Sonalksis TBK

[pitchdrifter]

Even when you don't hear a difference yourself this should not make you attack those who do or claim they do.
Also why is money such a controversial topic around here? It's not like people spend your money, they spend their own. And that means they can spend it on whatever they fancy. When there is a product you don't find to be suited for your own needs in terms of functionality or budget just don't buy it, but why become so hostile towards people who do find the same tool useful for their needs, which quite likely are different to your own?

There really is no need to feel offended, much less to throw dirt, just because you see someone who has an opinion different to your own, or priorities different to the things important to yourself.

[diverdee]

I've met engineers who definately have 'golden ears', they could identify stuff that became apparent once they had pointed it out - that's partly why they got paid for doing what they did, they could identify those problems & had the technical knowhow to correct them.
All those little things add up & could make a not insignificant difference to the final result.

[eduardo_b]

Also why is money such a controversial topic around here?

Probably because there are many plug-ins that are free, many that are offered at moderate prices, some that are significantly more expensive, and then there are those that are priced well outside the market -- meaning what the vast majority on KVR could or would pay. So, the natural question has to be, what is all that money going for. And the answer is, not as much as you might think, and the differences, when there, are not necessarily worth the money.

When some extol the virtues of an effect well above the price range for other effects of the same type, and the differences are described as being superior to all others in that category, but it isn't really obvious that this is the case, one has to question what is causing this small group of people to rave about said plug-in. Is it really the plug or the perception that one is hearing a superior effect because it's so much more expensive? And when questioned, those who claim to easily hear the difference take an attitude about others simply doubting because they don't want to pay the price for such superiority. And I say, they hear what they want to hear because the influence of price is there -- it's cultural.

My point is, no one who is creating music need feel they can't do their best without this kind of expensive plug. It just ain't so. But to read the posts from those who believe it to be the best, you'd think everything else was virtual sludge.

[jmh]

The whole golden ear thing has been a distorted assumption that a select few are able to judge what others simply miss. It's presumptuous to take as true the assertion that there is always a discernible difference, that it matters and that to not care is to not appreciate quality sound. More like golden crap.

I guess this part pretty much reflects what I tried to say. Why does it always have to be either/or, the most extreme choices?

In our case... I'm not saying that more expensive is always better and that there is always a discernible difference. What I'm questioning is that why the opposite is any more true? It certainly seems more appreciated or supported here.

I simply see a generalisation, nothing more. A generalisation that is backed up collectively by beliefs, assumptions and "yeah that must be it" reasoning. Why else would the general consensus be that "pros use Macs" still is the one and only truth along "pros use ProTools", exactly similar to "pros buy expensive things because they've just heard someone else say they're great", "pros buy over-expensive crap and then defend their investments fiercely because they're not men enough to admit they made a mistake".

In other words, I still don't get why paying $1000 for an EQ is stupid, if the purchaser is able to draw his own conclusions about its quality based on hearing and testing what it does. Why isn't it even a possibility that somebody is able to hear a difference, appreciate it, and able to spend such an amount of money without feeling guilt for doing so and thus needing reinforcement from say online forums, in the form of other people telling it was a good investment?

In any case, I don't think I'm getting anything across...

(Which means, I wouldn't mind on my current budget if everything was cheap, but I don't feel the need to claim everybody who can afford more expensive stuff is stupid if they do purchase such items... and I do think that the particular 1000 dollar EQ is the best EQ plugin I've encountered, in what it does, whereas I've never said that everything else will result in crap sounding music, and coincidentally no-one else has said it either.)

JMH

[pitchdrifter]

My point is, no one who is creating music need feel they can't do their best without this kind of expensive plug. It just ain't so. But to read the posts from those who believe it to be the best, you'd think everything else was virtual sludge.

Well that's where the problem is, isn't it? It's an assumption someone made, and just that. Noone ever hinted at anything like that.
What was said is that for 20 to 50 bucks you get a 3 band filter that some people prefer in quality of processing over the 200 bucks TBK.
The result was that some people seemed to have taken offense at the very mention of that other plugin, because it's big version costs a grand.

