Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Urs]

just because an amp is real, doesnt mean its going to automatically provide better recordings.

So true!

I see it the same way with a lot of analog gear. In analog you have to find "sweet spots", you gotta max stuff out to avoid the noise floor etc. I think that many softsynths (including softsynths on dedicated hardware) sound like more or less well recorded analogs, just like virtual stomp boxes / amp sims sound like already recorded. Much of the hassle has already been removed.

One thing I miss though is the ability to overdrive my mixer. I got a cheap CR-16 VLZ, but still... when I get red LEDs in Logic it sounds crap. When I get red LEDs flashing in the CR-16 it sounds just right to me. When will the DAWs finally give us well sounding channel strips without having to insert plugins?

Cheers,

Urs

[olepro]

A note on the virus B, it definitely doesn't sound as "analog" as any of the new stuff, but there's something in the character that I can't find in anything else. It's in the way the filter responds to modulation, it sounds "quick." Especially with short attacks. I've tried different envelope curves and all that, but nothing seems to do it. Z3ta+ kinda gets there, but unsatisfactorily. Minimonsta is the closest I've heard, but that's a moog emulation (albeit a really good one) and not a full blown VA.

Try to play with the filters and envelopes on Vaz 2010 or Vaz modular !!!!
They are snappy as hell especially if you turn the limiter in the filter page off.

[Kraku]

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?

Amen to that!

Compared to hardware, it is so easy to make a VST plug. That's why there are so many vsts out there. Any kid on the block can learn few VST coding formats and make their own plug. With all these plugs, there is a higher chance you will find some bad ones.

I believe what you say is completely true. Making VSTs is quite easy, but making GOOD VSTs isn't easy at all. Infact, it's VERY hard, as also is making good hardware. Making really good ANYTHING is very very hard and required lots of time/energy/talent/practise.

When people compare the VSTs to hardware, they only seem to compare them to the most high quality hardware ever built in the last 50 years or so. VSTs haven't been on the market even for 10 years now, so the comparison isn't quite fair when it comes to the amount of astounding products on the market. There are lots of good and bad products on both software and hardware markets, but still there are already some stuff that can match the best hardware. Coming up with great sounding products takes time/energy/luck and you can't realistically expect the software developers to come up with 50 years of products in less than 10 years.

On top of that, the hardware dsp unit manufacturers are sitting on patents, which prevent their competitors (ie. VST developers) from using specific algorithms.

Still there are a couple of VST developers, which do great job of constantly creating these superb sounding plugins. When it comes to sound quality and character, GMedia, Kjaerhus Audio, Princeton Digital and Voxengo spring in to my mind off top of my head. Also Korg deserves a special mention for their Legacy Collection (even though it's a big bad company).

But what about hardware dsp products? What's good in that front? I can't personally think of any astounding sounding dsp HW synth on the market at the moment. It all comes down to personal taste really and my taste has shifted to the VST market. Maybe Kurzweil products could be mentioned as a HW DSP synths with such a great sound that they have to be mentioned.

On the HW DSP effects front I can only think of the Lexicon/Eventide/TC reverbs and maybe Line6 Pod XT series. That's about it for me, really.

[olepro]

When people compare the VSTs to hardware, they only seem to compare them to the most high quality hardware ever built in the last 50 years or so. VSTs haven't been on the market even for 10 years now, so the comparison isn't quite fair when it comes to the amount of astounding products on the market. There are lots of good and bad products on both software and hardware markets, but still there are already some stuff that can match the best hardware. Coming up with great sounding products takes time/energy/luck and you can't realistically expect the software developers to come up with 50 years of products in less than 10 years.

On top of that, the hardware dsp unit manufacturers are sitting on patents, which prevent their competitors (ie. VST developers) from using specific algorithms.

Still there are a couple of VST developers, which do great job of constantly creating these superb sounding plugins. When it comes to sound quality and character, GMedia, Kjaerhus Audio, Princeton Digital and Voxengo spring in to my mind off top of my head. Also Korg deserves a special mention for their Legacy Collection (even though it's a big bad company).

But what about hardware dsp products? What's good in that front? I can't personally think of any astounding sounding dsp HW synth on the market at the moment. It all comes down to personal taste really and my taste has shifted to the VST market. Maybe Kurzweil products could be mentioned as a HW DSP synths with such a great sound that they have to be mentioned.

