Plug designers who aren't audio engineers.

[loophead]

Loophead you have a point, but so does the original poster. To not know what type of speakers were modeled in a cabinet is a huge issue IMO.

Yes I do not disagree but what is actually implemented when we use the term model. Folks seem to think that there is an actual model. There is a set of math functions that gives some slight sense of things, and 'which speaker' may have no translatable reality in those maths whatsoever.

For simplicity of discussion (one would hope they got deeper than this...)
One may have a Lo Boost/ Hi cut off to 'emulate' the difference between10's and 12's.

In this scenario brand does not impact the code. It may be a 'generic' scenario.

Also maybe the developer DID rely on someone else who got into his hands a 'cherry' amp. Maybe it was a closed cab and remained that way. Maybe he just never looked BUT we dont know, so I am just rambling on about the possibility of 'interpretation' of the facts.

Also I stand by my question 'could one of us name the brand in a blind test'. If not it is just an exercise in 'I wanna know' - which is ok - as I said before we are just talking here...

What gauge strings were used in that piano emulation...? who cares !

Either it's important or it isn't.

If it isn't important then we can stop worrying about samples and emulations and models and impulses.

Who cares, right?

If it is important then the answer to your 'who cares' is 'most users care'.

I do not disagree I just question our compulsion to choose to care about an issue which is intrinsically a point of trivia not a point of function, use or sound in the (so many ) plug(s) itself. It boils down to the internal structure of the code . What in fact is or was modeled ? Often the model follows a path that is quite divergent to what one may have in mind.

Go look at the Line Six patents and tell me this is a 'model' of anything. Nothing wrong with that but it is probably NOT what you expected !

And yes I think we should think less of marketing terms which may be in current vogue.

[championrabbit]

I do not disagree I just question our compulsion to choose to care about an issue which is intrinsically a point of trivia not a point of function, use or sound in the (so many ) plug(s) itself. It boils down to the internal structure of the code . What in fact is or was modeled ? Often the model follows a path that is quite divergent to what one may have in mind.

My point was never to imply that it really matters if the Marshall has Jensen or Celestion speakers, but rather that it's indicative of a lack of understanding of the subject to not know.

If a designer is attempting to built an esoteric 'vintage/warm/phat' plug then by definition he is trying to emulate something that already exists in the hardware world and the is considered subjectively 'good' sounding.

My point is that without an understanding of what makes the sound of the hardware subjectively pleasing (both in terms of audio-path and perhaps EEing), the plug designer is lacking and I believe less likely to be able to create useful 'vintage' plugs.

[Coolredguitar]

I dont believe there is a way possible that programming code will ever sound "exactly" like vintage analog gear. There is no way ever this will be possible, no matter what one believes. Programming code for vintage gear is in the digital world that wants to be analog. You can up the sample rate to get closer to the original analog signal that you wish to model but it will never happen in my opinion. Toss in the dynamics that real hardware produces and that ups the challenge for programmers.

[championrabbit]

I dont believe there is a way possible that programming code will ever sound "exactly" like vintage analog gear.

It doesn't have to sound exactly like hardware though does it?

A succesful emulation just needs to have the the important constituent properties of the hardware, it need not produce an exact analog of the analog gear so long as the desirable parts are reproduced.

[greendoor]

I take it this thread was designed to bag either Voxengo or Kjaerhus - but frankly, both of these guys have demonstrated superior ability to make excellent plugins that can please hard-core audio engineers. They can't do that without being hard-core audio engineers themselves. I believe I could restrict myself to using nothing but Voxengo and Kjaerhus plugins, and be extremely happy.

Who cares if either of them wants to model a Marshall amp and doesn't know exactly what speakers were in it? Line6 do the whole trainspotting thing, and their emulations sound nothing like the real thing. So whats more professional - saying that a bit of DSP code sounds exactly like a Vintage Blue, or just saying it's a speaker emulation and leaving it at that?

I hate the "V" word, because it's meaningless. However - I love the euphonic non-linear phase distortion that Tubes, Tapes & Transformers - even Transistors and IC's - can add to a signal. So maybe the "A" word (analog) is a more appropriate word to use.

Both Kjaerhus and Voxengo give me tools that help me achieve the sounds I hear in my head. I think they can offer a lot more, using their existing technologies, and i'm looking forward to purchasing a lot more of their products.

I don't care about analy recreating the defects and quirks of specific retro gear. I don't care about recreating their GUI's, or liscensing their brand name just to appeal to suckers.