There's just no point getting agressive for someone having a different opionion, even if one is sure that one's own view is the 'only valid' one in that matter (which in itself is a contradiction though obviously). You don't see any schooled and experienced full-time composers or engineers insulting people in this forum either, right? Really no need for the kick in the teeth approach, it works out much better to be curteous, even and particularly when one has a different opinion about something.

[eduardo_b]

In our case... I'm not saying that more expensive is always better and that there is always a discernible difference. What I'm questioning is that why the opposite is any more true? It certainly seems more appreciated or supported here.

I simply see a generalisation, nothing more.

Perhaps the issue is about how it was impossible for many people to be involved in creating music when it was all about hardware -- always expensive and out of reach for most. The expectation in a virtual world (and this will bring back memories of the thread you referred to) is that costs are low enough, particularly "manufacturing" and distribution, that there is really no excuse for pricing plug-ins well outside the curve. And people do want to feel they're getting what they paid for.

What's the justification for a $1000 plug-in? You are right, of course, that if someone believes they are getting something worth the cost, then the price is reasonable. It's more about the attitude implied or expressed, I think, that only now can one achieve quality equalization of one's music. The message -- in so many words -- is that anything else is inferior. I find nothing about the eq in question that justifies the price, so I will never buy, and do not need, this particular plug-in, even though I have the money to do so. I don't perceive it having anything close to that value.

[bmanic]

KvR is the only place I know where people that use free/affordable stuff feel like they have to defend it against more costly alternatives. What a strange world this is..

jmh, as for the trolling part, it was more my fault than nuffinks that this thread got side tracked. I just had to respond to his silly comment and I probably can't resist in the future either.

*prepares a terrible attack..*

Nuffink, the master of offtopic snide remarks..

Cheers!
bManic

[eduardo_b]

KvR is the only place I know where people that use free/affordable stuff feel like they have to defend it against more costly alternatives. What a strange world this is...

Well, look at a vastly more complex type of software -- sequencers. Some plug-ins sell for two or three times more than professional quality sequencers, and these sequencers (Cubase, Sonar, Live, etc,) are loaded with effects -- good ones. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[bmanic]

[Sickle]

Nuffink, the master of offtopic snide remarks..

With incentives like the one you just provided him I'm inclined to agree.

[jmh]

It's more about the attitude implied or expressed, I think, that only now can one achieve quality equalization of one's music.

I guess this is a longshot... but might it be possible that it is the best EQ when it comes to transparency? Certainly being the best at that doesn't mean that using anything else results in garbage. Nor can I really recall anyone stating such.

The message -- in so many words -- is that anything else is inferior.

So... could it be the best then? That's the thing with such classification, in order for something to be better, something else has to be worse. Being worse or "less good" than the best doesn't equal crap or useless - and again, I don't recall anyone stating that all the other EQs are totally useless.

I find nothing about the eq in question that justifies the price, so I will never buy, and do not need, this particular plug-in, even though I have the money to do so. I don't perceive it having anything close to that value.

I don't perceive the same value in it either, and I don't see any logical issues in claiming it's still the best at what it does - from the ones I've encountered (which does mean most of the EQ plugins in existence).

But that's just it, I guess. Cost-effectiveness or vfm are factors that outweigh the possible technical superiority. And that's what I'm getting at... even if one doesn't consider a product worth the asking price, does it automatically mean the product is a hoax, and those who hear a difference in quality are mislead and don't know what they're talking about? Is it really impossible for something to be technically superior to the competition just because it's the most expensive choice around?

I'm also trying to get at what you've been saying a couple of times already... You're claiming that people who have stated their opinion about something being the best, must be just imagining the perceived quality, because of the product's price, whereas people "informed enough" are able to make up their own mind about the cheaper alternatives providing good enough results for them.

VFM doesn't equal best. Just as best at something doesn't mean suitable for every occasion and for every user. And it certainly doesn't mean "everything else is crap" - once again, I've never seen it stated in such a manner.

