THIS is why plugins are the way forward.

[Birdland101]

Its a redundant argument. Basically If you like plugins use them, if you like hardware use it. If your sound is great then do it your way. Why argue for all our proofs are only variations of our opinions and the contrary minded listen to neither one nor the either!

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by emilision

I think that's damn near a case of the "exception that proves the rule". Definitely the first software EQ that I've used that actually does what an EQ should...it really is quite excellent. I've never used the real thing so I can't say if it's that close.
But, and this is a big but, let's not forget how many you can run on one UAD card!!! If that's what it takes to get something near the real deal, then DSP still has a long way to go to be practical...

That is a purely UAD issue. If you can run 10 instances on a UAD-2 Quad, you can run between 50 and 200 on a decent modern computer natively (assuming the plugin exists in native format). And no I don't believe there is anything special about UAD plugins besides retro GUIs and very successful marketing.

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by sage691

A person sitting in an untreated bedroom studio with a computer and some plugins could spend 10 years banging his/her head against the wall and still not get any better.

How about someone sitting in a million dollar studio running PT with an Icon control surface or an Euphonix System 5? Still all digital/plugins but not exactly budget gear...

I think this mention of bedroom says something about people's prejudices against ITB. (I am fully ITB and leave the hardware racks turned off these days but that doesn't mean I am in a bedroom or have cheap converters, monitoring etc). And this type of strong prejudice to me means it makes it near impossible to evaluate plugins objectively.

The thing about OTB and the standard classic hardware is that it TEACHES you things ! A good bit of the stuff (la2a, 3a, sta level, etc.) only has 2 frickin knobs to twist & doesn't require much skill or talent to figure out. When you hear it you have that "AHA" moment, and suddenly you know what that sound is. With plugins you have no reference point from where to begin. NONE of the emulations sound even close to the real hardware without significant tweaking !

This doesn't make much sense to me. If you automatically go "AHA!" when you hear the right sound, you should be able to hear the right sound if it is generated from a plugin too or by any other possible method.

Like I said, once you know the sound you can reverse engineer it. But you are talking about maybe 7 plugins inserted, and all tweaked WAY beyond the standard settings just to get 90% there. How are YOU gonna do that without a reference point ?

Why do you need a reference point if the right sound makes you go "Aha!"? And 7 plugins inserted? Tweaked way beyond standard settings? Maybe that is a possible reason for not getting good results ITB.

Look, I came from an all ITB background. I remember those days like I was living in a dungeon of dark, muddy mediocrity with no light. $175k later (LFAC + the standard entry level outboard pieces to cover all the bases) and it's without a doubt night and day; everything adds up into something very, very big for the end product. The differences are extreme by the end, and even the complete novice can clearly hear it and it is something BIG for them -- I see this on a daily basis.

And I sincerely wish that it didn't have to be that way !

I think the above paragraph tells us something of your evolution as a mixer (and possibly the monitoring, room you were in and workflow changes) more than about the difference in gear.

I also believe there is a huge psychological effect when one invests real money in gear and I don't mean the placebo effect. I think it makes people re-evaluate they way they do things. You insert your first hardware compressor (or whatever) for the first time and it will have a strong focusing effect on your hearing. You will be paying very close attention to the way it sounds, all the nuances in the signal you are processing. It will make you spend that much more time in the beginning (until you learn the gear and the new workflow). It will crystallise your thoughts and attention. It isn't dissimilar to playing back a mix or production to someone else for the first time. Suddenly you notice things that you hadn't noticed before even though you have been working on, and thus hearing, the same mix/project many times before. Nothing changed in the sound, yet your mind is focused in a different way...

Also, I believe that the effect of not looking at a GUI and the values it shows (and possibly spectrum analysers etc) and focusing on what you hear rather than what you see in itself can also have a great impact on one's sonic manipulations.

Ah the wonders of the human brain...

Alistair

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

Currently there are certain thing plugins can't do so hardware is still needed. Perhaps will always be needed. You can't substitute for a Pultec or a LA2A .You can't substitute for an RCA BA6A/BA6B. Also stuff like eventide harmonizers still blow away plugin offerings. There are 100s of other hardware units that plugin emulation still don't come close too. Plugins are cool for a home studio or for project studios or pro guys like JJP who don't make real rock records. If you want that 'sound', you need hardware to help you. I think the future for many years will be hybrid.

