Let's talk about reverb, will you?

[Karma1]

An interesting and informative discussion here so far.

For software, I mostly use the reverbs that came with ProTools. For hardware I've got a Lexicon MX-200 that can also be used as a plug-in, as well as my trusty old Yamaha SPX-900. I've also got a Lexicon PCM-60 but it needs repair and I'm afraid its going to cost a fortune to fix. Maybe one of these days. For certain projects I go to a higher end studio for final mixing and take advantage of the awesome hardware and software effects they have there.

[UstadKhanAli]

The guy who coded the Lexicon PCM Native bundle and also much of their hardware talks about the difference here .

 

 

Cool!! That's be great if they sound the same, or so close you can't tell the difference. More choices = mo' better.

 

The thing that is probably shifting - note that I'm guessing here, although I have a feeling it's a damn good guess - is that as CPUs have become more powerful (or have offput their load on cards, as UAD has done), reverbs should be getting better and better sounding and should be approaching, if not matching, their hardware counterparts.

 

For the reasons I mentioned earlier + having a five year old computer, I'll continue using my hardware reverb, but love that there are more choices.

[chris carter]

I

[nat whilk II]

Wow, the objective/subjective distinction causes a lot of confusion.

 

Something is objective if it can be, well, "objectified" - meaning it's something that multiple parties can view and discuss, it's a "third thing" that can be described and defined. If I describe a reverb as "lush and smooth" and you hear the same thing, then we have us an objective criteria, viola.

 

If you go off on "yeah, but lush and smooth sucks, man" and so on, you've abandoned the objective and made a point not about what the reverb is but about how you personally feel about the reverb.

 

It's not an issue of everything being "just subjective" in the long run - that's lazy reductionism. It's an issue of whether you're talking simply about what something is, or whether you're talking about how that something makes you feel.

 

Generally, the subjective point of view as it appears within multiple people is pretty random, inconsistent, arbitrary, and on the verge of being totally unamenable to discussion. That's why it's such a conversation spoiler to trot out the "it's all subjective" card in the middle of a more or less technical discussion.

 

People also think that "good" and "bad" judgements are exclusively the domain of the subjective. Not so. Take an objective criteria such as "emulates real-world reverbs better than most". Well, the differences between real-world reverb and artificial reverbs can be objectively defined and scientifically scoped. So a reverb that touts itself as realistic has signed up to be judged as "good" or "bad" according to the usual factors that separate real-world and artificial reverb. It's an objective discussion about an objective standard, and yeah, it deals in good and bad as long as it stays in the objective mode and doesn't pull a switcheroo to the subjective.

 

To reiterate - if you jump off the trail and start going on about "yeah well it may not be "real world" but I like it anyway" then you've totally changed the topic.

 

Lots of people don't have the patience or the knowledge to discuss technical topics in an objective way, and they tire of objective technical blather quickly and just want compare subjective "likes" and "dislikes". Perfectly ok way to be in my book.

 

But it is a mistake I think to go one step further and have contempt for people who DO have the patience and knowledge to discuss technical topics in an extensive, objective way. After all, I guarantee that all the nerds who MAKE the hardware and software about which we all have such subjective feelings - they give endless attention to the objective side of things and they can talk about them all bloody day long.

 

nat whilk ii

[Philter]

 

The only reason there would be any difference in that particular case, I should think, is if there are timing issues in the native processor that aren't in the dedicated processor. Which is possible, although I'd think that would vary with what computer hardware and converters you were using. Overall though, I'd say the difference in that case would be negligible if there is one at all. I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference in that situation, anyway. But that isn't really what was being discussed. I don't think the majority of plugin algorithms are the same as those used in hardware. Someone might like the sound of a hardware reverb whose algorithm has not been converted to a plugin. Or the algorithms used in a particular hardware reverb may be too processor intensive for practical use in a native system, but work fine with a dedicated processor.

