Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[HAL76]

Is VA an advertising ploy?

Ì´d say that the answer depends on the consumer. For most gear**** and many others - clearly yes. For a big part of the EM community today: strangely no.

The above example is perfect. Many people don´t seem to hear/feel a difference, although they are pretty obvious for trained ears.

But I´d also recommend to better think of hardware vs software and just not to believe people who say "it´s all the same" anymore since every mofu synth sounds different and hardware even more.

Just twist a SSI 2144 chip (common today) filter and you´ll know better.

[Pilonsky]

Is VA an advertising ploy?

Ì´d say that the answer depends on the consumer. For most gear**** and many others - clearly yes. For a big part of the EM community today: strangely no.

The above example is perfect. Many people don´t seem to hear/feel a difference, although they are pretty obvious for trained ears.

But I´d also recommend to better think of hardware vs software and just not to believe people who say "it´s all the same" anymore since every mofu synth sounds different and hardware even more.

Just twist a SSI 2144 chip (common today) filter and you´ll know better.

I’m buying hardware from now on. I learned my lesson. It makes more sense financially, cause it retains its value, and I don’t need anyone’s permission to sell it. And I don’t have to pay transfer fees to sell it either. When I’m ready to upgrade I sell the old piece and use it as a down payment for the new. With minimal loss.

Then there’s process. The finished product is important, but the process of making music is the fun part. It’s getting into a flow, and loosing yourself a few hours. That’s the part that keeps me going. And hardware is way more fun. Cables, knobs, noise, etc. And minimal screens. Just your hands and your ears. It’s so much fun.

And finally the sound. It’s no contest. Digital has its part, but analog is the foundation. It’s thick, it has depth, texture, bottom — and it just sounds like it’s alive.

And yes, when I buy a piece of hardware it’s mine. I can keep it, sell it, give it away, or throw it away. That’s important.

[Pilonsky]

Virtual analog emulation comes close to hardware but they are not the same. Not even two pieces of the same analog equipment sound exactly alike. Virtual analog is like a snapshot of the real stuff, and sometimes has a better workflow than the modeled gear. In a loud busy mix is almost impossible to tell if someone used good analog emulation plugins or real gear. But to my ears, I can tell if someone is using Amplitube or a real guitar amp if no other instruments are playing along.

The only problem with the “you can’t tell the difference in a mix”, or the “average listener can’t tell the difference” logic is that if that is the case, then why use one instrument over another? Why not get a $30 keyboard at Walmart mart and make your tracks with that?

That's exactly my point. It all comes down to strategy. If you're recording music using only a $30 Walmart keyboard to make all the sounds you'll probably end up with an unprofessional sounding song. But let's say you already have a nice sounding track that's missing some secondary key strokes. Maybe the $30 keyboard can do the job, specially if you process it with some modulation and saturation. Making professionally sounding tracks is more about the producer/engineer than the gear itself, but good gear helps saving time and effort, that's for sure.

I had already given up, but since you brought it up, and I was sincerely trying to make a point, I’ll give it another shot:

You’re talking about adding a sound to a nice sounding track. What I wanna know about is the sounds you used to make the nice track! Not the last Casio sound that might be able to serve some purpose in this nice track. Tell me about the things you used to make the nice track. Cause if I got that, I don’t care about the Casio!

The truth is I'd probably never use a $30 Casio to make a solo lead or anything that's upfront in the mix. But I might spend $150 on a good software synth like Diva if I don't have $700 to spend on a Moog Mother-32 hardware for example. Here's a comparison between them

You know you want that moog! Save that $150 and pick up some extra shifts. That Diva ain’t no Moog. You know it.

[vitocorleone123]

If I look at all the useless plugins I've impulse bought over the last 6-7 years that are simply collecting digital dust... I probably could have bought a few nice pieces of hardware. This is very true.

