Confession: I can't use ugly plugins.

[DJ Warmonger]

Ugly plugins? I can use them, but never love them.

Same with girls ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ghettosynth]

Ugly plugins? I can use them, but never love them.

Same with girls ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you're welcome...

[kPere]

Well, the gear and recordings I am most interested in are from the mid ‘70s through the mid ‘80s.

That, my friend, is really sad. Can I ask why? Because, as you may know, I've been playing around with 60-odd 80s covers over the past couple of years and what always grabs me is how much better my versions sound than the originals. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with how much better every aspect of the production process is today, compared to when those songs were originally recorded. We have infinitely superior instruments and effects at our disposal, and literally hundreds of times more tools to work with. And where the original artists might have had a few weeks in someone else's studio to record an album, we have the luxury of being able to spend as much time as it takes to make it perfect.

For example, last week I stayed up late one night working on Devo's Girl U Want. I'd found several different MIDI files on line and between them I managed ot get all the parts I needed. So I went to work on it, using Ujam's VG Carbon for the main guitar riff and VG Iron in the chorus, with TRK-01 Bass for the, um, bassline, MonoFury playing the main synth part and BM Vice doing drums. Something in the arrangement didn't feel right so this morning I put on Devo's orignal version and I couldn't believe how shithouse it sounded. Honestly, it's like they recorded it through a wall and I just don't understand why anyone would want to deliberately make their own music sound like that.

To loop back to the idea of making it perfect, your idea of perfect might be as close to the original as possible, whereas I want to make it sound as good as I possibly can, out of respect for the material. So just because Devo did the best they could at the time should not restrict me to doing as bad a job. After all, I'm sure if Devo re-recorded that song today, they would also do what I've done and try and make it as good as possible. (At least I hope that's what they'd do.)

It's the same reasoning behind us recently releasing updated versions of a couple of songs from our first album - at the time we did the best we could manage. 20 years later, technology has come a long way and we have learned a lot, and we thought those songs deserved to be made as good as we could manage.

The thing you consider advantage, which is true is also downside of things. Limitation fuels creativity. And that probably leads to your 2nd statement, that your version sounded better: I haven't heard any, so just guessing - but what people seek in music is emotions (mostly I guess, rythm etc as well, but what speaks the most is emotion I'd say), but certainly for 90% of listeners it is NOT the sonics they appreciate. And what you were talking about I guess is sonics, it's the wormhole we are all trapped in, we do appreciate it, some people unconsciously probably as well to a certain degree (its aesthetics after all).

Nevertheless, lo-fing your music won't add any more emotions and realness to it. It may lead to some associations with the music from the past, like using certain instruments or sounds, but that's about it I think.

If music changed since those old days, because it did - I'd look deeper - artist who make it have different approach, and that's what I'd blame. But not that all music is shit,the passion and sound from the old days is gone. That's far from truth. Just as far as this post is off the topic I guess.

[idoru97214]

Well, the gear and recordings I am most interested in are from the mid ‘70s through the mid ‘80s.

That, my friend, is really sad. Can I ask why? Because, as you may know, I've been playing around with 60-odd 80s covers over the past couple of years and what always grabs me is how much better my versions sound than the originals. That, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with me and everything to do with how much better every aspect of the production process is today, compared to when those songs were originally recorded. We have infinitely superior instruments and effects at our disposal, and literally hundreds of times more tools to work with. And where the original artists might have had a few weeks in someone else's studio to record an album, we have the luxury of being able to spend as much time as it takes to make it perfect.

For example, last week I stayed up late one night working on Devo's Girl U Want. I'd found several different MIDI files on line and between them I managed ot get all the parts I needed. So I went to work on it, using Ujam's VG Carbon for the main guitar riff and VG Iron in the chorus, with TRK-01 Bass for the, um, bassline, MonoFury playing the main synth part and BM Vice doing drums. Something in the arrangement didn't feel right so this morning I put on Devo's orignal version and I couldn't believe how shithouse it sounded. Honestly, it's like they recorded it through a wall and I just don't understand why anyone would want to deliberately make their own music sound like that.