 

 

But we just heard from a guy who developed some of the high-end Lexicon stuff, saying it's more or less available in-the-box now. It's been available for a couple years now. I lost count of how many folks in this thread flat out said "hardware reverb sounds better" or something close to that. That's what pulled me into commenting at all, that ridiculous, unsupportable blanket statement. Sure, Joe Shmoe's collection of freeware and bundled reverb plugins doesn't sound like a Lexicon box. But Lexicon's own plugin does, from the mouth of the designer. Let's compare apples to apples, ok? Great hardware from a company known for reverb, vs great software from the same company. The designer himself says the reverb is the same. There's nothing inherent about ITB processing that means the reverb can't be as good as an external unit. As far as I'm concerned the Lexicon software is all the proof we need of that.

 

I'm wondering, what particular hardware reverb is too processor intensive for practical use in a native system?

[Beck]

You're just moving digital bits from one computer into another and then back again. And the computer you're sending your data into is a fraction of the computer you're sending it from. There's therefore no technical reason why your audio happiness couldn't be delivered by a plugin.

This is wrong on so many levels. I'll probably get around to answering and going into some detail tonight.... no later than tomorrow. Not that you'll necessarily understand it any better if you're like so many recordists today that are PC-oriented. This concept of a "Stronger computer" simply has no relevance when comparing plugs to dedicated devices. Brace yourself, because we're going to have to go back, starting with the character of natural reverb, and also physical plates, springs and early outboard digital spatial processors. You strike me as someone who is somewhat open minded and would really like to know this stuff. Hope so anyway, because there

[Beck]

But we just heard from a guy who developed some of the high-end Lexicon stuff, saying it's more or less available in-the-box now. It's been available for a couple years now. I lost count of how many folks in this thread flat out said "hardware reverb sounds better" or something close to that.

That's because dedicated devices (Hardware) generally do sound better.

What you're basically saying is that someone who stands to profit if plugs sound as good as the hardware has said that plugs sound as good as the hardware.. Ehem....


As for me, I

[Lee Flier]

 

But we just heard from a guy who developed some of the high-end Lexicon stuff, saying it's more or less available in-the-box now. It's been available for a couple years now.

 

 

Yes, but a lot of people don't own it. And/or they're not necessarily trying to sound like a Lexicon in the first place.

 

 

I lost count of how many folks in this thread flat out said "hardware reverb sounds better" or something close to that. So should we ignore the modern trend and pretend like it's still 2001? (Even though I was using Lexiverb then, and that sounded damn good too.) Sure, Joe Shmoe's collection of freeware and bundled reverb plugins doesn't sound like a Lexicon box. But Lexicon's own plugin does, from the mouth of the designer. Let's compare apples to apples, ok?

 

 

Unless we're comparing a situation like the Lexicon Native package where the algos are exactly the same, it's hard to have an apples to apples comparison. Some people may have older computers and really benefit from a dedicated hardware processor. Others may be comparing midrange hardware to midrange plugins and find the hardware sounds better to them. That's why I think it can get silly insisting on blind tests and apples to apples comparisons. People should use what sounds good and works for them.

 

 

I'm wondering, what particular hardware reverb is too processor intensive for practical use in a native system?

 

 

I don't know for certain. I do know that UAD's plate emulations are processor intensive. Whether too much so to be practical on a native system, I don't know, but it could well be. And of course, that statement no doubt is less true today (given modern multicore computers and so on) than it was 5 years ago, but not everyone has a new computer either.

[Lee Flier]

 

Generally, the subjective point of view as it appears within multiple people is pretty random, inconsistent, arbitrary, and on the verge of being totally unamenable to discussion. That's why it's such a conversation spoiler to trot out the "it's all subjective" card in the middle of a more or less technical discussion.

 

 

See, I disagree completely. I get a lot of value from subjective discussion. There's a ton of stuff on the market out there and if a lot of people whose ears I trust say they like or dislike a particular piece of gear, that means something to me, particularly if they go into some detail about what they subjectively like or dislike about it. That doesn't mean I'll just go buy something because someone said it was "cool." But it helps me narrow down the choices and then go compare for myself.

 

 

People also think that "good" and "bad" judgements are exclusively the domain of the subjective. Not so. Take an objective criteria such as "emulates real-world reverbs better than most".

