Quantcast
A simple reason why we should not trust software plugins.. - Page 2 - Gearspace.com
The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
A simple reason why we should not trust software plugins..
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #31
Lives for gear
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelgtrnut ➡️
Mixing itb w/ all plugs is jerking off to porn.

Mixing otb w/ hardware is f'n the porn star.

I've made my choice.
Ha ha ha Can I use this in my signature?!
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #32
Here for the gear
 
P Basie's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by projektk ➡️
I think both options are lame. A real artist can make the sound perfect on the first take. Plug ins... Analog gear... Equivalent to ICP's face paint, beneath it are 2 ugly ass men, beneath your mixes are talentless individuals who probably sound awful in reality. :D

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317
So... one "perfect" take, NO plug ins or analog gear? I like this option.

Last edited by P Basie; 19th January 2013 at 05:22 AM.. Reason: nose clams
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #33
Lives for gear
 
famousbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by PRobb ➡️
So nobody else found it strange that the rant in the OP ended with an ad for a plug-in?
Ha ha ha Totally!!!
Old 19th January 2013
  #34
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by projektk ➡️
I think both options are lame. A real artist can make the sound perfect on the first take. Plug ins... Analog gear... Equivalent to ICP's face paint, beneath it are 2 ugly ass men, beneath your mixes are talentless individuals who probably sound awful in reality. :D

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317
So if someone needs signal processing, they're lame - or have I misunderstood?
Old 19th January 2013
  #35
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by joelgtrnut ➡️
Mixing itb w/ all plugs is jerking off to porn.

Mixing otb w/ hardware is f'n the porn star.

I've made my choice.
What's the option for not going near the STI-ridden lady?! Can I take that one?

Never quite know how people get the ITB/jerking off analogy going on...what about if the plugin in question has no analogue equivalent?
1
Share
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #36
GS Community Manager
 
Whitecat's Avatar
Would you rather eat a shin of beef (or any cheap cut) cooked by Thomas Keller, or a filet mignon cooked by someone with no experience in a kitchen whatsoever?

And - if Thomas Keller could only use whatever would be found in an average student's kitchen to cook, would you still want it? If the inexperienced jack*** had access to the French Laundry kitchen, would that matter?
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #37
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Vogel ➡️
Chemical flavor enhancer:
Mono sodium glutamate
From the Latin for: Salt on a single butt.
1
Share
Old 19th January 2013 | Show parent
  #38
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitecat ➡️
Would you rather eat a shin of beef (or any cheap cut) cooked by Thomas Keller, or a filet mignon cooked by someone with no experience in a kitchen whatsoever?

And - if Thomas Keller could only use whatever would be found in an average student's kitchen to cook, would you still want it? If the inexperienced jack*** had access to the French Laundry kitchen, would that matter?
Neither of the mixes by the very experienced person would be bad, but which one do you figure would be better, and which one would the person doing the mix have enjoyed doing a lot more most likely, and therefore put more gusto into?

The question isn't whether good gear will make someone with no experience sound great, it's whether it will create a better result than plugins (and a more enjoyable and rewarding experience) from someone who does know how to mix. Anyone who doesn't know how is irrelevant to the discussion either way, right?

It's kind of like saying, well why shouldn't we all just drive a go-carts, because Mario Andrestti would still be a better driver than someone who has never driven anything before and would likely still win the race. That's true, but not really a useful means for selecting what kind of vehicle I would want to drive, and certainly not a good reason for Mario to drive a go-cart.
Old 20th January 2013
  #39
restpause
Guest
Quote:
let subjective=opinions
let objective=facts

subjective + subjective = subjective
objective + subjective = subjective
subjective + objective = subjective
objective + objective = objective

all of our experiences are subjective, right?

return(vain non-referenced discussion about which technique sounds "better")
The best reasons against using software instruments and/or effects seems to be ergonomics and perhaps resale value, to me. But if your chosen genre of music requires software instruments and/or effects, then that whole "audio hardware is better than software" paradigm fails also, right?

EDIT: Did anybody notice how i just failed gracefully with that post? LOL

Last edited by restpause; 20th January 2013 at 01:46 PM.. Reason: did anybody notice how i just failed gracefully with that post? LOL
Old 20th January 2013 | Show parent
  #40
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 15 years
At some point it's like arguing about why flying first class is better than coach.
Well, yeah, it is. So what? I need to go somewhere, I can't afford first class, and coach will get me there.
Old 20th January 2013
  #41
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
I don't think anyone is trying to make it a class warfare thing. To me, a lot of it is what comes along with the plugin mentality. It seems to be very tied into the phenomenon of music becoming less and less about talent and experience in front of (or behind) the mic and more about just edit it till it sounds like I knew what I was doing.

