Some are expensive, some are free

[flugel45]

....

Consider, for instance, the cost of plugins for the UAD-1 and powercore. No hacks, and pretty head-to-head competition, right? But the powercore plugins are LESS development intensive (being generally ported from existing TC hardware) and much MORE expensive. They're also, generally, not as good. So go figure. I can't.

I totally disagree.
The DSP card plugs are generally much better then the native ones and the price is a real bargain.
Take for example the $399 UAD project card.
Amazing reverb, compressors, channel strip, delay,echo, chorus , flanger. Top notch EQ's and more.
All running without CPU hit so it's like a computer horsepower update as well..... all this for $399?
It's a real bargain.
Take just two top notch native plugs, let's say reverb and compressor, and I doubt you can find any that are as good as the UAD ones, you are already over $399.

Huh? I think you missed his point entirely.

Unless I misunderstood too, he simply said the Powercore was more expensive than the UAD1, but IHO, wasn't as good. Nothing there about comparisons with native plugs. (The "generally" I thought, referred to Powercore plugins, not DSP cards).


JD

[Frippertronix]

I think part of the explanation is that you've got a complex system of factors going on with plugin and DAW marketing. Part of it is that the range of buyers is so huge---everything from geeky kids in junior high who throw together loops to big name producers in half million dollar studios.

So if a company gets picked up as an industry standard (like Waves or Pro Tools), suddenly they get the "Lexicon syndrome" and decide their little bits and bytes are worth a premium somehow.

Apparently this works for some of them because they prosper. I've tried a lot of Waves stuff and I think my Kjaerhus Audio, WWAYM, some stuff from Izotope, Princeton Digital, and evn some free stuff like TbT all sound better than Waves.

Which brings up another point, which is the range of company sizes. Since software may cost something to develop, and certainly takes a lot of talent to develop creatively, but costs little or nothing to mass produce digitally and not that much to mass produce in boxes, that makes little companies like the ones I mentioned viable in the marketplace. The trend is for small companies (except some that seem to think they have quite a lot of cache like Sonalksis), to try to be competitive by pricing low, sometimes astonishingly low, compared to the bigger establishment. They take free advertising on KVR , we find out about it, and everyone benefits.

Plus, keep in mind, that developers are probably aware of how much good freeware there is out there, so they are actually competing with that price structure as well.

[Amberience]

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, including developers.

Here's one: A guarantee of compatability between studios has a high value.

So you have something like the Waves bundle. Very expensive, very high quality, and just as important, it's got a certain credibility that makes it a standard. You can put in your contract that the production studio will deliver the project in a specified format to a post-production shop, they can load up their PT-based DAW with the same plugins and same paramaters, and pick up where you left off. This ability has an extremely high value in certain circles.

Hmmm... see even that explanation doesn't float with me. How does the software get it's "credibility" and how does it maintain it?

It has to start off with the software either being good or people being led to believe it's good. It all flows together once that's out.

Saying that, there are plugs a lot better than the Waves bundle, but they don't get the same recognition. I think a lot of it is down to reviews by industry pro's - y'know, the dicks that make all the decisions.

[jmh]

Same reason why "all the pros use Macs", if you think about it for a minute

JMH

[eduardo_b]

These issues have been touched upon in other threads before. I guess the fundamental question that needs to be addressed is: Is there a relationship between cost and effectiveness. (Obviously this question could be further broken down into other criteria and indeed further sub questions)

And if there is a relationship, then how strong is it ? I suspect there is a very weak relationship between cost and effectiveness.

I am a firm believer in the law of diminishing returns, meaning that if you spend $50 on a plug-in, spending $500 on another doesn't mean it's 10 times better. There may be additional features and/or refinements, but there's no direct relation of value to cost. After all, people who buy Rolex watches are not getting more accurate time keeping or lifespan for spending 10 times what equally good watches sell for.

I started this thread because I wanted to hear what people who have far more experience than me had to say on the topic. In trying many dozens of plug-ins, I've noticed that the quality of features, sound and interface to price has some correlation, but not past the $50 to $100 range, with the exceptions being the synths that have truly sophisticated, unique coding and can do what less expensive ones cannot.

Paying for programmers certainly raises costs, and the costs for physical distribution are substantial, so I can see these adding significantly to the unit price. At the same time, given that hobbyists like myself are buying products also used by professionals means that many more units are being sold, which should bring the unit cost down. Except possibly that support costs go up as more and more people purchase the plug-ins. On the other hand, if the product is well-coded and stable, how much support should there actually be.

[eduardo_b]

I think part of the explanation is that you've got a complex system of factors going on with plugin and DAW marketing. Part of it is that the range of buyers is so huge---everything from geeky kids in junior high who throw together loops to big name producers in half million dollar studios.

So if a company gets picked up as an industry standard (like Waves or Pro Tools), suddenly they get the "Lexicon syndrome" and decide their little bits and bytes are worth a premium somehow.

