So... Is Guitar Rig dead?

VST, AU, AAX, CLAP, etc. Plugin Virtual Effects Discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

audiouser720 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:23 amMassive X is utterly digital of course (it’s a plugin) but the DSP of the filters and envelopes are so accurately analog modelled that I can easily simulate so many sounds of my Matriarch, Grandmother, Model D Reissue, Prophet 5 rev4 and my shitty old sh101. No other soft synth sounds so 3D (however you can describe that) than my analogs.
This is true. Massive X only has digital oscillator generation (wavetables, FM), but filters are juicy and yummy and totally not digital sounding.

Post

audiouser720 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:26 am

Analog emulation only makes sense if you understand analog behaviour. Everything else (sounding good/harsh/digital) is relative and personal until there is an obvious and proven fall in the coding (e.g. aliasing/ incorrect frequency and or phase response or any inaccuracies compared to the original device etc).

Cytomic is the only developer that I’m aware of who managed to component model so precisely a compressor and a filter and the result is almost (but is) distinguishable from the original one.

In terms of NI plugins sounding harsh and digital I can tell you this: they look harsh and digital. Sound is again... relative.
Once again you are implying that there is a lack of understanding on my side. Maybe cut the passive-aggressive nonsense for a minute?

You make it sound as if understanding basic gain-staging in digital processors modelling analog behaviour requires an advanced diploma in rocket science. Surprise: it does not!

And I was not talking about "looks", the digitally clipped, overprocessed sounds in my Maschine library do not have a look and the NI Bus Comp, despite looking hardware-ish, sounds like the worst 2005 generic freebie digital compressor, obviously lacking the pleasant characteristics found in many other hardware emulations (not only Cytomics).

I used the term digital-sounding to describe certain charactetistics of sound generated and processed mostly or exclusively in the digital realm, as opposed to analog processed or modelled sound. Other terms often used synonymously: cold, sterile, lifeless, generic...

You don't have to apologise for using Guitar Rig, I actually agree that the new GUI looks fine and I'm too curious sbout their new modelling approach. Still, I would not consider previous GR versions to sound particularly similar to the sound of analog processed / recorded guitars as known from countless records in music recording history. Other amp modellers are closer to the actual sound, in fact 10 years old Magix Vandal is far superior, not to mention Scuffham or TH-U.
audiouser720 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:26 am
Semi-pro has nothing to do with owning/using expensive equipment. I know people in million dollar studios who should be cleaning toilets and know kids with a laptop who should be promoted everywhere - although talent is one thing... being able to hear the difference and the affects in context of using hardware and plugins is another.
Semi-Pro does of course have something to do with owning expensive hardware, since you will be unlikely to own a $20k SSL board unless you are at a stage in your professional career where you generate a regular substantial income from audio engineering / music production. I agree with the rest of your statement though.
Last edited by Obsolete462444 on Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

Kazi7 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 12:48 pm
audiouser720 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:26 am

Analog emulation only makes sense if you understand analog behaviour. Everything else (sounding good/harsh/digital) is relative and personal until there is an obvious and proven fall in the coding (e.g. aliasing/ incorrect frequency and or phase response or any inaccuracies compared to the original device etc).

Cytomic is the only developer that I’m aware of who managed to component model so precisely a compressor and a filter and the result is almost (but is) distinguishable from the original one.

In terms of NI plugins sounding harsh and digital I can tell you this: they look harsh and digital. Sound is again... relative.
Once again you are implying that there is a lack of understanding on my side. Maybe cut the passive-aggressive nonsense for a minute?

You make it sound as if understanding basic gain-staging in digital processors modelling analog behaviour requires an advanced diploma in rocket science. Surprise: it does not!

And I was not talking about "looks", the digitally clipped, overprocessed sounds in my Maschine library do not have a look and the NI Bus Comp, despite looking hardware-ish, sounds like the worst 2005 generic freebie digital compressor, obviously lacking the pleasant characteristics found in many other hardware emulations (not only Cytomics).

I used the term digital-sounding to describe certain charactetistics of sound generated and processed mostly or exclusively in the digital realm, as opposed to analog processed or modelled sound. Other terms often used synonymously: cold, sterile, lifeless, generic...

You don't have to apologise for using Guitar Rig, I actually agree that the new GUI looks fine and I'm too curious sbout their new modelling approach. Still, I would not consider previous GR versions to sound particularly similar to the sound of analog processed / recorded guitars as known from countless records in music recording history. Other amp modellers are closer to the actual sound, in fact 10 years old Magix Vandal is far superior, not to mention Scuffham or TH-U.
Whatever dude. There was nothing passive aggressive but you think in your head whatever you want.

I’m out with the following: Did not mean to offend you but using terms ‘digital-sounding’ or ‘analog-sounding’ or warm or ‘phhhat’ or ‘harsh’ do require basic understanding of how the basics work and put together or otherwise sound is merely relative and personal.

None of this knowledge will ensure good production at the end if the day, anyway. Good luck in your journey.

Post

Okay "dude", that's fine!

Here is a video which will help you understand why GR lacks some crucial characteristics of real amps:

https://youtu.be/T6skNMTd8oU

Post

If you read my post back you can see I pointed out they should remove the guitar bit. I would never use the amps. I was talking about modulations and effects. I would never use any software amps for that matter.

