Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Z3R0T0N1N]

I stopped believing that hardware DSP had anything at all over VST DSP, the day i heard ZynAddSubFX for the first time.

slightly ot sorry, i've tried this synth countless times and never understand what people heard in it, it seems incredibly pedestrian to me. not a dig, just a question ?

and i've currently got a penchant for scanned synth with way to many parameters and no gui at all so it's obviously not that putting me off.

cheers,

steve.

well, for me the PadSynth and SubSynth layers are where it really shines. The timbres that i can make with those are just unreal.
But it's more just the sheer quality of the sound that i am speaking of. Even just going though the presets is impressive, IMO. When i put it in a track with other softsynths, it just stands apart somhow.

Of course many aspects of what we individually percieve as sound 'quality' can be subjective. And I really like your music, steve, so i wouldn't discount what you are saying at all. I could be way out in left field about this

[pdxindy]

BTW, photoshop is nice, but there's a just as powerful free alternative called GIMP.

See where I'm comming from kiddo?

owning the most expensive gear won't make you "pro" mmmkay?

(1) The GIMP is nowhere near as powerful as Photoshop, especially for the requirements of professionals working with print.
(2) A massive majority of professionals in the graphics industry will be using Photoshop. In many places you wouldnt get a job if you didnt know how to use it. If more than 3 professional graphic artists use the GIMP, I'd be surprised.
(3) Your analagy was shite. Have a nice day.

Ahh, this feels like the "I'd be surprised if more than 3 professional music producers where using PC's" ...you know it's complete bollox and thusly, not true.

GIMP is just as powerful as photoshop!


Elitism - it's the kvr way (apparently)

GIMP cannot even work in CMYK which is an absolute essential for print work.

I tried really hard to switch to GIMP because I prefer to support open source projects where possible, but it does not come close to Photoshop for serious photo work.

[blaster78]

Of course many aspects of what we individually percieve as sound 'quality' can be subjective. And I really like your music, steve, so i wouldn't discount what you are saying at all. I could be way out in left field about this

not at all, i keep thinking i must be missing the "make this a supersynth" button somewhere.

the presets sound very dull and uninteresting to me, like cheap digital hardware from 15 years ago. to be honest this, along with the not exactly user freindly interface usually bores me enough to delete the synth, perhaps i should give it one more go.

i guess it's just a case of different strokes for different folks.

cheers for the reply,

steve.

[Urs]

Whatever. After a long day of coding and a tooth surgery I'm drunk now and all I can say is, I'm happy that I don't have to fill this room with any more hardware. "This is so VSTi" is a pretty good thing when "hardware is so yesterday". (Nevertheless I want a real Neve eq, but even if I had one, I simply wouldn't know how to make instances for each track)

Urs

[Sascha Franck]

Nice thread, some very meaningful replies (especially about "monitor distraction").

Personally, I can't say anything worthwile about VST instruments and FX, others than I love them big time. But then, I never worked with proper hardware either, so I simply can't tell.
My personal bottomline would probably be that they're good enough to suit most professional demands (with a few exceptions maybe).

However, I'm a guitar player. And fwiw, I'm not a vintage freak or whatever at all.
When the first all programmable guitar head came out (a Dynacord), I bought it. When the first useable guitar FX processors came out (along the lines of Rolands GP-8), I bought them. When the first amp simulations came out, guess what? I bought them.
And, unlike some others, I have always loved those tools as well.

But, up to this day, I haven't heard a *single* amp simulator that would make me use it for a serious guitar based production.
Sure, there's some things you can do with them, just as good (if not better) as with a real amp.
But in some sort of serious rock production (think along the lines of the FooFighters), I simply can't imagine an amp sim could be up to the task at all.
I heard some truly convincing tones coming from amp sims already, I fooled around myself with about anything there is (haven't yet activated the AT2 demo though, will do when I have some serious time) and I'm enjoying it as well.
Yet, in case I'd be about to record anything serious with guitars being a main element, I wouldn't use them for anything but a few accompanying (or experimental) sounds at best.
And I'm not talking about the physical experience of standing in front of a banging 4x12 stack or so. I know pretty well what they're sounding like in the control room. Still nothing even close to what you'll get from current amp sims.
Heck, just a few days ago I connected some (not so successful = not all that great) Mesa Preamp, only using Boogex as a speaker sim, and it's instantly being heaps better than any of the software preamps.

So, the bottomline being? I don't know. Maybe VST amp sims simply haven't had enough time yet.
I'm sure there will be the "perfect" amp sim one day, but as far as the status quo goes, we're really quite far away from it.
And really, I'm no analog freak at all, more to the opposite, I'd be the happiest camper in the world if that would happen.

[Kingston]

Sure, there's some things you can do with them, just as good (if not better) as with a real amp.
But in some sort of serious rock production (think along the lines of the FooFighters), I simply can't imagine an amp sim could be up to the task at all.

Although I know exactly the point you're trying to make here it has to be said,

you'd be surprised how popular for example vetta2, or any recent pods are in *any* level of production, despite the "seriousness" of the band. In fact I'm mildly surprised you weren't already aware of this. There have been some earth shattering (to me) revelations on gearslutz.com on this very subject.

