Should effect designs be deliberately limited?

[shamann]

Breaking off from the Audio Damage Compressor thread, since that's gone all trainwreck-like largely due to the freeware conflict and other oddities. I thought it would be interesting to hear what everyone thought about the general subject at hand (or out of hand as the case may be) in that thread.

Should an effect be deliberately and not optionally limited in design?

Or should it instead start from as close to its theoretic ideal as possible and add in parametric control over optional limitations and character introducing factors?

As in the Rough Rider thread, I maintain that all design is limited in some fashion from the very outset. No matter what, the designer makes choices on implementation that will keep it from ever reaching its Platonic ideal. Sure some limitations are greater than others, but in the example of Rough Rider, why is the high frequency roll off at 9.5kHz a bigger problem than the exact shape of the envelope or the choices made when designing the gain staging? One could just as easily say they think it should have an exponential/linear envelope response switch as much as they'd want an optional low pass filter. Or a switch to turn of the clipper altogether.

And then there's the matter of simplicity. If a designer's aim is to have only six parameters showing on the interface, decisions are going to have to be made on what gets in and what stays hidden.

For example, chorus. The Roland Dimension D seems to be a well liked chorus, but it has a very definite high frequency roll off (not sure I'm remembering correctly, but I think it falls somewhere around 7kHz). Would you prefer something like the Kjaerhus GMO-1, that has an optional low pass filter to simulate that effect and 20 parameters showing on the interface, or would you rather have something similar in design to the Dimension D, that only has a few buttons for you to press?

I can see the appeal of both. I really like GMO-1 and use it a lot. While its greatly expanded parametric control lets me do all sorts of things a Dimension D couldn't, I almost never use it to try to emulate the Dimension D sound. If I wanted the Dimension D sound, I more than likely would turn to something designed specifically for that sound.

So, your opinions?

(Sorry, long post. My wind is long today)

[eduardo_b]

I can see the appeal of both. I really like GMO-1 and use it a lot. While its greatly expanded parametric control lets me do all sorts of things a Dimension D couldn't, I almost never use it to try to emulate the Dimension D sound. If I wanted the Dimension D sound, I more than likely would turn to something designed specifically for that sound.

So, your opinions?

(Sorry, long post. My wind is long today)

The proliferation of effects plugs says that specialization grows in popularity, but who is going to keep track of hundreds of these in a folder or a dozen folders. It would be far better to have more presets in a versatile plug than a half dozen plugs to accomplish the same goals. And yet, complexity is not a plus because then it makes it difficult to accomplish simple, direct processes simply and directly.

So there are trade-offs. Having effects that are simple to use means the designer has to hard code certain features and functions out of reach of the user. This is common with, for example, some of the most famous and revered compressors. Their simplicity is not only not a problem but probably their best feature, but it means accepting whatever wired-in coloration they bring with them.

[vurt]

ill keep it short to balance things...

there is no "should", other than the developer of said fx no body else knows what the designs aim is.
i liked your song analogy, if in my mind a track is finished i dont care if people think it needs changes.
i will listen and often utilise ideas in future tracks, but not everyone does or should.

chris designed rr with a sound in mind, as has happened with the majority of audio damages gear this has led to a particular ad sound.

all fx free or pay ware should be this way, bugs yes, bring em up. design limitations are there by design.

[BertKoor]

If you aim to please the masses: you'll never do it right for everybody anyway...

If you aim to please yourself with a satisfactionairy design: you know best what to do...

[fceramic]

Limited plugins can really increases a workflow. You get what you want straight out of the box. It's the same with an instrument as well. I got a piano because I like the piano sound.

I also think out recent love for analogue equipment is a huge reaction to the mind numbing flexibly of computer technology. 10 years ago Max MSP was the big rage and now in recent years companies are pushing all these minimalist analogue emulations.

Just look at how many people love Reason. This software is all about limitation in order to increase the workflow.

Not all musicians are sound designers/engineers after all.

[Funkybot's Evil Twin]

Should an effect be deliberately and not optionally limited in design?

I've noticed that I tend to gravitate towards effects that are.

The "does everything you'd ever want" effects are nice to have, but I much prefer the "sounds great in under ten seconds" effects. At least, the latter are the ones that get used more often.

It seems like the harder it is to make an effect sound bad the better it is. Those effects tend to be the ones with the least amount of controls.

Want further proof: look how much people love their UAD effects. All of the emulations on the UAD are limited in their design to basically what the hardware did, and those are the most popular UAD effects.

[shamann]

This is common with, for example, some of the most famous and revered compressors. Their simplicity is not only not a problem but probably their best feature, but it means accepting whatever wired-in coloration they bring with them.

Exactly, hence the question. I'm of the vurt opinion:

there is no "should", other than the developer of said fx no body else knows what the designs aim is.

I don't think it should be open or should be limited, I just accept either way it goes.

