What hardware can do that plug-ins still can not.

[norman_nomad]

In the last 3 years we've seen a lot of analog-emulation plug-ins hit the scene. I've demo'd most of them and I'm left feeling as if there are a few key qualities that plug-ins just aren't pulling off yet...

1. Distortion: Maybe not the first thing you'd think about a plug-in not doing well. But I'm talking about the "good" kind of distortion... the grit, edge, euphonic qualities that characterize our favorite gear. Distortion is actually very complex and there are a large variety of flavors - opamp distortion, diode distortion, transformer distortion, etc... and of course the amazingly dense varieties and flavors of tube distortion. I just don't hear that distortion happening accurately in plug-ins... or at least not nearly in the same interesting way as I can evoke from some outboard pieces.

Ever heard a tape sim plug that convinced you to sell your Ampex? Ever hear a amp sim plug that convinced you to sell your Vox?

2. Non-linearity: A hardware compressor never reacts the exact same way twice. There's an aliveness to this that I've yet to see executed well in a plug. I run a lot of my hardware units "dual mono" when I can because it often sounds wider... I rarely see this option with plug-ins. I imagine, from a plug designers perspective, choosing whichs sets of randomness to model in order to most accurately represent the inaccuracies of any hardware unit are the kinds of questions that make them hesitate from even getting out of bed in the morning...

3. The "Sweet Spot". What makes good outboard interesting is that it often changes its tone and voicing depending upon the gain staging and settings. Its tone is dynamic. Once you become familiar with the "personality" of a unit, you can use these "abnormalities" to your advantage... these ergonomics make hardware feel more "interactive" from the user perspective and thus more "musical" and more fun .... Maybe this falls under the "non-linearity" category, but I think it deserves its own.

Anyways…

I don’t hate plug-ins. I get a lot of mileage out of my UAD card along with a few other choice plugs…. But it just seems that when I want a plug-in to actually do what my hardware does… it mostly fails in the preceding categories.

Feel free to agree/disagree/elaborate.

[Kiwiburger]

No two hardware units sound the same as each other.
No two plugins sound the same as each other.
It's futile to expect a plugin to sound like hardware, or vice versa.

Both hardware and software are equally valid ways to process audio in their respective domains.

Good hardware sounds good.
Bad hardware sounds bad.
Good plugins sound good.
Bad plugins sound bad.

It is totally possible to fool experienced engineers in blindfold tests.
It is totally possible to mix a #1 hit ITB using plugins.

I've had owned cheap guitar hardware that sucked, and cheap guitar amp software that rocks. They are just tools. Used with convolution impulses of a great mic'd up cabinet, it's possible to fool experienced engineers.

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

No two hardware units sound the same as each other.
No two plugins sound the same as each other.
It's futile to expect a plugin to sound like hardware, or vice versa.

Both hardware and software are equally valid ways to process audio in their respective domains.

Good hardware sounds good.
Bad hardware sounds bad.
Good plugins sound good.
Bad plugins sound bad.

It is totally possible to fool experienced engineers in blindfold tests.
It is totally possible to mix a #1 hit ITB using plugins.

I've had owned cheap guitar hardware that sucked, and cheap guitar amp software that rocks. They are just tools. Used with convolution impulses of a great mic'd up cabinet, it's possible to fool experienced engineers.

Well sure, there are pros & cons, of course. But ya overall there are some generalities that hold. Overall hardware > software in some key aspects. I still appreciate the differences-alot.

Of course each is still musically viable-but not the same.

[tINY]

The plug in's don't hold down track and set-up sheets in a breeze very well. Heavy iron input and output transformers are good for this.....



-tINY

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

No two hardware units sound the same as each other.
No two plugins sound the same as each other.
It's futile to expect a plugin to sound like hardware, or vice versa.

Both hardware and software are equally valid ways to process audio in their respective domains.

Good hardware sounds good.
Bad hardware sounds bad.
Good plugins sound good.
Bad plugins sound bad.

It is totally possible to fool experienced engineers in blindfold tests.
It is totally possible to mix a #1 hit ITB using plugins.

I've had owned cheap guitar hardware that sucked, and cheap guitar amp software that rocks. They are just tools. Used with convolution impulses of a great mic'd up cabinet, it's possible to fool experienced engineers.

