Are We All Being Fooled Or What? Because...

[phillysoulman]

Originally Posted by larrygates

I'm way late in this, but just my side note. I have lots of high end plug in compressors. They're nice and all, they do their job. But the scary thing is my dbx 166 sounds better than pretty much ALL my software compressors.

I'm really not going to talk about an Amek rack EQ. The slope isn't as steep with EQ versus compression, but there's still a slope.

It's just odd, that it hasn't been "figured" out yet, to bring the entire picture into the box.

UAD is very good, as is Nebula. But it's easier to patch in a comp or EQ tweak, render move on. Always render, for the childrens sake, always render.

From that Demo article, I see printing an efx channel is a nice idea too. More time based effects than amplitude based efx (obviously).

Good discussion, wonder what the younger guys think about this one.

Larry,Is the Nebula stuff VST only or is there an RTAS version??

[larrygates]

Originally Posted by phillysoulman

Larry,Is the Nebula stuff VST only or is there an RTAS version??

I'm not sure, I'm not super in the know about Nebula, I just have it. It's great, best soft EQ in the game. It's coming along with compression (that's good too btw).

For your question, I think they are working hard on a Mac version. They're a slow team since they're by themselves. I use PC mostly, really no mac at all anymore. You're on a Mac I presume? If you're on a PC, I'm pretty sure you can do a VST -> RTAS, but that's the only option I know of.

Please stay away from Nebula though unless you have about a day to figure out just how to install it. Then download the programs. Then not have the plugin eat up 60% of your CPU on just 1 EQ / preamp / tape algo. It's really involved, kind of like setting up a UAD card, but more intense.

Sorry for all the ranting, but that plug is really hard to grasp at first, and if you don't have at least a serious dual core (Quad is better) then forget it.

[rallycapmusic]

Originally Posted by larrygates

But the scary thing is my dbx 166 sounds better than pretty much ALL my software compressors.

You know what conserns me about this quote? ITS VERY TRUE. This guy hears the difference. And so do I.

[larrygates]

Originally Posted by rallycapmusic

You know what conserns me about this quote? ITS VERY TRUE. This guy hears the difference. And so do I.

Thanks Rallycap. There's 2 ways to look at this.

1. What's trying to be done with 1's and 0's is a mathematical formula of a "REAL" physical phenomenon of "ENERGY" passing through "REAL" circuits that are affected by laws that pretty much no one understands. If anyone understood them, they would probably be able to master / rewrite them. Sorry that's a little philosophical, but true. It's just an approximation of a idea of a working "REAL" model.

2. Dem Software S-h-i-t's are TINY in comparison. They do things to transients and audio that just sounds . . . um . . . plastic for lack of a better term. Oh well. They get the job done, and a lot of hit makers bank accounts aren't complaining. Although it's more so the collective vision than a few plugs / outboard gear.

Great thread.

Oh yeah, don't be FOOLED though. As soon I stop hearing the diff and the build up of harmonics that affects sound as much as individual efx. I'm ditching HW altogether. ie / there is no real plus for using "REAL" synths as opposed to Soft Synths. Yes Real ones sound better, but it's pretty easy to get in that ball park with just re amping soft synths through pre-amps and such. But the touch factor really needs to be addressed, that's about as important as the sound.

[rallycapmusic]

Originally Posted by larrygates

Thanks Rallycap. There's 2 ways to look at this.

1. What's trying to be done with 1's and 0's is a mathematical formula of a "REAL" physical phenomenon of "ENERGY" passing through "REAL" circuits that are affected by laws that pretty much no one understands. If anyone understood them, they would probably be able to master / rewrite them. Sorry that's a little philosophical, but true. It's just an approximation of a idea of a working "REAL" model.

2. Dem Software S-h-i-t's are TINY in comparison. They do things to transients and audio that just sounds . . . um . . . plastic for lack of a better term. Oh well. They get the job done, and a lot of hit makers bank accounts aren't complaining. Although it's more so the collective vision than a few plugs / outboard gear.

Great thread.

Oh yeah, don't be FOOLED though. As soon I stop hearing the diff and the build up of harmonics that affects sound as much as individual efx. I'm ditching HW altogether. ie / there is no real plus for using "REAL" synths as opposed to Soft Synths. Yes Real ones sound better, but it's pretty easy to get in that ball park with just re amping soft synths through pre-amps and such. But the touch factor really needs to be addressed, that's about as important as the sound.

Just seems like hardware synth's sound a lil "warmer" to me. Seems like you have to "do alot" just to get a plug-in or software synth to sound that way. Thats REAL talk!

[larrygates]

Originally Posted by rallycapmusic

Just seems like hardware synth's sound a lil "warmer" to me. Seems like you have to "do alot" just to get a plug-in or software synth to sound that way. Thats REAL talk!

Yeah I agree. They're also faster to use. But, the trade off for non-recall, limited polyphony in some cases. Plus the fact that most synths are CPU's in a box with A/D D/A. Seriously with a good pre-amp / console / DI / you're pretty much in the same ball park. Plus in the club, they go nuts over what's happening now. And I'd put money a lot of it is soft synths.

But again I agree HW synths sound better and are easier, but . . .

Plugins are good for their place though, and when one doesn't have time to do routing bouncing with HW you gotta go for the next best.

[phillysoulman]

Originally Posted by larrygates

I'm not sure, I'm not super in the know about Nebula, I just have it. It's great, best soft EQ in the game. It's coming along with compression (that's good too btw).

For your question, I think they are working hard on a Mac version. They're a slow team since they're by themselves. I use PC mostly, really no mac at all anymore. You're on a Mac I presume? If you're on a PC, I'm pretty sure you can do a VST -> RTAS, but that's the only option I know of.

Please stay away from Nebula though unless you have about a day to figure out just how to install it. Then download the programs. Then not have the plugin eat up 60% of your CPU on just 1 EQ / preamp / tape algo. It's really involved, kind of like setting up a UAD card, but more intense.

Sorry for all the ranting, but that plug is really hard to grasp at first, and if you don't have at least a serious dual core (Quad is better) then forget it.

Thanks LG.

[computa]

Originally Posted by rallycapmusic

Just seems like hardware synth's sound a lil "warmer" to me. Seems like you have to "do alot" just to get a plug-in or software synth to sound that way. Thats REAL talk!

thumbsup

[Ky LaPimp]

Originally Posted by lospat123

well it does seem like alot of music today i dont know why but it just doesnt sound as good as older stuff and im not talking about rock or that. im talking about even hiphop. maybe they are just rushing stuff off quicker today?5 minute beat, 10 minute vocal. 30 minutes later usa number 1 lol okay maybe not that bad but its almost... music today just seems like its a machine trying to push out as many hits as fast as possible. plugins in my mind are good but i dont ever think u can truely say its beter than the hardware piece, cause in the end all the plugin does is trying to emulate a classic piece of gear, but how can u emulate something that has all that chips and circuits and stuff inside. we are moving away from the hardware and moving into the era of "laptop producers" im all for being able to make beats on the fly quick and stuff, but does it sound beter to me? no ways, try to emulate the feel and look of a ferrari in a computer game, not even possible, even if it looks like it sounds like ur still missing the feel of it... same with hardware ur still missing that feeling of actauly sitting there and having that piece of gear there and having u turn the stuff, watching the lights go on and stuff how can anyone tell me that software beats that?

I agree.But I don't think its the beats I think its the recording.I f you record Franky and Maze in PT, I and I repeat, I,so it's just my opinion.I don't think it will sound as good...And I record in PT but to me nothing can compair to the 70's and 80's sound as far as quality