Although, I guess I'm really not asking about shoulds, but which way do most here prefer and if someone prefers one way, why do they make so much noise (even polite noise) about things designed against their way?

[dan_s]

I use plugins because of there specific sound. So I welcome DESIGN [limitations] (that is a bad word, its not really a limitation).

As with most things, the more features you add to a device, the more exponentially shitty it becomes.

[scoobz]

I think there's a difference in application, professionals are looking to work quickly and efficiently, with great results. Often when I get a new plugin (free or payware) I'll spend some time making my own presets so when it comes to a session I'll have (in the case of compression) a peak tamer, a punch maker, a fattener etc

To that end I think plugins should be as flexible as possible. Sure, have all the elements necessary to facilitate the plugins 'sound' but make them options to the end user. An example of this would be the updated schuzzphut plugin, I used that yesterday on a sound where I didn't want the trance gate section of the plugin but the delays were perfect for what I needed. Now if the gating was 'hardwired' I would have to have used something else which may not have been exactly what I was looking for, as it was I got a good result, fast.

I made the mistake of not reading the whole RR thread to my cost and missed the bit where Chris said it was his vision for the plugin to hardwire the LPF. From what I've seen the general way things happen is people come up with a plugin design and users comment on how useful it is for them and any potential improvements that could be made. I applied that logic to the RR thread when I suggested the option to tweak the cutoff frequency of the rolloff. It was the first time (I've seen) that a dev has gone, "no, that's it, that's the way it is". I couldn't understand that and thought it must have been a promotional tool (oh how wrong I was! ) The thing is I think RR is a great plugin, and would probably be one of my 'go to's, as it is I'll use if only when a specific occassion arises.

So I think it's strange when devs impose limitations, I'm all for tweaking to get the most usuable product be it free or payware.

[thelizard]

I like having both simple, more limited plug-ins for when I need to get an idea quickly, along with "workbench" plugs. For instance, I love using Dubstation for quick delay, but if I want something more exotic, that's what MFM 2 and Ohmboys are for.

[Christian Budde]

Speaking of my VSTs I'm always trying to have everything parameter necessary to tweak on the GUI and every other parameter of the effect as hidden parameters. That is, if the user uses the host-dependent GUI he can tweak the plugin even further. Or think of Blockfish, where you could "open" the circuit to have access to some hidden parameters.
The only problem arises with presets. If internal parameters are different from one preset to the other and the user only uses the GUI that comes with the plugin it is impossible to create the same sound, even if all knobs are in the same position.
Speaking of envelope shapes for example it's always pretty much impossible to allow access to every variable inside the code. Let's consider the several constants in the code. Every change will affect the sound for sure, but sometimes you don't even have any idea, what a different value will sound like and how to call it.
If you compare it with real analog hardware you actually have parameters to tweak on the GUI, probably more parameters on the back (something like tuning) or inside the device, while there are always a lot of fixed parameters like constant resistors.

So I would vote for having only the most important parameters on the front, some more hidden (only those who actually can make a difference that you can name, but are not that important) while everything else should be fixed.

On the other hand also bear in mind, that developers also want to have their freedom. Most of us are musicians as well who likes to have their freedom and creativity. It's sad enough that we have to deal with all the scientific stuff in order to get it work properly. Sometimes you just want to have some flaws (in the eyes of others) to see that your still living and you have still creativity in mind (even if that restricts others).

Christian

[dirty oscillators]

it doesn't have to do your dishes and fold your laundry... if it sounds good, it's useful in my opinion regardless of any perceived limitations.

[shamann]

it's not really a limitation

Sure it is, but we've come to associate the word with a negative connotation when it isn't. If a low pass filter has a non-optional clipper on its back, you're limited to that configuration. Where if the clipper were optional, that limit no longer exists. Neither scenario really describes anything bad, though.

[scoobz]

good to hear from christian in this thread, nice to hear a devs POV. I think his philosophy is bang on.

[vurt]

This is common with, for example, some of the most famous and revered compressors. Their simplicity is not only not a problem but probably their best feature, but it means accepting whatever wired-in coloration they bring with them.

Exactly, hence the question. I'm of the vurt opinion:

there is no "should", other than the developer of said fx no body else knows what the designs aim is.

I don't think it should be open or should be limited, I just accept either way it goes.

Although, I guess I'm really not asking about shoulds, but which way do most here prefer and if someone prefers one way, why do they make so much noise (even polite noise) about things designed against their way?

as to which i prefer, it really only matters whether something does something of interest that i can use. be it something totally limited or something as open as reaktor.
i guess i just ignore the things that dont interest me rather than try to change them to my needs, its not as if there arent enough bits left for me to try

maybe a few years ago when there was a lesser availability of freeware out there it was important for the better of the bunch to work in more situations, but now when we have so much choise i think id prefer if we had more individual "boutique" type bits.