The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Have we reached the ceiling of effect plugin quality?
Old 1 week ago
  #31
Lives for gear
 
biksonije's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
None of which in inherent to increased plugin quality. And FYI most of the most popular programming languages have been around for a long time.
I agree with you to some extent. Perhaps core instructions written in "xyz" don't change. But you can't say that plugins themselves and their new iterations, bug fixing, code refining, new techniques, programming language evolution, computing capabilities don't have influence on newer iterations of any plugin in question.

Not trolling, no programming skills on my side. But it all sounds logical. New iterations don't necessarily means re-writing all. But refinements, calculations, new features... It all evolves and have impact on a product. Right?
Old 1 week ago
  #32
Gear Nut
 
Aivaras's Avatar
 

Effect plug-ins, like the rest of musical instruments, are by their very intent unfinished products. Their quality is ultimately what the artist makes of them. As a consequence, the more basic question is: have we (this particular generation of artists) reached the ceiling of imagination, run out of ways to use the tools at hand creatively, be it a piece of software, a string, or a stick?

Last edited by Aivaras; 1 week ago at 04:09 PM..
Old 1 week ago
  #33
Lives for gear
 

there's a whole new genre of intelligence-based plugins. that field is just getting started.
Old 1 week ago
  #34
Lives for gear
 

This type of threads are never ending. Some guys will say we are still far away from analog emulation, some will say we are on par with analog, some will say digital compressors all the same no matter the age, some will say sample rate this sample rate that and some guy will bring 0 and 1 and than we'll have 15 pages of how his compressor from grandmas attic is musical while digital compressors are still clinical and 2D. So, I vote that mods instantly close this type of threads as they bring nothing but bickering and stress.
Old 1 week ago
  #35
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
Here's a Pro Tip about internet content you don't want to be a part of: You can walk away at any time you want.

Sort of applies to real life too, but especially internet stuff.
Old 1 week ago
  #36
Lives for gear
 
zvukofor's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearstudent View Post
there's a whole new genre of intelligence-based plugins. that field is just getting started.
I wish there was a whole new breed of intelligence-based artists and engineers too.
Then we’d have a much better world.
Old 1 week ago
  #37
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoxMulderFBI View Post
This type of threads are never ending. Some guys will say we are still far away from analog emulation, some will say we are on par with analog, some will say digital compressors all the same no matter the age, some will say sample rate this sample rate that and some guy will bring 0 and 1 and than we'll have 15 pages of how his compressor from grandmas attic is musical while digital compressors are still clinical and 2D. So, I vote that mods instantly close this type of threads as they bring nothing but bickering and stress.
lol - love it - you make a post which does nothing but piss and moan and adds zero to the thread's actual topic, then complain about how it should be closed because it causes "bickering and stress."

If you're so hypersensitive that you can't handle people disagreeing with each other, maybe you shouldn't visit internet forums, esp one like this, which is almost entirely subjective anyway. How boring this world would be if we all agreed on everything.
Old 1 week ago
  #38
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by gearstudent View Post
there's a whole new genre of intelligence-based plugins. that field is just getting started.
You may have a point there, although to me that's more about added features, not "quality" exactly...I took that to mean like (for ex) do compressors coming out now compress a lot better than the one(s) before it? I doubt it. I liken it to something like comparing some new 2021 car vs the 2020 one...it might have a touchscreen display the other didn't, or slightly more comfortable seats, but if it performs the same (or extremely close it) as the last one, if it holds up as well as the last one, quality hasn't really improved. Of course you could say well sometimes the added features lend themselves to more quality, but that's more about the skill of the user, not something inherent to the plugin itself.
Old 1 week ago
  #39
Lives for gear
 
ponzi's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx View Post
Here's a Pro Tip about internet content you don't want to be a part of: You can walk away at any time you want.

Sort of applies to real life too, but especially internet stuff.
But....I......Can't......
Attached Thumbnails
Have we reached the ceiling of effect plugin quality?-kirk.jpg  
Old 1 week ago
  #40
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by gearstudent View Post
there's a whole new genre of intelligence-based plugins. that field is just getting started.
Personally I think the "AI" plugin buzz is mostly just hype with little actual tech backing it. I have yet to see a plugin that has any sort of actual AI, or even utilizes machine learning on a large scale. Sure, there is some new stuff like Gullfoss or Soothe that have some advanced algorithms at play but I really don't see any AI going on there. I say this as someone who has developed software for a living in the past.
Old 1 week ago
  #41
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by biksonije View Post
I agree with you to some extent. Perhaps core instructions written in "xyz" don't change. But you can't say that plugins themselves and their new iterations, bug fixing, code refining, new techniques, programming language evolution, computing capabilities don't have influence on newer iterations of any plugin in question.