I totally agree and never made a claim about one medium being "better" than another ... or one tool being more "valid"....haven't we had enough of those pointless conversations?

The main thrust is to examine WHY plug-ins lack the QUALITIES listed in my first post...

Is it processing power? Is it the limitations of developers?

If you think I'm wrong, and that plug-ins can do everything hardware can plus some, then lets hear it... with specific examples...

I would love to hear from both plug-in AND hardware designers on the topic as well...

[grindx]

Hardware FX will not bog down your system.

[AdAudioInc]

Blow a fuse.

[Kiwiburger]

I totally agree and never made a claim about one medium being "better" than another ... or one tool being more "valid"....haven't we had enough of those pointless conversations?

The main thrust is to examine WHY plug-ins lack the QUALITIES listed in my first post...

Fatal logic flaw ... I didn't start this "pointless" thread.

And you ARE implying that hardware is better than software - don't be a dick.

Plugins "lack" the "quality" of hissing and humming. I suppose if you find hiss and hum comforting, then that is a lack. But I view this as a major benefit. I can always add hiss and hum if I want, and I don't want.

I have a truckload of plugins, mainly PC VST, and some are experimental. I can get some delicious subtle distortions that I struggle to get out of good hardware. I have the total PSP collection, and many Voxengo plugs, and some of those saturation effects are not bad. But freeware stuff like Christortion (which allows control over each harmonic) is exceptional.

But I also have a good selection of guitar pedals from Analogman and others, with NOS germainium transistors etc - because they sound significantly better than my PODxt. So I do understand what you are saying.

I just got my version 2 Reamp box today from www.reamp.com - i'm going to be doing some serious experimenting to see whether it really is better to reamp with my high end analog pedals, or to use some of my yummy plugins - this will be interesting ...

[music friend]

Hold value.

How much money can one get back on the resale of these plugins in say, 5-10 years? Main reason I decided to stop buying them, along with getting rocked for stupid upgrades all the time.

How much will an Icon (mouse) fetch in 15 years as compared to an API, SSL, NEVE, etc.?

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Fatal logic flaw ... I didn't start this "pointless" thread.

And you ARE implying that hardware is better than software - don't be a dick.

Plugins "lack" the "quality" of hissing and humming. I suppose if you find hiss and hum comforting, then that is a lack. But I view this as a major benefit. I can always add hiss and hum if I want, and I don't want.

I have a truckload of plugins, mainly PC VST, and some are experimental. I can get some delicious subtle distortions that I struggle to get out of good hardware. I have the total PSP collection, and many Voxengo plugs, and some of those saturation effects are not bad. But freeware stuff like Christortion (which allows control over each harmonic) is exceptional.

But I also have a good selection of guitar pedals from Analogman and others, with NOS germainium transistors etc - because they sound significantly better than my PODxt. So I do understand what you are saying.

I just got my version 2 Reamp box today from www.reamp.com - i'm going to be doing some serious experimenting to see whether it really is better to reamp with my high end analog pedals, or to use some of my yummy plugins - this will be interesting ...

Uncalled for hostility..chill & address the question at hand...

As to why...the sounds are created in entirely different ways; the miracle is that they sound so close! And yet they're dissimilar, because they use entirely different paths and technologies. There's no reason whatsoever that they should or could sound the same, given the dispirate processes involved. Digital vs. analog is definitely a big part. Digital's getting closer but is not the same animal, so to expect it to be exactly the same's probably unrealistic.

[robot gigante]

I think those questions might be better answered by designers and/or coders if you want real specifics as to why they don't perform the same. Let's not kid around about it- they don't perform the same.

I've noticed that Dave Derr for example has posted a few interesting thoughts on the subject (I'm too lazy to do a search and find them right now, plus I have to go finish a mix).

Anyways, I think that the answer that the sound is processed/created in very different ways is definitely a good one. I don't know if processing power is the main factor so much as that some processes that analog does very easily are extremely hard to implement in digital, and vice versa.

[Sqye]

..

hardware can WHAP you U P S I D E yaw HEDDDDDDD.....




(software whaps you INSIDE yaw heddddd)




..