As long as you believe that,everything will be ok



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

Also stuff like eventide harmonizers still blow away plugin offerings.

I wonder what this does: KVR: H3000 Factory Ultra-Harmonizer by Eventide - Details

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

H3000 is a pretty cool multi-effect unit. It has a great reverb and delay,chorus and the best harmonizer/pitch shifter ever made. You've never heard one?

I was being sarcastic. I know exactly what it is and how it sounds. (And how the bigger brothers sound too).

Anyway, what you have is the plugin version of one in that link. However the plugin is not to be confused with the sonic greatness of a hardware H3000.

The plugin H3000 has exactly the same algorithms as the hardware version.

The fact Eventide still makes hardware proves plugins are no substitute.

It proves no such thing. It just means that people are willing to pay for hardware boxes for whatever reason.

Is this h3000 plug even out?

So above you were commenting about the sound of a plugin you have never heard? And yes it has been out for a long time. 5 years maybe? Maybe longer...

I have the space station plugs and they are not as good as their hardware patches.

According to Eventide they took the algorithms from the hardware unit. It seems you hear what you want to hear, not how things really sound. Expectation bias all the way...

Alistair

[u b k]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

According to Eventide they took the algorithms from the hardware unit.

That may be true (I have no idea), but it doesn't mean the algorithms were implemented identically, or that some changes had to be made to accommodate different processors, compilers etc.

Also, the lack of an analog front and back end on the plugin creates a huge gap between the sonics of the two products. Amps and converters have a sound, especially amps and converters from the days of the H3000.


Gregory Scott - ubk

[ionian]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

If you want to make organic rock and metal records & jazz, hardware is it.

If you do stuff like neoR&B and HipHop & top 40 sure plugins are cool. In fact they compliment the sterile nature of that music.

Lol...not sure where you've been but Jazz has been sterile for at least the past 35 years.

Regards,
Frank

[jrod9900]

I thought we had settled this debate???

JROD

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

there is more to DSP and FX than algorithms.

Like what?

The fact that H3000 is still the most sought after harmonizer yet it is 3 generations+ old?? will tell you there is something else going on there on the hardware side.

It means it is at least decent. Not much more. It certainly doesn't mean it is irreplaceable. Don't get me wrong, I like the Harmonizers but your argumentation isn't as solid as you think.

Human nature just isn't that straight forward. Just look at the situation with diamonds: Even the absolute top experts can't tell synthetic diamonds apart from "real" diamonds unless that have access to a state of the art laboratory with multi-million dollar equipment (and even then they can't always tell). Because of this, De Beers etch their logo into the diamonds they mine and sell. These "real" diamonds are worth significantly more on the market. Why is that? No one. Absolutely no one, not even a diamond expert, could look at someone's jewellery and tell if the diamonds used are "real" or synthetic. That is just how illogical and irrational humans are.

Although I can guarantee the plugin will not be able to do advanced pitch shifting voicings in real-time like and h3000.

How can you guarantee such a thing? Not only does it do exactly that, but it is kind of obvious to anyone that knows anything about DSP and computers that a DSP card like the PT TDM cards and, even more so, a modern CPU has vastly more processing power than an H3000. So why couldn't a plugin do the things a hardware H3000 does? Please explain.

If plugins are so great why do PCM42s and AMS verbs still bring a chunk of change on auction? Why do people still buy Lexi 200? 224xl? 480l? even PCM 70? which is near 30 years old will get $600 on ebay. Is it because no plugin is capable of tiled room and the thickest sounding delays and chorsues ever made?? not sure, Is it mystique? I think not.

Again, human nature just doesn't work that way. Hardware has an effect on people that plugins just doesn't have irrespective of their sound. Also, there are good reasons to have hardware if the rest of your setup is hardware. If it fits in your workflow and routing scheme then it can make sense.

And let's not forget the sheer bling bling factor!

For me anyone who disses hardware has never used hardware, or they never used good hardware.