Not trolling, no programming skills on my side. But it all sounds logical. New iterations don't necessarily means re-writing all. But refinements, calculations, new features... It all evolves and have impact on a product. Right?
The question in my mind is if there is any realistic new advancements that can be made in said product.

An EQ applies an EQ curve to a signal. It's hard to imagine this technology advancing farther than it currently has (perhaps my imagination is weak).

A compressor turns loud parts down, and (sometimes) soft parts up. Lots of different ways to tweak that behavior, but I don't see a lot of real innovation that is possible in this basic function.

Same with reverbs, saturation, and most other basic plugin functions.

I don't think this applies to VI because artists will always chase a "new" sound which is aesthetic in nature rather than technological. For example, is Serum better than a Moog from 1985? Matter of taste I would say.
Old 1 week ago
  #42
Lives for gear
 
biksonije's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by motomotomoto View Post
The question in my mind is if there is any realistic new advancements that can be made in said product.

An EQ applies an EQ curve to a signal. It's hard to imagine this technology advancing farther than it currently has (perhaps my imagination is weak).

A compressor turns loud parts down, and (sometimes) soft parts up. Lots of different ways to tweak that behavior, but I don't see a lot of real innovation that is possible in this basic function.

Same with reverbs, saturation, and most other basic plugin functions.

I don't think this applies to VI because artists will always chase a "new" sound which is aesthetic in nature rather than technological. For example, is Serum better than a Moog from 1985? Matter of taste I would say.
How don't you understand what I'm trying to say? And to clearly say that I may be wrong here also! I am not trying to force my idea as only one relevant and working 100%! OK?

As you said, curve from any given EQ (that broad, these values, such Q etc...) is the same no matter what. What I was saying is what's happening under the hood. I was thinking in terms of, let's use calculations as an example, fidelity if you catch my drift here. How many points for calculation. Those kind of details...

Let's say 10-15 years ago Devs came to the conclusion, all because of computing capabilities and all other stuff that is basically chokepoint or bottleneck at the time of development stage and release, that math and code behind the scenes and hardware can't calculate (it probably can but plugin MUST be economically viable and "fast") more than certain point. Period. So, Devs release tool for that era. Now, time passes. Computing power rises, speeds rises, code evlves, chips evolve... So, could I be that wrong by thinking if all that works in our favour goes forward could Devs be making new(er) iterations with refined, recalculated, re-worked code to make software better, faster, more precise, more punctual?

As I said, I am not developer and I go here, as in any field for that matter, with plain logic.

Did the chemists or biologists knew things 15 years ago what they know now all due to the fact that everything around them evolved so they implemented their sh***t to make something better today that in it was 15 years ago?

Ughhh, I am sure if this Thread peeks an interest in any Dev's mind who's hanging around here he/she will most likely be able to give more accurate vision. Code then and now. Did it evolve and how? I won't mention anyone because I am not favorizing anyone. I admire and love all of you smart Devs and am happy user of many great tools, old and new.

Wow, that just might be good topic for some paper for a code forensic or some young dev from the academic point of view! :-)

Or am I delusional to the extend of me being all alone in this boat of tidal changes over time?

Stay safe everyone & take care during these crazy times!

Krešo
Old 1 week ago
  #43
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by BT64 View Post
What’s quality?
We emulate old crap and call it great and try to hear differences.
I guess if it gets the result you are after it’s what you are looking for.
Plugins can do things we could only dream about 40 years ago but still we manage to make crap with it.
Quality:
responsive transients over the entire volume and EQ range.
Full spectrum.
Pleasing to the ear.
Any energy of the signal not passed perfectly is transmuted into a pleasing artifact.
Old 1 week ago
  #44
Gear Nut
 
Aivaras's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by biksonije View Post
As I said, I am not developer and I go here, as in any field for that matter, with plain logic.
Go by ear and feeling, it's music after all.

