Some are expensive, some are free

[idobs]

I always love this topic!


Most of KVRs topics are driven by the psychology of people wanting to justify their decisions. You ask on KVR, "what's the best synth for phat basses", and you'll get a list of the synths that people paid money for. Which isn't really an accurate list of synths for making phat basses...


I always trust answers more when they come from the people who tell me how great a FREE synth is, since it seems more sincere and less driven by "justifying" something.


Now what I don't understand is why the pro-FREE people are so against the PAY-synths. I always hear how "the free synth is 99% as good as the PAY-synth." I can't tell whether there's some psychology at play here, or whether they're just plain RIGHT!!!


-Ido

[eduardo_b]

Eduardo_b Let me start by saying what a good, thoughtful response :) These tend to surprise me nowadays on KVR.

Thanks. I sometimes think I write too much -- babbling at the keyboard, so to speak.

Indeed. We can only be thankful of all the developers who have realized so far that decent income can be made without aiming for the ProTools end of the market (I'm intentionally leaving out factors such as piracy out of it). We have some amazing products that equal or surpass the highly priced competitors and don't cost an arm and a leg.

The economic realities are that the recording business is changing, and many famous studios are closing their doors because digital recording, effects, mixing and mastering are bringing the tools (if not necessarily the ability given that there's no studio assistant mentoring in a home studio) down to the hobbyist and prosumer. The hardware side of the business is going to be in big trouble if this continues, but the virtual side will have huge opportunities -- unless they price themselves into the upper end of the market.

Well... knowing how 'informed' a person making comparisons is an important piece of information. If a person claims that the cheap plugin A gives better results than expensive plugin B, I need to know that the person has the equipment to do such comparisons and knows how to pull off the comparison to begin with...

There's little likelihood that more than a few people who make these claims are able to actually carry out true A/B testing. But my real point is that without such comparisons, the only remaining standard is "do I like how this sounds." Not a bad thing in and of itself, because it's entirely possible that a plug-in someone else is raving about might seem just okay or less.

But the thing we have to bear in mind if we start comparing things is that we stick to comparisons instead of just coming up with irrelevancies such as "it's all about how good the music itself is" or "the end user doesn't care what gear you use"

I'm not at all sure that how the music sounds isn't the final standard. I mean, if you like something you've done, and someone else says the reverb sucks or whatever, are you going to redo the piece using another reverb even though you really like the first one? If the second reverb also makes you happy, then there's the comparison. If it doesn't, still a comparison. Am I missing something in this?

I tend to think that people are getting somewhat spoiled with all the group buys etc. and are starting to expect everything to be cheap.

But the price of every aspect of making music and listening to it has come down. Virtual tools _should_ be significantly less expensive than hardware, for lots of reasons. And, as I noted to Alex in another post, group buys induce people to buy who otherwise simply wouldn't or even couldn't afford to before. I think developers need to compete on price as well as features because in the end it will make them more successful because they will have a larger installed base for upgrades and new products.

At the same time, I'm not sure that having too many tools is a good thing. Mastering sound design or music creation may actually be better with a smaller number of tools that one knows very well. But given the option of having new stuff to play with for the right price...well, cheers to credit cards and Internet shopping. :-)

--eduardo

[eduardo_b]

i just thought of a related question: what's the cheapest plugin you guys have seen that still costs some established figure? (this specification rules out freeware & donationware where there is no specific ammount requested)

I'd say the most inexpensive plug-in I've paid for was $12.95 for Paul Harvey's Wider Boy. His stuff is great and the prices are very fair.

[eduardo_b]

I always trust answers more when they come from the people who tell me how great a FREE synth is, since it seems more sincere and less driven by "justifying" something.
Now what I don't understand is why the pro-FREE people are so against the PAY-synths. I always hear how "the free synth is 99% as good as the PAY-synth." I can't tell whether there's some psychology at play here, or whether they're just plain RIGHT!!! :)
-Ido

But suppose they love the free synth because it's free, not because it's actually better than one they would have to pay for. That would justify not spending money on some very good plug-ins for modest amounts of money.
Which leads to why pro-free enthusiasts often make negative comments about pay-for-plugs. See paragraph above. No, really, I think in a world where not much that's really good is free (not including the obvious things like a beautiful spring day, and so on), free plug-ins seem like an amazing thing, and one can be pretty enthusiastic about this. Some of the free stuff really is good. But a lot isn't.

