Plug-in or the real gear? No difference

[David Polich]

There is an interesting article in the latest Sound On Sound about
plug-in developers, specifically the ones that develop emulations
of analog hardware.

I came away from it with a newfound respect for the developers, and
also convinced more than ever that the software emulations of
those "holy grail" analog hardware units are. for all intents and
purposes, exactly the same as having the "real thing". Anyone who
claims that the software doesn't sound like the hardware ought to
spend some time with the guys who develop these emulations. They
don't fool around, and their development processes and testing methods
are exhaustive.

A lot of people might believe that the emulations (such as UAD) are
simply really cool GUI's with some gimmicky code attached. The GUI
is the easy part and the very last element in the process of the
development. Each of these emulations takes a couple of years or more,
and the methods used to test responses under all conceivable conditions
are mind-boggling. If an emulation's responses test is measurably the
same as the hardware counterpart, then the software is the same.
There is no difference, other than the particular hardware in question
can vary from unit to unit (as in, there are such things as "golden" hardware units). Every Pultec ever made sounded slightly different - the
same with the old Urei and Putnam gear. Every Fairchild sounded different.
That said, when you call up a UAD 1176, you are really using the hardware,
for all practical purposes.

Colin McDowell (of McDSP) said in this same article that there is nothing
in hardware that cannot be emulated in software, as computer processing
has developed to such a degree where that is possible.

While it is still not possible to accurately emulate every single circuit,
diode, capacitor, or tube in a tube amp (like a Fender Champ), that day
is coming as well as our computers get more and more powerful.

[twistedtom]

I think in many cases there are differences, one being hardware is hard to lug around; VI’s and plug-ins are getting better all the time and will just continue to do so. They also have the ability to do things hardware one can’t and to add more features or controls over them. I find my self-using VI’s and plug-ins more and hardware less.

Dave I see you did sound design for MJ. My wife’s cousin worked for and recorded on some of MJ’s albums back in the day when his Synclavier that cost well over $100K ruled. Now you can get in the box stuff for relatively cheap that does things the old hardware gear could not.

[johnnytucats]

Of course, the emulation is of a specific unit or small group of units of the particular hardware over a specific period of time. One's particular piece of the hardware may act or sound differently than the unit(s) emulated. Even the unit(s) emulated may behave differently over time.

That don't bother me none, though!

[FMiguelez]

.

Hey, David.

Independently of how close or far the software emulation sounds in comparison to the real thing, I think it's quite normal for owners of the hardware-real-thing to not want to accept that a piece of software that costs a fraction of the price is practically identical in terms of sound..

I don't have any hardware compressors, for instance, but if I did, I imagine I'd be pretty annoyed to see that a guy who has its emulation basically can get the same sound I can... without taking studio space, instant recall of any settings, virtually zero-maintenance, and for much less money

[David Polich]

.

Hey, David.

Independently of how close or far the software emulation sounds in comparison to the real thing, I think it's quite normal for owners of the hardware-real-thing to not want to accept that a piece of software that costs a fraction of the price is practically identical in terms of sound..

I don't have any hardware compressors, for instance, but if I did, I imagine I'd be pretty annoyed to see that a guy who has its emulation basically can get the same sound I can... without taking studio space, instant recall of any settings, virtually zero-maintenance, and for much less money

Exactly.

[Guitar Gaz]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz........

[bongo_x]

.

Hey, David.

Independently of how close or far the software emulation sounds in comparison to the real thing, I think it's quite normal for owners of the hardware-real-thing to not want to accept that a piece of software that costs a fraction of the price is practically identical in terms of sound..

I don't have any hardware compressors, for instance, but if I did, I imagine I'd be pretty annoyed to see that a guy who has its emulation basically can get the same sound I can... without taking studio space, instant recall of any settings, virtually zero-maintenance, and for much less money

I think it goes it both ways. I read a lot of comments from people about how plugins sound exactly like hardware they’ve never used. They really want it to be true.

There’s a big difference between "sounds as good as" and "sounds exactly like".