Music technology can get only as good as the taste of its makers.
Old 1 week ago
  #45
Lives for gear
 
biksonije's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aivaras View Post
Go by ear and feeling, it's music after all.

Music technology can get only as good as the taste of its makers.
Sure I will. And I do. This is simply interesting point and that is why I posted what I posted.

What do you think regarding this subject?
Old 1 week ago
  #46
Gear Guru
 
monkeyxx's Avatar
I was reading about the "simplification" of UAD plugins a while back. They have to reduce some calculations due to the limited DSP power. So they choose "the ones no one can hear." Some sort of blind testing is used to verify these adjustments.

But yeah, a fully traced circuit with every single possible calculation happening is going to use more computer power than a streamlined bit of code. Same deal with oversampling. Every instance of oversampling is going to consume that much more processing power.

I guess the question is if the stuff being thrown away is audible or not, but this is all way above my pay grade, I won't postulate. It's kind of interesting though. Regarding emulating hardware, in software. Maybe the math for a "purely digital" processor would be somewhat different, I don't know.
Old 1 week ago
  #47
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeyxx;1489****
I was reading about the "simplification" of UAD plugins a while back. They have to reduce some calculations due to the limited DSP power. So they choose "the ones no one can hear." Some sort of blind testing is used to verify these adjustments.

But yeah, a fully traced circuit with every single possible calculation happening is going to use more computer power than a streamlined bit of code. Same deal with oversampling. Every instance of oversampling is going to consume that much more processing power.

I guess the question is if the stuff being thrown away is audible or not, but this is all way above my pay grade, I won't postulate. It's kind of interesting though. Regarding emulating hardware, in software. Maybe the math for a "purely digital" processor would be somewhat different, I don't know.
It does seem reasonable that continued increases in computing power would continue to increase sample rate and fidelity. My question would then be where is the crossover where the increases become inaudible and have we already reached it.
Old 1 week ago
  #48
Gear Nut
 
Aivaras's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by biksonije View Post
What do you think regarding this subject?
There is no single answer to the OP's question. Some things indeed cry for improvement (e.g., pitch shifting and time warping algos), others (e.g., bread-'n-butter modulation effects, EQs, compressors) constitute mature technology and allow little advancement.

Overall though, we've reached a state in computer-aided technology where it's splitting hairs more than anything else.

I wouldn't call advancements in AI as pertaining to automated "music" production progress at all because the output of such technology is no longer music even if it may have the semblance thereof.

Music is a form of artistically controlled sonic communication between living human subjects. The interpersonal dimension is a must. I have an outboard effect box which can self-oscillate. That's not music.
Old 1 week ago
  #49
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by biksonije View Post
Let's say 10-15 years ago Devs came to the conclusion, all because of computing capabilities and all other stuff that is basically chokepoint or bottleneck at the time of development stage and release, that math and code behind the scenes and hardware can't calculate (it probably can but plugin MUST be economically viable and "fast") more than certain point. Period. So, Devs release tool for that era. Now, time passes. Computing power rises, speeds rises, code evlves, chips evolve... So, could I be that wrong by thinking if all that works in our favour goes forward could Devs be making new(er) iterations with refined, recalculated, re-worked code to make software better, faster, more precise, more punctual?
Yes. You're focusing on tech in general, esp computer hardware, not audio plugins, which is the topic and OP's original point. Faster computers might make plugins load/run quicker, but that doesn't improve their quality at all.

And newer isn't always better. Surely I'm not the only one who bought or used some new version of software and thought an older version was better? (Windows 7 vs Windows 8 for example - hell Windows 7 vs Windows 10 for that matter)
Old 1 week ago
  #50
Lives for gear
 
biksonije's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Yes. You're focusing on tech in general, esp computer hardware, not audio plugins, which is the topic and OP's original point. Faster computers might make plugins load/run quicker, but that doesn't improve their quality at all.

And newer isn't always better. Surely I'm not the only one who bought or used some new version of software and thought an older version was better? (Windows 7 vs Windows 8 for example - hell Windows 7 vs Windows 10 for that matter)
I agree, faster machines (computers) doesn't improve sound. Not by themselves anyway.

