LA2A, Fairchild, 1176LN, Neve 1093, ... plug in, plug away

[bmanic]

Since you're in here and contribute to this thread, bmanic, and you're also mainly drawn into the compressor discussions on this board, care to elaborate on those plugins who weren't commented on yet?

For example, the Nomad Factory ones or maybe even on the T-RackS ones again, if you know and A/Bed it with the the from Sonic Reality mentioned Fairchild 670 Limiter.

I'm just curious.

Sorry, I don't have any experience with either plugin suites most recent version so I will not critique them. Many of you know my feelings about nomad factory plugins but as Jens has rightly pointed out in a different thread, my opinion might not be valid as they have released version 3.0 and the new analogue mastering plugin things..

However, I have serious doubts that they perform any better than what a good set of freeware plugins do.

Cheers!
bManic

[Compyfox]

Then care to elaborate on what you experienced so far? This'd give a small insight already.

[Sascha Franck]

Ok, someone might teach me, but:
WHAT THE f**k is this all about?
I will happily agree that some software may (or may not) capture the sound of whatever analog hardware.
But then, especially when it comes to mixer channels and what not: Isn't it absolutely important that they used proper amplification stages "on the way in" (to whatever recording medium)?

I'm defenitely not your famous studio player, having been in all the wellknown studios and whatever. But, I *did* do some recordings in SSL ans whatnot equipped studios. Some of them still going to tape (fwiw...).
And if I ever noticed something at all, it's been that the signal has mostly been treated quite a bit on the way in already (and I'm not talking about EQs or compressors but the more or less subtile things like driving whichever input harder while at the same time being more careful with other input stages).

Anyways, why would it even be remotely important if some software resembles whatever hardware EQ/compressor? Unless you're using an exact copy of whatever in/output chains, they will never sound even remotely the same anyways.

In other words, as an example: The Toneport's amp/channel/whatever simulations might be as exact as they claim to be (I doubt they are, because Line6's amp models suck, compared to the referred originals, but that's an entirely different matter already), but using the cheap converters the Toneport is equipped with will NEVER even get you remotely close to the quality of the originals.
So why would one even want know what the analog originaly were like?

And yes, I seriously don't understand all this. Analog might be fine with me (heck, I'm a guitar player still preferring analog amps over almost anything else for "authentic" sounds, whatever they may be...), but to me the main deal is that we are NOT working in the analog domain anymore. So how could an emulation of whatever analog device even work?

[justin3am]

Ok, someone might teach me, but:
WHAT THE f**k is this all about?

As has been said before, I don't think that this is a list of "What software will make my drums sound like they've been processed by "X" famous hardware". The fact is, most famous hardware is famous because of a distintive characteristic which is brought on by what is happening at the circuit level. While I know that it's currently impossible to capture that distinctive character in a software emulation it can be useful to understand what type of circuit is being mimicked by different software compressors because just like different mics are better suited for certain voices, different compressor behaviors are better suited for certain dynamic processing jobs.

Obviously, it's better to experiment with what works but often times it's useful to have some point of reference.

[Sascha Franck]

Obviously, it's better to experiment with what works but often times it's useful to have some point of reference.

Yes and yes.
But then, especially in case of the "analog" items, very often the entire signal chain is responsible for the final result.
As said, I'm only a guitar player, but very often I find myself wondering about other folks complaining about whatever amp sim to "suck", when they don't even manage to own some hardware offering a decent signal chain to feed said amp sim. In case of guitar sounds, this is absolutely crucial. And I'd guess that it's just about as crucial when it comes to all that other "analog magic".

[eduardo_b]

Ok, someone might teach me, but:
WHAT THE f**k is this all about?

As has been said before, I don't think that this is a list of "What software will make my drums sound like they've been processed by "X" famous hardware". The fact is, most famous hardware is famous because of a distintive characteristic which is brought on by what is happening at the circuit level. While I know that it's currently impossible to capture that distinctive character in a software emulation it can be useful to understand what type of circuit is being mimicked by different software compressors because just like different mics are better suited for certain voices, different compressor behaviors are better suited for certain dynamic processing jobs.

Obviously, it's better to experiment with what works but often times it's useful to have some point of reference.

Gone for five days, come back, and here's another one of those "what does it really matter" threads I love so much. The very fact that the hardware is famous seems totally irrelevant to whether or not one should spend the money on emulations of them, which are only emulations anyway and thus not really the same as.

