KVR Audio

Torben · Post by **Torben** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:07 am

I often hear people talk about VST plug-ins as second grade stuff compared to plug-ins run on boards like UAD, Powercore or dedicated hardware, and I wonder why? Often people says "This VST plug-in is really good", followed by "for a VST plug-in". Other remarks could be "this plug-in is so VST", again with a reference to VST being a second grade technology.

Has developers of dedicated hardware or DSP cards done a great job at promoting there products as being better than native plug-ins or are they really?

Or maybe the open standard of VST has opened up for so many bad plug-ins that VST has just obtained a bad reputation?

Seen from developers point of view there are only one kind of pure hardware and that is analog; everything else is software run on different processors, so where are the real difference? Is it the enclosure? It is all pocket calculations aren't it? A modern CPU can easily calculate with 32/64 bit fixed and floating point arithmetic and most dedicated hardware runs with a lower bit resolution.

As a developer I see this as if someone told me that calculations done with a HP pocket calculator was smoother than the ones done with a Texas Instruments. Imagine the pupil handing over his homework to the teacher and the teacher laughs and says "these results are so harsh - did you use a Texas Instrument" or "these results are so Casio" - "You really should do you self the favour and get yourself a HP"

Hmm, I wonder if AMD sounds better than Intel? I think so - just listen to the name A-M-D, it is so smooth (and warm) while the name "Intel" sounds hard and spiky.

Please spill your thoughts on this, everyone. It is not an expert's-only discussion so it is OK to say what you feel without being able to substantiate it. But please keep a proper and respectful tone (who am I kidding, it's KvR

).

By the way I use a HP48G (I am an old fart yes

) and this thread was sponsored by HP and AMD

.

Thanks
Torben

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:09 am

OMG don't get me started

TRN76 · Post by **TRN76** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:14 am

I dunno, tell my why my Virus TI beats all other VSTi? Its pure DSP, so it shouldnt be impossible to have as a soft.
...but... nothing even comes close

topaz · Post by **topaz** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:16 am

a simple reply would be

"yeh, wotever"

SKoT_FX · Post by **SKoT_FX** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:18 am

VST is a simple plugin spec that is relatively open, cross platform and unpatrolled by legal bears (...coughRTAS... oops did I say something?). This has encouraged a proliferation of entry-level developers to have a go, a wonderful thing. It does skew the quality-grade with entry-level / hobbyist DSP and GUI design (there are many fabulous freebie synths and GUIs out there, but the sheer bulk of... "other"... weighs in).

CPU wise - well, if you forget to set yer rounding mode when going between PPC and x86 it can get interesting...

Non-software calculator: "Vintage" early 90's Casio FX-580 in original leatherette case. ooooo, casio vs HP war coming up!

stefancrs · Post by **stefancrs** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:19 am

CASIO FOR TEH WIN!"!!!!!

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:23 am

oh well - here goes:

The ONLY reason you see comments like "vst is crap" or "software is secondgrade" is because it has ties with the "kids" using the software making crap music. It's like the SE thing - it's crap because there's so much crap around.

Also, there's always the very common question "what is the warmest VST" be it a synth or compressor or EQ or whatever. It's just a buzzword that owners of big expensive hardware boxes thought up to justify their expensive EQ's and compressors etc. All the newcommers or "cheap of the shelf computer only" studio owners want a slice of that "pro" sound and get themselfs expensive DSP cards so they can also say "yeah, I use the hardware!" software is so crap. "I got teh ProoToolz" seems like a very appropriate thing to say here

The most laughable thing tho is hardware VA owners saying that their ancient JP8080 or Virus B is "warmer" than a highend dualcore optimized VST synth - all because it's hardware :roll infact VST synths like the CM edition Fabilter ONE or Antti's Asynth or simmilar hava a way more evolved and "true to life analog" sound but, since they're free it's not as good as a $1200 hardware VA, right?

it's about being posh - like when you get yourself a Ford Escort, but some 21 inch rims on it and say - "yo I got teh pimped ride" but it's still a Ford Escort.
Also, if you make crap music, more expensive gear makes it better, or atleast that's what many buddying "producers" think and so they trash free/cheap software simply because they can't make music anyways and their hardware makes the "sound" a bit better...they think.

A bad worker blames his tools etc etc etc...

galwaypark · Post by **galwaypark** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:24 am

Well, you mentioned analog hardware. OK, that's a whole different ballpark, and even the less experienced musicians can hear the difference between, say, an Obie and a MS2000.
The difference between, say, MS2000 and a (insert your favorite VSTi) is perhaps due to the fact that in dedicated hardware, you don't have to cut corners, and make room for a cd rom, graphics card, or a modem... so - more processing power is dedicated to making it sound good. Also, the internal sound engine in hardware digital synths usually runs at a higher resolution, with basicaly no latency. And of course, there's the placebo effect that you get when fiddling with the "real thing".
And i must add that I've heard VSTi's that sound quite a bit better than my MS2000, at least to my ears. There are not many VSTi's that can match the sound of my Micron, but I still have to hear one that does my Obie Matrix6.
My 2 cents.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:24 am

TI-85 forever!!!

(I programmed my first and only game on that one

yes, it was ping pong)

snooky · Post by **snooky** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:25 am

TRN76 wrote:I dunno, tell my why my Virus TI beats all other VSTi? Its pure DSP, so it shouldnt be impossible to have as a soft.
...but... nothing even comes close

line up a few good freeware vst's (synths and effects) and I promise you that Ti will start looking like an expensive mistake.

the Ti can't do anything no other synth can so

right back at ya!

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:34 am

snooky wrote:the Ti can't do anything no other synth can so

..other than have its peculiar saturator dipped trademark sound, even somewhat recognisable on mixes, and most certainly useful if for nothing else but the sheer brutal horsepower.

Now, wether you like that or not is another thing entirely.

Warmonger · Post by **Warmonger** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:34 am

Kingston wrote: TI-85 forever!!!

Amen to that! Oh sure, symbolic manipulation is a nice little trick on the TI-89. And the TI-83 users (95% of my high school class) had all the programs written by the teacher. But it was the little things (like the menu-based navigation, or the built-in simultaneous equation solver) that made my TI-85 special.

Kingston · Post by **Kingston** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:40 am

Warmonger wrote:
Kingston wrote: TI-85 forever!!!
Amen to that! Oh sure, symbolic manipulation is a nice little trick on the TI-89. And the TI-83 users (95% of my high school class) had all the programs written by the teacher. But it was the little things (like the menu-based navigation, or the built-in simultaneous equation solver) that made my TI-85 special.

symbolic manipulation... posh.

I also blame TI-85 for setting me back nearly half a year in high school advanced math vector manipulation course.

...'twas the bleeding Tetris that the whole of the class had in circulation! TI-85 was in fact mandatory on our math course, which obviously had a few side effects.

funkadil · Post by **funkadil** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:42 am

I have never heard a sound on a record and thought "I could not do this with software" (EDIT: actually some analog stuff i have thought it is unique, kraftwerk etc.). In fact the only hardware I ever really want to get is an alesis airsynth and some analog modular synth goodness and some live analog some digital too effects that I can route up and screw with with feedback and such. Theres some other stuff to but I would like to record and do everything else digitally. Only specialty things like tape manipulation hands on sort of things are really the only thing that draws me there. Different environments. I would never buy a digital hardware effect for use in computer music unless it ended up that way by a fluke of fooling around and recording.

Urs · Post by **Urs** » Wed May 10, 2006 8:42 am

Thanks Torben! Couldn't have put it any better.

galwaypark wrote:Also, the internal sound engine in hardware digital synths usually runs at a higher resolution, with basicaly no latency.

Hmmm, most hardware VAs run on fixed point dsp processors. This is *way* less resolution than ordinary single precision floating point and a gazillion less resolution than double precision. Their latency is Midi + DAC + ADC when recording, thus 5+ milliseconds compared to *no* latency while sample accurate rendering of a VSTi during mixdown, or just Midi + ADC (3+ ms, depending on buffersize) when played live.

Urs

Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?