What really got this started for me was seeing the cost and description of the Sony Oxford reverb for Pro Tools. I just wondered what could possibly make a VST reverb worth that much. I mean, even the Princeton 2016 at $200 is pushing it in my mind. Is it the "professional" market, which is justification in every industry for vastly higher pricing, or is it what you note is the realization that they can ask for and get premium pricing for products that are really no better than ones costing a tenth or less.

[eduardo_b]

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this, including developers.

Here's one: A guarantee of compatability between studios has a high value.

This might be true, but there are only so many studios -- professional and home -- that can and will pay for these very expensive bundles. I wonder why they don't offer the same plug-ins in a so-called light edition that offers basically the same features but at a very significantly lower price. The volume of sales would likely be huge because of the name on the plug-ins.

[Mauvehead]

Actually a lot of VST developers do offer "light" versions nowadays. Perhaps out of necessity. Plus it is their hopes that the "light" or free version with limited capabilities will entice more people to take the plunge on their flagship products. IK Multimedia comes to mind on several of their VST's. And I'm sure you are right about them selling more product because of that.

[jmh]

Two things worth bearing in mind...

1. The world is not KVR, KVR is not the world. Limiting audio software market to KVR and discussions within means cutting out most of the market out of the equation.

2. Volume of sales automatically increasing with cheaper prices isn't a rule or a fact, it's an effect that's known to happen but without a 100% certainty that it will.

3. Some companies have been talking about this pricing issue and have revealed that they gain more income by pricing the product higher and aiming for a different section of the market, instead of catering for hobbyists / prosumers / KVRers-who-want-everything-in-groupbuys-with-discounts.

Most of the time it's simply doing just that - pricing things according to the market you're after, depending to an extent on how others have priced their products in that same range. Running a business isn't always as simple as "I'll just price it low and see it sell tons more copies".

4. The "Mac effect". Never underestimate it. Waves is still doing so well because "everybody (pro) uses them", despite the fact that you can substitute their plugins with Voxengo products, pay less, get better plugins and in the process, support an independent developer who gives good support and is always developing new products.

5. The unit cost. Remember, most of the companies are running a business. If their product sells at a certain price, and is purchased both by professionals and hobbyists at that price, businesswise it just isn't sensible to offer it at a lower price despite the unit cost going down. As in the end 'a business' is about making profit, not just catering the market with a good product at a price that will return the original investment.

Ok, that's five, not two

And a final thing worth bearing in mind... just how familiar one is with all the high end products compared to the low end ones? You know, a/b comparisons in an environment that offers good monitoring, testing with a wide range of material, so on... So very often we get to see "this new cheap thing beats that expensive thing out of the market!!" kind of commentary, which makes me think every time about just what kind of comparisons have been made to come up with that conclusion. (Witness all the threads "discussing" how all the expensive studio hardware is useless because somebody just checked out a new plugin at home and was really impressed with it)

(My personal view on the matter differs from what I just wrote... a lot of stuff, not just audio apps, is way overpriced, sometimes the high price is met with higher quality, business where making profit is the only objective sucks, and making any business big enough to include a traditional corporate mentality and structure is something that should be avoided as long as possible - the final nail in the coffin is when investmentors are into the equation and shares or a similar system takes over the original situation where the people who started the business owned it all and employed themselves... something like that )

Regards,

JMH

[lion_cub]

I think part of the explanation is that you've got a complex system of factors going on with plugin and DAW marketing. Part of it is that the range of buyers is so huge---everything from geeky kids in junior high who throw together loops to big name producers in half million dollar studios.

So if a company gets picked up as an industry standard (like Waves or Pro Tools), suddenly they get the "Lexicon syndrome" and decide their little bits and bytes are worth a premium somehow.

What really got this started for me was seeing the cost and description of the Sony Oxford reverb for Pro Tools. I just wondered what could possibly make a VST reverb worth that much. I mean, even the Princeton 2016 at $200 is pushing it in my mind. Is it the "professional" market, which is justification in every industry for vastly higher pricing, or is it what you note is the realization that they can ask for and get premium pricing for products that are really no better than ones costing a tenth or less.

It's an elitist market.

[bobby yarrow]

Consider, for instance, the cost of plugins for the UAD-1 and powercore. No hacks, and pretty head-to-head competition, right? But the powercore plugins are LESS development intensive (being generally ported from existing TC hardware) and much MORE expensive. They're also, generally, not as good. So go figure. I can't.

I totally disagree.
The DSP card plugs are generally much better then the native ones and the price is a real bargain.
Take for example the $399 UAD project card.
Amazing reverb, compressors, channel strip, delay,echo, chorus , flanger. Top notch EQ's and more.
All running without CPU hit so it's like a computer horsepower update as well..... all this for $399?
It's a real bargain.
Take just two top notch native plugs, let's say reverb and compressor, and I doubt you can find any that are as good as the UAD ones, you are already over $399.

We totally agree. As JD says, I was comparing the cost of UAD and poco plugs to each other, and noting that poco plugs are a lot more expensive and (generally) not as good as the UAD plugs. That's all.

[hello1234]

Protools plugs are just out of control price wise..........and you have to remember that allot of them require the REAL protools version......not the affordable versions mpowered/le.

Us home users just can't justify any of those plugs/host cost and what would we need it for?

