Confession: I can't use ugly plugins.

[vurt]

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"?

they all do, and the fact you didn't know that, means you must be a hotty

i get that pop up before i even turn on the pc

[ghettosynth]

i have to admit i don't do ugly girls

[Aleksey Vaneev]

Not really fair to compare free with $179.

Why? It's a userbase, the users that probably like the looks and function? (anyway, Voxengo userbase is at Gearspace mostly, judging by topic views)

[BONES]

The thing you consider advantage, which is true is also downside of things. Limitation fuels creativity.

Yeah but this is limitations, it's deliberately misdirected goals. It seems to me like wasted opportunity, rather than setting limitations to fuel creativity. And, let's be honest, what could be less creative than trying to copy something that has already been done?

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.

Absolutely but I'm not saying my versions are better, just that they have higher production values and better overall sound quality. In the pursuit of that it is possible, maybe even likely, that a lot of the emotional content has been stripped away, although in my mind I do try to keep the original spirit of the song as far as possible. But I don't usually listen to the original during the process, I rebuild it from memory (using MIDI files I download from the 'net). I am actually quite keen to get up and try them out on an audience, it's just really hard to find the time to get that organised. If you want to hear some of it, there are a few WIPS HERE.

[Teksonik]

Not really fair to compare free with $179.

Why? It's a userbase, the users that probably like the looks and function? (anyway, Voxengo userbase is at Gearspace mostly, judging by topic views)

Because there are likely to be more users of a freeware plugin than one that costs $179.

This was your original assertion:

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?

I'm just saying that popularity may be to some degree related to price so probably not a fair comparison.

[HAL76]

You think of fart man?

[jamcat]

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.

I’m not making my tracks lo-if or adding noise. I am adding subtle amounts of dynamic harmonic distortion at various stages, which taken together as a whole, makes it sound “like a record.” In the same way that a buss compressor lends itself. And you can’t do the “Pultec low end trick” without an accurate Pultec model.

Using models of gear the way it’s been used countless times by countless producers gives a set of tried and true parameters to work within that is guaranteed to deliver predictable satisfactory results. And it teaches you a lot about the art and history of audio engineering.

We all need self-imposed limitations in a world of infinite options. We have our genres, our set of plugins, and our preferred way of working. This is just mine.

[BONES]

But my preferred way of working makes sense, yours just condemns you to endlessly retread old ground. I just looked up what the Pultec Trick is and it ceased being a trick about a million years ago, when the tools got clever enough that you didn't need to trick them into doing their job any more. All you need to do today is find theresultant EQ curve and copy it in your modern EQ of choice. I found this in about 15 seconds -



And the thing is, the guy who first stumbled upon this technique didn't do it by slavishly copying everything his favourite producer from 50 years before him did, he did it by using the best equipment available to him and finding innovative ways to apply it to his work. Isn't that a more worthwhile pursuit?

[MadDogE134]

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

lol tek... at my age they may think i am deceased although i am living. problem is... they have 'standards' too lol

cheers

[jamcat]

But my preferred way of working makes sense, yours just condemns you to endlessly retread old ground. I just looked up what the Pultec Trick is and it ceased being a trick about a million years ago, when the tools got clever enough that you didn't need to trick them into doing their job any more. All you need to do today is find theresultant EQ curve and copy it in your modern EQ of choice. I found this in about 15 seconds -

But where's the fun in that?

Would you really rather do it like this




than like this?

[mixyguy2]

Agree with the OP. I almost instantly dismissed Synth1 and Dexed because of this.

[mixyguy2]

Not really fair to compare free with $179.

Because?

"You get what you pay for" is BS in the plugin world. Actually same w/gear, now that I think of it.

[Aleksey Vaneev]

I'm just saying that popularity may be to some degree related to price so probably not a fair comparison.

Many other of my free plugins are not mentioned as much as SPAN. What I'm saying is that ProQ and SPAN both have e.g. 1000 regular users. I'm not arguing about commercial performance, I'm relating to a sheer number of active users. If a narrative that Voxengo plugin are "ugly" is valid, then there must be as many ugly-lovers as beauty-lovers? (does not makes sense)

Or, if you insist on comparing free to free, MAnalyzer is 5 times less mentioned, BlueCat FreqAnalyst is 3 times less mentioned. 7phases is 10 times less mentioned.

[ghettosynth]

If a narrative that Voxengo plugin are "ugly" is valid, then there must be as many ugly-lovers as beauty-lovers? (does not makes sense)

This is undoubtedly true. It's the only explanation why my bottom has been randomly pinched or slapped by strangers in public on numerous occasions. Well, I suppose mistakes in identity could account for some of that, however, the cheeky post-slap/pinch grins suggest otherwise.

Ugly is a bit harsh for Voxengo plugins, more like "softball cute."

The truly ugly of plugins is the vast number of just plain weird plugins with knobs/panels that scream "look at me I'm different" from a hundred yards way that were so common in the early noughts. Sorry BONES, but 100% of your synthedit plugins get this award. We're going to look back and judge the too hip by half modular market this way in the future as well, I guarantee it!

As long as we're choosing sides here, I'm on the balance of functional and attractive. So I too think that too flat is too much, as is too skeuomorphic. I actually like a well developed interface that uses the default Reaktor knobs. Function over form without ignoring form is what I look for. Then, I'm also something of a minimalist, but not extremely so.

The Pro-Q interface is on the edge of being too slick for my tastes. I still like iZotope plugins even though they're mostly flat. Skeuomorphic is appropriate when you're modeling vintage hardware, but, it doesn't have to be one to one accurate, just get the flavor of the thing. I'm look at you IK with your vast wall of front panel with little else with your vintage compressors. Keep the large meter and knobs, and shrink the panel to be only slightly larger, that's a win!

[Boy Wonder]

You gotta admit - IK's UI's are beautiful to the eyes.