Plug designers who aren't audio engineers.

[championrabbit]

I am much more interested in what would an 'amp' be circa 2350 than circa 1950 !

Fair enough, but that belongs in a different thread.

Unless people's ears have changed, the same 'sounds' are subjectively pleasing.

[Space Boy]

UAD (for example) make some amazing plugs, and there can be little doubt that they have been designed by people who know AEing inside-out. WaveArts on the other hand (guessing here) don't seem like they have a team of full-on, hardcore, seasoned AEs which (I assume) is why they stick to excellent vanilla-flavoured plugs.

What say you?

This is what you have heard with your own ears or what you have read in a magazine?

I think that (avoiding sweeping generalizations here) if 2 out of 3 people tell you something is no good, even if you disagree, it is more likely you will believe the 2 - unfortunately.

Also, it very much depends on what UAD and WaveArts claim for their products. You can hardly critcize people for sticking to what they know - provided it is in line with their claims - I think.

Is that closer to the topic?

[ddummer]

In other words the topic is about:

"Don´t mis-use words like Vintage ect that have
a value and meaning on stuff that don´t deserve it"

?

If so then let´s invent NEW words for stuff....
ohh well let´s just INVENT dagnamit.

//Daniel

[nick at artsacoustic]

marketing (or greed)will ruin all good products.
haven't you guys heard of the new, fftbasedspectralultrawavemorphingdistortameterfilterama?
it rocks!

my chime in:
who cares?
just download the demo, tweak it to the bone,
and then decide for yourself.
your ears should be the judge, no matter what marketing says. there is so much skillful software out there.
in fact i do believe, while it somehow rised up to a united folks sport to hunt for the perfect software, most of us allways more and more forget to realize that some software nowadays provides a quality which we simply wouldn`t have seen just 2 jears ago.
also, if you then start to compare with Hardware, you might be surprised how you were able to use it and define it as good before.
don`t get me wrong, there is some unbeatable hardware out there, but the general "miracleizing" of old hardware is not justified often.
what i want to say is simply, that we should stop hunting after the best hardware emulation, instead of that we should just realize that it`s often better of use, to tweak a given software with it`s provided sound and features, because that is what keeps us evolving in sound, and on top of that, this gives us a sound that may not be possible with usual hardware.
i.e. when jean michelle jarre (forget your personla taste here, jdge on facts) made his first records in the early seventies, he did not use techniques in a usual way. by doing so, and using his hardware _just_ the way he thinks it`s best, he created a sound never heard before. he used what he had with the biggest amount of creativity. if a nowadays user would do so with the todays possible software, sound never has been more interresting and most flexible, plus, it never has been mor affordable.

edit: by the way, we are audio engineers since up to 18 years now, for the record of the topic.
sorry, i simply couldn`t resist ...

[bmanic]

UAD (for example) make some amazing plugs, and there can be little doubt that they have been designed by people who know AEing inside-out. WaveArts on the other hand (guessing here) don't seem like they have a team of full-on, hardcore, seasoned AEs which (I assume) is why they stick to excellent vanilla-flavoured plugs.

What say you?

This is what you have heard with your own ears or what you have read in a magazine?

I think that (avoiding sweeping generalizations here) if 2 out of 3 people tell you something is no good, even if you disagree, it is more likely you will believe the 2 - unfortunately.

.. and those who find this is true should not apply to the mixing/mastering/record engineer carreer professionally.

Space Boy, I quite strongly disagree with you on this.

Look, why do you think that the "big guys" can achive such a powerful, clean yet full sound in their mixing? Answer, skill and gear.

Lets say that a world class mixing/recording engineer records a basic rock foursome with very good converters and good microphones but is forced to use the internal plugins that come with Cubase.

Then he gets to mix one with his favourite gear. Will there be a signifficant difference that an "average dude from the street" will hear? Yes.

It is NOT about how subtle the difference of a single effect/synth/whatever is but rather how much THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT is of using superior audio fidelity wherever possible. Of course this does not apply to certain experimental genres of music where all noise is good noise but most contemporary genres have quite clear 'rules' about what sounds good.

I feel always like I'm fighting against the wind with these "can you really hear the difference?" arguments. Unfortunately this is one of the things you just need to hear yourself to believe (and I've NEVER EVER met anybody who's been recording/mixing with top end gear that would state otherwise).

just my 2 cents while recovering from the heavy partying!
- bManic

[ddummer]

I think this topic in essence is about the over
believe in digital domains.

The dream of having a complete PRO studio in virtual
from at a money level of the common man is a bit
un-realistic.

Just because someone yell "ANALOG" doesn´t mean that
you should answer like "You SAID it was analog and
I believed you and got my hopes up there for a moment
only to find out it wasn´t true... booohoo."

//Daniel

[jmh]

Amen. I get pulled into discussions about this "my $200 software studio can do just as good quality as that $2 million studio you just visited and keep talking about" on a daily basis.

And it's always the same: the person defending his/her software setup has no experience whatsoever with the expensive gear.

... and funny how that discussion always turns into "are you really saying that the more expensive studio results in better music" - lack of arguments shifting the discussion to an unrelated topic

Regards,

JMH

[Space Boy]

Lets say that a world class mixing/recording engineer records a basic rock foursome with very good converters and good microphones but is forced to use the internal plugins that come with Cubase.

Then he gets to mix one with his favourite gear. Will there be a signifficant difference that an "average dude from the street" will hear? Yes.

Are you suggesting that the quality of a recording engineer's output is SO highly dependent on the quality of his/her gear? In effect, we could all be world class recording engineers if we were able to afford "the best" gear.

[nick at artsacoustic]

seconded, ddummer.
my last cent on this:
it was never cheaper to
make music on a such high quality level
than today, when it comes to gear,
whether it`s hard or software.

[jmh]

Lets say that a world class mixing/recording engineer records a basic rock foursome with very good converters and good microphones but is forced to use the internal plugins that come with Cubase.

Then he gets to mix one with his favourite gear. Will there be a signifficant difference that an "average dude from the street" will hear? Yes.

Are you suggesting that the quality of a recording engineer's output is SO highly dependent on the quality of his/her gear? In effect, we could all be world class recording engineers if we were able to afford "the best" gear.

While I'm not bManic... why is it always necessary to think of only the extreme opposite, instead of say... thinking what's been written?

What bManic is saying is that better gear CAN improve the quality (my own addition: and that it WILL in the hands of a skilled person), not that better gear automatically results in improved quality (my addition:when used by any person pulled off the street - since that's what you're saying).

It's a big equation after all and the gear is just a part of it...

This is what I also referred to in my a-bit-off-topic post - always thinking of the extreme opposites instead of understanding that it's not black and white. Not to mention purposefully misunderstanding what's being said or just twisting words...

Regards,

JMH

[bmanic]

Lets say that a world class mixing/recording engineer records a basic rock foursome with very good converters and good microphones but is forced to use the internal plugins that come with Cubase.

Then he gets to mix one with his favourite gear. Will there be a signifficant difference that an "average dude from the street" will hear? Yes.

Are you suggesting that the quality of a recording engineer's output is SO highly dependent on the quality of his/her gear? In effect, we could all be world class recording engineers if we were able to afford "the best" gear.

If you didn't understand what I tried to say then please read again.. if you still didn't get it then read jmh's clarification.

On a same note:

If a guy with absolutely no clue of recording/mixing is given the same options as my above example, will his mix in the big studio sound much better? Probably not.

- bManic

[Space Boy]

While I'm not bManic... why is it always necessary to think of only the extreme opposite, instead of say... thinking what's been written?

jmh, I think I was aware of what was written. However, on this point, if I may point out, you did previously extract a small section of my post, take it out of context and throw in the comment that I was making a sweeping generalization - without further explanation as to why you thought it a sweeping generalization.

Some people use the limits of an argument to determine if the argument makes any sense - I simply tested the limits of the argument in the form of a question.

Of course it isn't black or white. Of course a professional will do a better job with better equipment.

This post, however, was about saying one plug-in vendor seems to make "better" plugs than another. And, it was implied that this is because one vendor employs significantly more experience from audio engineers. My response was that provided the vendors don't claim more than they deliver then what is the problem?

Let your own ears and wallet be the judge - that's why plug-in developers make demos.

[ddummer]

http://news.harmony-central.com/Newp/20 ... amond.html

Visa?

[jmh]

jmh, I think I was aware of what was written. However, on this point, if I may point out, you did previously extract a small section of my post, take it out of context and throw in the comment that I was making a sweeping generalization - without further explanation as to why you thought it a sweeping generalization.

Ahemm.

Out of context? Should I have quoted several earlier posts or something?

You put it in a general way in your post, I responded to that.

I read it as you wrote, not as applying to a difference between two vendors.

As for explaining why it was a sweeping generalization... it doesn't need any detailed explanation - just reading what you wrote.

Furthermore, putting it like that (taking in regard that you didn't exactly point out whether you were referring to differences between two vendor's similar products or speaking generally as your writing implied to me) somewhat hints to people not being able to hear differences but blindly believing the vendor's claims about some product's "betterness" in comparison to competition.

And that's what I was 'disagreeing' with when I posted my comment. If we're discussing differences between competing products, I'd make the sweeping generalisation myself that people engaged in the discussion are talking about something they've listened to themselves

A long explanation for something I thought was simple... hope it's clear now, there was nothing else behind that remark.

Some people use the limits of an argument to determine if the argument makes any sense - I simply tested the limits of the argument in the form of a question.

Ok, I can accept that. My response was coming from seeing such limits testing questions as the most typical response to questions and opinions posted regarding this topic.

And questioning the limits of course has a purpose - the tighter / more detailed an argument or an opinion is, the more extreme way of putting it is required to see if such an argument or comment holds water.

This post, however, was about saying one plug-in vendor seems to make "better" plugs than another. And, it was implied that this is because one vendor employs significantly more experience from audio engineers. My response was that provided the vendors don't claim more than they deliver then what is the problem?

Amen As I'm just taking part in a thread or two where people offering "criticism" are basing their views on claims not originating from the vendor(s) but from users, and reflecting that to the vendor(s)...

But of course, a generalisation could be made that it's more likely for the vendor with more experience backing up their project to come up with a "better" plugin. However, I for one still evaluate anything and everything solely on what the plugin delivers, disregarding any claims by the vendor. After that, it's time to rip up the developer if such claims aren't met

Let your own ears and wallet be the judge - that's why plug-in developers make demos.

This still is the best piece of advice that can possibly be given Forget what the users are raving about, forget what the vendor claims the product delivers. Test it yourself. No-one else will be able to say if any particular plugin will provide you something that is useful / good sounding / cool / whatever to you.

Regards,

JMH

[Space Boy]

O.K.