[eduardo_b]

1. The world is not KVR, KVR is not the world. Limiting audio software market to KVR and discussions within means cutting out most of the market out of the equation.

While this is true, KVR seems to represent the largest gathering of VST developers and users outside of the professional market, so it's a good place -- in that sense -- for discussions like this. I don't know what "most of the market" means, but if you're referring to pro market, I guess you'd be correct given that their budgets are vastly greater than the rest of us, and they will pay more for what is assumed to be assurance they are getting the best quality money can buy.

2. Volume of sales automatically increasing with cheaper prices isn't a rule or a fact, it's an effect that's known to happen but without a 100% certainty that it will.

Again, true, but what I was referring to was really pricing at the outset -- making the decison for the price point for a given volume that will yield a possible revenue stream sufficient for profit to keep the business going and pay for more development.

3. Some companies have been talking about this pricing issue and have revealed that they gain more income by pricing the product higher and aiming for a different section of the market, instead of catering for hobbyists / prosumers / KVRers-who-want-everything-in-groupbuys-with-discounts.

There is a lot of evidence (Grey Goose vodka proved it very well) that premium pricing can increase sales to those who want the "best" (the assumption that highest priced equals best in market) and those who can't afford the best but buy it anyway because it changes their self-perception. In the VST world, I can see the division between the small number of companies that price for lower volume and higher margins and all the rest.

4. The "Mac effect". Never underestimate it. Waves is still doing so well because "everybody (pro) uses them", despite the fact that you can substitute their plugins with Voxengo products, pay less, get better plugins and in the process, support an independent developer who gives good support and is always developing new products.

And this seems to come back to my original post. What does a $700 Waves convolver have that Voxengo's $159 convolver doesn't? I don't know enough to make that call, and in the end it may be that no one can reliably pick a recording done with one or the other.

... just how familiar one is with all the high end products compared to the low end ones? You know, a/b comparisons in an environment that offers good monitoring, testing with a wide range of material, so on...

Now we come to my favorite subject of all. Whether it is special speaker cables or VSTs or whatever, without true A/B tests it is essentially impossible to detect differences that aren't clearly obvious to begin with. And even A/B tests may reveal nothing. The standards for what represents the best sounds don't exist beyond obviously poorly recorded and mixed music. The tools used to achieve what one wants more often than not probably represent the least important factor unless those tools are difficult to use for whatever reason.

I remember reading a letter in a music recording magazine from someone who tried to achieve the purest recordings by eliminating all processing and using specific microphones, etc. And my reaction was that there are so many variables in making, recording, mixing and listening to music that there is no such thing as a purest methodology. So whatever VSTs are used may have little to do with how good the final mix is because the tool is only as good as the person using it.

(My personal view on the matter differs from what I just wrote... a lot of stuff, not just audio apps, is way overpriced, sometimes the high price is met with higher quality...

So there's a price point where value for money is about equal, and below that there are bargins and there is junk, and above that there is more quality, but not much more, and pricing that has nothing much to do with real quality. For VSTs, I think the price points are often too high for commercial stuff that's downloadable and requires little support. Complex VSTs might be a different story, but even there $100 to $130 seems reasonable -- not $200, $500 or more. Yes, no?

[fac]

And this seems to come back to my original post. What does a $700 Waves convolver have that Voxengo's $159 convolver doesn't? I don't know enough to make that call, and in the end it may be that no one can reliably pick a recording done with one or the other.

That's not difficult to answer, actually.

First of all, the brand name. Waves has been around for years and is used by many professionals. Voxengo, while having great products and service, is still a small and rather new company. A pro with the budget will more likely go with Waves just because it's the safe bet.

Second: a professional impulse library. Yes, you can go and search the net for decent impulses, but with the Waves plugin, you don't have to. You can be sure the value of the impulse library is at least half that of the package.

Third: Compatibility. Waves plugins are in a variety of formats: RTAS, HTDM, AudioSuite, VST, DX. Voxengo is VST only. That works for most of us hobbysts, but a pro with a ProTools set won't bother.

Fourth: Security. Waves has been around for a long time now, so it's very unlikely it will just go belly-up and leave a bunch of customers behind. On the other hand, a small new company has a lot of uncertainty in its future.

I'm not saying Waves is better than Voxengo. I have four Voxengo plugs which I love and not a single Waves one. I would never buy Waves unless I were setting up a professional studio, and maybe not even in that case. But Waves plugs aren't as expensive as they seem when you consider all the factors involved.

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

I think the problem with low priced or free products is that while there is some great ones available, they are burried amongst tons of crap ones. If you don't have lots of cash then you wade through the crap until you find something good.

If you're a pro with a big budget however, then you hand over some big bucks to Waves etc. and you get something you know is quality.

The expensive brands like Waves, Sony and NI have built up a reputation for plugs that are consistantly high quality, so people with the money are prepared to trust them. Now maybe you can cheap or free alternatives if you look hard enough, but if you have a big budget then maybe you don't bother and just go for something that's widely used and proven.

But hey I wouldn't know, I'm skint so I can only guess what its like to have a big budget