Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Spaceman Sounds]

noooo it's turning into a mac vs pc thread....stop ...now lol

[oxbee]

All these discussions about hardware being better than VST software (sound-wise) are just plain bullshits and masturbation.
Keep in mind that everything belongs to your ears and your experience.

As long as you take care of the audio output of your computer, the remainder of the debate is just marketing and lies.

[Sascha Franck]

I doubt you'll be able to run those same plugins/applications on Vista for example. (Don't know for sure, hey, maybe you will, but I doubt it).

From what I know, at least plain DLL plugins will actually run under Vista, the only downside probably being that they may not be taking advance of the 64bit architecture.
Not sure about other applications. I'd guess the more complexed ones would have to be rewritten.

For me, most of the hard Mac transitions are over, but for the Windows users, much of that is coming up ahead...

Dunno. But even if, that's one major transition in, hm, like 12-13 years. I'm sure XP will remain to be the majorly used OS for another 2 years.

Anyways, Spaceman Sounds, this was in no way meant to be a Mac bashing or whatever (heck, I'll be getting one this year).
It's about backwards/upwards compatibility, which is indeed a problem on the software side of things. And for Windows users this so far has turned out to be less of a problem, even if you were always taking advance of the latest OS and the newest computers.
Really, for me this is some sort of a horrible scenario. I will have to keep one old Windows DAW for almost all the times, just in order to be able to finally convert some songs at one time. This also means that I will have to keep all the plugins licensed. As I'm a rather smart ass, I already made some image solely for that purpose - but god forbid the machine will ever break. In that case I might not be able to reauthorize my plugins (because they're already licensed for another machine or two), and therefor I won't be able to ever load any old projects again.
Now yes, I should've finished some projects way earlier, but then, I just love loading older songs to get some inspiration from them.
Believe me, I've already been majorly pissed when I found out that the FM7 coming with Komplete wasn't compatible with the older version (which I had before), just because they messed with the plugin ID. It's been one of my most used plugins for quite a while. Fortunately I could install the older version in addition, so that was kinda solveable, but I had prepared some projects for the university's media lab, those machines only have Komplete installed, so my older songs required reloading, saving of the patch, reloading the patch into the new version, resaving the song.
That's already been quite some work. My personal Mac transition will become a nightmare. Heck, I saved most of my plugin presets in Logics internal format, thinking that one time I'd be able to use them on my future Mac. But apart from those for the internal plugins, not a SINGLE one of those presets will load anymore. So, each and every of my presets done for, say, NIs stuff require reloading and resaving them in the plugin format. Not even thinking about those plugins that don't offer internal preset management. Their settings will be lost forever.
Can you imagine that even the FXP/B format everybody at Emapple seems to hate so much will do a way better job in terms of compatibility? FXP/Bs for a given plugin can be loaded for all the main plugin versions (VST/W, VST/X and AU) in all versions of Logic, whereas their shiny own preset format is always only valid for the latest version.
Honestly, these things are driving me mad, and some developers (in this case Emapple) don't give a f**king shit about the issue.

Ok, this is drifting too much into OT land. But then, software vs. hardware compatibility is something to think about. My old SoundCanvas will still play all the songs I made with it 15 years ago. And my even older amps and guitars are still working as well.

[Angus_FX]

From what I know, at least plain DLL plugins will actually run under Vista, the only downside probably being that they may not be taking advance of the 64bit architecture.
Not sure about other applications. I'd guess the more complexed ones would have to be rewritten.

Almost everything will work fine.

The way Microsoft is handling the 64-bit transition, 32-bit plug-ins will run fine in 32-bit apps; 64-bit plug-ins will run in 64-bit apps.

Until such time as the hosts start going 64-bit in a big way, there's absolutely nothing to worry about regarding plug-in compatibility.

Macs will face the same issues when they go 64-bit... 32-bit plug-ins will stop working.

However, there's little or no performance penalty for most stuff running in 32-bit mode, meaning that 32-bit hosts and plug-ins will likely be with us for quite a while yet.

[SuitcaseOfLizards]

Like anyone is going to notice the difference between hardware and software once it's been smashed down into an MP3 or comparable lossy format..

[snooky]

I'm soooooo drunk right nnow.

waht's an EQ?

vstsst?


buttholes

[bobby yarrow]

I didn't read a whole mess of this thread, but I sort of don't buy the premise. I don't think people think VST is worse than DSP. I have a powercore, and all the bundled plugins on it pretty much suck in my opinion. I have a couple of UAD-1's, and some of the plugins are great. Likewise, some of my VST plugins are great, and some of them kind of suck . . . actually, the only plugins that I have installed that suck are the ones on my dsp cards that I don't like, cause I just uninstall any VST plugin I don't like.

Hardware vs. software is another matter, but that's not really what you're asking about, right?