I'm not going to smack anyone around for using a virtual instrument if they HAVE to. I live in a small apartment, clearly I can't record real drums, so I don't. BUT, I would not sit here and rationalize my use of BFD2 as a superior option compared to real drums. The only way it's superior is convenience, which has nothing to do with making good music. That is about making cheap music, or music cheaply, and without developing the skills required to actually make real drums sound good. I will argue that, in a pinch you can get pretty good results from something like BFD2 if you learn it well, but it's not remotely in the same league of flexibility and expressiveness as a real drum kit, and the same applies to almost all such virtual instruments.

It's just becoming more and more about doing it cheaply, with the least time and skill involved possible, and not just that but trying to rationalize how it's not a lessening of the value of the music created. It's like people think that the point was always how much music can be pumped out, when it was never about that. Even back in the day when the ability to record was VERY limited, there wasn't enough room out there for everything that was recorded.

And there's also the issue of respect. When I was coming up, I wanted to be a musician because I had respect for the skills of well known musicians at that time. And so did everyone else I knew who had dreams in that direction. We aspired to match the talent of our heros. But now talent is becoming less and less an issue, and fewer people in the mainstream is really a talented musician, or if they are they fairly carefully hide it I guess. Who sits around and reads "Waveform Editor Magazine" or "Quantizer Magazine"? And music that is created without the spilling of blood just has less value, IMO. The effort put forth by the artist DOES matter, despite all the claims to the contrary.
Old 21st January 2013
  #42
Gear Maniac
 
🎧 5 years
i think its like playing tic tac toe.
fruity loops is cool cos u just be clicking every 4th box
doot doot doot

and then load up my vitual hendrix for some shred

ah, i woudlna go back to d 70s and 80s for nuttin
Old 21st January 2013
  #43
restpause
Guest
Just to clarify; some very successful electronic music subgenres sound GOOD and REQUIRE VST(i)'s TO SOUND GOOD; such subgenres do not mimick acoustics/analog gear/etc, though the musicians may use those tools as well.
Old 21st January 2013
  #44
Lives for gear
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
This is not a matter of taste. Nobody eats a lump of MSG.
I'm pretty sure that's correct, but when used tastefully, it can really enhance the flavor of things.
Old 21st January 2013 | Show parent
  #45
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by restpause ➡️
Just to clarify; some very successful electronic music subgenres sound GOOD and REQUIRE VST(i)'s TO SOUND GOOD; such subgenres do not mimick acoustics/analog gear/etc, though the musicians may use those tools as well.
Sure, any of my rants on this subject are about those types of music that are apparently 'real' music (actually played and actually recorded), but in fact are almost completely fake (in terms of having been completely recardless of how it was recorded, and especially in terms of making the performances vastly better than the person doing the recording is actually capable of.)

And, as always seems to have to be said, I'm not being a purist. I just completely reject the common argument that, if Les Paul ever did a tape splice, then anything anyone does is equivalent. It's just not. My concern is that people take musicianship seriously and do the absolute least amount of fakery possible, and when they do it it should be things like punching in the one or two bad notes in an otherwise magical performance, not doing word by word comping of an entire take.

Les Paul earned the right to splice some tape, because he was obviously a very good musician. Those early Les Paul/Mary Ford records were done using *destructive overdubbing*, no less. They would have multiple layers of instruments and multiple layers of vocals (often pretty fancy harmonies) and one mistake in any of them and it was toast and they had to start over. THAT gets my respect.

Recording 15 takes and sitting there comping individual notes with the mouse doesn't really deserve much respect, IMO. The fact that teenage girls can't tell the difference isn't really relevant, unless you want to be what used to be considered a joke in the industry, a Milli Vanilli or something. If I were looking to be in the business of making music, I'd take my reputation far more seriously than that.