Oh yes, some older, previous versions, are indeed better. On the other hand, some new are better. So, yes, all sorts of options out there.
Old 1 week ago
  #51
Gear Maniac
 

There’s no plugin available that I’m aware of that can perfectly separate instruments from a multitrack or even perfectly identify annoying resonant frequencies, so surely there’s room for improvement. Speaker emulation and room emulation have a ways to go despite being very good.
Old 1 week ago
  #52
Lives for gear
 
BT64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Quality:
responsive transients over the entire volume and EQ range.
Full spectrum.
Pleasing to the ear.
Any energy of the signal not passed perfectly is transmuted into a pleasing artifact.
Whats pleasing for one can be different for an other.
Old 1 week ago
  #53
HSi
Lives for gear
 
HSi's Avatar
 

I think there are getting better here and there. It's not as if all developers work for the same company in the same building and share tips. They won't all get better at once and what was once objectively good will always remain so.

I wonder if they're held back by producing zero latency or plug ins for a wider range of systems...
Old 1 week ago
  #54
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by bill5 View Post
Not this again

I doubt we will ever "get" to 384 because it's if anything worse, not better, than say about 96 (tops). Same with 192. Bigger numbers don't always mean better.
From a latency perspective, this would be great though. Particularly where you’re chaining things together.
Old 1 week ago
  #55
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by BT64 View Post
Whats pleasing for one can be different for an other.
That's what makes it subjective.

Once things are digital, there will always be a lag. But it can get smaller over time.
Old 1 week ago
  #56
Lives for gear
 
BT64's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by elegentdrum View Post
Once things are digital, there will always be a lag. But it can get smaller over time.
Whats the problem with lag if you are not monitoring live input?
Old 1 week ago
  #57
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by BT64 View Post
Whats the problem with lag if you are not monitoring live input?
IMO it matters during production where lag is annoying and when going in and out of the box where you may end up with timings slightly off. The less the better for both.
Old 1 week ago
  #58
Lives for gear
 
apartment dog's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by motomotomoto View Post
I don't think this applies to VI because artists will always chase a "new" sound which is aesthetic in nature rather than technological. For example, is Serum better than a Moog from 1985? Matter of taste I would say.
It's better to have both a 1985 Moog and Serum. Which is a result of technological progress.
More artistic possibilities, different music styles etc.
Old 1 week ago
  #59
Gear Guru
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by motomotomoto View Post
Personally I think the "AI" plugin buzz is mostly just hype with little actual tech backing it. I have yet to see a plugin that has any sort of actual AI, or even utilizes machine learning on a large scale.
RX uses it for restoration/cleanup purposes.. as far as I know..

Quote:
Originally Posted by motomotomoto View Post
The question in my mind is if there is any realistic new advancements that can be made in said product.

An EQ applies an EQ curve to a signal. It's hard to imagine this technology advancing farther than it currently has (perhaps my imagination is weak).

A compressor turns loud parts down, and (sometimes) soft parts up. Lots of different ways to tweak that behavior, but I don't see a lot of real innovation that is possible in this basic function.

Same with reverbs, saturation, and most other basic plugin functions.
Not sure that's true.

Take Exponential Audio's "Stratus" reverb for example (now iZotope), it allows for the suppression of the input signal based on its signal strength. The result of that for dialog (or vocals) is that there'll be less reverb generated as the person is speaking, and as the dialog trails off at the end the reverb tail comes up. So in a relatively busy mix that function can be used to make the dialog stand out a bit. I think that's one good example of adding a feature to a commonly used effect.

And if I remember correctly some recent EQs have added the possibility of using a notch band and then analyzing the input and tying that notch to a moving frequency. In other words if a source has what I guess we could call an 'overtone' the band's frequency would follow that frequency as it moves. I don't recall seeing that a few years back.

So I really think there's more to do.

The question is just if you have the imagination to come up with just what that is...(?)
Old 1 week ago
  #60
Gear Nut
 
Aivaras's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by apartment dog View Post
It's better to have both a 1985 Moog and Serum. Which is a result of technological progress.
More artistic possibilities, different music styles etc.
It may or it may not be better. Why? Because our age is long past the collective need of having "more artistic possibilities" as far as technological inventory goes. I'd venture to say, we're secretly dreaming of having our lives less intervened by technology so we can regain our focus on actual music making.
📝 Reply
Topic:
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump