Plug designers who aren't audio engineers.

[renø]

But can we add talent, knowledge, and good ears to that equation as well?

Yes, we can.
Everyone needs money. Even if you're the most talented plug-in developper, if none buys your tools, you'll need to find another work and your talent will be spoiled.
Knowledge needs money too. Because it needs time.

[jens]

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.

this is in fact proven!

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Funkybot, my point was exactly that of Crate vs Twin sound. Twin sounds best for your genre where sound standard is set. It's your shield and your problem. It's your shield because all you need is to know which amps and cabinets are commonly used. It's your problem is that EVERYONE knows what sound they should seek for, and so you are lost in their world. Because you are stuck with some pre set sound standard.

Twin may not sound as appealing for some unconventional music projects.

[championrabbit]

Twin may not sound as appealing for some unconventional music projects.

I'd say that point is entirely moot. Some people probably like eating mud, but you wouldn't serve it in a restaurant.

People's ears haven't evolved at the same rate as plug design and so (whether you like it or not) the subjective standards that are applied to hardware design must also apply to software design if we are talking about esoteric plugs with 'magic' properties.

Take overloaded digital convertors for example; you could argue that the sound of clipping in this context is as creatively valid as the sound of a driven Neve pre-amp, but you'd be an idiot to claim that they are of equivalent usefulness in terms of studio standards.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

championrabbit, you are giving a pretty unexplained example here. I bet your hypothetical studio records some rock band lead by an old rock band producer. Take Electronica, for example. I doubt your Twin wins here.

All these 'vintage' things are getting old... And are not a solid base for reasoning in old vs new discussions (i.e. no stable controversy is possible - in the same manner as with symphonic orchestras: you can't build symphonic orchestra out of a rock band.

So, to sum up, Fender Twin is good for SOME genres of ROCK, and probably most profitable albums were recorded with it. But that's all. In fact, its only a build-up of attitudes from the past.

That's my reasoning on why it's pretty clueless to compare old AE approaches to the new ones. If you are going to record a good rock album and sell tons of it: no problem - just hire a vintage studio and do your work there. No real need to use software. But with the software you have ANOTHER world. In average, it's usually more efficient to TAKE IT as a new reality than take something from the past reality into this world. It's how history evolves.

[Mr Smith]

hmm, i think that the most important skill for a plugin developer is to have a good experience and knowledge of actual music production in practice. In the end everything comes down to answering the questions "is this good and useful sound in practice?, is this GUI a useful one for a music producer?". To be able to have a good judgement on this it doesnt matter if you have extraterrestial math skills or 3 engineering degrees, what matters is knowledge about prectical computer based music production. I think the best plugins are made by those with both technical and practical knowledge, or collaboration work like rob papen/linplug.

[soulata]

That's my reasoning on why it's pretty clueless to compare old AE approaches to the new ones. If you are going to record a good rock album and sell tons of it: no problem - just hire a vintage studio and do your work there. No real need to use software. But with the software you have ANOTHER world. In average, it's usually more efficient to TAKE IT as a new reality than take something from the past reality into this world. It's how history evolves.

I would generally agree. But I still sometimes wish to get that sound with software (because of the budget involved).

[championrabbit]

championrabbit, you are giving a pretty unexplained example here. I bet your hypothetical studio records some rock band lead by an old rock band producer. Take Electronica, for example. I doubt your Twin wins here.

All these 'vintage' things are getting old... And are not a solid base for reasoning in old vs new discussions (i.e. no stable controversy is possible - in the same manner as with symphonic orchestras: you can't build symphonic orchestra out of a rock band.

So, to sum up, Fender Twin is good for SOME genres of ROCK, and probably most profitable albums were recorded with it. But that's all. In fact, its only a build-up of attitudes from the past.

That's my reasoning on why it's pretty clueless to compare old AE approaches to the new ones. If you are going to record a good rock album and sell tons of it: no problem - just hire a vintage studio and do your work there. No real need to use software. But with the software you have ANOTHER world. In average, it's usually more efficient to TAKE IT as a new reality than take something from the past reality into this world. It's how history evolves.

Er...this entire thread is about vintage/esoteric/non-vanilla/modelled plugs.

Nobody is suggesting that Merzbow should use a Gibson Les Paul and a JCM900.

You seem to be claiming that since software exists that doesn't ape hardware, people's ears must have changed and their subjective likes and dislikes are changed. Also I don't understand what you mean by 'old AE approaches'; has the behaviour of audio signals and their effect on speakers/the ear suddenly changed while I was in the bathroom?

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Smith, I agree with you. That's why I'm always open to collaboration offers with local bands, and I actually took part in several small projects.

soulata, orchestra music pieces are also usually being composed on the computer today. Even if it's not going to be played by an actual orchestra. Still, such computer representation isn't a real orchestra, an I guess everybody agrees that this is not a faithful representation of an orchestra...

[Aleksey Vaneev]

championrabbit, old AE approaches dealt with analog schematics and with different signal realities. Audio engineer of the past won't help DSP developer to develop an effect. They can explain some sonic facts and features, but details of old schematics won't be of any use. You'll take a general idea and drop everything else, because it simply does not work like in analog domain. So, it's absolutely unnecessary to know which speaker was used on the guitar combo. It's much more useful to know its frequency and phase response, its modes, its distortion features, room it was recorded in, mic used, altitude, direction and angle it was placed at.

On your another point, people's subjective likes and dislikes HAVE changed. Simple example: loudness maximizers. I know studio professionals dislike them, but people DO LIKE the effect. While their preferences were different in the past. Take recordings. Vinyl was OK, then cassettes were OK, then CD is OK, now DVD is not enough - SACD is here, etc. I doubt after listening to a good SACD recording you'll switch to compact cassettes for general-purpose media.

[championrabbit]

So, it's absolutely unnecessary to know which speaker was used on the guitar combo. It's much more useful to know its frequency and phase response, its modes, its distortion features, room it was recorded in, mic used, altitude, direction and angle it was placed at.

Speaker not important (for example), but Mic important. Er...right.

On your another point, people's subjective likes and dislikes HAVE changed. Simple example: loudness maximizers. I know studio professionals dislike them, but people DO LIKE the effect. While their preferences were different in the past.

This is all about context; people listen to music either as background noise, or in shorter bursts. Clearly attentively listening to entire albums of fully maximised recording is fatiguing, whereas on the radio, in the work-place or for 10 minutes it's arguably more suitable.

Also, since records are never released in a maximised and non-maximised format, we have no way of knowing what people 'like'.

Take recordings. Vinyl was OK, then cassettes were OK, then CD is OK, now DVD is not enough - SACD is here, etc. I doubt after listening to a good SACD recording you'll switch to compact cassettes for general-purpose media.

This is simple nonsense.

MP3s are far more popular than SACDs, and MP3s are unarguably a step back from CDs. The push for a better-than-CD format is for commercial reasons; it is not consumer-driven.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

I went to a deeper detail with 'mic' there than I wanted. Actually, for DSP developer what really matters is a copy of the 'combo-mic-room' system - modeled or sampled with impulse response or other means. With computers it all becomes virtual, and there is no sense in knowing who made the combo, speaker, mic, who and where all these things were placed the way they are.

MP3 is a convenient format. But that does not mean you'll convert your SACD disks into MP3 format for dedicated listening. But you may convert it to MP3 for quick background listening. This does not mean MP3 is a desired sonic quality - only desired CONSUMER quality.

All storage media I've mentioned have same consumer quality - that's why direct comparison is possible. Not MP3.

Beside that I wanted to add that it is commerce which promotes one quality or another. MASS product. Everything else is irrelevant and is left to enthusiasts. Commercially, it is usually irrelevant what you are going to use - Fender Twin or Crate for your recording. Targetting (producer vision) is what really matters if you are making it for living. Because people's perception shifts from time to time you may have to use Crate, or you may have to use something you do not even possess now.

[soulata]

soulata, orchestra music pieces are also usually being composed on the computer today. Even if it's not going to be played by an actual orchestra. Still, such computer representation isn't a real orchestra, an I guess everybody agrees that this is not a faithful representation of an orchestra...

I know. What I wanted to say was: I'd love to have my semi-cheap preamps sound like neve, or a sw channelstrip with that sound.

not possible at all probably (I still think you can't really fake a great room/instrument/mic/preamp in computer, I'm more than happy just to get nearer...)

btw, I really like your plugins, will check boogex out.

k

[birrbits]

Actually, for DSP developer what really matters is a copy of the 'combo-mic-room' system - modeled or sampled with impulse response or other means.

From your previous posts I beleve you are saying that only this system matters whereas some of the details of its components do not....

In my opinion a much better/ more flexible product (in terms of say a guitar amp) comes from modeling each component....amp, speaker + possibly mic placement and room.

As for modeling from schematics, to say this approach is dead or over runs contrary to many of the new plugins I have seen....

i think its important to realize that all the answers cant be had from a single impulse response...most gear has knobs. You could theoretically keep moving each knob & take impulse responses, do some nice ffts & try to figure out a way of modeling what each knob is doing....

or you could look at the schematics

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Do you really think these new plug-ins are modeled in schematic form? Nope, they are usually build of decomposed schematics. I.e. linear step-by-step process form.

Of course impulse responses won't create all the elements - it's just the most convenient while powerful tool for DSP developers.