I just care about sound quality, and avoiding the challenge/response rubbish from the greedy bastards who are making their honest customer jump through hoops or pay for costly upgrades they don't need.

[championrabbit]

I take it this thread was designed to bag either Voxengo or Kjaerhus

Why assume that?

I think it's an interesting topic, and clearly others do too.

[markroom]

k -

im an audio engineer im qualified.

i think if u are designing software its more important to have an uderstanding of like programming and stuff den have a degree or expierence in Ae like i do-

hmm maybe there will be software audio engineers now and theyll be half way between both-

if ur making a plug the hard part is the coding u know-
why worry about the rules of harware and analog signal flow-blan blah blah its a different world

i think its good if vst doesnt sound the same as hardware -maybe dis difference will lead to new types of music be created .Dats wot we really need anyway

audio engineers are c**ts anyway -u know
vst gives us a chance to dust off some of these relics of the world of pro audio.

just make stuff dat sounds -dat is the only test

[doogs]

I dont believe there is a way possible that programming code will ever sound "exactly" like vintage analog gear. There is no way ever this will be possible, no matter what one believes. Programming code for vintage gear is in the digital world that wants to be analog. You can up the sample rate to get closer to the original analog signal that you wish to model but it will never happen in my opinion. Toss in the dynamics that real hardware produces and that ups the challenge for programmers.

So does a Compact Disk recording of analog synthesizer not sound like an analog synthesizer? Is it close enough? So analog signals can be succesfully represented at 44.1kHz and 16bits, with dynamic and frequency range to spare.

[ddummer]

Personally I think it would be better if developers
THINK like the guys "back then". They had a problem
and invented a cure.

Today the only problem is that we DON´T have a problem and we stopped inventing....

If the problem is words like "analog","vintage"
in a product I think the real problem is the users,
thinking they get something way better because of it.

To me "vintage" sound like "warm","less focus","muddy" where I would use it to describe
this "audio feel" if I hear it in a plug.

Why can´t a developer say that he don´t know s**t
about what he is doing? Sooner or later one of these
"no-cluers" will come up with an INVENTION that will
set the standard for years to come.... that is unless they listen to all these "iwanttoknowwhatyouaredoingorelseiwillfeelinsecureanddepressed" people...

//Daniel

[loophead]

So does a Compact Disk recording of analog synthesizer not sound like an analog synthesizer? Is it close enough? So analog signals can be succesfully represented at 44.1kHz and 16bits, with dynamic and frequency range to spare.

No it does not - not even close ! Your kidding here right !?! Please tell me your kidding..

And Greendoor, I completely agree with your last post.

[Space Boy]

Why can´t a developer say that he don´t know s**t
about what he is doing? Sooner or later one of these
"no-cluers" will come up with an INVENTION that will
set the standard for years to come...
//Daniel

I totally agree.

The attraction for me is in trying to do something new with the technology available, not trying to emulate a piece of analog hardware. I prefer to leave the emulation aspect to the specialists. Life is too short to argue over which emulation sounds more realistic - better spend that time creating your own sounds - with new technology.

Besides this, the human ear has its physical limits and the brain makes up the differences. Any perceived differences that remain are related mostly to the psychological influences of marketing.

[Sascha Franck]

Amen to ddummer and Space Boy. Leave the vintage stuff to the oldschool folks or the big companies who can't afford leaving them out - do your own thing instead.

[championrabbit]

I agree with Ddrummer, but that's really not what this thread is about.

[loophead]

Way to go dudes ! Yes finally we are at the place I hoped we would find ourselves. F-ck 'vintage' F-ck 'emulation' F-uck 'analog'. I dont want to see yet another version of what has come before. I dont need yet another fake marshall or fender amp...I didnt like them in the first place !

I am much more interested in what would an 'amp' be circa 2350 than circa 1950 ! and cudos for those out there who at least pay it lip service because until the customers start asking the manufacturers will not start developing.

There are threads here right now about 'what should I build' and although there are some interesting ideas so much of these discussions find themselves back in 'give me what I already know !' and thats too bad.

I hope that a community of like minded people will begin to venture off the map into those creative places where something quite startling could happen.

Leave the mundane to those who like to dwell in the mundane. I for one am quite happy to leave it behind.

Now dont get me wrong I use all these tools we all do. They are part and parcel in our work. But really do we need yet another simpleminded 'analog' delay ?

Hope you all feel this is not OT or stealing the thread...

[jmh]

Any perceived differences that remain are related mostly to the psychological influences of marketing.

Ain't nothing like them sweeping generalisations...

Regards,

JMH