In case it wasn't clear, I'm not dissing hardware. I'm pointing out that the dissing of plugins is ridiculous, irrational and ill-informed.

We are only talking PCM oldschool digital here.

And what do you think that old-school digital can do that plugins can't? Except the ergonomics of hardware controls of course.

Not in a million years will plugins be able to copy what some hardware like tubs and transformers bring to the sound. It's a totally different domain.

I would say we are already mostly there but some people will never believe that.

Plugins have a place but the for atleast the time being are not capable of replacing all hardware. If you make demos with your fanboys or you run a little project studio, plugins are all good.

And there you go again with the silly prejudices.

Here are a couple of pictures of examples of digital/plugin based "demo studios" for the "fanboys":

If you want to make organic rock and metal records & jazz, hardware is it.

For you...

If you do stuff like neoR&B and HipHop & top 40 sure plugins are cool. In fact they compliment the sterile nature of that music.

Although those genres are not exactly my cup of tea, this type of comment is rude and extremely narrow minded.

Alistair

[UnderTow]

Originally Posted by u b k

That may be true (I have no idea), but it doesn't mean the algorithms were implemented identically, or that some changes had to be made to accommodate different processors, compilers etc.

Sure but GaryWeinrib seems to believe that plugins inherently can't do what hardware DSP can do. He didn't even know the plugin existed and at it's mere mention he automatically claims without hesitation that it can't do what the hardware could do. That just shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about DSP, computers and plugins.

Also, the lack of an analog front and back end on the plugin creates a huge gap between the sonics of the two products. Amps and converters have a sound, especially amps and converters from the days of the H3000.

Yes this makes a difference. Probably the biggest difference. Thank goodness we can now access that digital greatness without having to go through old fashioned ADC's and DACs that degrade the sound! (You can always degrade the sound if that is what you are after...)

Alistair

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

Sure but GaryWeinrib seems to believe that plugins inherently can't do what hardware DSP can do. He didn't even know the plugin existed and at it's mere mention he automatically claims without hesitation that it can't do what the hardware could do. That just shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about DSP, computers and plugins.



Yes this makes a difference. Probably the biggest difference. Thank goodness we can now access that digital greatness without having to go through old fashioned ADC's and DACs that degrade the sound! (You can always degrade the sound if that is what you are after...)

Alistair

i agree with u Mr. Tow!


but i do feel like they have not ported over accurate algos yet.them old units had 25-100 mhz chips in them.even the samplers and workstation keyboards,capable of running 128 notes(at the same time) of polyphony.

long story short,they had special cpu's and special codes to make then work together.data compression was thier biggest allie!

converters,samplerate,bit rate and other things shaped the sound of those units.

i honestly don"t think a simple algo port will do the trick.

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by u b k

That may be true (I have no idea), but it doesn't mean the algorithms were implemented identically, or that some changes had to be made to accommodate different processors, compilers etc.

Also, the lack of an analog front and back end on the plugin creates a huge gap between the sonics of the two products. Amps and converters have a sound, especially amps and converters from the days of the H3000.


Gregory Scott - ubk

perfect

[u b k]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

(You can always degrade the sound if that is what you are after...)

Oh, it's generally what I'm after!

But seriously, the i/o on those old boxes had a great sound, and was part of their magic imho. I always felt that if they would just model the analog parts of the circuit as well as porting the digital, and offer the ability to engage those circuits on a toggle switch, these plugins would satisfy more people in more situations because they'd have an extra layer of vibe.

And really... who's running into an H3000 and expecting their sound to somehow stay pristine? The whole point of that box is to warp and mangle with vigor!


Gregory Scott - ubk

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

there is more to DSP and FX than algorithms. The fact that H3000 is still the most sought after harmonizer yet it is 3 generations+ old?? will tell you there is something else going on there on the hardware side.

The more I read of your posts, the more I think you like to parrot the opinions of others without actually having much real world experience!

Yes, there are plenty of H3000s still in commercial studios. They still do get used a fair bit. Usually on the "micro-pitchshift", "Rich chorus" or one or two other presets that I've forgotten offhand. Plenty of times, they don't get turned on. Even by the guys who grew up on them - they've got used to doing things ITB.