And of course all of the above leaves aside the now obsessive desire to hyper-perfect even quite talented artists, particularly singers. This is just sick and creates a totally unhealthy musical landscape in which being humanly talented has ever dropping value, and so why would people really strive to achieve that talent?
1
Share
Old 22nd January 2013
  #46
Lives for gear
 
RightOnRome's Avatar
 
1 Review written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Vogel ➡️
Chemical flavor enhancer:
Mono sodium glutamate
the bane of my existence .. I have to look for it everywhere .. if I eat it I have a pounding headache for 3 days starting with optical migraine ...good times
Old 22nd January 2013
  #47
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
If we could only get that to happen when you use plugins, we might be onto something.
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #48
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
And, as always seems to have to be said, I'm not being a purist. I just completely reject the common argument that, if Les Paul ever did a tape splice, then anything anyone does is equivalent. It's just not. My concern is that people take musicianship seriously and do the absolute least amount of fakery possible, and when they do it it should be things like punching in the one or two bad notes in an otherwise magical performance, not doing word by word comping of an entire take.
No, but that's just where you draw the line - it's only an opinion. As long as we all realise where we draw the line is arbitrary, no-one can complain

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
Recording 15 takes and sitting there comping individual notes with the mouse doesn't really deserve much respect, IMO. The fact that teenage girls can't tell the difference isn't really relevant, unless you want to be what used to be considered a joke in the industry, a Milli Vanilli or something. If I were looking to be in the business of making music, I'd take my reputation far more seriously than that.
As an artist - I agree with you. As an engineer/producer - the end justifies the means, because all anyone else sees is the end. Anything else doesn't matter really - the process might be cool if it can be used to market the product, but it doesn't really matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
And of course all of the above leaves aside the now obsessive desire to hyper-perfect even quite talented artists, particularly singers. This is just sick and creates a totally unhealthy musical landscape in which being humanly talented has ever dropping value, and so why would people really strive to achieve that talent?
I think "taste" is quite important here...if you can make a good performance great, you should do it. If you can't edit a vocal without microtuning everything out of it, best leave it alone maybe!
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #49
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by psycho_monkey ➡️
No, but that's just where you draw the line - it's only an opinion. As long as we all realise where we draw the line is arbitrary, no-one can complain
I can certainly complain, and I will continue to. Where any one person draws the line is their own decision, but when they draw it just short of a petroleum based product, I can complain.
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #50
Moderator
 
psycho_monkey's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
I can certainly complain, and I will continue to. Where any one person draws the line is their own decision, but when they draw it just short of a petroleum based product, I can complain.
Ok, you can complain Dean - but only you

Now if you don't mind - I've got a singer to improve...!
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #51
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
I just completely reject the common argument that, if Les Paul ever did a tape splice, then anything anyone does is equivalent. It's just not.
It's not exactly equivalent. It's a matter of degree. Again, where you draw the line is the question, and the line is fluid. If you were around in the Les Paul era, you would be the person who would complain about a tape splice I'd imagine. Lots of people thought ANY editing was "cheating."

Quote:
My concern is that people take musicianship seriously and do the absolute least amount of fakery possible, and when they do it it should be things like punching in the one or two bad notes in an otherwise magical performance, not doing word by word comping of an entire take.
Lots of classic rock was comped aggressively. Again, it's just a matter of degree. I remember reading about how the guitar solo to the Tears for Fears song "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" was comped by something like 15 edits... the guitar player admitted he could never play it live.

The point is, once you allow for comping at all and multi-track you are allowing an "unreal" performance.

The other thing is, frankly, the next big talent songwriter might not have the ability/financial resources to hire top notch musicians to play on his recordings. He may comp together his vocals, he may use drum loops, he may not be able to play guitar that well so he may comp together a bunch of tracks. He may autotune his vocals because his pitch might not be that great even though his songs might be awesome. There are just too many variables IMHO to sit in judgement of someone's choices.

Quote:
They would have multiple layers of instruments and multiple layers of vocals (often pretty fancy harmonies) and one mistake in any of them and it was toast and they had to start over. THAT gets my respect.
So.. difficulty of the recording gets your respect? Isn't that focusing on something that is beyond musical ability?
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #52
Lives for gear
 
apartment dog's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
How many times Picasso has drawn over a part (Excuse my english)?
There's a film about it, you see him painting many versions over it.
You can't say; "No Picasso, you have to draw it in one take, otherwise start all over again."
Old 22nd January 2013
  #53
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by loveyoumaxin ➡️
First of all, I'm not a native english speaker.. sorry.

As a software programmer, I have made some conclusion these days.

I say,

"We don't have enough CPU power to simulate analog gears."