On the HW DSP effects front I can only think of the Lexicon/Eventide/TC reverbs and maybe Line6 Pod XT series. That's about it for me, really.

Maybe that's why the Vaz synths are so damn good.
They were one of the first synths for the computer.
They started up as standalone programs and later became vsti's

[bugs]

What is great for us "home studio" owners, is a nightmare for small and startup "pro studios".
For studio owners to openly embrace software is simply bad buisiness.
Hey if you can do it all on a PC then who needs an expensive studio?

Good point Andrew. If people pay money for studio time they expect to see some hardware and not a computer with plug-ins like they got at home. If you can't sell better sound you have to sell some kind of lifestyle; big brands know that in every industry no matter if they are selling cola, perfume or whatever.

Torben

Aside: Someone could make some money selling hardware faceplates with the twinkling lights to impress people and you could have computers with software doing the actual work behind the scene--like DisneyWorld.

The real question IMHO is not hardware vs software, but hardware instruments and effects vs computers. The computers are going to win without much effort at all in the end and at a fraction of the cost. And the ergonomics are better to boot. Spend $50K on a computer/software setup and you'll find it of considerably higher quality and capacble of greater diversity than a comparably priced all hardware setup. Of course, if you're just making music to "post on the refridgerator" or impress your friends, what difference does it make anyway.

Incidently, my clients are uniformly blown away when they enter my "home studio", which is entirely software based--the secret is other types of visuals--multiple displays, projection systems, artwork, books (yes, books), fresh flowers and, of course, decorative lighting. (A beverage or two does hurt either.) I would highly reommend, however, that the sound be really good as well--a presentation system in addition to studio monitors. My experience is that clients are primarily there to listen--some even close their eyes.

[lex_strooder]

(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)

my thoughts too, how in this world can i get the money to strap one of those on every mixer chanel...

but i just got one and finally experienced a "real" eq... its mono but still, all my tracks are burned throu it, one at the time...

[snooky]

(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)

my thoughts too, how in this world can i get the money to strap one of those on every mixer chanel...

but i just got one and finally experienced a "real" eq... its mono but still, all my tracks are burned throu it, one at the time...

so now your sound is pro?

[beej]

Aside: Someone could make some money selling hardware faceplates with the twinkling lights to impress people and you could have computers with software doing the actual work behind the scene--like DisneyWorld.

You can already get dumb rack stuff: http://www.funklogic.com/products.htm

[Sascha Franck]

Live is another matter, but certainly something like Vetta is more convenient as it accommodates so large pallette compared to a one single tube amp.

I beg to totally disagree here.
Unless you're doing top 40 stuff, you usually don't need that vast array of patches for live situations.
And even if you do (which admittedly happened to me at times), programmable amps are an absolute pain to deal with in a live situation should *anything* not sound as supposed. Which is happening very often. Just think about the differences in sound in a small club, compared to some open air stage. Then think about using your same patches in another musical context.
Just a few examples:
- I may for instance notice that there's too much overall reverb on my patches. With a dedicated reverb unit, I just turn down the level/mix parameter. Ok, some digital amps allow for that, but most don't. Not sure about the Vetta, but the Pod XT doesn't. Lame.
- In cheesy clubs I may need a higher noise gate threshold. Almost none of the digital amps offer a global setting. My rusty GT-5 does (it's got a master reverb setting as well, plus a master EQ), Guitar Rig does as well. Again, the Pod XT doesn't.
- Now imagine my clean patches are all too low in volume. What to do? Readjust and resave each and every clean patch? A true PITA, even if it just comes down to 3 clean patches. With a real amp I just turn one single knob. Can even do that while playing. Takes a second. The same goes for too much or not enough drive on whatever channel.

This is exactly the reason why I've been spending a shitload of money on a hybrid system, while even the most expensive programmable amp would've cost a fraction of that only, while probably even delivering better sounds. My preamps are all analog, the reverb unit is seperated, the same goes for the noise gate. The patching is done via some switcher/looper.
A whole lot of shit that I don't even carry around with me for the sound of it but for the sake of accessability only.
I can tell you in all certainty (word?): Programmable amp makers have *no* clue at all about what live-players demand.