The only reason to use any plug is if the results are an "improvement" that is deemed desirable. Otherwise, I don't see the point. There are so many perfectly good EQs, compressors, reverbs available that make no attempt to emulate anything and do what needs to be done. Why else use them. The qualities that seem to matter are in the music, and I'll be damned if I can tell what hardware or plug-ins were used. So I pretty much don't care. If I like what I hear, someone made a good choice, or knew how to properly use the items in question.

I think I'll take another five days.

[justin3am]

Honestly, it doesn't really matter to the final outcome of a track... however, part of my fulltime job is to understand the inner workings of the software and in the case that a peice of software that I test is an emulation I have to understand the characteristics of what it's emulating. Being that my job requires an analytical nature, I often take that mindset home with me and apply it to my hobby/part time job as an musician/engineer.

Though these aspects of the tools that we use may not make or break a piece of music I work on, it's a topic I have much interest in and therefore find valuable. I don't believe that everyone finds it valuable and that is something that I have to keep in mind while testing software. While it may be important to the marketing team that they can claim their product is an emulation, its only important to the enduser that the it produce as you say desirable results.

I find that there is no downside to educating myself in this regard, it all helps me do my job better. Thanks e_b, I do have to stop every once in a while and remember that what is important to my employers isn't necessarily important to the people that buy their products.

[eduardo_b]

Thanks e_b, I do have to stop every once in a while and remember that what is important to my employers isn't necessarily important to the people that buy their products.

Dude, I wasn't really addressing you specifically, although I guess in replying to you I made it seem that way. My apologies if it did seem I was singling you out. I was taking a larger view given the posts I was seeing. People tend to focus on stuff that's largely esoteric to the basic process of creating music. I realize that really experienced professionals might be able to make a case for certain hardware or plug-ins over others, but there are few here who really can lay claim to that kind of ability. I think it leads many hobbyists and avocational participants in music to think they are missing critical technology that will make all the difference in how their music sounds. It won't. Although the marketing types are naturally going to intimate as much one way or another.

[S-N-S]

i would love to see these effects getting more "emulations"in more cheaper plug-ins,so one didnt need a uad or powercore

i know there has been some devs trying to do it,but would love to see more

[justin3am]

Thanks e_b, I do have to stop every once in a while and remember that what is important to my employers isn't necessarily important to the people that buy their products.

My apologies if it did seem I was singling you out.

No offense was taken. I was merely explaining the context of my POV. I was being sincere, however... Every once in a while I need to step back and realize that I'm not a "typical" user and that it pays to attempt to think like one.

Cheers

[Sascha Franck]

So, another questions:
Are these famous hardware units really the be end of all?
Is there no better design possible?

I'm asking because sometimes it really seems to be like that.

Whenever I go to whatever largely hardwarebased studio (admittedly not that often anymore), what I see is all those SSLs, Fairchilds, Ureis and what not. Along with some Lexicons and the likes, of course.
And well, these are studios making a living out of it, so it could as well mean that whatever things may indeed be the best.
No wonder everybody's trying to emulate them then - even if I highly doubt this is of much use for us mere homstudio users as we simply don't have access to an SSL channel strip on the "real analog" way into our DAWs. But still, let's assume it might be worth emulating them.

But, and I guess that's the real questions I have:
- Has there been really no improvements ever since those items were built? To me, this is somewhat unlikely...
- Or is it just that we are used so much to things to sound "that way", so we won't accept any different sounds? And yes, I'm saying "different" explicitely, not "worse".

Again, as I'm not a mixing engineer but a guitar player, let me do a little comparison with things in amp simulation land (which I am extremely familiar with, having used almost all of the possible approaches since around 2 decades).
What we usually find in software land is approaching emulations of the real analog deal. It even goes as far as trying to resemble hardware lookalike interfaces - which is incredibly stupid, btw, as there's space wasted all over the f**king place. You will hardly find *any* amp simulation using faders rather than knobs, even if faders are a lot easier to read out. And well, the knobs aren't even properly designed for screen readout. Look at the knobs in Zebra or Live. These offer a great screen readout value, a resembled Marhall pot however doesn't, it's just looking shit on a screen.