In my rough calculation, we need 1000 core CPU to fake analog sound when we do ITB mixing.
I'd like to see that calculation. It sounds like you just made that up based on a misunderstanding of the problem domain.

If your point here is that the only way to accurately model analog gear is to treat it as a closed system and track every individual electron traveling through a simulated electrical circuit, you might have a point. But first you'd have to prove, conclusively, that nothing short of doing just that is going to cut it. I'd think that, despite there being inherent chaos in electrical systems, they also have a large element of behavioural predictability, which is part of the reason why computers can exist in the first place.
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #54
Lives for gear
 
famousbass's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by exel ➡️
I'd like to see that calculation. It sounds like you just made that up based on a misunderstanding of the problem domain.

If your point here is that the only way to accurately model analog gear is to treat it as a closed system and track every individual electron traveling through a simulated electrical circuit, you might have a point. But first you'd have to prove, conclusively, that nothing short of doing just that is going to cut it. I'd think that, despite there being inherent chaos in electrical systems, they also have a large element of behavioural predictability, which is part of the reason why computers can exist in the first place.
Actually, you're right that he doesn't cite any references for his claims.

But, to his undeserved credit, there is an obscure technical article published by Mix's Eddie Ciletti (I think) many years ago on this very subject but I can't find it (drokk!)
Old 22nd January 2013 | Show parent
  #55
Gear Addict
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by famousbass ➡️
Actually, you're right that he doesn't cite any references for his claims.

But, to his undeserved credit, there is an obscure technical article published by Mix's Eddie Ciletti (I think) many years ago on this very subject but I can't find it (drokk!)
I'd love to see that. Because predicting how much CPU power is necessary to do a task without actually writing the program and opening it up for optimisation, would imply that this fellow figured out how to solve the halting problem and should be in line for a medal.

I'm pretty ok with people claiming that plugins, right now, are missing some element in their emulation that is hard to express. But saying that the only way to ever get there is to simulate the universe, 100%, no compromise, is pretty bold as far as claims go. Even if I take his 1000 core number at face value, how can you ever be sure that, say, compromising on 500 cores will not lead to a result that is 100% effective in ABX-tests? Or 50? Or 5? Or 2? It seems like baseless speculation feeding into the poster's own preconceptions about the worth of analog gear in the long run.

As an aside, if it actually _would_ take 1000 cores, and was parallelizable in that amount, a CUDA/GPU-based approach to that problem domain would be able to get there sooner rather than later.
Old 22nd January 2013
  #56
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
No matter what I say, people will just continue to rationalize the complete plasticization of music, by bringing up this or that situation that they know happened in the past. But we all know that the amount of manipulation is VASTLY larger now. It's not just a difference in degree, it's a difference in kind at this point.
Old 23rd January 2013
  #57
Lives for gear
 
jordanvoth's Avatar
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
**** analog. Bands sound better live anyways.

I eat MSG everyday and I just view steak as another option.
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #58
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dean Roddey ➡️
No matter what I say, people will just continue to rationalize the complete plasticization of music
I guess no matter what I say you appear to want to remain in denial. I'm not 'rationalizing' anything. I'm just showing how your thinking IMHO is not consistent.

Quote:
But we all know that the amount of manipulation is VASTLY larger now. It's not just a difference in degree, it's a difference in kind at this point.
That is pretty much what the purists said about editing performances on tape.

Your attempt to rationalize it doesn't change it. There is a difference in degree, but the difference is in part artificial... once you have an artificial performance any additional "cheating" just becomes more of the same.
Old 23rd January 2013 | Show parent
  #59
Lives for gear
 
nuthinupmysleeve's Avatar
 
🎧 15 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by apartment dog ➡️
How many times Picasso has drawn over a part (Excuse my english)?
There's a film about it, you see him painting many versions over it.
You can't say; "No Picasso, you have to draw it in one take, otherwise start all over again."
Interesting take. The "purists" will respond, in the musicians world, one must practice until you get it right THEN record.. then put it to canvas.
Old 23rd January 2013
  #60
Gear Guru
 
2 Reviews written
🎧 10 years
Picasso didn't throw some paint on the canvas, then scan it into the computer and spend hours editing it. There's nothing wrong with developing a song through multiple iterations and trying things. Use all the cheats you want to do songwring and section layout and to work out part interactions, and demo'ing. But if you can't actual play the songs you put out, that's a whole other thing. Picasso actually DID paint his paintings.
1
Share
Closed
Topic:

Forum Jump
Forum Jump