[BOWIE]

The only thing that hardware can do that software can't do is sound good. Oh, and hardware can put you into credit card debt much easier.

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by Kiwiburger

Fatal logic flaw ... I didn't start this "pointless" thread.

No, you just tried to shift it in a pointless direction.

Enough of a dick for you?

Seriously though, I appreciate your insights and I know from your other posts that you have some EE experience...

I'm not interested in the analog vs. digital thing... I'm not trying to validate one as being better than the other...

I just want to know if others feel the same way... or whether I'm just missing out on the plug-ins that can actually pull this kind of stuff off..

I'm not pulling those initial examples out of my ass by the way... I've done A LOT of critical listening tests between different hardware and software pieces to know the differences... I've built my own outboard gear and modded it to better understand how different components affect the sound....

In all honesty... I don't hear any plug-ins that even come close to mimicing the sound of a transformer as it ramps up towards its saturation point...

Why is this?

The recent SSL plug thread is a PERFECT example of what I'm talking about... people complain about a "hazyness" in those plugs (which I happen to agree with)....Waves is trying to emulate the opamp or VCA distortion of the actual board... but the code doesn't quite nail it... I want to know why...

[not_so_new]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

The only thing that hardware can do that software can't do is sound good.

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

The only thing that hardware can do that software can't do is sound good..

[ryst]

Originally Posted by BOWIE

The only thing that hardware can do that software can't do is sound good.

I love these statements. They offer nothing to the thread but somehow people continue to feel the need to write them and feel proud of themselves for doing so.

And as far as the topic on hand. this has been discussed to death. People like what they like. Some like hardware, some like software. But good engineers can get good sounds out of both.

[H-Rezz]

Originally Posted by music friend

Hold value.

How much money can one get back on the resale of these plugins in say, 5-10 years? Main reason I decided to stop buying them, along with getting rocked for stupid upgrades all the time.

How much will an Icon (mouse) fetch in 15 years as compared to an API, SSL, NEVE, etc.?

Who cares how much you will get for them in 5-10 years ! Are you collecting or making music ? not to mention plugs are 1/10 the cost of their hardware counterparts in most cases , with endless instances per plug as much as your cpu can handle ! Both Hardware and plugs have their place in all facets of modern music production, all styles , the theory can be easily tested by finding out how many fellow Gearslutz use NO plug ins what so ever !

As far as the thread is concerned , my take is- do not expect anything to be one for one even though it claims it is , plug-ins trying to emulate analog has given us some great sounding plug-ins because the mentality of what they are trying to achieve , do they sound like the original ? My atittude is who cares because they sound good on their own without the comparison .

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by ryst

I love these statements. They offer nothing to the thread but somehow people continue to feel the need to write them and feel proud of themselves for doing so.

And as far as the topic on hand. this has been discussed to death. People like what they like. Some like hardware, some like software. But good engineers can get good sounds out of both.

Funny thing is you've offered nothing other than negativity yourself...what a hypocrite LOL

[kats]

What hardware can do that plug-ins still can not.

My main thing is that hardware is always compatable with studio upgrades. Software becomes obsolete much too fast. For eg, My UAD 1 card that's only 18 months old is PCI, now I have to dole out for a PCe version. Soon the algorythms will be too demanding for current cards and I'll have to dole out for a more powerful one.

Secondly (for compression) you can't use plugs for tracking. You guys still track right?

[ryst]

Originally Posted by analogbass

Funny thing is you've offered nothing other than negativity yourself...what a hypocrite LOL

Negative?

[mOjO FET]

I think that plug-ins are still in their initial phase as a technology. In ten maybe twenty years when
computers will be much more powerful the Plug-in or Virtual Instrument will develop itself as a technology
that can go beyond the common approach or application. I think this is what will give it it's own ground.

Today's approach to emulate hardware is like admiting it's own inferiority. But back in the fifties and sixties
when they started building hardware they didn't try to emulate anything.

I think it's a little "unfair" to compare plug-in's with hardware. Maybe it's like comparing a child to it's father.
Just have to wait until it grows up.


Michael

[Sqye]

Originally Posted by mOjO FET

I think that plug-ins are still in their initial phase as a technology. In ten maybe twenty years when
computers will be much more powerful the Plug-in or Virtual Instrument will develop itself as a technology
that can go beyond the common approach or application. I think this is what will give it it's own ground.