To loop back to the idea of making it perfect, your idea of perfect might be as close to the original as possible, whereas I want to make it sound as good as I possibly can, out of respect for the material. So just because Devo did the best they could at the time should not restrict me to doing as bad a job. After all, I'm sure if Devo re-recorded that song today, they would also do what I've done and try and make it as good as possible. (At least I hope that's what they'd do.)

It's the same reasoning behind us recently releasing updated versions of a couple of songs from our first album - at the time we did the best we could manage. 20 years later, technology has come a long way and we have learned a lot, and we thought those songs deserved to be made as good as we could manage.

Agree x 1000

[subterfuge]

Features, useability, sound (where it matters), price. If there are two or more plugins which will pass equally all those categories the way I rate them, then I would choose the one that looks the best out of them. Has never happened so far...

[ahanysz]

I can't help wondering if there's a plugin out there that can access your camera, take a look at you, then pop up a message saying "I don't work for ugly users"?

[FapFilter]

define ugly.
I like Voxengo GUIs that most seem to think of as ugly.
Also: my DAW of choice is Reaper and i have no problems with it's look either. In fact Ableton, Bitwig, FL Studio or Logic actually look worse to me, but i could still work with them (ok, maybe not FL Studio, but it's not it's look - i just hate it's workflow)

I personally have more problems with “tackiness“ in GUIs. Stuff like scuffed virtual brushed metal front plates, glowing tubes and stuff like this, but also “wannabe“ cool/indie stuff like sketch cassette or that recent digital degrading tool that desperatley tries to look like an early Atari ST or Macintosh GUI.
I actually don't mind these GUIs on their actual hardware (be it an old HW effect, or an old Home Computer), but as a plugin it's too tacky for my taste to lure people with their pseudo nostalgic surfaces.
I can still use them and i do if i think they're good, but don't like these looks and their intentions behind them too much

[Aleksey Vaneev]

No, not most Maybe in open hate speeches, not in actuality. (but then you may understand the reason now?)

KVR plugin database is good to check the number of users that added plugins to various lists. SPAN is as popular as ProQ I think?

[zerocrossing]

This should, um, do the trick!

I didn’t have the ability to listen to that video, but I absolutely want that plugin for it’s pure ridiculous look.

[zerocrossing]

I don’t really care much about the ugliness or beauty of a plugin, as long as it’s clear and intuitive to use. I’ll put up with a lot if it does something unique… like Augustusloop, for instance, or the granddaddy of ugly plugins, Tranzistow. If I want to look at something beautiful, there are plenty of art websites I can look at. Here, check this out! I think he’s actually on this forum… or maybe Gearspace.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/genshi/

[dblock]

I just can't do it; no matter how good it sounds.

Hangs head in shame.

I won't use ugly plugins either. I've bought plugins that didn't even sound that great but look so good I convinced myself they sound great anyway.

[LeVzi]

The one that I really wanted to like, but never could bring myself to get it was Helix. Just gave me a headache looking at it.

[MadDogE134]

i have to admit i don't do ugly girls

[Teksonik]

KVR plugin database is good to check the number of users that added plugins to various lists. SPAN is as popular as ProQ I think?

Geee I wonder why ?

Span.png

Pro-Q.png

Not really fair to compare free with $179.

Voxengo is a prefect example of plugins that succeed not because of their GUIs but in spite of them....in my opinion of course. I'm sure there are others who will vociferously disagree with me and that simply points out how wide the range of personal preferences can be.

It's all so subjective. Some love photo realistic GUIs, some hate them, some love flat GUIs some hate them and so on. For every fan there is probably a detractor.

But I see the OP has done a drive by posting and hasn't yet bothered to reply to his own thread. I thought he might have been sarcastic since it seems somewhat popular to ridicule people who show a preference with the visual aspect of plugins.

Of course it's painfully obvious that sound is most important followed by function but visual appeal is also a factor as well in the enjoyment of a plugin. If you're going to be working with a plugin for up to hours at a time it doesn't hurt to like the way it looks.......

[Teksonik]

i have to admit i don't do ugly girls

At my age I've had to drop my standards down to living or recently deceased.