 

 

That's not an objective statement unless you go into quite a lot of detail about how it achieves this, including technical data such as showing on a scope the waveform of the same signal through a "real" reverb (whatever that means in this context) vs. a plugin. If someone says "To my ears this sounds more like the real thing than most" it's still a subjective statement, and I don't have a problem with that. It's nice to see the specs too, but specs aren't the only thing I look at when making gear decisions.

 

 

Lots of people don't have the patience or the knowledge to discuss technical topics in an objective way, and they tire of objective technical blather quickly and just want compare subjective "likes" and "dislikes". Perfectly ok way to be in my book. But it is a mistake I think to go one step further and have contempt for people who DO have the patience and knowledge to discuss technical topics in an extensive, objective way.

 

 

I don't see anyone in this thread having done that. My problem is not with discussing technical details or objective criteria at all; my problem is the insistence that someone can't possibly subjectively like one thing more than another because they haven't done a blind test or compared objective numbers. I don't have contempt for the objective, but I do have contempt for the idea that subjective opinions have no value. In the end, with any kind of art it does come down to completely subjective values: either something moves you or it doesn't. Sure you can discuss the technical reasons why you may have the opinion that you do, and that's valuable to someone making music. But in the end, most people don't care why they feel as they do when they're trying to create. If something doesn't sound good to them after hours of monkeying around with it, and something else sounds great all the time, they're gonna use the thing that gets them the sounds they want. No contempt is implied for the people who designed it and care about the details - just the opposite in fact. I don't know where you're getting this "contempt" from.

[Huh?]

I need to go back to my patchbay and re-hook up my hardware. I've the TC Electronics M-300, an Ibanez SDR-1000 dual channel digital reverb, SPX-90 and a TC Helicon Voiceworks which has a TC Electronic reverb.

My soft verbs are Trillium Lane Space convolution reverb, Nomad Factory BlueVerb, IK Multimedia Classik Studio Reverb, Pro Tools AIR verb and D-Verb and for cabs I really like using the Mellowmuse IR1A convolution reverb plug as well as Recabinet 3 and IR's from various sources including Red Wire.

Most of the time I go for EMT plate models and medium room models when using reverb on general tracks.

If I had space I would build a physical plate. I think it would be a lotta fun. I mean, I guess I could even build a weatherproof housing outside my garage studio right? Who knows other than I have zero free space inside........nuffink a' all.

I wish I had thought of this during my 6-7 years on the show "24". I was entrusted with unlimited access to the metal shop in the mill.......I could have used their materials (ie paid for by production thank you very much-fringe benefits:lol:) and cut all the stock and welded it together using a MIG welder, in my lunch hour just about.

Then.......LOL....... I could have had my driver take it home for me after work....in one of my department's stake beds......I lived a mere 7 minutes from stage. Damn...thinking about it, I wish I had. I might not get the same chance again, usually the metal shops don't let you even walk in unless you have a good reason and that is usually to kiss ass and beg them to make you something for the show....and get the runaround maybe. We ( my department ) had such a great relationship with the Construction Co-Ordinator.

Summat like this.......piss easy. Of course, it might sound like ass!

[electrochrisso]

Reverb is in the eye of the beholder, most of the listening audience wouldn't know or care how the reverb is made, so long as it has not been over produced and fits in with the song.

[Goobers]

I spoke to a techie at Lexicon today. He said the algorithm in the Native Bundle is exactly the same as in their PCM92.

 

If you used the analog jacks of the PCM92, you would also hear the sound of their converters.

 

If you used the digital jacks of the PCM92 (i.e. integrating it into a DAW), there would be "no difference" between the sound of the Native Bundle vs. the PCM92. It would be "exactly the same."

 

He added that the Native Bundle had the benefit of multiple instances instead of just one.

[Rekel]

Reverb is in the eye of the beholder, most of the listening audience wouldn't know or care how the reverb is made, so long as it has not been over produced and fits in with the song.

 

 

Indeed, and that's what I've said all along.

[nat whilk II]

See, I disagree completely. I get a lot of value from subjective discussion. There's a ton of stuff on the market out there and if a lot of people whose ears I trust say they like or dislike a particular piece of gear, that means something to me, particularly if they go into some detail about what they subjectively like or dislike about it. That doesn't mean I'll just go buy something because someone said it was "cool." But it helps me narrow down the choices and then go compare for myself.