My advice to anyone just getting into this scene now would be to always demo first, spend wisely, compare extensively, be sceptical of marketing claims of 'analog'-ness and don't get sucked in by pretty GUI's. You do not need 50 third party compressors. You need about... 5

If I knew then what I know now I would have spent my money on either decent monitors and treatment, hardware synths/drum machines/samplers, or some 500 series modules. And analog guitar pedals for the instruments. Not spent it chasing some in the box virtual analog studio.

And yes I’ve become very skeptical of virtual analog-ness and pretty GUI’s. And I have no problem with digital in general, it has its strengths. My skepticism applies to the claim that so and so plug in is accurately modeled after so and so analog compressor, Eq, synthesizer, or effects module. There are many many software companies that make a living off this claim.

Be skeptical (I am now!), but with an open mind. There seems to be a small but growing list of exceptions, where it's not just marketing.

[Pilonsky]

If I look at all the useless plugins I've impulse bought over the last 6-7 years that are simply collecting digital dust... I probably could have bought a few nice pieces of hardware. This is very true.

My advice to anyone just getting into this scene now would be to always demo first, spend wisely, compare extensively, be sceptical of marketing claims of 'analog'-ness and don't get sucked in by pretty GUI's. You do not need 50 third party compressors. You need about... 5

If I knew then what I know now I would have spent my money on either decent monitors and treatment, hardware synths/drum machines/samplers, or some 500 series modules. And analog guitar pedals for the instruments. Not spent it chasing some in the box virtual analog studio.

And yes I’ve become very skeptical of virtual analog-ness and pretty GUI’s. And I have no problem with digital in general, it has its strengths. My skepticism applies to the claim that so and so plug in is accurately modeled after so and so analog compressor, Eq, synthesizer, or effects module. There are many many software companies that make a living off this claim.

Be skeptical (I am now!), but with an open mind. There seems to be a small but growing list of exceptions, where it's not just marketing.

I have no problem with digital. But that’s not what is available. It’s all this virtual analog perfect modeling of classic hardware narrative that I’m questioning. If someone says, hey here’s a great digital compressor, then I try it out and like it or don’t. But virtual analog is not like that. It’s like here’s a 670 compressor. The GUI has a picture of a 670. Does it sound like a 670? Probably not. I don’t have a 670, but if I had to bet, I bet it don’t. Ok, does the virtual 670 sound good? Yeah maybe. But that’s not the original claim. The original claim is that this thing accurately models a 670! Which is not true! And maybe the digital compressor sounds better than the modeled 670. But it’s harder for me to tell cause I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

But I hear you. Be skeptical but not closed minded. It makes sense. But I’m still a little bitter!

[Unaspected]

Thanks, I feel like I just got jumped into a gang!

That feeling never goes away.

Is VA an advertising ploy?

Ì´d say that the answer depends on the consumer. For most gear**** and many others - clearly yes. For a big part of the EM community today: strangely no.

The above example is perfect. Many people don´t seem to hear/feel a difference, although they are pretty obvious for trained ears.

But I´d also recommend to better think of hardware vs software and just not to believe people who say "it´s all the same" anymore since every mofu synth sounds different and hardware even more.

Just twist a SSI 2144 chip (common today) filter and you´ll know better.

I’m buying hardware from now on. I learned my lesson. It makes more sense financially, cause it retains its value, and I don’t need anyone’s permission to sell it. And I don’t have to pay transfer fees to sell it either. When I’m ready to upgrade I sell the old piece and use it as a down payment for the new. With minimal loss.

Then there’s process. The finished product is important, but the process of making music is the fun part. It’s getting into a flow, and loosing yourself a few hours. That’s the part that keeps me going. And hardware is way more fun. Cables, knobs, noise, etc. And minimal screens. Just your hands and your ears. It’s so much fun.

And finally the sound. It’s no contest. Digital has its part, but analog is the foundation. It’s thick, it has depth, texture, bottom — and it just sounds like it’s alive.

And yes, when I buy a piece of hardware it’s mine. I can keep it, sell it, give it away, or throw it away. That’s important.

