Lol years ago I paid some kid $100 one time for a cracked bundle. Worked for a week then destroyed my computer! Spent the next 4 days straight re-installing and optimizing Windows xp.

Since then I've probably spent 2k on vsti/plugins... Guess what, never had a computer problem. I don't pay $100 for a bundle of anything unless I can smoke it.

See, if this dumba$$ was really clever he'd crack something super awsome like the softube pultec/tube tech stuff, and the lexicon bundle. Not some cheesy bundle where half the plugins are really just generic. Lol yay I got the waves q10. Lmao. Doubler anyone? Wtf? Does the diamond even have the CLA compressors? Lmao guys I got supertap delay now!!!

im sure it will improve the recordings he's doing in his closet w an MXL mic into an M-box into pro tools 'first'. Lol he does realize he put illegal stuff on Facebook right?

kmetal, post: 442238, member: 37533 wrote: Lol he does realize he put illegal stuff on Facebook right?

Thats' why I had no issue putting it out there...he openly bragged about it on Fb...boasting about his use of cracked plug-ins...it was soon picked up and posted on the Waves Audiophiles Fb page, where a member actually confronted him via a message asking where he got the torrent from, to which he didn't want to say...surprise surprise...other than to state "I'm not part of the problem..." as his defense.

Seriously, have a go at that BS...Sound City II my ass. This guy gets the Epic Fail Of The Month Award for this post.

Apparently his post got the attention of Waves and I believe a software audit was in the process.

Scheps 73 plug-in from Waves = $49

Using cracked Waves 9 Diamond = $0

Being a douche and bragging
about it on social media = Priceless !!!

For everything else...there's always a software audit ;)

What I find ironic is he is stealing software by way of using a cracked copy....then charging people for his services.

Thats' like stealing a taxi....then charging your mates for a ride somewhere

kmetal, post: 442238, member: 37533 wrote: Since then I've probably spent 2k on vsti/plugins... Guess what, never had a computer problem.

Its the old adage, you get what you pay for.

I'm sure I have spent thousands on plug-ins just in the past year or two alone...I would hate to go through the file of online receipts I have and add it all up...then theres the VSTi's as well plus the initial cost of any DAW programs. You are investing in yourself is how I see it...as well as giving back to the companies that give you the tools to be able to do what we all do.

I'm a firm believer of supporting the software developers who bring us the software and plug-ins that make our lives easier.
That way they can continue to bring us further updates and new products...otherwise that next plug-in you buy may be $50 more to buy if they don't get a return on their product.

Some of these plug-ins take years to develop and huge sums of money. Using cracked copies is just plain theft IMO.

Guys like the one above just make it more expensive for those who do the right thing and actually buy the product.

Sean G, post: 442239, member: 49362 wrote: This guy gets the Epic Fail Of The Month Award for this post.

Lmao love it.

Sean G, post: 442241, member: 49362 wrote: Guys like the one above just make it more expensive for those who do the right thing and actually buy the product

Yeah, not only that he's probably got no skills, and more clients than the local comercial studio.

Lol in all fairness I think I admitted to a civil offense, hopefully the statute of limitations is in effect.

I am okay w supporting software companies. The licensing thing isn't perfect. Like I disagree with paying big money for software, and only getting a single install or 'seat' for it. That's kinda stingy, and usually it's the most pricy companies who are doing ehem waves, and avid.

To me you should simply just register your computers, register the software, and they simply cross refernce it. That way it's nearly impossible to cheat. maybe not I dunno, but I do find that part of it frustrating. I think the 3-5 installs at a time is pretty realistic. You figure work, studio, laptop, one for mobile, isn't out of the question these days.

It's interesting to me that izotope has basically a loose, unlimited install agreement, provided it's your computer, all based on the honor system, and yet I've never known anyone with a cracked version of ozone. Yet you see cracked waves and avid all day.

I wouldn't even mind paying for multiple iloks, provided I could use the licenses.

The single license sure can move, but having just one daw isn't common anymore. To me it leaves a bit of a bad taste kinda like its a privalige that you can pay them.

But it it's what it is, and overall I think most companies are fair. the thought of buying multiple copies of the same thing especially at full price sickens me. So it's one of those things where you've gotta just pick and choose.

Vsl allows 3 licenses via their key and so you can use their stuff on 3 different computers. So it's not dependent on your machine hardware 'code' like bfd. BFD will however give you more licncesed if you ask for them, becuase you got a new computer. Obviously this kinda self regulates.

I understand it's a fine line for both the consumer and manufacturer, overall I think the 3 concurrent install is a fair compromise. It's far better than the single license, but not as cool as your allowed on every one of your machines, which in reality is exactly how it should be. I wish there was a way to register my devices w my software companies. There's certainly no doubt Apple knows each one of my devices, and probably exactly what's on them, and what I'm doing at any given time. So there's no doubt in my mind that the other companies can or do to.

To be honest I think the subscription thing is gonna man things even more restricted for the end user.

Overall I can't complain. Waves even sent me a free Req license one time as a bonus, which is something I'd actually considering buying twig for the $30.

kmetal, post: 442238, member: 37533 wrote: I don't pay $100 for a bundle of anything unless I can smoke it.

:LOL::cool:

kmetal, post: 442238, member: 37533 wrote: I don't pay $100 for a bundle of anything unless I can smoke it.

DonnyThompson, post: 442273, member: 46114 wrote: :LOL::cool:

Amen to that !...although my days of being heavily influenced by the likes of Cheech Marin & Tommy Chong are sadly far behind me now.