 

 

I don't want to get all tied up in semantics, but once someone goes into detail about the aspects of something on the market, the discussion is not about subjective experience, but about the objective gizmo and it's qualities. Someone says "the new reverbulizer from Crapco I just love" - that's subjective, but then you say "how so?". If they say, "oh jeez cause it reminds me of puppies and candy cigarettes in springtime and I get this oozy bubbly happy feeling" then it's still all subjective and pretty worthless. But they don't - they start talking about how the tails just go on and on like you're in a cathedral, and this sweet spot and that dead-on slapback as good as a yellasun record from Nashville, and the discussion is in objective territory.

 

So I disagree that "emulates real-world reverbs better than most" is a subjective statement. It's still a statement about a thing, not about a personal experience. If I qualify this by prefacing it with "to my ears", I'm giving a humble nod to the idea that opinion may be colored by my subjective preferences (that's a maybe only), but I'm still talking about the gear, not my ears. And if you hear the same thing, then there's no question but we're totally in objective territory and there is confirmation I'm not just blathering about the quality of sound reproduction in my head.

 

Partially what's going on is the fact that scientific statements are more objective than most all other statements by and large - but that doesn't mean that only scientific/technical statements are objective. Again - objective just means "out there, not in here." Or put another way "exists in itself, apart from the perceptions of any particular perceiver."

 

So I also disagree that "with any kind of art it does come down to completely subjective values: either something moves you or it doesn't". This would mean that something was not "art" or "good art" if I didn't appreciate it - like say, how I felt about Bartok when I was 12. Did the Concerto for Orchestra suddenly become "art" when at 32 I finally had the ability to like it? I had no idea I was such an important entity! And we all know we can be moved by something bogus, too. Or at least I hope we all know that:) The idea that art is only what is "art to me" is to me a supremely ridiculous notion.

 

It's also just a chicken/egg thing, too. We are beings that feel and think, both modes, and our thinking effects our feelings and vice versa, in a sort of personal ping pong game or inner conversation. Human life can't boil down to "just" or "finally" one or the other, can it? Every experience has to pass two tests - that they feel right, and that they "are" right. My mind tells me my dreams, 'tho sometimes so nice, are not real, so those experiences don't "count" like real experiences, however real they felt. A raw experience or feeling is also nested and sorted in our minds with our memories, and analogized in our language, altered in the complex chemistry of brain and nerves, and tested and morphed by thinking, discussing, living. A bare feeling or experience may sort of glow temporarily in the unreflective, purely experiential moment, but almost immediately it starts heading towards the "out there" and becomes more real to us, certainly, once objectified in language or discussion or thought.

 

Isn't is frequently the case that you don't "notice" something until you have it explained to you? The thing is described in objective terms, and then your raw perceptions suddenly are transformed into "really seeing" or hearing or feeling or whatever. I just don't see human nature as having a primal holy subjective center where all questions are ultimately answered. The purely subjective is just a hair's width ahead of what is simply unconscious. And the first stirrings of consciousness simultaneously starts the human process of objectification. This is like that, this is good or bad, this is real or not real, and so on.

 

About my "contempt" comment - yeah, you're right, and I guess you caught me out going on about "how these kinds of conversations usually go" rather than how this one has gone. Slipped into one of my pet peeve speeches - sorry:facepalm:

 

nat whilk ii

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Someone says "the new reverbulizer from Crapco I just love" - that's subjective, but then you say "how so?". If they say, "oh jeez cause it reminds me of puppies and candy cigarettes in springtime and I get this oozy bubbly happy feeling" then it's still all subjective and pretty worthless.

 

 

So....wow, I'm sorry, which unit is this exactly again? Gotta check this out!!!!

[Lee Flier]

 

I don't want to get all tied up in semantics, but once someone goes into detail about the aspects of something on the market, the discussion is not about subjective experience, but about the objective gizmo and it's qualities. Someone says "the new reverbulizer from Crapco I just love" - that's subjective, but then you say "how so?". If they say, "oh jeez cause it reminds me of puppies and candy cigarettes in springtime and I get this oozy bubbly happy feeling" then it's still all subjective and pretty worthless.