That's the most important thing: Use the things that inspire you. Doesn't matter how green the grass is anywhere else as long as you have some growing.

it's the chris pratt trilogy, guardians, jurassic world, lego movie.
nerd heaven

Ah! I knew the other two but haven't watched the Lego movies.

[Teksonik]

This happened to pop up on my YouTube feed today. Woody giving a history lesson on the time when no one gave a crap about analog.

This is how I remember the era as well when the new digital synths were king and analog synths hard to sell....

The video is titled "When Analog Synths were Unloved, Irrelevant and Worthless".

[noiseboyuk]

I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

That's a GREAT point, and really not what 95% of this thread has been about (I have no idea what at least 50% of it has been about, come to think of it).

But I think you can advance it further. If you had THE actual hardware 670 as used by THE Beatles, it still would make bugger-all difference to your music. The sales tactic of taking one element of an iconic artist and re-packaging it to a mass audience in a totally different environment is fallacious. On some level, I think people really do believe that some of the magic of the Beatles will rub off on them if they buy a particular gizmo. It's all a trick. And in that sense, the entire analog vs digital debate is a red herring.

But another perspective is totally different. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of TV pro sound mixers have their UAD racks now, they turn up anywhere and patch it in. All their goto stuff they grew up with is there, ready to go with minimal set up time or faff. I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago. What they lack is the tactile hardware experience, what they gain is convenience and all the kit they like at their fingertips in any location. So while I personally think 90% of UAD's sales is the former kind with people duped into believing the talent of 50-year old artists and studios will rub off on them, the product itself is not snake oil. Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

[_leras]

I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

That's a GREAT point, and really not what 95% of this thread has been about (I have no idea what at least 50% of it has been about, come to think of it).

But I think you can advance it further. If you had THE actual hardware 670 as used by THE Beatles, it still would make bugger-all difference to your music.

But another perspective is totally different. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of TV pro sound mixers have their UAD racks now, they turn up anywhere and patch it in. All their goto stuff they grew up with is there, ready to go with minimal set up time or faff. I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago. What they lack is the tactile hardware experience, what they gain is convenience and all the kit they like at their fingertips in any location. So while I personally think 90% of UAD's sales is the former kind with people duped into believing the talent of 50-year old artists and studios will rub off on them, the product itself is not snake oil. Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

I think a real 670 would make things sound better, as do a lot of plug ins even if they might not be 100% as good as the real thing. Not so much magic rubbing off from emulations, as having simple to use tools that make things sounds better.

I'm not sure UAD users are duped, any more than any other plug ins users. For sure it's easy to end up with more compressors that you might really need, but there really are differences, and a place for an LA2A, an API 2500 etc. Each may be slightly better than another at a given task.

Does anyone need this many compressors, not necessarily. Could you do a mix with just one, yes sure it would be fine. Can you get there with a combination of different tools, yes but less quickly. Do some of them just sound great and add a little bit of 'magic', also yes.

As far as emulations go for FX, no it's not just marketing, it's just trying to duplicate the successful tools that people have heard for many years. Can we do better with purely digital and new tools. Well.... yes maybe for completely clean tools. For mojo, well not yet, and also maybe unlikely as you'd first need to understand where the mojo came from in earlier tools to be able to fully recreate it.

[Pilonsky]

I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

That's a GREAT point, and really not what 95% of this thread has been about (I have no idea what at least 50% of it has been about, come to think of it).

But I think you can advance it further. If you had THE actual hardware 670 as used by THE Beatles, it still would make bugger-all difference to your music.

But another perspective is totally different. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of TV pro sound mixers have their UAD racks now, they turn up anywhere and patch it in. All their goto stuff they grew up with is there, ready to go with minimal set up time or faff. I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago. What they lack is the tactile hardware experience, what they gain is convenience and all the kit they like at their fingertips in any location. So while I personally think 90% of UAD's sales is the former kind with people duped into believing the talent of 50-year old artists and studios will rub off on them, the product itself is not snake oil. Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

I think a real 670 would make things sound better, as do a lot of plug ins even if they might not be 100% as good as the real thing. Not so much magic rubbing off from emulations, as having simple to use tools that make things sounds better.