Brian is also a skip tracer...

kmetal, post: 442242, member: 37533 wrote: To be honest I think the subscription thing is gonna man things even more restricted for the end user.

I guess I'd have to disagree, Kyle; I don't see it like that. I think that the subscription system - depending on the manufacturer, the products, and what's included of course - gives access to processing for pennies on the dollar compared to what the prices of plugs were just a couple years ago; and, as is with the case with Slate's subscription system; any updates - and even new plug-ins as they develop them - are included with the one price.

$14.99 per month ( okay.. 15 bucks) is really a pretty fair deal, if you are using those plugs, and have determined for yourself that they are of value and are good tools to have in your arsenal.
It wasn't all that long ago that packages like Wave's Diamond, or Mercury Bundles were very expensive... some of those bundles were priced in the four-figure range, which, while a fraction of the cost compared to the real hardware - was still pretty freakin' steep for the average mid-level studio... and, if you had spent that kind of money on a 32 bit bundle, and then were forced to pay for them again when things started going all 64 bit, that's a pretty big investment to make.

I don't work for Slate, or T-Racks, or Waves, either, so I'm not trying to hard-sell anyone; I'm just looking at it from the angle of the creative and business-end of the recording studio; and $15 bucks a month, for all that you get, including updates as well as future new plugs, is to me, paltry. When I had my facility, I spent more than that per week just in coffee. LOL

I think it really all comes down to what value you place in your processing of choice. Many, like Chris, ( audiokid ) have been honest and forthright about mostly being happy with the stock plugs that come in Samp/Sequoia, with the exception of a few select 3rd party plugs he has chosen to add, by companies like Fabfilter.

There are those, like Kurt ( Kurt Foster ) who don't really dig digital processing, who would prefer to use the real hardware whenever possible.

Then there are those who seem to be "addicted" to VST's, and can't ever seem to have enough; to the point where they have 100 EQ's, 100 compressors, 50 delays and verbs...

Somewhere in the middle of all these is where I see myself, I guess. I like digital recording/mixing technology... and yes, there are things I like about classic analog front ends, but I haven't "blocked" new technology like several of my colleagues have.
I'm not always happy with digital processing just because it's digital - but then again, I'm not always happy with analog processing just because it's analog, either.

Personally, I happen to like Slate's plugs. I think Fabrice Gabriel is great at what he does. I also like IK Multimedia's T-Racks plugs, too. I have had ample opportunity to work with both, and while I don't love everything that they develop and release, I do find value with most of their processing.
(I also still have some older Waves stuff ( 32 bit) that I purchased years ago that I still find useful from time to time).

My confession here, is that yes, I like having choices for digital processing... and a plug doesn't always have to be an "exact" modelling or re-creation of the analog piece it's trying to reproduce, in order for me to find value in it.
I've heard and used some SSL modeling that I honestly can't tell the difference from a real SSL strip.
By the same token, I've yet to find any Pultec-style VST's that I think truly sound like a Pultec - but that doesn't mean I still can't find it useful in certain situations. It doesn't always have to be an exact model of a piece of hardware, in order for it to still sound good with what I'm working on at a particular time.

So, I think these current subscription plans are pretty good deals - for those who like to have those choices, and for those who know how they work, what they do, and how to use them for optimum results; I think that many of these processors sound very good, and they do what they claim to do very well...
They are probably not a good deal for people who are satisfied with the stock processing that they are currently using in their DAW of choice.

Then again, in no way are they at all valuable to the listeners of the music/mixes being made by those who have no earthly idea what they are doing with them. ;)

IMO, of course. :)

-d.

DonnyThompson, post: 442279, member: 46114 wrote: I think it really all comes down to what value you place in your processing of choice. Many, like Chris, ( audiokid ) have been honest and forthright about mostly being happy with the stock plugs that come in Samp/Sequoia, with the exception of a few select 3rd party plugs he has chosen to add, by companies like Fabfilter.

:D You just had to do it...

To expand. I free up CPU when ever I can rather than bloat or corrupt my system. I also hear better processing in what most look for ITB with outboard digital hardware. A Bricasti, Lexicon and various analog and digital keyboards integrate with my DAW and computing interface via PCIe (One Bricasti would never operate in a DAW, it takes a full 8 core to run it).

When it comes to the majority of my VSTi workflow, I choose external sound or dedicated sources via keyboards like Nord, Roland, Korg, Akai that are also controllers.

When it comes to special EQ's and compressors, I really do not hear better than what is stock. Its all there. What isn't there are Pultec EQ and those to my ears cannot be emulated. What a Pultec does is curve analog in an analog workflow. It emulated into a digital plug-in is pretty silly.Not much different that the Bax EQ as well. The beauty of the Bax is in the filters which is best used to clip the top transients off prior to the AD conversion lol.

Its not that I think Sequoia and Fabfilter have it all, its that Sequoia has what the finest analog console has in a perfectly tuned code without messing with it.
Anything more than what is stock then, I look to outboard processing because at that point, there are no plug-ins that compare, CPU starts becoming an issue and ya know I will never go Avid and one computer does it all platform. That is just too restricting and scary lol. I need space!
.
:D

Sean G, post: 442274, member: 49362 wrote: Amen to that !...although my days of being heavily influenced by the likes of Cheech Marin & Tommy Chong are sadly far behind me now.

