 3D sound field can be achieved in either analog or digital. After your response it's been clarified that when you say 3D you're saying, "I like it" and when you say 2D you're really saying, "I don't like it." That's all.


Regards,
Frank
ITB or OTB 3d is done with technique,not gear.

Theres things that need to be done,2 different images(left speaker,right speaker)put together to create the outward and inward deminsions,just like my tv.

3d is not pushing a analog fader up.if subjectively one might feel more energy/presence,that's fine.

But that's not 3d.

Sent from my PC36100 using Gearslutz App
Old 14th April 2012
  #2036
Lives for gear
 

Plugins

Quote:
Originally Posted by ionian View Post
I get you. I wish people would post their all hardware mixes that sound as good as a major label mix. I "read" a lot of type on this fourm about all the hardware people own but seldom "hear" anything. When they do, the mixes never sound as good as a major label mix, even though they're both done with hardware.

Oh the irony.

Regards,
Frank
The bottom line is: production flexibiltiy will generally outweigh sonic integrity.. period.. It is a business in the end....If we can make it faster and cheaper why not... The tools of today do that.. now of course the tools today don't emot the same feeling and "vibe" .. but who cares if you can make a quick buck , its all good.. For all the hi fi guys, Like me, I just listen to older music off records..

BUT Many guys on this forum are 20-30 years old and have not discovered the differences YET...BUt rest assure, I work with alot of kids 16-25 and they are getting it and really appreciating my tape machines, SSL etc...

I remember when people thought solid state was DEFINITELY going to replace tubes...

I remmeber when people thought 87's blew away 47's..

I remember when everybody thought SSL E consoles sounded terrible

I remember when everyone had to have a J 9000, and look what analog console is most popular now?? ..

I remember when pultecs were dumped in dumpsters.. why.. why would you want to use something that puts off that much heat, need tube replacements, when solid state electronics provides fast slew rates , noise specs etc...

I read these forums and understand most are missing the point...and certianly DON'T have the life expercience to make proper assesments of gear..

All this digital stuff is brand new technology.. time will tell how well it holds value in 10 years........

Digital works, and does make records...they just sound terrible
Old 14th April 2012
  #2037
Lives for gear
 
Muser's Avatar
 

has anyone ever compiled a list of what they think the weaknesses of Digital are ?

not that I'd necassarily agree with everything, but It would be useful to see what that
list contains.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2038
Gear nut
 
Axiom static's Avatar
 

The problem for me is I cannot tell you in a technical way why most plugs lack weight when compared to the hardware I prefer to use.
I really wish I could you know.

I have 2 ears that tell me what I need to know.
On the other side digital has it's benefits and I operate a hybrid set-up and Love my Logic 9 as my recorder.
Both hardware and digital have power when you can learn to identify the limitations of both mediums.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2039
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY View Post
ITB or OTB 3d is done with technique,not gear.

Theres things that need to be done,2 different images(left speaker,right speaker)put together to create the outward and inward deminsions,just like my tv.

3d is not pushing a analog fader up.if subjectively one might feel more energy/presence,that's fine.

But that's not 3d.
wow. For once I actually understand and agree with a post from FLYINGJAY!

I have been all over this thread on the "hardware" side, but the "3D" thing is really frosting my giblets.
Old 14th April 2012
  #2040
Lives for gear
 

I'm still waiting for a GS thread that demands people PROVE that plugins today sound/perform better than plugins from 12 years ago.

IME this assumption (that plugins have so dramatically improved in the last decade) is patently false.

I still use the plugins on a PT 5 era mix system, and they sound good and can be very useful when outputted thru the console.

I just don't buy the hype that you need the latest/greatest plugs to make a killer record.

FREE plugins from 12 years ago work just fine IMO, and I'm most certain that the end listeners would never know whether you used the latest/greatest or the old (FREE !!!!!) ones.

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.