Fortunately, now there's NIs Kore to the rescue! My new live guitar rig (which is almost done) will be centered around it. In performance mode I can tweak my "channels" parameters "globally" while incoming program changes will only change their on/off status. So I will just set up enough "basic sound channels" and switch between them, instead of running into the same old problem again. Fantastic, really. I'll just assign the most important parameters (channel volumes, boost volumes, effect volumes) to Kore's knobs and be done. Don't even need to keep the laptop opened.

Not exactly the same as what this thread is all about, but at least related. For live usage virtual setups so far have been falling short. But Kore may actually change a lot regarding that.

[lex_strooder]

(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)

my thoughts too, how in this world can i get the money to strap one of those on every mixer chanel...

but i just got one and finally experienced a "real" eq... its mono but still, all my tracks are burned throu it, one at the time...

so now your sound is pro?

yes, all my music sounds like "Hit Radio Number One" now

... and i should start being a tard and bash every software eq on the market... because my sound is pro now....

[pitchdrifter]

...
Incidently, my clients are uniformly blown away when they enter my "home studio", which is entirely software based--the secret is other types of visuals--multiple displays, projection systems, artwork, books (yes, books), fresh flowers and, of course, decorative lighting. (A beverage or two does hurt either.) I would highly reommend, however, that the sound be really good as well--a presentation system in addition to studio monitors. My experience is that clients are primarily there to listen--some even close their eyes.

That's the way to work imo.

[Kingston]

Sascha Franck,

while I understand your point of amp sim patch memory related problems, it's somewhat failed comparison to real amps.

You *can* use Vettas and the likes in a similar restrictive fashion compared to real amps.

You setup one patch with chain with the sound just like you would with a "real" amp. Your stompbox/reverb/noise gate have the same one setting you would adjust on your "real" rig. Just as fast, and in no way restrictive. Keeping in mind you're free to use external FX/stomps with vettas as well.

The problems start only when changing patches. You can't do that with a "real" amp anyway, so the comparison is failed.

If you restrict the virtual rig to same parameters as the "real" one they are *perfectly* equal. (if we forget minor differences in sound)

And yes, with this in mind it would seem that the amp sim designers have no idea on ergonomic live patch design, taking in account the massive variables.

[stk]

One thing I miss though is the ability to overdrive my mixer. I got a cheap CR-16 VLZ, but still... when I get red LEDs in Logic it sounds crap. When I get red LEDs flashing in the CR-16 it sounds just right to me. When will the DAWs finally give us well sounding channel strips without having to insert plugins?

I totally agree with you on this one. When I overdrive a channel on my A&H GS3 it sounds freakin awesome, and I've yet to find an effect that can match this.

I'd really like a daw that responds in such a way.

sk

[Glooper]

If your using the vettas and the like as a normal amp.. and still using stomp boxes etc.. then surely you would just use a normal amp..

with a collection of stomp boxes and external effects, you can change sounds a lot easier and have each stomp box, effect adjusted to the environment... rather than having to reprogramme a lot of different patches on a virtual amp... where changing one paramter would then have to be reflected on all the patches, and thus could not be done on the fly...

Ben

[Sascha Franck]

I can do that with a real amp, Kingston!
Sure, I can *not* change the individual channel's settings, but the on/off status is switched by a looper. To change the sonic quality, I have an EQ and a booster in some pre-amp loops. Along with the Boogie MarkIVs switcheable master EQ, this is giving me around 10 useful "basic" sounds (not all combinations of channels, boosts and EQs are working), pretty much enough for any live job I've ever done. In addition, my FX units are of course switched as well (an Intellifex and a Midiverb III - don't laugh, the latter is only mixed in with a line mixer, quite good enough for live purposes), and as another extra I've got a few pedals that are excluded from switching on my pedal board (some pre-, some post-amp, including a TubeScreamer, a Whammy and a tempo delay).
This setup allows for rapid switches as well as for instant parameter access. In live situations I'm never running into "oh, might need more sounds" issues, and I'm doing quite some different jobs with it as well, always only using one single bank of patches. In case I need more of a rock sound, I'll quickly modify the individual channels, turn the reverb off and be done in a matter of 1-2 minutes. All comletely impossible with an all-in-one programmable solution. Simply because so far not a single programmable amp delivers the kind of utility mode I'd need.
But as said, I hate to carry around all that stuff for anything. So here comes Kore.