In my state (physical location, lol) they legalized it for medicinal purposes so they can tax it, instead of spending money loosing the 'war'. I got a perscription last year for my back pain. I go thru phases of using it and not. It's been about six months or so, because I wanted to clear the noggin.

DonnyThompson, post: 442279, member: 46114 wrote: Somewhere in the middle of all these is where I see myself, I guess. I like digital recording/mixing technology... and yes, there are things I like about classic analog front ends, but I haven't "blocked" new technology like several of my colleagues have.
I'm not always happy with digital processing just because it's digital - but then again, I'm not always happy with analog processing just because it's analog, either.

That's about where I stand too

DonnyThompson, post: 442279, member: 46114 wrote: My confession here, is that yes, I like having choices for digital processing... and a plug doesn't always have to be an "exact" modelling or re-creation of the analog piece it's trying to reproduce, in order for me to find value in it.

Yup

DonnyThompson, post: 442279, member: 46114 wrote: By the same token, I've yet to find any Pultec-style VST's that I think truly sound like a Pultec - but that doesn't mean I still can't find it useful in certain situations. It doesn't always have to be an exact model of a piece of hardware, in order for it to still sound good with what I'm working on at a particular time

It's hard I think for them to model things that are relatively unpredictable like tube stuff vs a tan sister based console.

Plus each pultec unit itself is different.

Not having used one I dunno how real it is, but to my ears the softube tube tech and pultec plugins are far superior than the rest. I've used all the major pultec emulations.

Lol funny u brought up slate, just snagged VTM for $118 a few days ago. I like the VBC too so that's on the list.

I agree with a lot of what you said but I'll play a little devils advocate here for conversation.

My biggest problem is your processing dissapearing if you miss a payment. Which the workaround is to print tracks, which is a good idea anyway.

W plugins updates have never been a big draw for me, beside the 32-64 thing, which I still have a waves native power pack bundle to update. If I understand it right I just need to do the coverage plan on them and I get the new versions. $60 isn't too much to ask, although mildly painful.

Particularly w DaW's I'm not into updating it unless there's a major useful feature or overhaul. Updates used to be included for your version number.

Pt gives you a year of updates then you gotta subscribe or just live w the latest version you had under the plan. You have to subscribe or not there's no 'jumping in'. This is w the perpetual license purchase i.e. owning it.

I did the math in pt's case you spend less if you keep your software for three years after purchase date. That's where the costs of puerperal and subscription equal each other. Since you get a free year of upgrades this keeps you current an additional year, i.e. Year 4 your softwRe is only 3 years old. This is in general not a problem unless you need to be taking in sessions that are in the latest version. Which is where the subcription vs perpetual becomes a divine line of sorts.

Personally the 3-5 year mark is where I upgrade DaW's anyway so it's not a huge deal, and hopefully they'll have some upgrade discount vs a full re purchase.

My main concern w the whole subscription thing was them limiting the amount of installs to just one based on some sort of sign in thing or watever.

For instance w a Vst daw and mastering computer Config I'd certainly want to run certain plugins on all three at once, say Req or l2. Now those are waves so I'd have to buy three anyway, but my concern is compnsies like ozone (unlimited installs) or slate (2 installs) will go that way, citing piracy.

Vsl allows three as long as you have 3 of their dongles.

Adobe has eliminated perpetual licenses completely, they are subscription only for they're video audio stuff !!!!

Frankly as long as i can keep the latest version, and the number of installs is fair, I've got no complaints.

At full price I'm looking already at $800 additional per year on top of the purchase price for media composer, PTHD, wAves update plans.

That's a lot kinda. Considering its 4K upfront.

So I think it takes careful consideration up front and planning before softwares is purchased or leased.

The only way to 'save' like I said is to buy and keep for 3+ years, which Frankly isn't a bad idea in general, considering how sensitive computers can be.

Someone like me who's monthly income varies widely, I'm buying upfront for now, and assessing what's worth continuing the update plans when the time comes next year. That way if I'm having a weak month or year my tools still work 'as is'.

Also I cherry pick plugins, from each manufacturer. So having the all or nothing type subscription like slate has doesn't quite work. That said, I'll be 240$ in on his plugins, so what better? Two years of everything? Or two of his plugins with no expiration?

Really I can't answer that until I run this system a couple years. But I'm currently satisfied with my outright purchase.

I do find slates perscription to be one of the most reasonable both money wise and you get two concurrent installs which is better than 1 not quite as fair as 3.

audiokid, post: 442280, member: 1 wrote: :D
To expand. I free up CPU when ever I can rather than bloat or corrupt my system with untested, free plugs. I also hear better processing in what most look for ITB with outboard digital hardware. Like Bricasti, Lexicon and various analog and digital keyboards that integrate with my DAW and computing interfacing via PCIe. (One Bricasti would never operate in a DAW, it takes a full 8 core to run it).
When it comes to the majority of my VSTi workflow, I choose external sound or dedicated sources via keyboards like Nord, Roland, Korg, Akai that are also controllers.

Its not that I think Sequoia and Fabfilter have it all, its that Sequoia has what the finest analog console perfectly tuned without messing with it.
Anything more than what is stock then, I look to outboard processing because at that point, there are no plug-ins that compare, CPU starts becoming an issue and ya know I will never go Avid and one computer does it all platform. That is just too restricting and scary lol. I need space!
.
:D

My buddy has two roomfuls of all the classic synths and some new ones. Even the best samples don't quite match the dimension and richness of the hardware.

