Plugin vs Hardware reverb?

[jnorman]

given an equal expenditure, will a hardware reverb always be better than a plugin reverb?

for example, i can buy a fairly decent plugin in for perhaps $200-$500 (UAD-2, VSS3, etc). for that same money, i can buy TC Electronics M-One XL or M350 hardware box.

a primary consideration for me is seamless integration of any hardware box into my DAW system, such that i can control the hardware via VST, just like a plugin. i want to be able to directly render projects to wav files without having to go external and burn CDs in realtime just to utilize an external piece of gear. the M350 apparently does that, but the M-One XL does not seem to do that, nor do most of the other boxes i have looked at.

thanks for any thoughts or comments.

[Wayne]

Originally Posted by jnorman

.. i want to be able to directly render projects to wav files without having to go external and burn CDs in realtime just to utilize an external piece of gear. the M350 apparently does that, but the M-One XL does not seem to do that, nor do most of the other boxes i have looked at. .

I'm not following there. With the TC you would not have to record the effect real time as fx tracks in the project prior to bouncing to a mix track or exporting the mix?
Also I don't understand your reference to burning a cd in this?
(FWIW; PCM80/90, Aether verb, Lex Pantheon, UAD 140, a few other plugs here.

[rumleymusic]

given an equal expenditure, will a hardware reverb always be better than a plugin reverb?

Just to chime in, I would think the opposite. To see an improvement with a hardware reverb, one would have to spend much more over software. Just because of manufacturing costs.

A few DAWs have the ability to add a VST plugin that acts like an IO stream for external effects. You have to dedicate part of your interface's analog or digital outs to that specific device, but you can control it like a plugin in your DAW. Personally, I like the ease of software, and I love the quality of my IR1 room sounds. Sure it is no Bricasti, but I've got three kids to feed

[Dubai]

Originally Posted by jnorman

given an equal expenditure, will a hardware reverb always be better than a plugin reverb?

for example, i can buy a fairly decent plugin in for perhaps $200-$500 (UAD-2, VSS3, etc). for that same money, i can buy TC Electronics M-One XL or M350 hardware box.

a primary consideration for me is seamless integration of any hardware box into my DAW system, such that i can control the hardware via VST, just like a plugin. i want to be able to directly render projects to wav files without having to go external and burn CDs in realtime just to utilize an external piece of gear. the M350 apparently does that, but the M-One XL does not seem to do that, nor do most of the other boxes i have looked at.

thanks for any thoughts or comments.

Native reverbs plugins Shoot-Out thread

SSL Duende X-Verb Lexicon inspired?

3 on 3 – Hardware or Plugin? (Reverb Shootout)

Can we really hear the difference? Bric vs Impulses

Found:: Reverb plugin vs. rack unit tests http://www.diasonicdesign.com/tech/reverbs/

Bricasti vs Epicverb

Lexicon MPX 1 audio demos

Found --> Lexicon Native vs. IK CSR

Spring Reverb AU suggestions?

[Michaelrophone]

I'm not exactly what the O.P. is asking here.

But for the sake of stirring up the bees, I have thought a lot about this:

With the exception of a few specialty reverbs, what would be the point of using a hardware box when plug-ins have come so far and are so readily available?

I mean, I'm with the school of thought that a digital mock-up will never sound AS good (or at least as accurate) as a true spring or plate reverb. But this is remote land, and I'm a die-hard mobile guy. So, you have to admit that neither of these are, in any way, "portable". A BX-whatever... maaaaaybe, but why would you want to do that to yourself?

And not to mention the maintenance... I'm an analog guy through and through, but I think the collection of tape machines collecting dust in my storage locker speaks for itself. Let's just call a spade a spade in that the upkeep on these babies is a lot of work. And I can't afford down-time. These are dog-eat-dog times and time spent down is time spent broke. Plug-ins require no maintenance and sound the same every single time.

And here's another counterpoint: Aren't a lot of these coveted hardware boxes still digital reverbs? One would think that whatever digital technology is sitting inside these boxes should be able to be replicated within "the box". You mean to tell me that I can talk face-to-face in real-time with a client in Israel, but nobody can replicate the digital technology somebody dropped in a box back in 1985? Even my phone can be used to play pong (and it's wireless to boot!).

So, I guess my question would be WHY would a plug-in emulation sound any different? Was it the $%&#ty conversion of the 80's that made it sound so good? If that's the case then someone should design a $%&#ty conversion emulator (preferably in the form of a plug-in) and make life a hell of a lot easier for us. In fact, you'd probably make a fortune off it. Too bad I'm not a software guy...

Sorry for the rant. I'll show myself out.

[Den]

Originally Posted by jnorman

will a hardware reverb always be better than a plugin reverb?

I think will not..

http://www.gearslutz.com/board/5212247-post7.html