[james0tucson]

Well, that's my theory based on the fact that I have bought plug-ins during group buys that I would otherwise simply not buy at list price -- not because they aren't "worth" it, but because there isn't enough money to go around.
--eduardo

Agreed, as I said it is something I've considered, I wanted to see if there was some interest in a group buy for Soup, and from your comments it seems that good well be the case. I have to spend some time looking into how to set this up, but may be worth giving this a go

Alex

It's usually due to a group buy announcement that I discover interesting synths. That's how I discovered that Wusikstation and Kubik were considered to be worth buying by a large number of people. KVR's reviews never do that for me.

The same phenomenon got me into EnergyXT. And whatever Soup is (this is honestly the first I've heard of it), I might get interested in it if others are talking about how great it works for them.

A group buy creates that opportunity, and it makes people like me think they're getting a good value for their money.

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

And whatever Soup is (this is honestly the first I've heard of it)..

Its an additive synth in case you're wondering!
A very nice one

Link is in my signature..

[bugs]

I think the difference is really the difference between the private individual and the industrial markets. Waves-like products target the industrial market where price-point calculations are decidedly different. The industrial buyer does not have the time to do extensive quality/price comparisons. Waves may not be to your taste as an individual, but they get the job done and do it quickly based on the training the employees already have. Private individuals tend not to factor in the "shopping time" as part of the price they are paying. In a nutshell, industrial buyers have cash and little time, where as private individual have limited cash and expendible time. As an individual become more "industrialized" they will tend to opt for the "Waves-solution" too--time becomes money.

[jmh]

I'm not at all sure that how the music sounds isn't the final standard. I mean, if you like something you've done, and someone else says the reverb sucks or whatever, are you going to redo the piece using another reverb even though you really like the first one? If the second reverb also makes you happy, then there's the comparison. If it doesn't, still a comparison. Am I missing something in this?

Of course the final piece has value and meaning, all I'm trying to say that if the discussion revolves around the technical bits, it should stay around that - stuff like comparing compressors or reverbs eventually leads to someone (most of the time a person who isn't otherwise engaged in the discussion) yelling "why are you talking that technology bollocks, the music is what counts!!!" - which is another topic, that's all.

Put another way... the quality of reverbs or compressors have little value for the musical contents. But when discussing about technicalities, it would be preferable for it to stay that way. So far so good, I might add, though we're driving towards that direction thanks to me, in other words I might have just shot myself in the foot

I tend to think that people are getting somewhat spoiled with all the group buys etc. and are starting to expect everything to be cheap.

But the price of every aspect of making music and listening to it has come down. Virtual tools _should_ be significantly less expensive than hardware, for lots of reasons.

To a degree I agree. However, I'd like to point out that just because something is "software only", it doesn't mean that it automatically has had lower manufacturing costs. There might be lots of r&d involved, plenty of people working on it who get compensated well for their efforts and so on.

And I do agree that things could be even cheaper. But I bear in mind all the economics behind this all, living costs and such are going up and that inevitably leads to a point where products have to cost enough to cover all the costs and if prices in other areas of life go up, so should the product prices as well.

From the user's point of view, something that's "only software without the manufacturing costs" seems like a valid point. But just how many of these people constantly asking for groupbuys and cheaper prices have done the math behind it all to gain an understanding of it? If a person devotes months of his time on a project, interacting with possible customers, doing betatesting etc., I see it reasonable to price the final product so that it covers at least the development time spent on it, not forgetting supporting and updating the project to some extent.

I know how I price myself in freelancing for the odd jobs, and I wouldn't even consider giving mass discounts, not to gain a bigger client base and especially not to get to be known as a guy who does the same job for less. Simply because I price myself according to what I'd make in a regular nine-to-five job, add in all the taxes and related things and other costs, and present the outcome as my fee. (Of course, it's not always as simple as that, depends on the project, client and sometimes my overall mood ) The customer ends up paying for me time as if I was hired by him, which so far has proven to be accepted nicely. However, in the not-so-distant future I'm forced to ask for more money as living expenses are rising - rents go up, food costs more, etc.

The point of this little verbal detour is that a lot of developers spend great amounts of time coming up with products. It's up to them to price their products as they see fit, but before us buyers start complaining about the prices, we oughta stop and think about it for a moment. A good comparison would be to think of an equal size project in one's own profession, see how much it costs and then consider how much you're willing to drop your fee / commission / salary for it just to meet peoples' expectations of a cheaper price.