That said my samples are quite good, and have all the major players. It works for me since my space is limited and evolving, and I like the idea of using multiple instances at once of the same vsti, without printing right away.

As a guitarist and producer/engineer I think the vsti route is best for my flow at this point. Albeit at the sacrifice of an intangible % of quality that can't otherwise be had. As is the case in almost all hardware vs software comparisons.

I think it's not necessarily the samples themselves, it's that the vsti aren't necessarily modeling the analog sections as well.

That said my current (upcoming) setup w the babyface pro, probably wouldn't capture the true expanse of the analog synths I have in vsti. So I feel it's a wash for me, in my current state.

I also selected a company who samples the instruments, and models the controls. Done companies model the samples/sounds. Then they had sterling sound master the samples.

So in essence I paid for some really high quality recordings of classic synths. For $150, ($650, got it in close out) I've got much more than I could do w my buddies synths at a world class studio.

I do have a hardware mpc on my list for some reason i really want one.

I'm not saying one way is better ultimately, just stating a case for why I went vsti for now...

Lol don't get me started on the bricasti. It's untouchable. Even beyond having a dedicated 8 core processor, there's top notch analog and conversion.

Im waiting till the next one comes out and it's on the list. I should be ready by then. Hopefully it's 7.x too!!!

kmetal, post: 442283, member: 37533 wrote: That said my samples are quite good, and have all the major players. It works for me since my space is limited and evolving, and I like the idea of using multiple instances at once of the same vsti, without printing right away.

my VSTi reasons are less about "good, better, best sounding to hardware. Its all about freeing up CPU load. CPU load can create latency and glitches.
Simply put, I like being able to move more freely in the creative process. I prefer to be able to walk over and feel my keyboards, play the drums on pads, grab a guitar while I am working all in sync and all active in real time. Then to be able to instantly loop in overdub or edit mode with all that still active tracking. My DAW is there to record and edit, not to replace my creative flow.

Some may not be aware how times are changing in the interfacing world. External gear is not much different to plug-ins now. Without going into it all, the Akai interfacing is amazing. They finally have it married to your DAW. Example, the drum library is ITB, but it is also (if you want, controlled via the external controller). There is a midi track and an analog track for each VSTi . Hard to explain. But in a nut shell, its like VSTi hybrid. Things are changing in the digital hardware world!

kmetal, post: 442283, member: 37533 wrote: I think it's not necessarily the samples themselves, it's that the vsti aren't necessarily modeling the analog sections as well.

This is where a Bricasti takes over.Anyone that has grown up in the sampling world ( made your own samples and patches) knows how vital the processing is in comparison to the actual sample of say a violin. Violins sound like ass without the reverb, as does pretty much all instruments. When we are buying a library, keyboard etc, we are buying the processing and algorithms.

Without going into a big thread here, the real magic to everything music is in the capturing and processing of "space in which instruments live".
Recording = (acoustic space), mixing = (improving acoustic space) and mastering = well, they fix and can sometimes improve acoustic space even more.

I'm pretty certain we spend FAR too much time thinking about special EQ'S and compressors today.
All being said, I'm perfectly happy with one DAW and Sequoia. Everything else I do is because I can and its more fun, less problems, for me.

kmetal, post: 442284, member: 37533 wrote: Lol don't get me started on the bricasti. It's untouchable. Even beyond having a dedicated 8 core processor, there's top notch analog and conversion.

Im waiting till the next one comes out and it's on the list. I should be ready by then. Hopefully it's 7.x too!!!

+1
I'm also very excited about the new Bricasti delay processing coming. Between the M7 and whatever the delay is called, this plus 2 DAW's should do it for me. Save the pennies for this stuff because you cannot get it from a plug-in.

audiokid, post: 442280, member: 1 wrote: :D You just had to do it...

I was using you as an example of the positive reasons, brother.... not the negative. :love:

audiokid, post: 442280, member: 1 wrote: I also hear better processing in what most look for ITB with outboard digital hardware. A Bricasti, Lexicon and various analog and digital keyboards integrate with my DAW and computing interface via PCIe (One Bricasti would never operate in a DAW, it takes a full 8 core to run it).

Understood, Chris... but you're also referring to OB pieces that many engineers and mid level project studios can't afford to have - and in this current era of recording studios having to drop their hourly rates to ridiculously all-time-low figures just to survive, the profits just aren't there anymore to have an operating budget to buy that great OB gear.

As you said - and I totally agree - the Bricasti has an incredible sound, all of its own, that is currently untouchable through standard ITB processing - but with mid-level project studio owners barely being able to even keep their lights on, how do you invest in that gear - and - do the majority of your average clients even hear the difference(s) anymore? Maybe, maybe not... but even if they do, are they willing to pay your studio the rate you'd need to charge in order to offer gear like that?
Sure, if you're clientele is made up of big time producers and artists who are accustomed to working at that level, and having access to those things, and even expecting those to be in your OB rack - and being willing and happy to pay the studio's hourly rate, accordingly set and based on the gear available -then yeah, you need to have them, and if you do currently have them, you're probably doing well enough business-wise to have an OB rack that is really nice - but, most of us in the mid-level league don't have that, and the ones who do have that peripheral gear - like yourself - have invested in it, sometimes out of great financial sacrifice to themselves or their business, because they either recognize the need to have those things to compete, or they're buying that kind of gear for no other reason than because they really, really want to have it for themselves... but even so, you still need to be able to afford it.