Never does someone turn on an H3000 and sit there trying out reverbs, delays, or anything else. It's always the same 3-4 presets.

As for "something more going on" - that something is analogue stages and conversion. Which as has been pointed out, can be dealt with later if needed.

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

So Eventide does a plugin of the h3000? not the 4000? not he 7XXX series? hmmm...marketing? hype? not sure. Although I can guarantee the plugin will not be able to do advanced pitch shifting voicings in real-time like and h3000.

You are aware just how much you undermine your own cred by stating "I've never heard it" but then "I guarantee it's crap"? Don't ever become an underwriter will you!

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

If plugins are so great why do PCM42s and AMS verbs still bring a chunk of change on auction? Why do people still buy Lexi 200? 224xl? 480l? even PCM 70? which is near 30 years old will get $600 on ebay. Is it because no plugin is capable of tiled room and the thickest sounding delays and chorsues ever made?? not sure, Is it mystique? I think not.

- Ease of use and other workflow benefits.

- familiarity - if you know what you want, why would you be interested if there's another way to get it, if the way you know is available? When you're driving, do you often look into alternative routes, or do you just take the one you know works and rarely has traffic? Or do you just look for alternatives if there's a problem with the original route?

- supply and demand - if enough people want something that's in limited supply, the price goes up.

- nostalgia

- customer demand - if you've got an SSL room and no little white box sitting on the console, some people won't look at booking you.

I'm not saying that "vintage digital" doesn't have something about it, I love a lot of those boxes. I'm saying that just because something's popular, doesn't make it superior.

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

For me anyone who disses hardware has never used hardware, or they never used good hardware. We are only talking PCM oldschool digital here. I won't even bring up Pultecs, LA2A, Fairchild? RCA? and the analog holy grails. Not in a million years will plugins be able to copy what some hardware like tubs and transformers bring to the sound. It's a totally different domain.

Well, unlike you, some of us HAVE tried the things we're talking about

I love good hardware - I've just spent a load of cash on looms to integrate my mixbuss chain with my new OMNI interface - but that doesn't mean I can't work with plugins as well.

I think it's stupidly bold to say "never in a million years" when already most people can't tell the difference between ITB and OTB if they're done well. And if you don't believe me, I've offered up tests before where I've put forward mixes I know were done a mixture of ITB/OTB/hybrid, and the person making the statement hasn't been able to tell me which were which.

It's VERY hard to mix a record well 100% ITB, especially if the tracking hasn't taken advantage of analogue processing. However, it's not impossible - because some have done it.

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

Plugins have a place but the for atleast the time being are not capable of replacing all hardware. If you make demos with your fanboys or you run a little project studio, plugins are all good. If you want to make organic rock and metal records & jazz, hardware is it.

If you do stuff like neoR&B and HipHop & top 40 sure plugins are cool. In fact they compliment the sterile nature of that music.

You definitely don't work in high end studios, at least on commercial projects.

As for Hiphop being sterile...can you even name 10 modern hiphop artists? I mean "real" hiphop, not chart pop-hop?

[hugol]

Originally Posted by UnderTow

That is a purely UAD issue. If you can run 10 instances on a UAD-2 Quad, you can run between 50 and 200 on a decent modern computer natively (assuming the plugin exists in native format). And no I don't believe there is anything special about UAD plugins besides retro GUIs and very successful marketing.

Alistair

Yep agreed. Although I would bet that one of the reasons so many hardware companies (e.g. Manley) could be persuaded to let UAD produce pretty damn accurate emulations of their kit - was because of the copy protection (they get a cut per sale after all) and the inherent limitations of the DSP (i.e. not being able to run very many instances).

As much as the UAD cards are in my opinion are very expensive prerequisite and not all that useful nowadays (from an offload perspective for those with an up-to-date PC) - they obviously offer an uncrackable approach that is no doubt very attractive to the companies for which UAD is emulating their hardware.

Also whilst I'm very extremely tempted to sell my UAD cards/plug-ins, there is no denying the quality and stability of the plug-ins. I notice zipper noise adjusting my Duende native channel strip the other day in real time - you don't get this with UAD plugins - great GUIs - rock solid stability (I've never seen a crash due to my UAD plug-ins) and v. easy to install and license.