Today's approach to emulate hardware is like admiting it's own inferiority. But back in the fifties and sixties
when they started building hardware they didn't try to emulate anything.

I think it's a little "unfair" to compare plug-in's with hardware. Maybe it's like comparing a child to it's father.
Just have to wait until it grows up.


Michael

hey, that's a good observation - and one some of us tend to forget.....


..

[drockfresh]

Originally Posted by mOjO FET

I think that plug-ins are still in their initial phase as a technology. In ten maybe twenty years when
computers will be much more powerful the Plug-in or Virtual Instrument will develop itself as a technology
that can go beyond the common approach or application. I think this is what will give it it's own ground.
Michael

Then the "early century home studio" sound will be in style and kids will want to emulate the sound of "vintage" plugs.

How can I get that 'cool' harsh lo-fi sound of a software compressor circa 2007?

[analogbass]

Originally Posted by mOjO FET

I think that plug-ins are still in their initial phase as a technology. In ten maybe twenty years when
computers will be much more powerful the Plug-in or Virtual Instrument will develop itself as a technology
Michael

Ya, as i mentioned. No guarantee it will ever be the same though. Might be great in different ways, already getting there.

[El Fatso]

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

Who cares how much you will get for them in 5-10 years ! Are you collecting or making music ?

as long as you make enough money with it to pay it off then who care what the resell value is. its all profit

Originally Posted by H-Rezz

...do they sound like the original ? My atittude is who cares because they sound good on their own without the comparison .

great advice for ANYTHING that in ANY WAY emulates ANYTHING else! nothing will ever(for now) sound exactly like something else. so dont ever judge a piece of gear like that. the UA 1176 may not sound exactly like the urei but it still sounds great nonetheless. many mic reissues dont sound like the old skool versions but they still have a great sound. if it sounds good, then use it for what it sounds good with, even if its different than what the original sounded good with.

[chrisj]

Originally Posted by norman_nomad

I would love to hear from both plug-in AND hardware designers on the topic as well...

You do, eh? (examples are always dry/effected)

I'm given to understand SansAmp Bass Driver is quite good hardware. I thought well enough of the voicing of it that I did a plugin like that, but with different (smoother) overdrive algorithms. The filtering is actually the tough part in digital.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/BassDrive.mp3

Time delay plugins are trivial in sampling systems if you're doing an exact number of samples- but a bear if you need to get between-sample positions. The problem is called interpolation, and without it you cannot get the fluid sound of analog devices. With proper interpolation (and that can be a tall order!) the plugins can get the proper un-dry, fluid tone.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Chorus.mp3
http://www.airwindows.com/m/ChorusEnsemble.mp3

You'd think dynamics wouldn't be a problem, but again digital problems show up, in this case relating to the fact that there's no such thing as a 'sample' in a digital system, only the reconstructed value as a function of two samples or more. You can't compress 'a sample' and expect analog-like results.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Compressor.mp3

It's possible to get more even transfer function characteristics digitally than analog gear is capable of- distortion softer than even tubes. The mathematically smoothest transfer function from unity gain to full clipping is a sine curve. Using that as your transfer function for distortion sounds like this.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Density.mp3

Again with the interpolation- digital implementations of through-zero flanging (like reel-to-reel flanging) which don't interpolate properly won't be able to go through zero fluidly without producing artifacts in the high treble as the sweep goes through null. Interpolating between samples allows the sweep to take on an analog-like texture.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Flanger.mp3

Can't do this with analog, quite
http://www.airwindows.com/m/GlitchShifter.mp3

Tape emulation- a combination of convolution filtering effects and saturation effects. Neither filtration or distortion will get you there by themselves, plus you've got to watch out for digital artifacts (pass sinewaves through various popular tape plugins for a surprise)
http://www.airwindows.com/m/IronOxide.mp3

Convolution lets you model the over-hang of speaker cabinets, for an effect that is different from simple EQ just as reverb is different from simple EQ. However, speakers will overdrive and alter their behavior based on the signal level driving them. The next step for this modeling becomes, tracking which impulse response elements are associated with speaker dynamic compression, and distorting those ones independently of the others. Even without these dynamic elements, however, convolution can give you a 'power soaked' speaker sound like this:
http://www.airwindows.com/m/MarshallCab.mp3

Digital calculation can let you isolate individual aspects of a waveform, such as a grungey edge, and with enough sophistication (this is combinations of Chebyshev filters, still uncommon in audio) either remove everything but the grunge (first example) or subtract the grunge from the original sound (second example)
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Pafnuty.mp3

Sometimes the sound of an analog processor is simply a matter of having a LOT of calculation. This compressor plugin has a very complicated, baffling algorithm which produces a strangely old-school sound in contrast with the earlier compressor.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Pressure.mp3

Some things are just down to limitations of the fundamental characteristics of the waveform. If you filter the wave, you get an EQ-ey result. If you put a hard limit on the slew rate of the wave, you get a dulling/grunging which is not frequency, but amplitude dependent. Tiny amounts of such effects, and the absence of digital flaws (lack of interpolation, quantization) add up to be the 'sound of analog'.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Slew.mp3

Buy my plugins, now that you've heard them :D :D :D
http://store.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store....D=6FEGJ_LIVE&&

Seriously- it's not that plug-ins CANNOT do analog sound, it's that most developers are too busy trying to replicate faceplates of kilobuck analog gear to get to grips with the real issues of digital. It doesn't necessarily take infinite CPU, either. I come from mastering where I continually have to compete with analog guys, so I guess my priorities are in a different place- and I've always hated digital sound.

So I fixed it

Well- I'm doing my best to fix it. Thanks for the thread BTW, because talking about MarshallCab has given me ideas for possibly improving it a LOT. I'm off to try and implement the driver-saturation nonlinearity I was talking about. If it works, the cab model will be able to do not only a Greenback/power soak sound, but a crushed-greenback sound. And that would be killer to have as a plugin.

Note: for that cab plugin, the distortion on the guitar is NOT a plugin (yet!). it is a Marshall 9001 rack preamp, direct into the converter.

[ryst]

Originally Posted by chrisj

You do, eh? (examples are always dry/effected)

I'm given to understand SansAmp Bass Driver is quite good hardware. I thought well enough of the voicing of it that I did a plugin like that, but with different (smoother) overdrive algorithms. The filtering is actually the tough part in digital.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/BassDrive.mp3

Time delay plugins are trivial in sampling systems if you're doing an exact number of samples- but a bear if you need to get between-sample positions. The problem is called interpolation, and without it you cannot get the fluid sound of analog devices. With proper interpolation (and that can be a tall order!) the plugins can get the proper un-dry, fluid tone.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Chorus.mp3
http://www.airwindows.com/m/ChorusEnsemble.mp3

You'd think dynamics wouldn't be a problem, but again digital problems show up, in this case relating to the fact that there's no such thing as a 'sample' in a digital system, only the reconstructed value as a function of two samples or more. You can't compress 'a sample' and expect analog-like results.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Compressor.mp3

It's possible to get more even transfer function characteristics digitally than analog gear is capable of- distortion softer than even tubes. The mathematically smoothest transfer function from unity gain to full clipping is a sine curve. Using that as your transfer function for distortion sounds like this.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Density.mp3

Again with the interpolation- digital implementations of through-zero flanging (like reel-to-reel flanging) which don't interpolate properly won't be able to go through zero fluidly without producing artifacts in the high treble as the sweep goes through null. Interpolating between samples allows the sweep to take on an analog-like texture.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Flanger.mp3

Can't do this with analog, quite
http://www.airwindows.com/m/GlitchShifter.mp3

Tape emulation- a combination of convolution filtering effects and saturation effects. Neither filtration or distortion will get you there by themselves, plus you've got to watch out for digital artifacts (pass sinewaves through various popular tape plugins for a surprise)
http://www.airwindows.com/m/IronOxide.mp3

Convolution lets you model the over-hang of speaker cabinets, for an effect that is different from simple EQ just as reverb is different from simple EQ. However, speakers will overdrive and alter their behavior based on the signal level driving them. The next step for this modeling becomes, tracking which impulse response elements are associated with speaker dynamic compression, and distorting those ones independently of the others. Even without these dynamic elements, however, convolution can give you a 'power soaked' speaker sound like this:
http://www.airwindows.com/m/MarshallCab.mp3