I do find it a slightly flawed theory that the plugins must be exactly like the hardware simply because the developer worked really hard at it and says it is.

I’ve never compared a plugin and the hardware side by side, it’s just not the way I work. Either it sounds good or it doesn’t. At home I use a lot of plugins and have very few expensive hardware pieces. I’m lazy. I don’t know whether they sound as good as or exactly like the hardware, as long as they do what I want.

I’m more interested in plugins that aren’t specifically claiming to emulate some piece of hardware. I want to do something I couldn’t do with hardware, and I’m also not distracted by whether it does or doesn’t sound like I expected.

bb

[FMiguelez]

I’ve never compared a plugin and the hardware side by side, it’s just not the way I work. Either it sounds good or it doesn’t.

Exactly. Since I don't know the sound of their hardware emulations, there's no way for me to know for sure. Even if I had the hardware I wouldn't waste my time A/B'ing them.
Like you said, plug-ins either, sound good or they don't.

Even if the emulations sound "close enough", that's good enough for me, as long as the sound is very good.
Unless, of course, one gets arrested by the fidelity police, or listeners complain of how my LA2A emulation sounds 5% different than the original and that ruins the production for them

[goner]

Anyone who claims that the software doesn't sound like the hardware ought to spend some time with the guys who develop these emulations. They don't fool around, and their development processes and testing methods are exhaustive.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean their results are satisfactory. For most engineers that I know, the sound they hear and desire trumps whether or not software developers fool around or not or how exhaustive their processes and testing methods are.

While it is still not possible to accurately emulate every single circuit, diode, capacitor, or tube in a tube amp (like a Fender Champ), that day is coming as well as our computers get more and more powerful.

I must've heard/read thousands of variations of this same statement over the last 10 or so (maybe more?) years. Still waiting for it to come true.

Why is it that on most recording sites, a typical plug topic is something like "UAD 1176 vs. Waves CLA" rather than "UAD 1176 vs. UREI 1176? Because they're not there yet. There IS a difference. I'll go out on a limb here and say it probably matters less to music designers and more to studios who recored real musicians with real instruments.

I don't have any hardware compressors, for instance, but if I did, I imagine I'd be pretty annoyed to see that a guy who has its emulation basically can get the same sound I can... without taking studio space, instant recall of any settings, virtually zero-maintenance, and for much less money

Agreed. But by the same token FM, a guy that's dug in and comfy using software, a mouse and keyboard shortcuts and puts more stock in "workflow" than a fine appreciation for going after something more than "basically" the same sound as a digital plug of analog equipment - will more often than not poo-poo the idea of anyone using vintage analog hardware. I think it's very arguable that a plug-in of a UAD 1176 for example may be "basically" as good as the real deal imo. But even if it were true, "basically" though it may be good enough for many, it is not NEARLY close enough for the true analog heads I know. Different nuances, different operations, different strokes. Your comment is true but it works both ways. It's all good.

[FMiguelez]

Your comment is true but it works both ways. It's all good.

Agreed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is we mostly agree differences would be "minor". Someone who really knows by heart all of his hardware's nuances may say they are not so minor, but those differences would be offset by each individual's tweaking for either, the hardware or the software counterpart anyway.
Unless one compares both identical settings by A/B'ing, most differences would be the result of the way each person dials the parameters. At least that would be the most obvious one, me thinks.

But something tells me I would probably think differently if I were the proud owner of some of that hardware stuff...

[bongo_x]

I’ve never compared a plugin and the hardware side by side, it’s just not the way I work. Either it sounds good or it doesn’t.

Exactly. Since I don't know the sound of their hardware emulations, there's no way for me to know for sure. Even if I had the hardware I wouldn't waste my time A/B'ing them.
Like you said, plug-ins either, sound good or they don't.

