Hardware VS Software!

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Axiomstatic wrote:I work as a graphics artist from 9 to 1 pm 5 days a week and most of that time is spent on a computer. This may be the very reason why I look forward to real hardware and a console for mixing.
A console with good automation is indeed a very special thing and I haven't yet found a DAW controller that emulates this. Softube's Console 1 is an attempt at improving that workflow and they do succeed in many ways.
Last night I did get my hands on some plugins and spent a good few hours running demos from Soundtoys and Softube.

Was not all that impressed, certainly nothing made me say WOW. Certainly would not trade any of my hardware for any plugins any time soon based on last nights demos.
Try the IK Multimedia 432 Mastering EQ. That's a very good emulation of a Sontec EQ and it's certainly one of the best native hardware emulations ever made, I don't think anyone would miss the hardware after using it. Similarly, the UAD API Vision, API 550, 1176 MK2, LA2A MK2, Pultec MK2, and Fairchild MK2 sound like hardware. I had the $7,000 Shadow Hills Mastering Compressor for a short while and I preferred the UAD plugins over it (same sound but with less noise).

Post

I've been 100% OTB (90s) and 100% ITB (00s) and have been gravitating towards a hybrid system (OTB playing/ITB mix) for a few years now. Both approaches are valid. I'd say the biggest difference is which workflow insires you the most.

When I originally switched to ITB I tried to convince myself that it was the superior choice, trying to keep optimistic about the whole "studio in my backpack" utopia. Years later I bought a Moog for playing in a rockband, and I realized that there is a noticeable difference in sound quality. Bought one piece of hardware after another and soon realized that having all my instruments OTB allowed for a nostalgic workflow, that, at least for me, felt more immediate and gratifying than the ITB life I had been living. But now I'm constantly struggling to get the same nextlevelnessness in hardware that we have come to take for granted with software. Somehow it seems that hardware is still tied to the paradigms of 90-05, and the only way to go beyond is attaching a laptop somewhere... Take controllerism for example, the way one can manipulate and map MIDI data with computers is lightyears beyond anything hardware has to offer :(

It's not even about sound that much. A friend of mine can make much better sounding music with renoise and his DIY-coded plugins than I can with any host/plugins. For me though, getting things to sound "decent" take a lot less effort with hardware as the idiosyncracies ("analog" "gritty" "lofi") are already baked into the sound without having to pile a bunch of plugins with expertly tweaked settings. But then again you have recall with plugins, and if you build up a good library of presets/fx chains, you can get the "baked" sounds much faster..

If I would be doing music professionally, I'd most likely try to keep things ITB as recalling and exact repeats would be very valuable for the tight deadlines and vocalups/downs required. But that has never been a goal for me.

Many sides to this ol' horse beating. At the end of the day, if it sounds the way you like, ITB or OTB, it's all that matters. I think the time to dismiss software sound as inferior is already behind is - the sound is not inferior, but perhaps a bit different. Just don't be fooled into thinking that all "plugins sound the same" ;)

Post

In 2009, the online audio forums exploded after someone posted their results comparing many
EQ plug-ins ranging from freeware VSTs to very expensive brands. The tests showed that
most of the EQs nulled against each other to silence, as long as extra effects such as
distortion or “vintage mode” were disabled. ! !
As you know, when two signals null to silence, or very nearly so, then by definition they
sound identical. However, some equalizers that are otherwise identical may not sound the !
same, or null against each other, because there’s no industry standard for how the Q of a
peaking boost and cut is defined.! !
Chapter 1 explained that the bandwidth of a filter is defined by the −3 dB points, but that’s for
plain filters. Unlike a band-pass filter that continues to roll off frequencies above and below its
cutoff, an equalizer has a flat response at frequencies other than those you boost or cut. And
equalizers can boost or cut less than 3 dB, so in that case there’s no −3 dB point to reference. ! !
In the comparison of many plug-in EQs, the author noted in his report that simply typing the
same numbers into different equalizers didn’t always give the same results. He had to vary the
Q values to achieve the most complete null.!


Reference Ethan Winer
If you want to achieve greatness stop asking for permission!

