Software FX vs Hardware FX

[toasteh]

I realize many Hardware FX processing systems sound absolutely fantastic compared to most software (although I am a bit un-updated of the software side of it).

However, in the end these Machines merely process digital algorithms like any computer processors. Say I had an Eventide H8000 vs a super computer with the same algorithms as a Plug In able to process at the same rate the H8000 could:

Would the hardware version still sound better due to its engines or does this even matter? In your opinions, just in terms of sound quality, what would sound better? I am not comparing brands here, just basically a computer vs an FX processor.

Im curious of whether to buy some hardware FX or just get some really decent software as Reverb and most FX is produced digitally anyway.

Oh humble gearslutz, please advise.

[imloggedin]

Read up on some Dan Lavry posts. In general Non-Linear effects (compressors, disortion, limiters, etc) are better in the analog world, where linear things like EQ plugins arent much different. IMO hardware compressor sound MUCH better than plugins.

..PLZ someone correct me if im wrong.

[toasteh]

I understand EQ and Compressors done Analog sound way better than Digital EQ compressors. However, that is not my question. Reverb/FX are done digitally even as hardware, and compared to this, could a decent computer achieve the same results if its engines matched?

[imloggedin]

Altiverb sounds much better than most hardware reverbs ive heard. Thats an opinion though. Your thinking is correct as far as i understand, a computer is more powerful than a 1980s chip in an old reverb unit. Use your ears.

Will plugins EVER reach the quality of hardware?

[toasteh]

I shall give it a listen
Thank you!

[Mr.HOLMES]

Here is my opinion.
Altiverb is nice but not the same like even a cheap Lexicon unit like the MPX 400.
I am going to buy the MPX in the next month and sell some of my plugs.

guess why ..... I heard the MPX on my retailers store against many plug ins I have.
Lexicon is still having something special even in their cheap units what the most algorithms of plug in manufactories cant do until you spend the time to create a plug in combination.

And the thing is it is more cheaper as Altiverb and is giving you a lot of things how to setup up with your DAW.

[narcoman]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Here is my opinion.
Altiverb is nice but not the same like even a cheap Lexicon unit like the MPX 400.
I am going to buy the MPX in the next month and sell some of my plugs.

guess why ..... I heard the MPX on my retailers store against many plug ins I have.
Lexicon is still having something special even in their cheap units what the most algorithms of plug in manufactories cant do until you spend the time to create a plug in combination.

And the thing is it is more cheaper as Altiverb and is giving you a lot of things how to setup up with your DAW.

well that's your opinion - but it'd probably have a strong impact on me hiring you. VSS3, in plugin form, is VASTLY superior to ALL of the junior 'verbs out there.

As for Mid eighties chip being slower than a modern processor - yes and no. Yes, a modern DAW computer IS faster BUT it's doing many other things. The DSP in standalone number cruncher reverb unit is ONLY doing one thing. On a related subject - this is why VSS 4 isn't in plugin form. Even a modern CPU, with all the other things it's doing, isn't fast enough. It's also why VSS3 isn't native - yes yes, i know you guys will say it's to do with piracy and maybe you're right. However, my sources inside say it's because of power sharing within the DAW.....

[living sounds]

From my experience a great hardware EQ is still vastly superior to any plugin. You can dial in crazy amounts of high end and "lift the air", accentuate the transients in a very musical way and bring out the detail, whereas the plugin simply makes everything brighter, which quickly gets fatigueing. I also haven't heard any plugin that can give you a low end as deep and "earthy" as a passive EQ. A whole mix with analog vs. digital EQ sounds much more alive and has far better instrument separation. I try to use plugin EQ only for small cuts if I run out of analog EQs.

As for the reverb, there are certain things a 480l for instance is optimized for that would tax an x86 CPU heavily. It would be possible, but not that much fun in real time, especially if you want to do a lot of other things as well at the same time.
And the top designers seem to be very hesitant to release their best algorithms in a low-cost format that is also vulnerable to piracy.

[toasteh]

Originally Posted by narcoman

well that's your opinion - but it'd probably have a strong impact on me hiring you. VSS3, in plugin form, is VASTLY superior to ALL of the junior 'verbs out there.

As for Mid eighties chip being slower than a modern processor - yes and no. Yes, a modern DAW computer IS faster BUT it's doing many other things. The DSP in standalone number cruncher reverb unit is ONLY doing one thing. On a related subject - this is why VSS 4 isn't in plugin form. Even a modern CPU, with all the other things it's doing, isn't fast enough. It's also why VSS3 isn't native - yes yes, i know you guys will say it's to do with piracy and maybe you're right. However, my sources inside say it's because of power sharing within the DAW.....

Thanks for your reply, as I believe the Lexicon vs my debate is more a discussion about brands. What im talking about is the processing itself, which you have mentioned. However, there are computers out now with as much as 4-16 processors and 8-32gb ram, surely, even if the computer were doing other things, it would be able to processor the living sheit out of any reverb algorithms out there, imho. The reason probably VSS4 is not yet a plugin is probably because of the vast amounts of processing demanded, hence you pay for a lot of computer parts, imho, whenever you buy an M4000.

However, say you did have those 4-16 processors. Surely that would be enough? The fact the the reverb, as hardware, is a standalone and left alone reverb processor is good enough, but surely todays hardcore computer systems manage to beat the onces installed in a 1u rack? Its the algorithms that count are they not? Say you got a Bricasti m7 plug-in (does not exist, but say although copied to software) on an Apple Imac 16 core computer? or even 4 would do?

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by narcoman

well that's your opinion - but it'd probably have a strong impact on me hiring you. VSS3, in plugin form, is VASTLY superior to ALL of the junior 'verbs out there.

As for Mid eighties chip being slower than a modern processor - yes and no. Yes, a modern DAW computer IS faster BUT it's doing many other things. The DSP in standalone number cruncher reverb unit is ONLY doing one thing. On a related subject - this is why VSS 4 isn't in plugin form. Even a modern CPU, with all the other things it's doing, isn't fast enough. It's also why VSS3 isn't native - yes yes, i know you guys will say it's to do with piracy and maybe you're right. However, my sources inside say it's because of power sharing within the DAW.....

I think we do not talk the same language.
I talk about my impression sonic wise.

And in this Lexicon wins Altiverb loses because it is very static.
That is my opinion...the delays are great too.

I talk about experience how they set up a algorithm.
Altiverb is convolution OK than I take Breverb to compare it!!

Breverb= metallic and resonant
MPX 400= smooth and round.

And this is because lexicon is having the bigger experience in setting up reverb.
But this is only my opinion and I make this decision not on stupid technical facts I make it on what my ears tells me.

[Matt Whritenour]

Originally Posted by Mr.HOLMES

Breverb= metallic and resonant
MPX 400= smooth and round.

I believe you mean the MX400. I've never seen an MPX400. By any chance do you know what is the most comparable to a MPX500? I'm thinking about either getting a MX400 or used MPX500. I know the MPX500's are great but I like how the MX400 has 2 stereo pairs with individual processors in 1 rack space.

[Space Station]

Emulating custom DSP's(even archaic ones) in software takes up a shitload of processing power, standard computers just arent built to do these kind of things. Plus the sound of a hardware unit is so much more than just the algorithms..

On your question about what would sound better..well that is difficult because it depends on so many factors like how and what your interfacing the gear to.

My friend had a Roland VS2480 with a TC reverb plug-in that runs on it own internal custom effects board. He asked if he could borrow my 480L for mixing. The TC plug-in, hell even the free Roland reverb plug-in sounded miles better than the 480L in that situation....the reason was because the converters on the analog sends and returns of the 2480 are very poor...the plug-ins obviously had no interfacing problems and sounded great.

[Pfraser]

One things that not many think about is the sound of the conversion that some of these units have. Some people like the sound of old 12bit reverbs and delays. I haven't seen any plugins (yet) that emulate different bit conversion. Also hardware reverbs are really algorithm and hand an insane amount of numbers. Computer Reverbs go about using these algorithms in different ways and are only emulating what a hardware reverb does... computers can't handle hardware reverb algorithms yet and that is why hardware reverbs are still being built.

[Mr.HOLMES]

Originally Posted by Matt Whritenour

I believe you mean the MX400.

Yes sorry I am a bit oversleep because of an mixing session.