It wasn't really my intention to compare decent VST's to their hardware fathers, although, as mentioned, I do think that modeling has gotten to be so good in the last 2 years, that many ITB processors do rival the original pieces in sound and response. Having actually worked on real SSL's in the past, it's my opinion that some of these SSL sims really do sound just as good ( ie: The Waves SSL E Series channel strip VST is incredible, btw...), but... I was just as quick to say that I felt that some other sims still fall short, as I mentioned with the Pultec example. But that's been changing for the better. Digital Modeling Technology is really improving day by day; it's grown in leaps and bounds over just the past 2 years or so.

And, again, IMO, a VST/Sim doesn't always have to sound exactly like the hardware it's trying to model in order for it to be useful to me.
(Marco ( pcrecord )and I have talked about this over the past few years, I think he feels similar to the way I do in this regard).

An example of this would be some of the current Fairchild 660/670 VST's...I've never had the luxury of using a real Fairchild 670 - at least not for any longer than about 10 seconds or so, LOL , and few of us here - if any of us at all, even the 35-40 year studio veterans among us - have actually ever logged enough time on one to know ( Remy might have had that luxury) - so I can't say if the current crop of Fairchild VST/Sims from the various manufacturers are close (or not) to the real thing; but I have used some 670 VST-Sims that I really do like the sound of - at least for what I was using them for at the time - and for me, that's the benchmark - does it sound good for what I'm using it for?

Kyle brought up a good point:

kmetal, post: 442281, member: 37533 wrote: Plus each Pultec unit itself is different.

And I think that this can be applied to pretty much all classic OB analog gear; anything with tubes, or trannies, or wires and resistors...you'd simply substitute the word "Pultec" with "Fairchild" instead, (or Teletronix, or Urei)... because even the real hardware often had differences between exact models - You could have 2 exact Pultecs in your rack, or 2 seemingly identical Neve 1073 preamps, (maybe even from the same year) and there's a pretty good chance that one will sound different than the other one does...( some might be slight differences, some much more noticeable) and in that scenario, the real hardware is going to win out, precisely because of those subtle to noticeable differences... each unit lending its own sonic vibe.... and those differences are something you won't get with plugs, because all things being equal; full factory reset, with all parameters being identically set on each VST, the plugs are going to sound exactly the same... So exact, that I'd wager that they'd present themselves as such if you did a null-check on them.

In the end, the plugs I use always serve a purpose for me - and those purposes change - depending on what I'm working on at any given time. I don't reach for VST's in a second nature/habit fashion, or because the GUI "looks" cool, or because I feel I am "obligated" to use them only because I have them...
I seek out the processing I want because I'm looking for a certain sound that a given VST will provide. Sometimes I can get that thro0ugh the use of a DAW's stock plugs, but sometimes I can't.
Hell guys, there are times when I'll use a particular plug precisely because I know that it's going to "damage" the audio signal that I feed it.... but I'm damaging it in a way that I like.

I'm not disparaging analog gear - not at all. Of course I would use the real OB gear if I had the budget to do so. If I get the opportunity, I love to front-load incoming audio with great-sounding analog processing ...but that's not something I can afford to do at this juncture of my life, personally or professionally.

But I can manage to pay $15 a month to give me the tools that I like to use and that I like the sound of. ;)

IMHO of course. :)
-donny

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: And, again, IMO, a VST/Sim doesn't always have to sound exactly like the hardware it's trying to model in order for it to be useful to me.
(Marco ( pcrecord )and I have talked about this over the past few years, I think he feels similar to the way I do in this regard).

I think this is the only way to find VST emulation plugins worth it.
If I keep in mind that they're not the real thing. It doesn't remove the fact that they could be ok to use for what they do at their current state.
If a 1073 emulation gives a track what it needs to be just right, what ever the name on it, I'll use it. (just an exemple...)
People have been chasing for emulation precision for years and ended up with headaches. Don't we forget ? 10 x La2a aligned together will give 10 different sounds.
Man I have 2 La 610 in my rack who sounds a lot different from each other ;)

What is dangerous is to use plugins because they are a trend and/or someone told you it sound good. It is so easy to degrade a mix with the wrong Tools or with too many Tools. !!

I'm not endorsed by any company (man I wish) but like Chris, I don't use many third party plugins in my work. I could use just the stock vst and Fabfilter's and be happy.
I have other plugin installed but they don't get much use. Oh yeah I forgot Valhalla reverbs who gets my love very often..

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: I was using you as an example of the positive reasons, brother.... not the negative. :love:

Of course I know that. I think its excellent when we @ people all the time. Its how I find these threads too. Keep up the positive @ (y)

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: nderstood, Chris... but you're also referring to OB pieces that many engineers and mid level project studios can't afford to have - and in this current era of recording studios having to drop their hourly rates to ridiculously all-time-low figures just to survive, the profits just aren't there anymore to have an operating budget to buy that great OB gear.

Personally I don't see how most project or mid level studios can afford the amount they spend on plug-ins, DPS and storage?

As for the upper crust, the perfect example: studio using Pro Tools and DSP cards (UAD and Avid) , how much do the cards (plug-in closets) cost, including the usual 18 month upgrades built into their marketing share holders program for 2 decades now. ROTF. I bet a hell of a lot of money. :D

I've done the math and bet the farm most people into recording come out thousands cheaper by rethinking acoustic space and what adds space to a mix. Its sure isn't a channel strip plug-in.