Post

tetsuneko wrote:When I originally switched to ITB I tried to convince myself that it was the superior choice, trying to keep optimistic about the whole "studio in my backpack" utopia. Years later I bought a Moog for playing in a rockband, and I realized that there is a noticeable difference in sound quality. Bought one piece of hardware after another and soon realized that having all my instruments OTB allowed for a nostalgic workflow, that, at least for me, felt more immediate and gratifying than the ITB life I had been living. But now I'm constantly struggling to get the same nextlevelnessness in hardware that we have come to take for granted with software.
Elektron will soon be adding "Overbridge" technology to the Analog Four, Analog Keys, and Analog Rytm, which they say "completely erases the line between analog hardware and software plug-in instruments."
For me though, getting things to sound "decent" take a lot less effort with hardware as the idiosyncracies ("analog" "gritty" "lofi") are already baked into the sound without having to pile a bunch of plugins with expertly tweaked settings.
Check this out:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 1&t=409727
But then again you have recall with plugins, and if you build up a good library of presets/fx chains, you can get the "baked" sounds much faster..
If you're Chris Lord Alge, you keep 20+ 1176's preset to how you like them. That way, you recall a different preset by inserting a different 1176. ;)
I think the time to dismiss software sound as inferior is already behind is - the sound is not inferior, but perhaps a bit different.
That's interesting. The thing with software is it sounds different in exactly the same way. With analog hardware, every one is different to some degree (sometimes to very large degrees!) and you're automatically distinguishing yourself from other musicians right there.

Post

Axiomstatic wrote:In 2009, the online audio forums exploded after someone posted their results comparing many
EQ plug-ins blah blah blah
Is this your way of revealing yourself as a troll?

Post

Okay Uncle E. Another Mr Know it all across the Internet it seems :help:
If you want to achieve greatness stop asking for permission!

Post

Axiomstatic wrote:Okay Uncle E. Another Mr Know it all across the Internet it seems :help:
Again, is this your way of revealing yourself as a troll? It's a straight question, you can answer "no" if it's not. If you're not a troll, are you aware of how inflammatory that "all EQ's sound the same" argument is? Not only has it been debunked but it's strange for you to be posting that when you state yourself that you've had very little experience with software EQ's.

Post

Oh NM, I don't want to add words to this part of the discussion.

Post

I think very few are going to want to contradict that the very best of 'real' gear in terms of recording and mixing gear is desirable.

So at first I didn't go into discussing creation through software here. But since that ice was broken, I'd like to reinforce that there are so many things in software that simply do not exist in any hardware. Even in terms of me mixing my lead guitar tone (which has a good reputation), it would be an ENORMOUS undertaking outside of the box. Some things I think are not feasible here; but in any case it would be something that would not get paid for unless I was just a top draw. And the ideas for it came from having it laid out the way it is graphically. OTOH I give you Michael Landau's tone, which I'm not going to get with sims.

But when we get into creation, there is no Reaktor Skanner in hardware, there is nothing that remotely approaches it. It doesn't happen. I'm not going to bother typing a litany here, but this is so obvious to people that create audio with software.

Yes, I had to learn a whole lot in order to start making my mixes competitive with 'real studio' results. I had to acquire things that are not cheap in the process. So sure, it is challenging but it's something I found very rich and rewarding.

Post

jancivil wrote:there are so many things in software that simply do not exist in any hardware. Even in terms of me mixing my lead guitar tone (which has a good reputation), it would be an ENORMOUS undertaking outside of the box. Some things I think are not feasible here; but in any case it would be something that would not get paid for unless I was just a top draw. And the ideas for it came from having it laid out the way it is graphically. OTOH I give you Michael Landau's tone, which I'm not going to get with sims.

But when we get into creation, there is no Reaktor Skanner in hardware, there is nothing that remotely approaches it. It doesn't happen. I'm not going to bother typing a litany here, but this is so obvious to people that create audio with software.
Also, think of all the mix processes that have evolved out of ITB mixing. People now regularly mix with L2's across multiple channels and that NEVER would have happened 10+ years ago, first because most studios didn't have more than one mastering limiter (if they even had any at all) and second because everyone thought mastering limiters were only supposed to be used for mastering. These days, we're brickwalling everything, multibanding everything, M/S'ing everything, and paralleling everything, and that has for the most part come about from ITB mixing.

Post

Uncle E wrote:

Also, think of all the mix processes that have evolved out of ITB mixing. People now regularly mix with L2's across multiple channels and that NEVER would have happened 10+ years ago, first because most studios didn't have more than one mastering limiter (if they even had any at all) and second because everyone thought mastering limiters were only supposed to be used for mastering. These days, we're brickwalling everything, multibanding everything, M/S'ing everything, and paralleling everything, and that has for the most part come about from ITB mixing.
when i was in retail I remember selling quite a few presonus 8 channel comps, I was very comfortable with these sales because it's almost certain that if someone was paying the bux for one that they knew what they were doing (as opposed to how many people thought a compressor was some kind of pixie dust and returned them because when they turned the knobs the didn't do anything). At the time I was using an Akai DPS12 HD recorder so I had comps in that and understood why the need for mutil-channel comps quite well. But also at the time I had no intention of going with computers at all (yes I know the Akai was basically a computer), in fact at that time the only two computers I ever owned was an old radioshack all in from from the late 80's and then a 286. (yet I was in the keyboard, recording, pro-audio and dj department and sold software all day).

