Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Kraku]

@Spaceman Sounds:

You're talking about analogue vs. software. This topic was hardware vs. software, and the analogue is just a small subset of hardware

[D-Fusion]

After 9 months of recording nearly 12,000 samples of rare analog beasts for my sample cd I have to say that virtual analog vsti's...whilst good and very usefull (I use them all the time still for producing tracks), do NOT sound like real analog synths. They just don't.

I'm not saying vsti emulation are not worth it.... they are. But if you really know your synths and have good monitors ...dammit you can hear the difference on a pair of crappy pc monitors..... then the first thing you notice are the osscilators have nowhere near the power of a real analog oscilator. The filters do not sound the same and the whole warmth is not really captured.

We put the MS-20 vsti up agaisnt the MS-20 we were sampling at the time. They are not the same machine, running at 96khz help the vsti a lot in the bass end but even then it just wasn't the same. The same with the minimoog vsti emulations, we had 2 Moogs to a/b test against the vsti's. An old min i moog and a midimoog (rack mounted mini moog midi'd up)..... not even close.

Don't get me wrong I love vsti's, but we are a long way off from being able to really get the power of them in a vsti or dsp. It's like having skimmed milk on cereal instead of real milk. I know a lot of you will say I have no idea what I'm on about, I think I have good ears for this, and it's such a difference that anyone can hear it.

In the context of a mix a lot of the time you wont need to hear any difference, but for things like basslines and lead lines that are more naked vsti's lack the power. But I do love things like the Imposcar, Vanguard (although I have to use them at 88.2/96khz to really appreciate them). I love my uad-1 card and it's compressors... to me they are much closer to analog than vsti instruments. There is a difference between a real 1176 and a vsti uad-1 1176.... but not so big a difference as between say a real moog and a virtual one.

The best test is to just use 1 osc on a real analog and the same on a vsti. Play it really low down on a bass line and compare the vsti version with the analog using 1 osc on each. No fx no compression and maybe test the low pass filter with say 50% resonance.... move through the resonace on each... see which one makes the floor shake and which one doesnt. Notice how one needs to be much louder than the other to have the same effect in a mix.

Eq's are coming along nicely, they are sounding more and more analog. The Urs eq's are amazing at higher sample rates. Look how much power they use to get that close to the real thing. Now think about what an anlog synth filter is... it's just an analog eq really.... if you were to use the same attenton to emulation as say urs did with their eq's on the analog filter emulation, you'd soon be running out of cpu very quickly.

I don't think pc's have enough power yet to really compete. It will happen soon though

Thank you
You did explain it better than i did

[Spaceman Sounds]

Warmonger sorry dude, you're right I jumped in to quick But we also had a JP-8000 that we thought would be good to get again as we used to use one a lot when they first came out. I think modern vsti's beat that easy.

Had a virus for about a week, apart from the programming I really dont think it had anything majorly better than a lot of good vsti's. I thought it had really weak filters and oscilators.... but it had them by the bucket load wich is why it had a big sound.

There is something about vsti synths that sound glassy though I can't put my finger on it... maybe it's aliasing.. but they all have this thin glassy sound.... I really can't explain it well.

I bought an Alesis micron, and sold it 4 days later. I tried to love it, but it sounded awfull. By rights it should sound a lot better than the microkorg which uses a lot less dsp...but if I had to pick one, it would be the microkorg.

[Mr. Tingle]

so, is software really 2nd best?

[Kingston]

so, is software really 2nd best?

4th unfortunately.

We had such top contenders as Sting, Queen and U2 on this ballot.

[Spaceman Sounds]

oh and Micheal Bolton and David Hasslehof he he

[Gwydi]

Is the "problem" with VST's that they are too precise? Accurate calculations are going to produce an accurate results (and the same calculation will produce the same result every time) but hardware is inherently a bit fuzzy and inconsistent - the precise quality that "analog modelling" gear is being designed to reproduce.

Then there's the cables that carry the signal which are also going to colour the sound. If you're using a mixer - even more colouration. And if all this gear picks up interference from the environment, the power supply, other things plugged in ... even more!

So are VST's just too good, perhaps?

[whyterabbyt]

I think it has - at least partly - to do with fixed-point processing. There are papers stating that floating-point loses precision, especially in the bass region.

References?

[pitchdrifter]

Get an internship or job at a music house or really any serious production facility that focuses on the music not on pleasing the recording artist they work with. You'll see just how popular actual plugins are as opposed to hardware. It's rather different to the prosumer market and many not so experienced recording artists who may be good musicians but usually have no clue about production (not to belittle or anything, it's just not their occupation with a few exceptions who are both).

It's a bit moot to even discuss the matter because it's a non-issue to the people most prosumers are trying to emulate. Another thing is that this isn't rocket science. Anyone who wants to can do it by following recipes. The tough part is figuring out the recipes yourself, if you're lucky someone will share some of his/her recipes with you, which can save you years literally. That's also why everyone is rather protective about them, because it's part of their net worth. Which is why you don't hear much about how things are done or what exactly is used beyond commercial endorsements on developer websites.

[aallvor]

Warmonger sorry dude, you're right I jumped in to quick But we also had a JP-8000 that we thought would be good to get again as we used to use one a lot when they first came out. I think modern vsti's beat that easy.

Had a virus for about a week, apart from the programming I really dont think it had anything majorly better than a lot of good vsti's. I thought it had really weak filters and oscilators.... but it had them by the bucket load wich is why it had a big sound.

There is something about vsti synths that sound glassy though I can't put my finger on it... maybe it's aliasing.. but they all have this thin glassy sound.... I really can't explain it well.

I bought an Alesis micron, and sold it 4 days later. I tried to love it, but it sounded awfull. By rights it should sound a lot better than the microkorg which uses a lot less dsp...but if I had to pick one, it would be the microkorg.

I think you touch upon an important point. Sometimes stuff just - works - when it's soft/hard counterpart 'should', for various reasons, be better. For me the Lexicon mpx550 beats every software reverb I've ever heard, although there's no rational reason plugs like Waves IR or Altiverb shouldn't sound better. Whereas on the other side, trying the Korg Legacy Col. made me go: 'I never need to buy another synth if I get this'.

I think people often are tricked by sexy guis

[.jon]

"this plug-in is so VST"

B was ok, but somehow very VST

yeah, VST is short for Virtual Second-grade Technology. Years ago, everybody claimed that their virtual synthesisers an fx "sound like analog hardware" but they didn't, the plugins sounded like computers. Hence the term VST.

Situation has improved over the years, but the ugly word is still dragging the industry down.

Some algos are obviously better than others, but what was the point? I've tried numerous plugins that sound dull and lifeless, but there are probably numerous hardware V/A units that sound just as crap. I just can't download them for free

Don't you think the UAD algos are pretty good? I haven't heard them myself, but people seem to agree that they rock. Could it be just marketing?

The Kjaerhus Gold Series plug-ins have been developed using analog modelling techniques to replicate the sound and behaviour of expensive analog gear in a range of affordable and flexible software plug-ins.

NAMM 2009 PRESS RELEASE -----
The .jon Analog Outboard units have been developed using digital modelling techniques to replicate the sound and behaviour of cheap software plugins in a range of expensive and inflexible rack-sized units.

[Spaceman Sounds]

The Uad plugins are pretty damn amazing. I bought the Space Echo and it's bloody good. I think the uad-1 and the new URS eq plugins are pushing the whole virtual rack mount gear thing forward.

[Baas]

Hej Torben.
Tak for nogle fede produkter.

Well .. I am one of the old guys that can remember the days of hardwaresynths

I was around when the very first VSTi's came out and I HATED them. I really REALLY hated them.
I hated them so much I didn't give them a second chance. Until two years ago when I started making music again.

I had a 2-3 year break and came back into semiprofessional musicproduction.
Having sold most of my equipment I kind of had to try out VSTi's again and I was seriously blown away.

To me it sounds every bit as good as hardware. Seriously. It's ALL about the quality of your audiocard, the quality of your work, and obviously the quality of the plugins.

I have bought A LOT of plugins.
Most of the free stuff I've tried haven't been good professional sounding plugins.
Of course there are some very nice free ones, but basically you get what you pay for. Accept it.

I think people who say it sounds good for a VST are people that doesn't want VSTi's to sound good. You know what I am talking about ?
Also most of the plugins made my SynthEdit are sounding the same.
So it IS very hard to compare hardware and software with all the bad software available on the internet these days.

I cannot think of a single of my previous HUGE arsenal of hardware synths that I cannot replace with software.
Sure I'd like my old PPG Wave 2.3 back any day, but the SOUND of the Waldorf Wave 2.v is the same. It's the look and feel that's different - not the sound.

I'd like to see more blindtests.
I seriously cannot hear the difference between my old Prophet VS and the emulation in the new Arturia Prophet V. And the Prophet 5 emulation in the very same VSTi is SO wellsounding it's kind of scary.
Much MUCH better than the Native Instruments Pro53 which I also own. It's a different generation I know, and I like the Pro53 but not for Prophet 5 sounds to be honest.

As DAW's get more and more powerful the VSTi's will be better and better sounding. Just wait and see.

Just my two cents. Now go ahead and kill me

Yours;

Kenneth Abildgaard
Copenhagen, Denmark

[beej]

The UAD dudes are rocket scientists. Literally. But also with a serious audio pedigree. Their modelling is about as good as it gets currently, I reckon... There's a nice audio Joe Bryan interview about the UAD modelling process, and he talks about some of the things mentioned above:

http://www.gearwire.com/joe-bryan.html

[.jon]

Kenneth I agree 99,9% with you.

..except for this part:

Of course there are some very nice free ones, but basically you get what you pay for. Accept it.

as you don't always get what you pay for, but luckily there are demos to download before handing out the money.