Any coder with some talents can get a decent job doing something related to their area of expertise. And thus they should be able to get a satisfactory compensation for providing us users with products.

And, as I noted to Alex in another post, group buys induce people to buy who otherwise simply wouldn't or even couldn't afford to before. I think developers need to compete on price as well as features because in the end it will make them more successful because they will have a larger installed base for upgrades and new products.

Of course, price is an important factor in competing with another products. But I still wish people understood the amount of work behind a product instead of blindly begging for groupbuys all the time. Not to mention that groupbuys on some level might devalue a product, yet another albeit not so important factor to consider before going for it.

I guess it's again one of those situations where I need to use the term "SynthEdit effect". 'Making plugins is so easy, there's a tool that lets you do that in a jiffy' and so on. But I for one am still willing to pay more for a plugin that has at least the possibility of being somewhat optimized when it comes to CPU usage, isn't as likely to use the same basic building blocks as dozens of other products etc.

But that's just one person's opinion, in the end

Regards,

JMH

[The Chase]

i havent read all 4 pages of this, but i wonder if anyone has brought in the reason of reputition?

I think most of NI's plugs are over-priced. I own pro-53 and probably wouldnt of bought (well my parents did but you know) it if i came ot KVR earlier. Dont get me wrong it is the highest-quality synth in my arsenal (well imposcar has a better raw sound but no unison detune or modulation).

The thing is, i got both before i came to KVR, when i had no idea how many great.cheap synths there are. Compared to the quality of polyibit, morpheus, synth 1, etc etc, i feel they were a waste of b-day/christmas presents, compared to the said free synths. Sure the free ones dont sound as good, but divide the quality by the dollars spent and the free ones blow imposcar/pro-53 out of the water.

wierd, but thats how i feel. I would sell them both if i didnt have old, unfinished projects using them.

[james0tucson]

And whatever Soup is (this is honestly the first I've heard of it)..

Its an additive synth in case you're wondering!
A very nice one

Link is in my signature..

Thanks, I'm playing with the demo now. My DAW and all my gear is packed as I'm moving house. A coneequence of that is also that I can't even consider purchasing anything. I do appreciate the niche that your synth fills, additive, that is.

[metamorphosis]

At the same time, I'm not sure that having too many tools is a good thing. Mastering sound design or music creation may actually be better with a smaller number of tools that one knows very well. But given the option of having new stuff to play with for the right price...well, cheers to credit cards and Internet shopping.

Autechre would agree with you - there.
m@t

[Alex@ProgressAudio]

Thanks, I'm playing with the demo now. My DAW and all my gear is packed as I'm moving house. A coneequence of that is also that I can't even consider purchasing anything. I do appreciate the niche that your synth fills, additive, that is.

Cool, well feel free to give some feedback on the synth, its always useful to know what people think.

Additive synths are still relatively rare compared to subtractives, so I felt I could make something that sounds different and offers different features to most synths out there

[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.

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.

Market=supply and demand. If people perceive that Waves Pure Titanium Bundle for $2,399.95 is the default professional's choice, and they are well financed, they will gravitate to that and other "pro standards". That's the demand, and some companies have made a marketing decision to go that route, so they are the supply. Lexicon made their flagship reverb $65,000, although the hardware is probably worth not much more than a high quality PC.

My parents have a funky two bedroom house on the North Kohala Coast in Hawaii. Is going there any less of a joy than driving down the coast to one of the "exclusive resort hotels"? Not to me, but it would be to some people. The market is driven by perceptions and trends just as much as by product quality and features.

[popsych]

Sure the free ones dont sound as good, but divide the quality by the dollars spent and the free ones blow imposcar/pro-53 out of the water.

Well of course they'ss blow the paywares out of the water - their value for money ratio is infite ( that's what you get when you divide anything by zero ). However it's all about compromise and whether you are willing to make that compromise in your sound to save a couple of $$$. Most professionals obviously can't afford that. I'm not saying there aren't freewares out there doing a better job than paywares but i own a couple of synths which could NO way be replaced by freewares either because of lack of features, lacking in quality or both compared to the commercial equivalent. Still most freeware yield quality that would have cost 1$ per minute 20 years ago.

[Frippertronix]

It may be true that the majority of freeware isn't as good (but TbT is a good example of one that comes close), but look around and hang out on KVR and find that some of the mid priced native plugs are some of the best going. To me my faves right now are all of WWAYM's effects, Kjaerhus's payware, and Izotope's Trash, none of which were particulalry expensive for what they can do and how they sound, which=