Having said that I quoted part of your post in bold Eric because I think the argument can be made that this is not always a good thing. Perhaps a discussion for another time, but often with things like this we go straight to overindulging and soon people are indeed using everything and often people with little understanding of what they are doing are going preset happy treating everything ...sure it's good for learning to have it all available but I think it makes it very easy to over use on...well...everything :hihi:

If I have my amps mic'd up well, and set up my amp right to work with the mix (which I am not saying I do :hihi: ) should I always need an EQ on the guitar track? (I actually was reading about this recently, not sure where I stand on it tbh). I record as you know several guitar tracks, do I need to put reverb on every track or am I better using a bus or even just reverb on one track? (tbh that's how I monitor with delay/reverb when I am recording guitar, just the SM-57 is running through the fx).

I agree that there are so many things I can do with software that I just could not do if I wanted with hardware whether it be expense or skill...but perhaps that can be a double edged sword?
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.

Post

Uncle E before you start accusing me of anything read the thread and the history.
One guy on here says, do not get confused and think all Plugins sound the same.

Until then at no time have I ever mentioned that all plugins sound the same and thought it would be interesting to post Ethans little talk on the subject.
Personally I do not care if plugins sound differently and you are right my experience is very limited with software EQ. But let me assure you given my experience with hardware EQ, I can quickly learn to understand one of your software EQ's in no time.

You may find it interesting that yesterday I decided to down load a Waves version of a supposed to be emulation of my Pultec EQP- 1A. :D
What would you know, the plugin sounds nothing like the original. :hihi:

It would be good if the marketing would cease the over hype nonsense claiming these emulations sound the same or better then the real thing. Oh dear me marketing at its greatest lol.

Actually thanks to all in this thread for reminding me that I am not missing out on anything :)
After all we use what we like in the end.
If you want to achieve greatness stop asking for permission!

Post

Hink wrote:Having said that I quoted part of your post in bold Eric because I think the argument can be made that this is not always a good thing.
Agreed! I'm only the messenger, it doesn't mean I approve of that behavior. ;)

Post

So you sent Waves your own EQP-1A to base their plugin upon or you are Jack Joseph Puig?

These topics are always 13 steps to nowhere and I do not understand why people still keep
serenading a dead horse

I do not understand the mentality behind proving superiority :shrug:

Anyway it is not a race I am in and have nothing to gain by taking part. I, Like many people use
a setup made up of both and it works really quite well

Over and out

Edit: Actually pissing up a rope might well be a more constructive use of time verses this debate. Have fun though anyway ;)

Post

Axiomstatic wrote:Uncle E before you start accusing me of anything read the thread and the history.
One guy on here says, do not get confused and think all Plugins sound the same.

Until then at no time have I ever mentioned that all plugins sound the same and thought it would be interesting to post Ethans little talk on the subject.
Personally I do not care if plugins sound differently and you are right my experience is very limited with software EQ. But let me assure you given my experience with hardware EQ, I can quickly learn to understand one of your software EQ's in no time.

You may find it interesting that yesterday I decided to down load a Waves version of a supposed to be emulation of my Pultec EQP- 1A. :D
What would you know, the plugin sounds nothing like the original. :hihi:

It would be good if the marketing would cease the over hype nonsense claiming these emulations sound the same or better then the real thing. Oh dear me marketing at its greatest lol.

Actually thanks to all in this thread for reminding me that I am not missing out on anything :)
After all we use what we like in the end.
in your original post you ask can you make a comparison and here you make note of the fact that marketing is the issue. I'm assuming you've been at this for while. I think the type of marketing that you speak of has been around a very long time. I'll take the example of guitar amps because I am a guitarist (and ftr 54 years old, been playing since I was 12). This is the same marketing that they used in the 70's, 80's, 90' 00's and this decade sounds just like a Marshall (still hear it with amp sims) but at this point in my life that marketing has grown very old and I block it out. It's embellishment, it's fluff, the truth is if I want a Marshall I am buying a Marshall.

You ask can you compare software to hardware, remove marketing from the equation and let me ask...do you need to compare hardware and software? Do you believe when you read that it sounds just like whatever it does? Which is more important? Sounding like the marketing department says it does or whether or not you like how it sounds and whether or not it will compliment your existing gear?

There is nothing wrong with your being biased toward hardware, I can relate. But perhaps you might want to approach it from a different angle. There are some good suggestions as to why hybrid is the way to go, even from an old(er) timer like myself. I'm sure you have tried this but please allow me to just emphasize this, try a demo and instead of asking does this sound like? Ask yourself, can this be useful to me? :)
The highest form of knowledge is empathy, for it requires us to suspend our egos and live in another's world. It requires profound, purpose‐larger‐than‐the‐self kind of understanding.

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”