I'm not sure UAD users are duped, any more than any other plug ins users. For sure it's easy to end up with more compressors that you might really need, but there really are differences, and a place for an LA2A, an API 2500 etc. Each may be slightly better than another at a given task.

Does anyone need this many compressors, not necessarily. Could you do a mix with just one, yes sure it would be fine. Can you get there with a combination of different tools, yes but less quickly. Do some of them just sound great and add a little bit of 'magic', also yes.

As far as emulations go for FX, no it's not just marketing, it's just trying to duplicate the successful tools that people have heard for many years. Can we do better with purely digital and new tools. Well.... yes maybe for completely clean tools. For mojo, well not yet, and also maybe unlikely as you'd first need to understand where the mojo came from in earlier tools to be able to fully recreate it.

Well if we agree that there is such a thing as mojo (and I do), and that said mojo is imparted on the sound source by analog circuitry and behavior, then I know where to find it! Maybe the plug in emulation has the mojo, maybe. It’s been my experience thus far that virtual analog does not have the mojo. But I rest that case.

But we know do know that the analog gear has the mojo, a little magic something (which across say 14 tracks might add up to a lot of magic). We agree on that. So if we know where to find it that part is solved. Now the hard part is trying to save up a couple grand to buy a couple select pieces to start working in some of that mojo into my recordings. That’s the real hard part! It’s really expensive. And I ain’t got no money!!

[Pilonsky]

I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

That's a GREAT point, and really not what 95% of this thread has been about (I have no idea what at least 50% of it has been about, come to think of it).

But I think you can advance it further. If you had THE actual hardware 670 as used by THE Beatles, it still would make bugger-all difference to your music. The sales tactic of taking one element of an iconic artist and re-packaging it to a mass audience in a totally different environment is fallacious. On some level, I think people really do believe that some of the magic of the Beatles will rub off on them if they buy a particular gizmo. It's all a trick. And in that sense, the entire analog vs digital debate is a red herring.

But another perspective is totally different. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of TV pro sound mixers have their UAD racks now, they turn up anywhere and patch it in. All their goto stuff they grew up with is there, ready to go with minimal set up time or faff. I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago. What they lack is the tactile hardware experience, what they gain is convenience and all the kit they like at their fingertips in any location. So while I personally think 90% of UAD's sales is the former kind with people duped into believing the talent of 50-year old artists and studios will rub off on them, the product itself is not snake oil. Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

Ok UAD is a good example: say money was not an issue. Say you won a UAD sweepstakes, and I (a UAD rep) show up at your house with a with a real brand new hardware LA-2A, or a voucher for a free license to our LA-2A plug in. And say you’re not allowed to resell any of them (cause then you could take the hardware, sell it, buy the plug in and pay your rent!). Ok so you get either the hardware LA-2A or the plug in: which one do you take? (Remember no reselling. It’s yours for life)

[vurt]

I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative. Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love, now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

That's a GREAT point, and really not what 95% of this thread has been about (I have no idea what at least 50% of it has been about, come to think of it).

But I think you can advance it further. If you had THE actual hardware 670 as used by THE Beatles, it still would make bugger-all difference to your music.

But another perspective is totally different. As I mentioned in an earlier post, a lot of TV pro sound mixers have their UAD racks now, they turn up anywhere and patch it in. All their goto stuff they grew up with is there, ready to go with minimal set up time or faff. I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago. What they lack is the tactile hardware experience, what they gain is convenience and all the kit they like at their fingertips in any location. So while I personally think 90% of UAD's sales is the former kind with people duped into believing the talent of 50-year old artists and studios will rub off on them, the product itself is not snake oil. Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

I think a real 670 would make things sound better, as do a lot of plug ins even if they might not be 100% as good as the real thing. Not so much magic rubbing off from emulations, as having simple to use tools that make things sounds better.