 

 

Well, umm... again, who has actually done that?

 

Beyond that, I think much of your post is indeed a semantics issue and kinda splitting hairs. Most subjective "reviews" contain objective information and vice versa, and I'll make the judgement as to whether it's useful based on the individual comments, not just how much subjective vs. objective content there is.

 

 

So I also disagree that "with any kind of art it does come down to completely subjective values: either something moves you or it doesn't". This would mean that something was not "art" or "good art" if I didn't appreciate it - like say, how I felt about Bartok when I was 12. Did the Concerto for Orchestra suddenly become "art" when at 32 I finally had the ability to like it? I had no idea I was such an important entity! And we all know we can be moved by something bogus, too. Or at least I hope we all know that:) The idea that art is only what is "art to me" is to me a supremely ridiculous notion.

 

 

I don't actually think that. But that's really a separate discussion from when you're making art yourself and making decisions like which tools to use. If you like a particular paintbrush that someone else says is crap, they can give you all sorts of objective reasons why it's crap, or tell you that you paid too much for it, or whatever, but if you like using that paintbrush and think it gives you the results you want, all that goes out the window and isn't important. You're the one who's using the paintbrush.

 

I think you're introducing a whole lot of stuff into this conversation that isn't actually relevant to it.

[Beck]

Again, Beck?

Again what? Again, hardware devices tend to smoke plugs because they are designed for limited purpose and that design and construction goes into optimizing the device for a given purpose. I explained that as clearly as it can be explained. It's now up to the reader to gain the basic knowledge required to grasp it... the concepts, the vocabulary... basically how things work. I know how things work. I

[roomjello]

 

But we just heard from a guy who developed some of the high-end Lexicon stuff, saying it's more or less available in-the-box now. It's been available for a couple years now. I lost count of how many folks in this thread flat out said "hardware reverb sounds better" or something close to that. That's what pulled me into commenting at all, that ridiculous, unsupportable blanket statement. Sure, Joe Shmoe's collection of freeware and bundled reverb plugins doesn't sound like a Lexicon box. But Lexicon's own plugin does, from the mouth of the designer. Let's compare apples to apples, ok? Great hardware from a company known for reverb, vs great software from the same company. The designer himself says the reverb is the same. There's nothing inherent about ITB processing that means the reverb can't be as good as an external unit. As far as I'm concerned the Lexicon software is all the proof we need of that. I'm wondering, what particular hardware reverb is too processor intensive for practical use in a native system?

 

 

I think your mistakes are a)assuming that "the Lexicon Guy" is telling you the truth, they are in sales you know and there is way more bucks in plugs than hardware.

B) You are not actually sitting down and comparing the sounds yourself. You are assuming what someone else says is true, which is such a gearslutz ridiculous way of finding the truth about what actually sounds best to you. See you want to believe your side so you try to convince yourself and others, all the while seeking out communal support from others when the truth lies in a comparison with your own ears and an open mind.

 

So how can we take your points seriously?

I have compared, i hear a quality difference between the best modern software plugs and even older hardware units. While plugs are useful and have some nice sounds they do not compare in dimension to hardware. Neither do synths, not even frikking close.

But YOU have to listen and not try to convince yourself im wrong because life would be easier that way.

 

Beware of sales people, people with interests in sales, people whos careers are based on sales of products and supporting those companies they are everywhere!!

 

The more you listen to people the less you use your ear and the less you grow and the less the sounds you produce matter to the human spirit, whose funny bone's tickling is the point of all this. And sonics play a huge roll in it.

 

So yeah sometimes enough is enough and you might just say {censored} it and throw on a plug.

But if you KNOW your gear and have it set up right and know what it can do, then it doesn't take much time to find the effect in your head and in it's best form and then apply it.

Thats part of having your {censored} together and knowing your tools.

 

If you have 100 plugins that all sound like poop then chances are you'll be looking all day anyway.

Get a nice hardware box or 2 and they all sound good, even if you should have used a plate and you chose a chamber, it still has some quality to it.