Digital calculation can let you isolate individual aspects of a waveform, such as a grungey edge, and with enough sophistication (this is combinations of Chebyshev filters, still uncommon in audio) either remove everything but the grunge (first example) or subtract the grunge from the original sound (second example)
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Pafnuty.mp3

Sometimes the sound of an analog processor is simply a matter of having a LOT of calculation. This compressor plugin has a very complicated, baffling algorithm which produces a strangely old-school sound in contrast with the earlier compressor.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Pressure.mp3

Some things are just down to limitations of the fundamental characteristics of the waveform. If you filter the wave, you get an EQ-ey result. If you put a hard limit on the slew rate of the wave, you get a dulling/grunging which is not frequency, but amplitude dependent. Tiny amounts of such effects, and the absence of digital flaws (lack of interpolation, quantization) add up to be the 'sound of analog'.
http://www.airwindows.com/m/Slew.mp3

Buy my plugins, now that you've heard them :D :D :D
http://store.kagi.com/cgi-bin/store....D=6FEGJ_LIVE&&

Seriously- it's not that plug-ins CANNOT do analog sound, it's that most developers are too busy trying to replicate faceplates of kilobuck analog gear to get to grips with the real issues of digital. It doesn't necessarily take infinite CPU, either. I come from mastering where I continually have to compete with analog guys, so I guess my priorities are in a different place- and I've always hated digital sound.

So I fixed it

Well- I'm doing my best to fix it. Thanks for the thread BTW, because talking about MarshallCab has given me ideas for possibly improving it a LOT. I'm off to try and implement the driver-saturation nonlinearity I was talking about. If it works, the cab model will be able to do not only a Greenback/power soak sound, but a crushed-greenback sound. And that would be killer to have as a plugin.

Note: for that cab plugin, the distortion on the guitar is NOT a plugin (yet!). it is a Marshall 9001 rack preamp, direct into the converter.

Chris,

Do you have to advertise your plugs in every post you make?

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by chrisj

Some things are just down to limitations of the fundamental characteristics of the waveform. If you filter the wave, you get an EQ-ey result. If you put a hard limit on the slew rate of the wave, you get a dulling/grunging which is not frequency, but amplitude dependent. Tiny amounts of such effects, and the absence of digital flaws (lack of interpolation, quantization) add up to be the 'sound of analog'.

Thanks very much for your post chrisj.... these are some really good insights from the programmers’ perspective...

But I'm left wondering...

Is the absence of digital flaws really the sound of analog?

If I took one of your plugs and ramped the output gain up by 10db then dropped my DAW fader by -10db would I get the same result as if I had just left both faders at 0?

Do you model analog gear utilizing input -> output comparisons or do you take a component modeling approach?

[norman_nomad]

Originally Posted by El Fatso

Originally Posted by H-Rezz
...do they sound like the original ? My atittude is who cares because they sound good on their own without the comparison .



great advice for ANYTHING that in ANY WAY emulates ANYTHING else! nothing will ever(for now) sound exactly like something else. so dont ever judge a piece of gear like that. the UA 1176 may not sound exactly like the urei but it still sounds great nonetheless. many mic reissues dont sound like the old skool versions but they still have a great sound. if it sounds good, then use it for what it sounds good with, even if its different than what the original sounded good with.

I also agree... and I completely understand the "use what sounds good" approach.... but that's not exactly what this thread is about....

When a plug in company employees a Photoshop expert to create a nearly lifelike image of the front panel of the piece of gear the code is attempting to emulate...

It begs the question: "Does this plug sound like the gear it looks like?"

So these comparisons are not without merit, if only to ask questions like: If you don't feel software can do EVERYTHING hardware can... then WHY not? What's the bottle neck? Why can't I get THAT sound with plugs RIGHT now?

I personally would love to use ONLY plug-ins if I felt they did what hardware does... I grew up with plug-ins... they're what I know... I'm comfortable with them.

But I keep some good outboard around simply because they do a few things (read first post) that I don't exactly get from plugs...

Am I wrong? In terms of sheer sonics, do some of you see absolutely no need for outboard at this point in history?