Then I'm lucky to be a part of the slightly older generation, Napster showed up just as I was graduating college. I still listen to the same Kate Bush and Mazzy Star albums over and over again.Tricky-Loops wrote:Because the sense of "value" has changed. In the past you were happy if you got a new CD, nowadays you can download everything for free. Music has lost its value.
Just like porn, there are so many great free plug-ins on the net why pay for them?
-
- KVRAF
- 20933 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
-
- KVRAF
- 20933 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
There's an interesting point. The main free plug-ins I use, SQ8L and miniSID, actually don't have payware equivalents (I own QuadraSID but miniSID gets me there a lot more easily).Shy wrote:That you don't understand why people pay for some plugins even though there are (OTHER/ONES THAT AREN'T EVEN NECESSARILY SO SIMILAR IF AT ALL) plugins that are free? I use a free plugin if it's good and useful for me and I buy a plugin if it's good and more useful for me than any free alternative, if one even exists.
-
- KVRAF
- 20933 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Exactly. People keep trying to psychoanalyze this but sometimes we actually do manage to choose our tools for the right reasons.Shy wrote:Yep, it's so simple it goes both ways.
-
- KVRAF
- 5524 posts since 5 May, 2007 from Mars Colony
I'd rather see this kind of attitude, though, than one where people assume that having everything for free is granted with the internet age.
I applaud the OP for recognizing the value (and increasingly comprehensive scope) of freeware.
That's a much better alternative than the one where people think they need payware but have absolutely no intention of ever actually paying for it.
I applaud the OP for recognizing the value (and increasingly comprehensive scope) of freeware.
That's a much better alternative than the one where people think they need payware but have absolutely no intention of ever actually paying for it.
"You don’t expect much beyond a gaping, misspelled void when you stare into the cold dark place that is Internet comments."
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
---Salon on internet trolls attacking Cleveland kidnapping victim Amanda Berry
-
- KVRAF
- 4329 posts since 26 Jun, 2004
Uncle E wrote:Exactly. People keep trying to psychoanalyze this but sometimes we actually do manage to choose our tools for the right reasons.Shy wrote:Yep, it's so simple it goes both ways.
Sure sometimes we luck out.But the minimalist, spartan, measured, efficient method of working is not so common among creative people.
Many (most?) of us own eight paid EQs on top of five free EQs, and might buy another, and think thats fine.
That is pretty 'psycho'. Some 'analysis' is maybe not unwarranted...
Also, I think the most important undeniable premise of this thread and really the point is that all this is changing right now. Just the last few years has been big in freewareville.
Five years ago, this thread would be stupid. Right now, people are theorizing about outfitting a studio with freeware...
Thats effing huge.
-
- KVRAF
- 1655 posts since 3 Mar, 2009 from Colorado Springs
While the continuing developments in freeware are certainly exciting, I think there will always be room for two additional tiers of products:
1. Relatively inexpensive novel-concept products. Think Voxengo. Creatively leveraging new ideas to do new things in digital. I've got a ton of use out of GlissEQ, and their Voxformer is a GREAT channel strip that isn't trying to be an SSL emulation or whatever. There are a ton of companies like this which put out really well-coded plugins and often have good user interactivity in terms of seeing what people want and solving problems (both "what kind of plugin to make next" and "is there an issue in the current plugin, tell me and I'll fix it asap!"). Cockos is a DAW equivalent of this kind of plugin maker.
2. Giants with enough money to hire great coders, buy or rent one-of-a-kind products (getting your hands on a Fairchild comp in good condition is NOT FREAKING CHEAP), spend the time it takes to do really comprehensive emulation with top notch DSP. This is also a category which includes companies like ToonTrack or Slate or EastWest or any other major, incredibly involved sampling operation. The scale of the undertaking in these cases is such that you will never see them done remotely as well for cheap, and it's a foolish idea to think they can be done for free. How is a freeware plugin maker going to put together a sample library and player that actually sounds like an orchestra for scoring a film? The money isn't there to make it happen. And the middle-tier guys are focusing on other things, because they can't compete with these top-dog companies monetarily if it comes to a head to head slug-fest. They're better off staying in their areas of expertise. I'd put GlissEQ up against any EQ made by any company, but I would not put any free sample pack up against high-end commercial sample packs with sample players and all the accouterments.
So freeware is awesome, middle-tier software developments are awesome, and high-end companies need to continue to exist so long as there is demand for projects that only they can afford to undertake when making software.
1. Relatively inexpensive novel-concept products. Think Voxengo. Creatively leveraging new ideas to do new things in digital. I've got a ton of use out of GlissEQ, and their Voxformer is a GREAT channel strip that isn't trying to be an SSL emulation or whatever. There are a ton of companies like this which put out really well-coded plugins and often have good user interactivity in terms of seeing what people want and solving problems (both "what kind of plugin to make next" and "is there an issue in the current plugin, tell me and I'll fix it asap!"). Cockos is a DAW equivalent of this kind of plugin maker.
2. Giants with enough money to hire great coders, buy or rent one-of-a-kind products (getting your hands on a Fairchild comp in good condition is NOT FREAKING CHEAP), spend the time it takes to do really comprehensive emulation with top notch DSP. This is also a category which includes companies like ToonTrack or Slate or EastWest or any other major, incredibly involved sampling operation. The scale of the undertaking in these cases is such that you will never see them done remotely as well for cheap, and it's a foolish idea to think they can be done for free. How is a freeware plugin maker going to put together a sample library and player that actually sounds like an orchestra for scoring a film? The money isn't there to make it happen. And the middle-tier guys are focusing on other things, because they can't compete with these top-dog companies monetarily if it comes to a head to head slug-fest. They're better off staying in their areas of expertise. I'd put GlissEQ up against any EQ made by any company, but I would not put any free sample pack up against high-end commercial sample packs with sample players and all the accouterments.
So freeware is awesome, middle-tier software developments are awesome, and high-end companies need to continue to exist so long as there is demand for projects that only they can afford to undertake when making software.
-
- KVRist
- 464 posts since 27 Nov, 2009
Customer and product support, innovation, ease of use. If you want all three you generally have to pay. The downside is when there there is a failure in any of these areas it makes it that much more frustrating.
-
- KVRAF
- 15135 posts since 7 Sep, 2008
Depends how you quantize it I suppose.ErikH wrote:Music wil never loose its value.
"I was wondering if you'd like to try Magic Mushrooms"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
"Oooh I dont know. Sounds a bit scary"
"It's not scary. You just lose a sense of who you are and all that sh!t"
-
- KVRAF
- 20933 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Mushy Mushy wrote:Depends how you quantize it I suppose.ErikH wrote:Music wil never loose its value.
-
- KVRAF
- 26033 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I don't much care what anyone thinks 'about a sound', frankly... but there seems a premise here that 'a mix' means 'nuance, tone, edge, character <you-name-it> are more or less buried, lost; ie., 'mixing is a great equalizer' ... Personally, I don't mix like that. beyond that, I'm using synths that do things no free synth does, specifically for the things they do. and they are able to do these things owin to the time and expense of the R&D. The underlying premise here seems to be to justify working with no-budget while believing it has to be 'as good as _'. There is something to be said for getting the most out of what you have but that justification, 'oh, but in a mix!Mutant wrote:http://www.kvraudio.com/groups/Uncle E wrote:An experienced musician can hear the difference between DIVA and any free synth out there. ...
Who cares about what "experienced" musicians think about a synth sound in a full mix ?
...
' is a bit of a reach, isn't it?