However i can run the Duende plug-ins on me laptop with a small dongle (ok the dongle is a pain, but better than a stonking great external hardware box (Satellite) I don't even own that requires it's own PSU). Don't get me wrong I thing the Satellite is very cool, but more applicable for freelancers who want to carry around their plug-ins, not for those of use who occasionally travel with our laptops and want as little kit as possible.

I also think that UA really know their shit when it comes to analysing hardware and writing efficient and pretty damn representative algorithms - due to the talents of Dave Berners who I have no doubt is at the forefront of what he does. Sure there's no physical reason he couldn't write the same algorithms natively (optimising for a common CPU baseline I guess rather than taking advantage of the latest features of newer CPUs - although you could do this, but it would no doubt be much more effort) but there's not sign of UAD wanting to do this (and it's easy to understand why).

Of course you do start to wonder if we really need to continue emulating limited hardware devices to the letter when software is capable of so much more flexibility. Hardware has to be built to a particular budget and for a specific limited task - but even if emulating the hardware for sonic purposes (and marketing) makes sense software of course doesn't need to emulate all the limitations in exacting detail.

Also I'm really surprised UA haven't reduced the costs of the DSP cards yet. There are many excellent native options now - and to have to pay so much money just to be able to purchase and run what are premium priced plug-ins seems a bit much in todays market. Which of course you can't sell individually second hand either (this is an arse).

The UAD apollo was a very clever move and has no doubt driven up plug-in sales significantly, but I can't help feeling they should be giving away at least the Solo card with our cornflakes nowadays (not literally, but you get my gist).

Ok enough waffle! Bored everyone enough.

[hugol]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

there is more to DSP and FX than algorithms. The fact that H3000 is still the most sought after harmonizer yet it is 3 generations+ old?? will tell you there is something else going on there on the hardware side.

Well as pointed out obviously any A/D and D/A conversion on a hardware unit can influence the sound.

In terms of the DSP vs native - well clearly you take advantage of the underlying instruction set and architecture for efficiency reasons. So I wold say whilst you can port the algorithm easily enough there may be differences in truncation etc - and of course natively it's easy to perform 64-bit or greater maths (SSE) that you can't do natively on most (audio) DSPs.

Also as I understand it it's quite common to approximate certain mathematical functions that aren't available natively (e.g. on the DSP) - using techniques such as of lookup tables.

So yes there might be some small real world differences. I think people tested the UAD Brainworkx EQ against the native version for example and there were differences due to lower resolution processing on the DSP - of course that's not to say people might actually prefer this (although I also think people overestimate their powers of perception by a huge amount).

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

For me anyone who disses hardware has never used hardware, or they never used good hardware. We are only talking PCM oldschool digital here. I won't even bring up Pultecs, LA2A, Fairchild? RCA? and the analog holy grails. Not in a million years will plugins be able to copy what some hardware like tubs and transformers bring to the sound. It's a totally different domain.

Plugins have a place but the for atleast the time being are not capable of replacing all hardware. If you make demos with your fanboys or you run a little project studio, plugins are all good. If you want to make organic rock and metal records & jazz, hardware is it.

Well again you might prefer the hardware mainly due to the conversion, but modern boxes with dozens of very fast (and expensive - TigerSharc(?)) DSP chips aside (yes THAT reverb) don't kid yourself that a modern CPU can't run rings around most DSP hardware and barely break a sweat. Don't take my word for it search for posts by Sean Costello on this forum for example.

Also don't forget many people have claimed they can't tell a difference (or can barely tell a difference) between some of the best modern plug-ins and their hardware. I'm talking things like UAD Massive Passive, 1176 Collection etc here - and UAD have publicly stated they have emulated all sorts of non-lineararities due to components like inductors and transformers on the hardware units.

So I really don't accept your claim about a million years - we're so close now the differences between different hardware units are frequently more significant - and processing power is increasing all the time.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

gin and juice
g thang
straight outta Compton
walk this way
Rapper's Delight
Let Me ride
Fight The Power
Dear Mama
Juicy
Keep Ya Head Up

- You think Rapper's delight is "sterile"?
- I said "modern hip hop artists" not list a couple of tunes you might have heard of, starting with what is recognised as one of the first occurrences of "rapping"!
- "Walk this way"...is much more rock and pop than it is hip hop!