I think ... the mass of third party plug-in Coders (usually working for the hardware companies dying because lack of sales), are approached by coders telling them they can model their hardware and earn X amount of money from each sale. :cautious:

pcrecord, post: 442292, member: 46460 wrote: What is dangerous is to use plugins because they are a trend and/or someone told you it sound good. It is so easy to degrade a mix with the wrong Tools or with too many Tools. !!

+1

A great example that comes to mind ( and there are so many ) raved about. What a total piece of crap code

Curious: How maybe people use this? http://www.soundtoys.com/product/echoboy/

It looks good eh.

I used this after it was recommended by a lot of people . Instantly after opening this plugin, (dry mix, flat) it took a nice open track / mix and instantly reduced it to one dimensional cheapness. It was also like filling my ears, one with cotton, the other with wool and then adding a fizz that sounded like a 200 foot bad cable. It also forced a transient smear. I could hear this all because my system is truthful and exposes the crap the moment bad code gets in.

Even when I disarmed this code, it sill was in the summing of my DAW. Only until I completely uninstalled it, did it go back to normal again.

I've heard this in more than just this plug-in as well. Which is why I keep my main DAW clean and look to select and well tested code.

Fine by me if people think plug-ins in your DAW folder don't have an effect. If its loaded into your DAW, its using something to be there, ready.
Personally, the budget world is flash for the unsuspecting crowd "on a budget". Once on a budget, always on a budget, yet you will end up spending far more money and dead wasted time on everything if you keep trying to win through a "budget mindset". I'm of course not talking about the Garageband etc crowd.

Once you are in the bypass lane, we usually keep driving that way for years and years.
Kurt said more than once, as have many Grammy winning engineers over and over, I put a mic through this pre-amp and instantly heard the difference, Ah, so that's how they do it".

Comparing the money spent on budget bloat , the good dope doesn't even cost that much. Especially if we are pursuing excellence and how to do it on a budget.

Once I'm done building my next budget DAW system, I'm going to add up the costs and share it here.
I have no intent or interest to convert anyone. I'm just adding food for thought. :)
Maybe down the road we can figure a nice way to study comparisons solely related to budget and sonics.

Yeah soundtoys have many cool plugins but they never quite cut it for me. Could be the word toys that sums them up.. (disclamer, I haven't check them out since many years) ;)

Lol a mass quoting...

audiokid, post: 442285, member: 1 wrote: my VSTi reasons are less about "good, better, best sounding to hardware. Its all about freeing up CPU load. CPU load can create latency and glitches

Precisely why I'm using the master/slave and decoupled vsti/sim computer setup.

audiokid, post: 442285, member: 1 wrote: Simply put, I like being able to move more freely in the creative process. I prefer to be able to walk over and feel my keyboards, play the drums on pads, grab a guitar while I am working all in sync and all active in real time. Then to be able to instantly loop in overdub or edit mode with all that still active tracking. My DAW is there to record and edit, not to replace my creative flow.

Me too my new system design is based on creative workflow (i.e. Always on) setup, and good (not incredible) interfacing/conversion. I'm gonna have my factories vsti's loaded up and ready simply press the red button and play the controller.

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: but, most of us in the mid-level league don't have that, and the ones who do have that peripheral gear

Lmao I'm in the peanut gallery league.

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: nice - but, most of us in the mid-level league don't have that, and the ones who do have that peripheral gear - like yourself - have invested in it, sometimes out of great financial sacrifice to themselves or their business, because they either recognize the need to have those things to compete, or they're buying that kind of gear for no other reason than because they really, really want to have it for themselves... but even so, you still need to be able to afford it

I think most engineers analogue gear aresenal has been built up over the course of their careers. There's certainly a more instant impulse purchase sensibility to software stuff.

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: I do think that modeling has gotten to be so good in the last 2 years, that many ITB processors do rival the original pieces in sound and response.

I agree. Since 64 bit things have gotten better big time. Some of the amp sims sound great. Not necessarily 'like' an amp and mic, but nonetheless just as subjectivley good, and no longer a compromise. I was blown away by the demos of amp sims I used to use that were ya know, 'OK' a bit small and fizzy, or non descript at best. They are downright good now. Even excellent for some sounds. I would venture better than what the average engineer could do w a basic amp mic and interface.

I've said it before we are in a new era of digital, this third gen stuff is getting really good.

DonnyThompson, post: 442289, member: 46114 wrote: An example of this would be some of the current Fairchild 660/670 VST's...I've never had the luxury of using a real Fairchild 670 - at least not for any longer than about 10 seconds or so, LOL , and few of us here - if any of us at all, even the 35-40 year studio veterans among us - have actually ever logged enough time on one to know ( Remy might have had that luxury) - so I can't say if the current crop of Fairchild VST/Sims from the various manufacturers are close (or not) to the real thing; but I have used some 670 VST-Sims that I really do like the sound of - at least for what I was using them for at the time - and for me, that's the benchmark - does it sound good for what I'm using it for?

I always think in 'tendencies' when using modeled plugins. I personally like to have one (the best imho) model of each type of eq and compressor you'd see in a rack. Ie a Fairchild, 1176,la2, DBx, distresser.

I don't need multiple versions of each, but it's nice to have those ingredients for there sonic tenedencies.

Overall I've got about 10 compressers and like 6 eqs to choose from. They vary from transparent to colored.

audiokid, post: 442293, member: 1 wrote: Personally I don't see how most project or mid level studios can afford the amount they spend on plug-ins, DPS and storage?