Lexicon Pro

It sounded great to my ears...

[FeatheredSerpent]

In theory yes you can port a hardware reverb perfectly over to a plug-in. In fact Lexicon have a plug-in - Pantheon.

Living sounds hit the nail on the head though, I think.
And it is to do with experience too, Lexicon have been doing reverb for decades, new plug-in developers can't expect to match that straight away.
I'd been using software reverbs and then the first time I plugged an electro-acoustic into my MPX500 is was just 'WOW'.
Could sit there for an hour doing nothing other than making lush sounds come out of it, fantastic.

As for the MPX500 vs. MX400 thing, someone else brought this up, and I would go for the MPX500. With the MX400, you are sacrificing the quality of the algorithms for the extra interfacing, the chips are NOT the same in these units.
If you want a dual MPX500, then get an MPX-1, which is exactly that, an MPX500 with 2 engines (chips) instead of 1.
They are not using Lexichips for these new units, you will get a better quality verb from an MPX500 or MPX-1, so go for one of those, or better still, get a couple.
I think today's software reverb is great, and I'm not a hardware afficianado by any means, but when it comes to reverb, the Lexicon just instantly hits the spot, plus it is nice to have a hardware box to tweak instead of just another plug-in.
For the price these units go for second hand, there's no reason not to have a couple of each, especially when software reverbs are so draining on the cpu - I have a uad card and I still prefer the Lexicon over their reverbs, plus the uad verbs drain a massive amount of dsp, which I'd rather be using for compression and whatnot.

[CorkyTart]

I hope this helps you formulate an answer. Here goes: I have an H8000 the things is frickin amazing. However, that does not automatically make it the best tool for the job.

Generally with the Eventide, effects seem much fuller, wider and more "pro" The reason I say generally is that I compared the plate 140 verb in the H8K to the UAD 140 plate and I personally heard no difference. That doesnt mean other people wont hear different.

I think if an engineer simply looks at everything as a tool and not a godsend thats a pretty good place to start. For example today I was mixing something and needed a trippy delay and didnt find what I thought was the best delay in the Eventide but found it immediately in the OhmForce OhmBoyz plugin.

The Eventide is unfrickin believable. Once you get familiar with it, you're going to start hearing patches used on all sorts of releases that you're familiar with. I heard a tune off of U2's Auchtung Baby the other day and immediately recognized the gtr delay being from Eventide. The Eventide is a beast to slay all beasts. Go to the site download the manual and check out the demos.

[aeonlux]

Originally Posted by toasteh

I realize many Hardware FX processing systems sound absolutely fantastic compared to most software (although I am a bit un-updated of the software side of it).

However, in the end these Machines merely process digital algorithms like any computer processors. Say I had an Eventide H8000 vs a super computer with the same algorithms as a Plug In able to process at the same rate the H8000 could:

Would the hardware version still sound better due to its engines or does this even matter? In your opinions, just in terms of sound quality, what would sound better? I am not comparing brands here, just basically a computer vs an FX processor.

Im curious of whether to buy some hardware FX or just get some really decent software as Reverb and most FX is produced digitally anyway.

To answer your question, no, they would sound no different (assuming digital I/O) - digital is digital in the sense the same code yields the same results.

And there's the real issue - the code, or algorithms used to process the data. If they were the same, great - but they are not. External effects from the likes of Eventide, Lexicon, Kurzweil, t.c. electronic, Sony, Roland, and so on, sound the way they do because of the algos they have developed - and they are not to be found elsewhere.

Hence my choice of things like my Eventide H8000FW.


cheers,
Ian

[lulumusique]

Just a random question:
I am actually studying electronics engineering, and I don't know how CPU can do the same job than DSP used on hardware. I may be wrong but I don't think it's possible. DSP (Digital Signal Processors) are specialy developped to handle those calculus (way much faster than a CPU on convolution calculus or other signal processing). So, maybe software reverbs doesn't have the same algorythme than hardware reverbs (of course I'm not talking about reverbs on dsp cards). So digital is digital, but if the way you process the signal is different, maybe the sound is different... I may be wrong, because I'm still a student, and I have never compared "studio-grad" hardware reverb with "studio-grad" software reverb.




first post on gearslutz... so much emotion...