I think point proved..you don't actually know any (modern) hip hop at all, bar what you might have heard in the charts (pop hop).

You seem to be making a habit of not really knowing much about the things you're expressing an opinion on! I don't mean to dog on you personally..I'm sure you have your strengths...just maybe stick to things you do actually know in the future? you won't see me commenting on the best sounding snare head or what the best speakers for mastering are...I don't know...but I do know about the things I am commenting on!

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

gin and juice
g thang
straight outta Compton
walk this way
Rapper's Delight
Let Me ride
Fight The Power
Dear Mama
Juicy
Keep Ya Head Up

Lmfaoooo :o o god this guy is funny!

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by hugol

Well as pointed out obviously any A/D and D/A conversion on a hardware unit can influence the sound.

In terms of the DSP vs native - well clearly you take advantage of the underlying instruction set and architecture for efficiency reasons. So I wold say whilst you can port the algorithm easily enough there may be differences in truncation etc - and of course natively it's easy to perform 64-bit or greater maths (SSE) that you can't do natively on most (audio) DSPs.

Also as I understand it it's quite common to approximate certain mathematical functions that aren't available natively (e.g. on the DSP) - using techniques such as of lookup tables.

So yes there might be some small real world differences. I think people tested the UAD Brainworkx EQ against the native version for example and there were differences due to lower resolution processing on the DSP - of course that's not to say people might actually prefer this (although I also think people overestimate their powers of perception by a huge amount).



Well again you might prefer the hardware mainly due to the conversion, but modern boxes with dozens of very fast (and expensive - TigerSharc(?)) DSP chips aside (yes THAT reverb) don't kid yourself that a modern CPU can't run rings around most DSP hardware and barely break a sweat. Don't take my word for it search for posts by Sean Costello on this forum for example.

Also don't forget many people have claimed they can't tell a difference (or can barely tell a difference) between some of the best modern plug-ins and their hardware. I'm talking things like UAD Massive Passive, 1176 Collection etc here - and UAD have publicly stated they have emulated all sorts of non-lineararities due to components like inductors and transformers on the hardware units.

So I really don't accept your claim about a million years - we're so close now the differences between different hardware units are frequently more significant - and processing power is increasing all the time.

I think the 1176 revisions are really close.

Massive passive,not even close.pultec pro not even close!

But they are are still great sounding plugins.

I agree,CPU power will give programmers more head room to work with!

Even Vcc had to be cut back to preserve precious cycles!I wish they would keep them CPU heavy,if the Plugins actually sound better that way!

I'll freeze trackz,or process in place if need be.

But I'm with ya pretty much on what your saying.



Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[joeq]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

gin and juice
g thang
straight outta Compton
walk this way
Rapper's Delight
Let Me ride
Fight The Power
Dear Mama
Juicy
Keep Ya Head Up

Asked to name "10 modern hip-hop artists" Gary comes up with almost an identical list to VH1's Top Ten Greatest Hip-Hop songs of all time.

VH1, yo!

The more I read of your posts, the more I think you like to parrot the opinions of others without actually having much real world experience!

yes, it's almost as if he is cutting and pasting from the internet.

[psycho_monkey]

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

I was referring to new rap, they didn't 'sample' in 1980 when rappers delight came out. Excluding melotron and tape looping the first digital 'sample' on lp, was actually in 1983 if you know your history. I assume you know the song and the producer as knowledgeable as you are, so I don't have to mention them.

Err, what the hell has this got to do with anything?! I asked you to prove the depth of your knowledge on how modern rap is so sterile by asking you about some of the artists you're commenting on, you replied with a list of random "classic" rap, none of which is relevant.

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

without fools like me not really knowing much, you would have nothing to comment on it seems??
I see you on every thread correcting everyone. Keep up the good work!! If we all pay close attention to you and your detail we will all benefit and become more knowledgeable in the process. I thank you for this.