Basically I now no longer care about it (wether "real" amp or not), since it can be so well fooled on even top money productions.

The line (6 ) is already perfectly blurred, no matter if we *academically* can hear the difference.

[Sascha Franck]

I am aware of all these things, Kingston. But I haven't heard (or read) about amp sims being used as the main source in a lot of rock productions. Oh yeah, Limp Bizkit used them - but that sounded shit.

Btw, unlike others, I'm pretty much thinking that a good heavy sound could be emulated more easily than quite some others. Usually with heavy sounds they're banging all the time. It's those sounds used dynamically which amp sims fall short of.

And well, as said, I haven't heard an amp sim sound in Foo Fighters style yet either. IMO the best rock sound there is these days (ymmv, of course).

[Kingston]

I am aware of all these things, Kingston. But I haven't heard (or read) about amp sims being used as the main source in a lot of rock productions. Oh yeah, Limp Bizkit used them - but that sounded shit.

Read up current articles and interviews on the topic. The limp bizkit thing is from, uhh, 99? Don't assume it's the same today.

I wish I would've bookmarked the stuff I read to save you some time. Basically there are (or was?) quite the number of "names" lurking at gearslutz spilling the beans from time to time.

That said, I don't read the forum anymore as it's mostly PT LE 01 audiofool idiot kids nowadays. (and so thoroughly illiterate gung ho american I just can't take it no longer)

[Kingston]

The funniest stories, somewhat relevant to the (now hijacked) topic were from recording the sought after van halen sound.

I suspect quite the many idiotic vintage tone dreams were crushed from reading those revelations.

Rockman, anyone?

[Sascha Franck]

You know, I'm not talking about anybody doing anything their way. They may use whatever they want. It's a personal thing. I have been recording through all sorts of setups and I just know what I prefer (as said, without even thinking about the physical experience).
And again, I'd be extremely pleased in case things were any different.

[dhise]

I used to plug my Roland U-220, Yamaha dx7, and the Micromoog into my mackie board with a few adats. Pretty expensive (for me anyways) for an ok if not spectacular sound. I felt pretty liberated once everything was able to be handled ITB, and for me, I could actually obtain preofessional results without going bankrupt for the finest gear. VST has been the great equalizer in my opinion. Much power to the masses if used correctly.

PEACE,
Doug

www.myspace.com/hisesoundlabs

[AndrewSimon]

But, up to this day, I haven't heard a *single* amp simulator that would make me use it for a serious guitar based production.
Sure, there's some things you can do with them, just as good (if not better) as with a real amp.
But in some sort of serious rock production (think along the lines of the FooFighters), I simply can't imagine an amp sim could be up to the task at all.
I heard some truly convincing tones coming from amp sims already, I fooled around myself with about anything there is (haven't yet activated the AT2 demo though, will do when I have some serious time) and I'm enjoying it as well.

Sascha it will be very interesting to hear your opinion on Amplitube2.
I think you will be very positively supprised.
It's the first ampsim, in my opinion, that regardless of the setting or how good or bad it sounds, it simply "behaves" like real gear.
You do not need to tweak it for 1/2 hour so it will sound half decent, it sounds half decent on any setting.
By the way, when you do try it don't forget to do the following:

Take any clean amp (THD is my favorite).
Load 3 EQ pedals in the Stomp section.
Leave the EQ's flat.
Now take the first EQ and boost the "master out" by 15 dB.
Listen.... (and smile)
Now do the same with the second EQ.
Listen..... (and be amazed)
Now do the same with the third EQ.
Listen...... (and ..... you'll see)

[herodotus]

Btw, unlike others, I'm pretty much thinking that a good heavy sound could be emulated more easily than quite some others. Usually with heavy sounds they're banging all the time. It's those sounds used dynamically which amp sims fall short of.

Clean electric guitar sounds, to me, just absolutely require tubes and a room and good mics.

Heavy stuff can sound just fine with solid state/digital equipment. But clean electric guitars sound just plain awful to me. The Roland Jazz chorus is dreadful. And even Line 6 stuff (the best sounding digital stuff I have heard personally) sounds pitiful when you place it next to a Twin Reverb.

[Kingston]

And even Line 6 stuff (the best sounding digital stuff I have heard personally) sounds pitiful when you place it next to a Twin Reverb.

And then when you knowingly hear those two sounding brilliant on a well mixed record only thinking "oh, I wonder what stompbox that other twin has"

well, you just kinda stop caring.

(although personally as a guitarist I first had hard time accepting this)

[BONES]

I have never heard a sound on a record and thought "I could not do this with software"

Agreed 100%. I think any differences are simply "perceived" differences rather than actual differences, Kraftwerk included. I have complete confidence in my software set-up, infinitely more than I ever did with hardware. Its easier to work with and I am able to produce significantly better results. Whether it might not be able to match a particular piece of hardware in a particular area is irrelevant, the simple fact is that I can achieve more in less time at a fraction of the cost of hardware and to a higher standard. Aren't those the only things that matter?