Bit torrenting lol

audiokid, post: 442293, member: 1 wrote: As for the upper crust, the perfect example: studio using Pro Tools and DSP cards (UAD and Avid) , how much do the cards (plug-in closets) cost, including the usual 18 month upgrades built into their marketing share holders program for 2 decades now. ROTF. I bet a hell of a lot of money

It's about 2700 for a HDx card. 1k for uad. 1500 for protools HD software. That's upfront, and about 300 a year should you choose to upgrade along w the plan.

Sequoia is 3k and 1500 when you upgrade.

It's equal if you upgrade every 3 years or so. PT can be equal becuase you don't upgrade the card. But, this assumes you use only stock dsp for pt, and really, who does that?

If lowest latency tracking w effects is your bag PTHDX is it. If not then it's widely unecessary for most.

For my math either path is roughly the same assuming a very modest set of aftermarket plugins, and upgrades only every 3-5 years.

When you get into constant upgrades, huge oluggin bundles, and flavored of the week, it's easy to be 10k before you know it. All while still using an mbox and Samson monitors lol.

audiokid, post: 442294, member: 1 wrote: Curious: How maybe people use this? http://www.soundtoys.com/product/echoboy/

It looks good eh.

Echo boy is gross. I'm not a fan of any of there stuff and can't belive people rave about them. Decapitator isn't good either, I didn't like the demo at home way back, and didn't like it at the studio.

A very nice delay is the waves h delay. It's reminiscent of the mxr Carbon copy. I wish waves would do more original stuff. They're h line and renessaince are very nice. Not the typical 'brighter is better code' common among waves products.

For saturation i jave ozone trash 2 (included in the bunde) and I'll have fabfilter Saturn.

Also the nomad factory magnetic 2 is a pleasent surprise . Has that Tascam vibe I love so much. I'll take it any day over decapitator.

audiokid, post: 442294, member: 1 wrote: Personally, the budget world is flash for the unsuspecting crowd "on a budget". Once on a budget, always on a budget, yet you will end up spending far more money and dead wasted time on everything if you keep trying to win through a "budget mindset". I'm of course not talking about the Garageband etc crowd.

Couldn't be more true. What weighs more ten pounds of gold or ten pounds of feathers.

You may get more feathers but it weighs the same.

I've learned in my research for my rig you get exactly what you pay for in computers and audio quality. With a few exceptions of mid leve gear having pro attributes like the eureka channel or whatever

Almost always does the more expensive gear sound better, and the more expensive computer components function better.

The only way to 'save' is to decide what you want and wait till its on sale.

My computers average 200 cheaper than similar spec units, and my software averages 30-50% cheaper than regular retail price. All the stuff goes on sale periodically . And computers seem to offer excellent deals during the Introductory period and towards the tale end of the shelf life 1-1.5 years after intro.

I've gotten about 5k worth of software for 2k give or take. I've reached 90% mark finally!

audiokid, post: 442287, member: 1 wrote: +1
I'm also very excited about the new Bricasti delay processing coming. Between the M7 and whatever the delay is called, this plus 2 DAW's should do it for me. Save the pennies for this stuff because you cannot get it from a plug-in.

Just read this about Bricasti on Gearslutz, from Casey, . Looks like V3 is soon to be released. The delay is called M200.
This is what was just posted .

V3 has two levels of service initially. The first item will be the M200.

We will have this for the next AES. It is old school rock and roll in every sense. Analog only. Crazy analog processing including full RMS compression leading to soft saturation then on to hard clipping. Low frequency harmonics before compression from class A fet based circuit. Front panel input/mix/output sets the gain staging for clean to crunch. Zero latency dry path. Analog Abbey Road filter at the push of a button on any preset.

An eight voice varispeed section using old 16 bit SAR ADCs with arbitrary clock gen on each one.

Independent V3 reverb and Delay settings on chunky red old school 7 segment displays.

Three channels of IO including independent mono out for creative use or driving mono arrays at the back of a live setup with stereos up front. Independent mono in can be used along with stereo ins or stand alone and can drive all three outs or just the mono out for an over the top mono reverb or as an insert to your Mesa Boogie amp.

The V3 algorithm will light up the M200 in new ways that will shape new uses of the effect.

But, the real incarnation of V3 will come in the form of the M7 upgrade board. It will be after the M200 because we are tailoring a huge FPGA to work with a SHARC array that will just end the need for new reverbs in my life time. Can't even begin to describe the sonics that will be available. Suffice to say I don't imagine even seeing the bar this will set.

So, the M200 by next US AES, The M7 upgrade just after that by 3 to 6 months

The plan is that the M7 upgrade will be a user installable DSP board replacement that will be for cost. We will raise the price of the V3 M7s to match the cost of today's M7 plus the cost of the upgrade, so that all of our customers who have made us are financially protected.

Oh man!!!

audiokid , pcrecord , kmetal , @Sean G

audiokid, post: 442294, member: 1 wrote: I have no intent or interest to convert anyone. I'm just adding food for thought.

And it's great food for thought, too.
One of the many reasons that I love RO is because we're all individuals here, who all have our own styles and workflows. I don't look for continual agreement all the time about the same things, contrary to that, I celebrate and embrace our diversity, and that we all collectively have many years of studio experiences that we can all talk about, share, discuss, debate, teach and learn from.