The only people I "correct" are those who either say something that I can prove is technically WRONG, or calling them out when their opinion appears to be internet parroting. Which is on the increase it seems.

A lot of my posts are either general advice (which is always listed as such), or computer troubleshooting (which I know a LOT about hence feel qualified to give it).

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

I've only been recording for a year or so, but I have been a fan of music and production for years, so admittedly I have a lot to learn.

Case in point.

We've all got a lot to learn...but some of us stick to actually commenting on stuff we know first hand. I'm very lucky to have watched and learned from some top engineers and producers, and count some of them as friends, so when I make a comment about someone specifically, or general practice in high end studios, it's from experience, not from some pictures, an interview or internet babble.

If EVERYONE did that, the forum would be a lot more informative with less noise. At the moment, "fact" appears to be a dirty word.

Originally Posted by GaryWeinrib

However currently why isn't there a Bricasti M7 plugin? and why does an h3000 sound better than a 4000? why do they make a plugin for the h3000 and not the 7500? why do people still use lexicon and ams hardware verbs? why are fairchild comps LA2A comps and neve eq still sought after is a plugin can do the same thing?

No bricasti plugin? Bricasti haven't developed one.

h3000 better than a 4000? I'm not the right person to ask, I've not A/B'd them. Sometimes in "improving" a product technically, companies lose what people liked about the old one. Is one suggestion.

Why do people still use hardware verbs? Habit, familiarity (ie they know how to get exactly what they want from them), availability, and yes sound. Put it another way - I don't know many pro engineers/producers who've invested in a 480 for their personal rooms, even when they're relatively affordable. They're happy to use them when someone else is paying for/maintaining them.... but the difference isn't enough to make the personal investment worth it.

fairchild/LA2As? Lots of reasons....one of them being that yes, the hardware is more satisfying to use, and probably sounds "better" in some ways. Personally I'd rather have a working plugin than an unreliable LA-2A, just as I'd rather have a good modern valve mic rather than a U47 which was unreliable. Tools get the job done.

I think the thing you have to realise is that the guys espousing hardware and no plugins on here either a) have a very set working method that works for them, their clients and so on or b) don't really "work" in the industry. Your average session isn't like a Sound on Sound article; there's rarely the chance to try every compressor and preamp on every source (vocals being the usual exception), it's much more a case of "get the job done". Most people who actually make a living have a favourite set of tools, but will usually take anything of quality.

For example, I'm sitting here in my little home setup (where I have a hardware mixbuss chain), and I've just finished editing a B-Side for a UK pop band....all guitars at the moment are amp sims (they may be re-amped I don't know), no live bass amp, it's been tracked in a small-ish studio with quality gear though, pretty much the whole production will be done ITB...and I'd imagine more people will hear that B-Side than material the rest of us have recorded. This is a session for a major label though, they're not interested in purist recording, but believe me the track has to "sound" good. It's not my recording, probably not the way I'd go about it, but it's gonna work. Meanwhile, everyone on GS will be arguing about what a real LA-2A does.

Just some food for thought. I'm not saying this is something to aspire to...merely how things often are. And very much in keeping with the thoughts behind the original thread.

That's me for today, I'm on a long haul flight tonight and still have to finish up some stuff!

[hugol]

Originally Posted by FLYINGJAY

Massive passive,not even close.pultec pro not even close!

But they are are still great sounding plugins.

Not having used a real Massive Passive I'm the first to admit I'm not qualified to comment - but I have read reviews from people who have who could barely tell the difference (I think in SoundOnSound but whatever).

Yeah the Pultec Pro is a very old plug-in that like all old UAD EQs only models the curves and phase behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if UAD are actively working on a new updated version that models the rest like they did with the 1176s.

[jrod9900]

79 pages of this back and forth arguement?

JROD

[FLYINGJAY]

Originally Posted by hugol

Not having used a real Massive Passive I'm the first to admit I'm not qualified to comment - but I have read reviews from people who have who could barely tell the difference (I think in SoundOnSound but whatever).

Yeah the Pultec Pro is a very old plug-in that like all old UAD EQs only models the curves and phase behaviour. I wouldn't be surprised if UAD are actively working on a new updated version that models the rest like they did with the 1176s.