And now let's get to the sound.
Will these emulations ever sound the same as the real things? No way, it's just impossible due to a large variety of factors, for a start I simply want to mention that tubes sound all different each time you switch them on, let alone the very same pair of tubes has a potential to sound entirely different if you slap them into another amp, even if it's exactly the same model.

But let's take this a bit further: Why do we even WANT a perfect emulation of these amps? Is there anything like an absolute truth when it comes to (in this case: guitar) sounds? And, to take that even further: Is there really no room for either improvements or "new" sounds? I can't believe that.
When it comes to guitar sounds it's always Marshall here, Jimi Hendrix there.
When it comes to synth sounds it's Moog here, Oberheim there.
When it comes to dynamic processing it's LA2A here, Fairchild there.
And so on.
Just as if the "will" to try something else has stopped all of a sudden. As if the sound quality of music has come to the ultimate truth 20-30 years ago.

Yes, as a guitar player I want an amp reacting as organic (read: dynamic) as possible towards my playing.
And I can perfectly understand that synth lovers don't want any aliasing.
And I do as well understand that mixing folks want something not smearing transients and what not.

But that's where it ends for me.
I don't need an amp to sound like a Marshall, Vox or whatever. I need something being able to express what I'm putting in. And please give me U-He's MFM2 over a Roland Space Echo (even the real deal) any day.

Just another example: When I started playing, I really had no money, so all I could afford was an Echolette amp (one of the "newer" models, nothing like the sought after vintage tube things). Considering any sort of sound "standard" it was delivering the worst sound ever. But boy, what would I give to get an even remotely similar sound these days. Because it had a certain trashy quality to it that I simply haven't been able to reproduce with anything I owned afterwards (and I owned TONS of stuff during the last 25 years).

Anyways, finally, what I'm trying to say is: There's a LOT more of things to explore, a lot more things to improve and a lot more new sounds to arise than the old "what is the best emulation of analog item XYZ...".
And I'm afraid that those that really want to mix like 20 ago really have to buy all the stuff from back then.
Personally, I will happily not take part in any such a thing but look forward instead, being all excited about what *new* things software development will deliver. And I'm not even asking developers to try and reproduce any other Marshall wannabe anymore. For heaven's sake: Let those folks be inventive, rather than being reproductive!

[herodotus]

And, to take that even further: Is there really no room for either improvements or "new" sounds? I can't believe that.
When it comes to guitar sounds it's always Marshall here, Jimi Hendrix there.
When it comes to synth sounds it's Moog here, Oberheim there.
When it comes to dynamic processing it's LA2A here, Fairchild there.
And so on.
Just as if the "will" to try something else has stopped all of a sudden. As if the sound quality of music has come to the ultimate truth 20-30 years ago.

Yes it's true.

Everyone wants to sound like 'the big boys'. If they just wanted to sound good, they would grab a bunch of freeware and get to work. Perhaps buying little bits and pieces as they became necessary later on.

[Shy]

So, another questions:
Are these famous hardware units really the be end of all?
Is there no better design possible?

Of course there are "better" designs possible, but none available in software land comes anywhere near to even "as good".

[Compyfox]

Granted - If it comes to analog circuity, nothing can beat the real unit, ibecause software can't come close. But this is really not the essential question here.

Like justin3am said already, it's always good to know what's below the hood of a certain tool to fully understand it. And since manuals are mostly "this is built after analog circuity" but don't say more, you're basically stuck.

So if you bought this certain plugin set because it was recommended to you, or the feedback was great or whatever, but then you realise while you have it yourself that it's "crap", because you don't really get the point of it. Is that really what you wanted or prefered? Personally I don't, this is why I started this thread, to get to know some more.

Agreed, Line 6 isn't the best in terms of guitar amps (and you need to know a LOT to get out some very good tones), but I mainly use it's plugin version and layer it with another amp(sim) anyway. Each plugin is good for "something". It's not only what this thing is built after, to get the sound like the big studios but in the box, it's also important how this stuff works. To me this is very important - the better you know your stuff, the better output material you can provide.


But please let us get back on topic.

[mauseoleum]

and the silicone answer is:

http://www.national.com/pf/LM/LM4562.html

search some on gearslutz.

My observation is that some stuff will get digitally emulated, other sampled/recorded/nebulaed and some stuff will remain in hardware or in "analog emulation".

market will decide.