[roomjello]

Hey, why not call up a bunch of mastering houses and ask them why they have the hardware version of the L2 instead of just using the plug?

Those guys have pretty good ears.

[Folder]

Audiophiles don't seem to like blind tests.

I don't usually trust blind tests. I trust repeated listenings in most cases.

In the 1980's Pepsi ran TV commericals showing that in blind taste tests, Pepsi beat Coca Cola even though Coke outsold Pepsi. The Coca Cola company was baffled. Did people really prefer the taste of Pepsi over Coca Cola?

They decided to run their own secret blind taste tests to determine for themselves.

The Coca Cola executives were shocked to find that in blind taste tests people really did prefer Pepsi to Coke.

After 100 years of producing Coca Cola, the Coca Cola Company made the decision to reformulate Coke to taste more like Pepsi. They retired the original Coke formula, had a big press conference and released New Coke in 1985. Less than three months later they realised their mistake and re-released Coca Cola Classic.

The taste tests were flawed.

What they didn't understand was that when given a small sample people tend to say that they prefer the sweeter, or the saltier of two given samples. Pepsi has more sugar than Coke. When consumed in larger quantities people don't want as much sugar or salt.

I think it's the same with reverb, compression, and distortion.

I can't believe the amount of reverb I hear on some home recordings made by some recording novices. I've remixed projects where the clients were amazed at the new found clarity of the new versions. All I did really was reduce most of the reverb.

The same goes for guitar distortion. A lot of people think distortion equals power and it might when soloing a single guitar patch but when you start to add more tracks the guitars can actually start to sound mushy and smaller when there is too much distortion.

Of course compression is the one that really fools people in my opinion. People almost always choose the mix that is more compressed on "first listen". Even after explaining what to listen for and multiple listenings it takes some people a while to finally get it. It took me a long time to finally get it.

Many, many mutiple listenings.

[aZnrockstar]

Okay, so for those of you who like using OTB hardware, particularly those who use/have used mono input(pedals), do you simply bus out L & R from the mix to hardware insert, and track each side mono onto a new instrument track? Am I overthinking when I wonder if porting each channel into a mono input unit might cause a acoustic non-sequiter(in the case of hard panned instruments having their artifacts only appear in the same channel)? Should I run both channels into stereo outs, and then mix stereo reverbs for left and right? Before anyone asks, let me think out loud here:

Left mix send goes into stereo reverb, return into stereo inst track, labelled LR.

Right mix send goes into stereo reverb, return into stereo inst track labelled RR.

Stereo LR track is panned, oh I don't know, 60% left.

Ditto for RR track.

Bus LR and RR tracks to Stereo Reverb Aux.

Have a beer and come back and listen.

Or am I totally off track, and are you recording reverb tracks for each instrument bus? I could see the reason for this, since I typically do not have identical reverb send levels for any of my instrument busses. Would it be a simple matter of reassigning sends and returns, and adjusting the individual reverb levels afterwards? That would be closer to the actual plug-in paradigm, I suppose. Still doesn't solve the problem of running something like a drum bus through a mono input pedal, though. Will this only work with stereo I/O units?

 

I have a Yamaha Magicstomp and a POD HD500 I'd like to try out with this method. Downsides: the Yamaha is a mono in, so I'd have to track L & R separately, and the HD500 has less controls, but stereo I/O. This is all for experimentation, of course. If I like the results, I will start shopping for a rack reverb. I've only done ITB reverb and delay processing thus far, mostly with PT's built-in delays, and TL Space reverb.

 

Second question: Hardware guys, how hard are you hitting the rack verb inputs? All trial and error, or do you have a favourite starting point, regardless of song vibe/reverb type?

[Anderton]

Ummm

[Folder]

I took a basic computer programing course in college almost thirty years ago.

Most of the people on this forum know bookoos more about digital technology than I do but one thing I remember from that course was that when it comes to computer efficiency the shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

We would have assignments to write computer programs. Some people would write very long programs many pages long, while someone else might write a program only a few lines long. Yet both programs were designed to do the same thing.

I've always thought that when you use a reverb program as a plugin in a DAW as opposed to a reverb program in a hardware box, it's having to interact with a lot more stuff in the computer than it would have to in the hardware version.