I'm not sure UAD users are duped, any more than any other plug ins users. For sure it's easy to end up with more compressors that you might really need, but there really are differences, and a place for an LA2A, an API 2500 etc. Each may be slightly better than another at a given task.

Does anyone need this many compressors, not necessarily. Could you do a mix with just one, yes sure it would be fine. Can you get there with a combination of different tools, yes but less quickly. Do some of them just sound great and add a little bit of 'magic', also yes.

As far as emulations go for FX, no it's not just marketing, it's just trying to duplicate the successful tools that people have heard for many years. Can we do better with purely digital and new tools. Well.... yes maybe for completely clean tools. For mojo, well not yet, and also maybe unlikely as you'd first need to understand where the mojo came from in earlier tools to be able to fully recreate it.

Well if we agree that there is such a thing as mojo (and I do), and that said mojo is imparted on the sound source by analog circuitry and behavior, then I know where to find it! Maybe the plug in emulation has the mojo, maybe. It’s been my experience thus far that virtual analog does not have the mojo. But I rest that case.

But we know do know that the analog gear has the mojo, a little magic something (which across say 14 tracks might add up to a lot of magic). We agree on that. So if we know where to find it that part is solved. Now the hard part is trying to save up a couple grand to buy a couple select pieces to start working in some of that mojo into my recordings. That’s the real hard part! It’s really expensive. And I ain’t got no money!!

so your options are
do nothing because you have no gear
or
make do, get things done!

best to go with option two for now, get the music done and out, then maybe, just maybe, you get noticed, then you get new options...

[noiseboyuk]

Ok UAD is a good example: say money was not an issue. Say you won a UAD sweepstakes, and I (a UAD rep) show up at your house with a with a real brand new hardware LA-2A, or a voucher for a free license to our LA-2A plug in. And say you’re not allowed to resell any of them (cause then you could take the hardware, sell it, buy the plug in and pay your rent!). Ok so you get either the hardware LA-2A or the plug in: which one do you take? (Remember no reselling. It’s yours for life)

The UAD. I like that it's stored in the project, I can even automate it. With the new native version I can take it on the road. I don't have to maintain it when one leg goes funky.

There's not much room for outboard gear here anyway, I prefer the space.

The only hardware I covet is a nice big synth with nice tactile controls for programming, but I don't have the room. Sonic differences - phhh.

[_leras]

Well if we agree that there is such a thing as mojo (and I do), and that said mojo is imparted on the sound source by analog circuitry and behavior, then I know where to find it! Maybe the plug in emulation has the mojo, maybe. It’s been my experience thus far that virtual analog does not have the mojo. But I rest that case.

For me I think UAD gets close enough, as do a number of native plug ins, and can deliver plenty mojo. Some plug ins just make things sound better. My limiting factor is still, having made things sound nicer, getting it all to work well in an arrangement/mix. The tools definitely help though.

I think the gap for emulated fx is getting smaller all the time and has been good enough for ages.

Now synths, on the other hand, I think there is still a way to go yet - but I think synths are much more complicated than and EQ or compressor, and I also don't think virtual analog is a marketing ploy it's just the necessary modelling to make subtractive synthesis work digitally. The current crop of hybrid synth like UDO Super 6 and Novation Peak just show that analog filters are still better.

[_leras]

Ok UAD is a good example: say money was not an issue. Say you won a UAD sweepstakes, and I (a UAD rep) show up at your house with a with a real brand new hardware LA-2A, or a voucher for a free license to our LA-2A plug in. And say you’re not allowed to resell any of them (cause then you could take the hardware, sell it, buy the plug in and pay your rent!). Ok so you get either the hardware LA-2A or the plug in: which one do you take? (Remember no reselling. It’s yours for life)

Even the original, now legacy, UAD LA-2A was a fantastic plug in. Just amazing on vocals and other 'real' sounds like acoustic guitars. (I think the subtleties of these things are lost on electronic sources to an extent.)

The more recent UAD LA-2A Collection, the v2, is really just incredible on vocals. It's definitely more than good enough for my needs.