There were a bunch of examples back on soundonsound website,and I heard a big difference.

Also the pultec compared to the original is still on the UA website,in the pultec video examples.

Maybe my well treated room and msc1 room control,expose more than others in untreated rooms can hear?

I'm a big plugin guy,I know that CPU power have been the blame in some cases.

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[string6theory]

The way forward "in time" - mayhaps, but I can't wait forever
The way forward "in sonics" - depends... it really does.


I happily move forward with both HW and plugs. I always prefer HW, so far, save for digital limiting, de-essing, quick & slight EQ/comp tweaks, Sound Toys FX, and BFD (mmm... Andy Johns lib), among others.


Great HW's, when tracking, help big time.

Great plugs, when mixing, help big time

Great HW's, when capturing 2-bus, help big time (to the luv'd Korg MR2000).

Great plugs, when digital limiting to final level & format, help big time.


This is why BOTH HW & PLUG-INS are the way forward... for moi(!) and vous(?)

[whiteaxxxe]

Originally Posted by Fenris

George Harrison was NOT a great guitarist by any stretch of the imagination, although to be fair, he didn't overplay and understood the lead guitar's place in the ensemble. It was the gear that made that sound. A re-issue Vox AC30 sounds NOTHING like the original. If they can't duplicate that sound with real amp, they sure aren't going to do it with modelling software.

so I read the whole thread so far ... and I said to myself: dont comment on anything, that is older than 14 days.

a good laugh here and then and often palmfacing when reading fenris' comments and rants. that was what I told myself is ok.

but now I cant stand the Fenris-BS any more.

regardless what arguments are brought to the table: Fenris knows better. seldom had the experience of such a militant BS-talker. I dont think that you, Fenris, have the slightest clue what you are talking about.

top is all is: Fenris judges guitarists. wow. and your judgement about GH is the biggest and some of the silliest things I have ever read. this tells at least, that I was right in thinking about you as a permanent BS-talker.

the sound of the solo of nowhere man is simply the result from what they did with the things they actually had at that time. simple as that. in no way was intended to give an example of how pristine and clean a tape can be. what a bullshit!

and besides of that: GH is one of the most brilliant guitarist of all times. guess why ... you will never get it. and therefore I dont want an answer. all I expect from you is ranting on about digital, so that I can have a good laugh from time to time.

and when time comes and I will buy another VOX-amp, I will call you, because you are the master of amps with all your knowledge about that. :-))) really ... I think, the only criteria you have on any issue is: was it in the 70s? then its good ... was it after that or is it know? thumby down ... you sound to me always like my grandparents in the 60s. "I dont understand nothing, I will not understand nothing, and I dont need to understand anything never nver never!"

silly man, very, very silly attitude.

[whiteaxxxe]

Originally Posted by archfrenemy

What if a discovery was made that natural sine waves tended to show an imperfect of erratic behavior over extremely small fractions of time? The sampling method would be unable to register it under our current methodology.

1. if a sine-wave would be altered in the slightest way - like you desribed it - it wouldnt be a sine-wave but a bunch of sine-waves. (Fourier) so this new combination of sine-waves are captured by the Shannon-Nyquist-theorem as well as any other given sine-wave or a pure sine-wave.

2. if the erratic change is in a so small amount of time, it is above the hearing capabilities of the human ear.

3. you are not open minded to alternate conceptions, you are trying to find a way out of your corner, into which you have "discussed" yourself. doesnt work, as long as you are playing in the field of maths and physics. there is no "and if someone finds that Pythagoras, Gauss, Archimedes, Nyquist, Heisenberg, Zuse and-wtf-for-brains were wrong". there is no way out. 1 +1 = 2. there will be no more "newer scientific research about this theorem. same goes for sampling-theory. ist a law of nature.

[devastat]

Will plugins ever match the sound of analogue 100%? No, but people will be accustomed to the sound of the digital and it becomes the norm. It's already happening. This is what happened in the film world before music. Eventually analogue will be affiliated with something "old".

[dino321]

Originally Posted by whiteaxxxe

s
and besides of that: GH is one of the most brilliant guitarist of all times.

Thank you. That needed to be said.