The operating system, the recording program, drivers, other plugins and programs are all taking up resources that the hardware version doesn't have to deal with by itself. The hardware version can go from point A to point B without interference in a straight line.

I have also read or heard that one reason hardware boxes supposedly sound better than plugins is because the processor chips in hardware boxes are more efficient for the tasks at hand. (In my mind I always thought of that as meaning they go from point A to point B in a straighter line)

I've seen advertisements over the years from companies that tout the type of processors used in their products.

For example Peavey states that their new amps use SHARC processors for their effects.
I have a friend who has one of these amps and I really like the effects. Especially the reverb.

Why would Peavey advertise the processing chip used in it's effects if it didn't have anything to do with sound quality? In my mind it's because the chip is probably optimised for digital signal processing. It probably gets from point A to point B in a straighter line than other chips that are not optimised for DSP tasks.

Or maybe I'm just falling for an advertising gimmick.

[Anderton]

 

I think your mistakes are a)assuming that "the Lexicon Guy" is telling you the truth, they are in sales you know and there is way more bucks in plugs than hardware.

 

 

I don't think that's necessarily true. You can't download a hardware unit from a warez site...most of the big software-only companies, like Native Instruments and Arturia, also ended up making hardware so they could have a more predictable income stream. Same with TC...they used to do plug-ins, but found it's the hardware that made the money.

 

 

I have compared, i hear a quality difference between the best modern software plugs and even older hardware units. While plugs are useful and have some nice sounds they do not compare in dimension to hardware.

But how do you know that's the plug? The plug by definition has to reside within a DAW, and you'll find plenty of people who say that DAWs don't have the same depth/dimensionality of analog gear, even if you're just feeding in audio. For all you know the plugs may be perfect, but limited by their environment...just like how the older digital hardware units were limited by having analog front ends and back ends with 12- or 16-bit converters. Then again maybe that was part of the charm of their sound that the plugs don't duplicate.

 

 

Get a nice hardware box or 2 and they all sound good, even if you should have used a plate and you chose a chamber, it still has some quality to it.

I have plenty of those hardware boxes. I simply can't get as good a sound with most of them compared to plugs (purely analog boxes excepted, and then only a few of those), BUT then again I really tweak the plugs and not all parameter ranges are valid, there are definite sweet spots. It's something I always have to explain to people who use amp sims - you can't just insert the sim and expect it to sound good. I put EQ in front of and after sims, as well as de-essers and some other stuff, and it ends up sounding really good but it takes a LOT of tweaking of multiple elements.

 

So then the question becomes "Well damn, why go through all that hassle with the plugs when you have a couple tube amps that sound great and you can just stick a mic in front of them?" And that's right, but while the tube amps sound great for a limited number of possible sounds, if I need to go beyond those limits, I either need a whole lot more amps, or...the ability to tweak amp sims to sound good. Or, more likely, I'll end up combining the two.

[Anderton]

 

For example Peavey states that their new amps use SHARC processors for their effects. I have a friend who has one of these amps and I really like the effects. Especially the reverb. Why would Peavey advertise the processing chip used in it's effects if it didn't have anything to do with sound quality? In my mind it's because the chip is probably optimised for digital signal processing. It probably gets from point A to point B in a straighter line than other chips that are not optimised for DSP tasks.

 

 

That is indeed the case. Just as CPUs have become more powerful over the years, so have dedicated "DSP farm" chips. But the dedicated chips used in the "vintage digital" gear, while powerful for their time, don't hold up to today's standards. This is why I don't have a problem believing that today's microprocessors have zero problems coughing up enough processing power to emulate vintage digital gear.

 

But, there's also no doubt that the four SHARC chips in a Universal Audio UAD-2 Quad card have waaaaaaaay more power than earlier generations of SHARC chips. You're going to have a very hard time convincing one of today's microprocessors to run a computer AND do everything the UA card can do. Again, I think one of the reasons people like the sound of the UA processors is because they're not afraid to throw processing cycles at the problem, and they know they can get away with it because of all the DSP power those SHARC chips deliver.