I guess I'm just reacting to the weird extrimist views in any matter, especially when they shut out all the other possibilities. Add to that people who are vocal and blunt with their opinions... we get this

JMH

[eduardo_b]

Is it really impossible for something to be technically superior to the competition just because it's the most expensive choice around?

Not at all. It might in fact be all that you and others say it is, but why is it $1000? The number of hours of development. Not a reason. It makes more sense to price a plug-in where the market curve says there's the most number of customers who can pay enough to recover costs over time and make a profit. Why not $249, or $149?

I'm also trying to get at what you've been saying a couple of times already... You're claiming that people who have stated their opinion about something being the best, must be just imagining the perceived quality

I say they are influenced by the price even though they might say they're not. It's really a common expectation that premium pricing means premium quality. It's just a psychological thing that comes from conditioning over many years. I think it odd that the posts that were positive about the eq didn't comment on the price -- as if it were almost normal -- on KVR, where price is almost everything.

[bmanic]

Nuffink, the master of offtopic snide remarks..

With incentives like the one you just provided him I'm inclined to agree.

Hence the smiley.

[jmh]

Well, it might be time to revisit that thread then? AFAIR people were for the most part discussing the quality, and about the only comments regarding the 10-band version were akin to "at that price, not my cup of tea".

Remember, people were toying around with the freebie which turned into a $20 donationware, and discussing its quality. I can't recall a single KVRian saying they'd even consider buying the 10-band version.

So... since this still stays awfully close to that "conditioning", I'm still questioning whether that is any sort of an universal explanation to why some people find some of the more expensive choices better. All I'm trying to get across that it simply isn't so every single time, and frankly, I don't believe that could ever be proven.

(This conditioning theory is the same thing why some people who've learned the basics of marketing, suddenly "know" that the reason people smoke a certain brand of cigarettes is because the advertising has conditioned them into thinking it's the best. Somehow this basic knowledge doesn't allow them to explain why the smokers they speak to are either not brand loyal, don't smoke the most advertised cigarette brands, or like me have tried different brands and reached the conclusion that for them a certain brand tastes the best. Yet the insist on knowing that us smokers have been conditioned to smoke whatever brand it is we're smoking. See my point?)

Could it be then, that sometimes, maybe, the pricier choice is technically better (without getting into the lengthy debate on what better is in each case)?

As for that pricing thing... I think we've dealt with that issue in the past and reached an understanding regarding that subject I could add though that despite the popular belief, there's still little or no evidence that the largest profits are made with the suggested targeting of price point. It works in wholesale, but this isn't a wholesale business.

JMH

[fritzman]

It makes more sense to price a plug-in where the market curve says there's the most number of customers who can pay enough to recover costs over time and make a profit. Why not $249, or $149?

So go ahead and make some plugins and price them the way you want to. Go ahead. I'll happily download the trial versions and check them out. Here @ KvR I read way too often how people want to tell developers what they "have" to do. That reminds me of my favourite freeware developer Daniel Lind (TLs plugins) who once wrote that he is fed up with all the people who were telling him what he had to do, remember: a FREEWARE developer. Even worse it goes with payware devs. This is a plague. I vote with my wallet. I state my opinion. But telling the devs how they have to do their job and then how to price their stuff is simply stoopitt.

... I think it odd that the posts that were positive about the eq didn't comment on the price -- as if it were almost normal -- on KVR, where price is almost everything.

KvR is the place of the freeware folks. The place of SE plugins, mostly free. This is the place of the daily freeware fix. Price is almost everything?


<to everybody>Man, this is only real life. Everybody has a value perception. Some want it only free or cheap, some are glad to pay a certain price for a certain perceived quality and some even can afford to buy a $1000 plugin and dare to even think that this is OK!!! But why oh why is anybody an idiot who doesn't share your opinion or your financial situation?
And on topic: For my value perception TBK is too expensive. I wouldn't want it as freeware. Because I don't like the concept. I've got enough good filters with better concepts and some of them do sound exceptionally good. There has to be way more than what TBK does to get me to pay $200 for a filter. And I've got no prob with anybody who buys it and love it above any other filter out there.


Best wishes, FRitz

</to everybody>