[Z3R0T0N1N]

well, hardware is a big word. DSP is 'digital signal processing' (obviously) and 'DSPs' is a plural term given in error to a type of computer chip which is specifically well suited to running DSP operations. They are however, computer chips, and not particularly powerful ones by today's standards. Hardware, as a category, includes VA's and digital samplers, both of which rely on DSP (the code) running on DSPs (the chips). Therefore, the argument did include certain types of hardware.
For instance, the V-station sounds the same as the VA it emulates, because both are DSP operating on computer chips. It will be the computer's sound card and the quality thereof which will determine whether it comes out your speakers sounding as good, but many pro-sumer cards have better converters than some hardware, so chances are good.

[Torben]

Hardware vs. software is another matter, but that's not really what you're asking about, right?

Not if you mean analog vs. software; we have had that discussion many times. What I thought was interesting was how people considered "VST" quality vice in general; if it was considered just good enough for the home studio or as a professional standard on the same level as "DSP powered" plug-ins. A couple of years ago many owners of UAD's, Powercore and dedicated digital hardware swore that native plugins could never sound as good as there dedicated hardware and that the DSP chip itself "sounded better". I see that most people are no longer concerned about if the plug-ins are native or "DSP powered", but judge there quality on what they hear instead. Most arguments for having a UAD or Powercore now seems to be having some extra power to run plug-ins rather than believing DSP processors sound better.

Now, we only have to wait for one to make a card to run VST plug-ins, that would be great

Torben

[Kraku]

VSTs match professional standards (whatever they might be). Anyone stating otherwise is an

That's my not so humble opinion.

[beej]

Most arguments for having a UAD or Powercore now seems to be having some extra power to run plug-ins rather than believing DSP processors sound better.

Actually, most arguments for having a UAD are about the ability to run *those* algorythms for the well-regarded plugs - the fact that the DSP card does the processing is not that relevant. You can certainly run more plugins on a fast computer than you can on one UAD card.

Fast computers and freezing mean we are far less concerned over overall performance than we once were. Ok, the extra DSP is an advantage, but it's only really these days a nice bonus extra, not *the* reason to run a DSP card.

It's all about the algorythms - makes no difference if they are native or on an extra DSP card, really...

[sounddesigner]

[quote="beej"

Fast computers and freezing mean we are far less concerned over overall performance than we once were. Ok, the extra DSP is an advantage, but it's only really these days a nice bonus extra, not *the* reason to run a DSP card.

It's all about the algorythms - makes no difference if they are native or on an extra DSP card, really...[/quote]

I agree, i mainly bought uad for it's algoritms (same reason i bought great native vst's)the ability to draw processing power from it's card is great but also secondary reason and not most important.

[sounddesigner]

VSTs match professional standards (whatever they might be). Anyone stating otherwise is an

That's my not so humble opinion.

Actually vst's/software can be considered superior to hardware if you match them with hardware in their price range (and the arguement is very strong). i bought Propellerheads Reason for $300, where are you going to get hardware that truly compares to Reason for $300? Reason has several synths and samplers, a mixer, many effects and splitters, a combinator etc. I'd have to get many pieces of different hardware to match that, and if $300-$400 is my budget then the hardware will sound like childrens toys, so yes by faaaaaaaaaaaar software is superior to me.I'm not saying there is'nt a expensive hardware synth that can out do one of Reasons synths, but still Reason is more versatile,flexible and still great sounding and allows me to compete with anyone regardless of the size of their budget, so for me Reason and other software is the superior choice.If someone feels certain hardware sounds better then they should be working with it, for i only believe in using an instrument i love to play.and in the end it boils down to what each musician loves to work with whether software or hardware.

[bobby yarrow]

I see that most people are no longer concerned about if the plug-ins are native or "DSP powered", but judge there quality on what they hear instead. Most arguments for having a UAD or Powercore now seems to be having some extra power to run plug-ins rather than believing DSP processors sound better.

Now, we only have to wait for one to make a card to run VST plug-ins, that would be great

Torben

Right. Good. And that is an advance. I'm sure somebody's said so, but I think at least part of this is the legacy of protools -- pop DSP cards into your DAW, and it's more like a PT rig. The strength of protools is fading, I think, as macs become increasingly less dominant and native apps in windows become stronger.

I don't know why there isn't a DSP card that can run normal vsts. There's that box thingy that's basically a middle-of-the-road computer in a rack case with some knobs for $4k or whatever. In the meantime, tho, there's FXTeleport. I have an older P4 that just runs vsts and vstis thru FXT; it's not quite fast enough to be a main machine but can run dozens of instances of the heaviest plugins without a hiccup.

(Sidenote: your fantastic GMO-1 is one of the few plugins I've never been able to get to work with FXTeleport. Seems to be unique to my install, as the FXT people report they can do it. Great plugin. I just run it on the main machine.)

[bugs]

Software instruments allow for multiple instances which is a huge benefit to my mind.

I do love my Yamaha MU100R and would a MOTIF Rack ES to go with it, however. I'm a big fan of multi-culturalism.