Even if the emulations sound "close enough", that's good enough for me, as long as the sound is very good.
Unless, of course, one gets arrested by the fidelity police, or listeners complain of how my LA2A emulation sounds 5% different than the original and that ruins the production for them

I have to admit that I’ve been very irritated in the past when I pulled up plugins that looked like, and were named after famous hardware, only to have them sound nothing like the original. I’m of two minds on this; I perfectly willing to use a plugin that sounds good, and I’m not that concerned if it sounds exactly like the hardware. On the other hand, I find it a little silly and annoying. Why not just make a plugin with a different interface and say "it sounds much like an 1176" and leave it at that? I’ve said before it’s a lot like saying "this guitar player sounds exactly like Jimi Hendrix" instead of saying he’s influenced by him. You’re setting yourself up with claims like that, and deserve all the criticism you get.

As I said, I don’t use the plugins because I believe they sound exactly like the hardware, I use them because they’re good enough, I’m lazy, and I don’t want to spend the money.

I’m also someone who thinks the concepts of "better" and "best" are very slippery and I don’t really believe in them, but that’s another story.

bb

[Michael Canavan]

Aliasing exists, end of story.
I'll take noise floor over aliasing any day.

Your preference may be different, but it's silly to think that:

A- Software is bad, it's not.
B- a software Arp 2600 sounds just as good as the original, it doesn't.
It's not inherently bad, just not the same.
C- This argument is moot, use what you have, but don't think that you have the same power in your computer that exists in Electric LadyLand, you don't, it's close, but you simply do not.

[David Polich]

The responses were about what I expected them to be. Stating that
plug-ins sound as good as the hardware they emulate can be a lot
like criticizing a sports fanatic's favorite team.

There are good emulations and bad ones. However, I think it's
pretty cavalier to dismiss UAD or Waves or even iK Multimedia
as plug-ins that don't sound "anywhere near like the hardware".
Anyone who says that just hasn't spent any time with the people
who develop those plug-ins. These people are way more anal about
how close the emulation sounds to its hardware counterpart than
you could ever be, and they know far more about coding them than
you (they sure know more than I ever could).

From UA's description of modeling the Massive Passive EQ:
In the Massive Passive EQ hardware, there are quite a few inductors in the circuit that not only can saturate, but can also display hysteresis. Since hysteresis is a complex form of non-linearity, it can’t be represented with a static model, like dynamic convolution. One of the nice features of hysteresis is that you can end up with a pretty consistent amount of distortion over a really wide dynamic range.

Hysteresis can happen in such a way that produces a really broad dynamic range over which there is a moderate amount of distortion. This turned out to be precisely the case with the Manley Massive Passive EQ. It has a pretty broad range of what we call “warmth.” It is basically broadband, non-linear behavior, a musical source of mild distortion. We modeled this hysteresis, as well as the effects of the transformers saturating. The saturation of the transformer is more audible than the hysteresis, and combined it makes for unique sound not found in any other EQ.

By contrast, the tube stages of the Manley Massive Passive EQ were actually pretty clean, and didn’t produce much distortion at all. This tube stage still had some non-linear behavior, which we modeled, but it is nowhere near as evident as the sound of the transformer hysteresis.

If the emulation bench tests the same as the hardware counterpart,
then there is no difference between the hardware and the software.
Not that the hardware doesn't sound great, it does. But the folks at
Waves, UAD, McDSP, and ikMultimedia aren't amateurs...they know what
the emulation has to live up to. They're certainly not "fooling around".

Where do these discussions usually end? With the "hardware" gang
dismissing the "software gang" as obvious know-nothings. And I'm sure
some folks here will put me in the "know-nothing" camp. That's okay, too.
I still stand by my first post. Further, I don't think there is any
need to spend 2 to 3 grand for a single hardware compressor anymore.
A "real" LA2A isn't going to increase a song's chances of becoming a hit.
Unless you know how to code a plug-in emulation yourself, I don't think
you can say with any authority that the hardware is better than the software.

[FMiguelez]

You’re setting yourself up with claims like that, and deserve all the criticism you get.

Am I? Do I? Why? What criticism do I get or deserve?

[stephentayler]

You’re setting yourself up with claims like that, and deserve all the criticism you get.

Am I? Do I? Why? What criticism do I get or deserve?

I actually read that as 'one is setting oneself up with claims like that, and deserves all the criticism one gets', IOW not personal.

Cheers

Stephen