Post

SLiC wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:34 pm
zvenx wrote: Thu Feb 25, 2021 1:31 pm Covid

https://www.native-instruments.com/foru ... st-2061103
rsp
OK, cheers...Strange how Covid didn't seem to slow down the marketing machine or taking money at the launch 6 months ago....last time someone asked they said the delay was due Apple Silicon :roll:
Well, consider this. Even with ICM doing all the important number-crunching in the cloud, you still gotta do (lots of) measurements directly inside the actual amp, to supply it to the neural network for processing. That's dealing with high voltages, it is definitely hazardous. So if you do this stuff from home, you directly violate Germany's work safety laws (and if you get zapped, you get no insurance coverage either because you did things on your own and not in the company offices, where NI would be liable for any such eventualities). And things are not the same in the offices anymore either.

So yeah, things are very much slowed down as a direct consequence of the pandemic.

Post

I preferred it when NI seemed anonymous rather than having a recognizable face.
I lost my heart in Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu

Post

Kazi7 wrote: Thu Mar 04, 2021 11:09 am
simon.a.billington wrote: Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:40 pm
I have less of an issue with this because I work at 96k. That helps to alleviate some aliasing issues of non oversampling plugins. A subtle filter on the high end can help too.
Personally I won't switch to 96k just so that I can use badly sounding plugins. 96k is not a good sample rate anyway, if the final medium is 44.1k. You would want to use 88.2 k then, which I also don't use due to causing approximately 100% extra CPU load for very little to none sonic benefit.

I use plugins that avoid bad aliasing right from the start or have optional oversampling (ideally different options for realtime and offline rendering). Dan Worrall made a perfect video on the subject!

https://youtu.be/-jCwIsT0X8M
There are other reasons for doing it to. Eqs respond better, no “cramping” at higher frequencies, anything that adds just a subtle bit of saturation, including compressors benefit, plus any pitch and time algorithm benefits. The more information you throw at an algorithm, the better the result.

Admittedly these all just make very, very minor differences, but it’s the sum of these minor differences is what makes a slightly more noticeable difference, especially in the transients.

As they say, it’s all those 1% differences that add up to make something more significant. It’s more beneficial if you want open, modern sounding mixes like you would with say orchestrated music and some pop. If you only create vintage or lo-fi sounding mixes you probably wouldn’t benefit. Except may be the pitch and time operations.

Post

Did anyone catch the NI and iZotope partnership announced a few weeks back?!?

Interesting move, I wonder how this will pan out??

Post

simon.a.billington wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:28 am There are other reasons for doing it to. Eqs respond better, no “cramping” at higher frequencies
any well written EQ will respond the same at any sampling rate, and will not have cramping. the only time this is an issue is when you use something from a bygone era, like Waves SSL emulations, or any other plugins written with simple "by-the-book" filters.
simon.a.billington wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:28 am anything that adds just a subtle bit of saturation, including compressors benefit
debatable, especially with regard to saturation, because those inaudible harmonics intermodulate and get reflected back into audible range. there's a great video by Dan Worall showing how lower sampling rate + oversampling actually sounds better (well, different, whether you prefer one over the other is besides the point) than working at higher sampling rate.
simon.a.billington wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:28 am plus any pitch and time algorithm benefits. The more information you throw at an algorithm, the better the result.
i don't believe you're correct. as far as the audible spectrum goes, what you throw at the pitch shifter is identical whether you're running at 44.1 or 96 or 192, the only "added" information is one that's above your hearing limit. more samples != more information, all of those new samples in audible spectrum would essentially be redundant and will not add any information that cannot be reconstructed from already existing samples by simple upsampling/interpolation.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.

Post

Re: intermodulation distortion, I think a viable strategy is to run at high sampling rate and filter out ultrasonic frequencies before each nonlinear process? https://vladgsound.wordpress.com/2014/1 ... a-version/

Whether that is more or less efficient than repeated up/downsampling will depend on implementations and how much of your processing benefits from this.

Post

well, yeah, one could also make the argument of some plugins having oversampling filters that are badly implemented/too steep/too shallow/etc. so you could use your preferred ultrasonic filter instead, and yea, we can get into all kinds of corner cases here. bottom line is though, higher sampling rate does not automagically make things better, and in some cases it may in fact make things worse.
I don't know what to write here that won't be censored, as I can only speak in profanity.

Post

Right. (Computationally) expensive methods executed blindly are not always better than simple methods executed thoughtfully.

Post

EvilDragon wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 11:38 am
audiouser720 wrote: Fri Mar 05, 2021 9:23 amMassive X is utterly digital of course (it’s a plugin) but the DSP of the filters and envelopes are so accurately analog modelled that I can easily simulate so many sounds of my Matriarch, Grandmother, Model D Reissue, Prophet 5 rev4 and my shitty old sh101. No other soft synth sounds so 3D (however you can describe that) than my analogs.
This is true. Massive X only has digital oscillator generation (wavetables, FM), but filters are juicy and yummy and totally not digital sounding.
It would be really nice if they gave an option to switch out one or both of the oscillators with something similar to Monark’s or Super 6’s.
Zerocrossing Media

4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~

Post

I sold my Kemper to fund a Quad Cortex. Not because of any issue with the Kemper, but because I miss my old dual amp setup that I used to use in the 90s and the quality seemed similar and allowed for two totally different effect/amp paths that you could pan.

In the meantime, I went back to Guitar Rig and a few others. I have to say, they’re pretty good. I still think that to my ears Neural’s Nolly sound better for my tastes, but man, Guitar Rig’s arsenal of effects is still very good for heavily effected sounds. The Brainworx stuff is also good, and I’ve been using the f**ks OD 50 and using other UAD or native plugins (as opposed to Native Instruments plugins) and I’m getting decent results, though I’m not a slave to getting some authentic tube sound. Much of my life I’ve used transistor amps or modelers. I just go with what I think sounds good and not “authentic.” If you want the authentic sound of a tube amp, you should just use a tube amp.
Zerocrossing Media

4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~

Post Reply

Return to “Effects”