In regard to VST's...
I think it's fair to say that some of us here use the good-sounding plugs that we do because we like what they can bring to our mixes. I don't reach for the same plugs every time, and there are many times I don't insert any plugs of any kind.

What works best for one individual may not be the right way for others.

Mixing is a lot like songwriting, I think, and there are so many different ways to write a song; in that regard, mixing is kinda like composing; except we're using certain tonal characteristics instead of instruments and lyrics - from the obvious-to the subtle-to no color at all, and it's difficult to tell someone that they are using the "wrong" sound at a certain place and on a certain song... no different really, from telling a painter that they're using the "right" or the "wrong" shade of blue in their art.
Who am I to tell a recording or mixing artist what they should do? I have no idea what their vision is - it wouldn't be my place to do so. What they do might please me, or it might not; and if asked, I might suggest certain things that I think they should do that I like personally, but that may or may not fit the artist's vision... and unless I've been hired to produce, I need to remember that it's not MY vision. ;)

Example: I LOVE the sound of McCartney's bass guitar on Paperback Writer and Rain ( two sides to the same single 45 release). Why he decided that he wanted that sound isn't the point here.... his reasons were his own, and How he and Geoff Emerick went about getting that sound in the studio is for another thread, another discussion.... I'm talking about him having a specific sonic vision for his song, for the bass track on the song. And you'd think that, Paul being who he was in '66, that it should have been no big deal to get it...
Yet Paul had to fight like hell to get his bass to be mixed the way he wanted on those records. There were people telling him that it was "too hot", "too powerful", and that "they couldn't let it happen"... ( and again, the reasons for this are for another discussion) but, he had a vision, he wanted it, he got it, and, at least for Beatles fans, it worked out amazingly.

Creating our own sonic pallets is an individual and personal thing. I'm pretty happy about the fact that we all have different preferences and tastes when it comes to those pallets.
Digital, Analog, Tape, Tape-less, EQ, No EQ, Relying on the Sonics from the Capture, Sculpting and adding Sonics after the Capture; reverb, no reverb, delay, no delay, flange, no flange, clean and transparent, colored and sculpted ... we all like what we like, and I've personally never been one to follow current "trends" in mixing styles. I mix the way I hear how a song should be mixed at a given time, and always within the context of the song... and those ways will (and have) differed greatly from one mix to the next.

It'd be a pretty boring world sonically if we all did the exact same things all the time. ;)

IMHO of course.
-d.

DonnyThompson

I don't recall, Do you have the full Pro X 2 suite

To us all,

DonnyThompson, post: 442323, member: 46114 wrote: It'd be a pretty boring world sonically if we all did the exact same things all the time.

DonnyThompson, post: 442323, member: 46114 wrote: Creating our own sonic pallets is an individual and personal thing. I'm pretty happy about the fact that we all have different preferences and tastes when it comes to those pallets

Are you guys saying plug-in : EQ, Comps, Limiters (what am I missing?), "plug-ins" have an actual sound to them and this is why you use them?

example 3 versions of a parametric, 3 versions of a bell EQ, 3 different comps etc etc etc?

Its for the sound and not as much for the control?

audiokid, post: 442363, member: 1 wrote: To us all,

Are you guys saying plug-in : EQ, Comps, Limiters, have an actual sound to them and this is why you use them?

I think some do have a certain sound to them and do work better than others depending on the application / track.

Sean G, post: 442364, member: 49362 wrote: I think some do have a certain sound to them and do work better than others depending on the application / track.

Edit: VSTi, and effect processors... I couldn't agree but when it comes to the basic strip of a console (digital or analog) Interesting to hear this.

Pretty much one compressor in the main console is all I use today (it includes the ability to sidechain, slow LA2A style to super fast), I would never use any plug-in that also added a sonic character to it. I would go for noise shaping bit distortions , use transient smearing by other means 100% of the time.
General mix EQ, again pretty much one does it all as well.

Effect Processors, well that's a completely different ball of wax.

Not saying I'm right but it does explain my POV which I have never asked others about until now.

audiokid, post: 442362, member: 1 wrote: DonnyThompson

I don't recall, Do you have the full Pro X 2 suite

Pro X 1 Suite. Haven't yet done the upgrade to Pro X 2. It's not that I don't want to - I would like to - but finances this past year have been virtually non-existent, and other things have taken priority. ;)

audiokid, post: 442363, member: 1 wrote: Are you guys saying plug-in : EQ, Comps, Limiters (what am I missing?), "plug-ins" have an actual sound to them and this is why you use them?

Yes. There are EQ and GR plugs that will add character, sims that are modeled after their hardware counterparts, and in that regard, they model the sound of that processor.
Some are modeled great, others are not quite there, but in each case you do get a sonic vibe that can either be pleasing for what you are working on - or not.

As an example, I have the Waves SSL plugs that came out a few years ago in their Mercury Bundle ( I bought the 32 bit platform because 64 wasn't a thing yet...), and, having actually spent time on a real SSL E Series Desk, I can say that I found the Waves SSL modeling to be crazy-close to the real deal. I would tweak and dial in certain settings that I'd used to use on the real console, and the way that the plug responded was so close, kinda spooky, really.
I'm no longer a fan of Waves, but that's based on principle, because I think we loyal customers got screwed with our pants on when they made the transition to 64 bit ...
...but that doesn't mean I still haven't found some of their plug-processing to be very good.

Slate has really impressed me because of their innovation and their open-minded attitude when it comes to designing and modeling new stuff; they are creative artists first - they aren't just code writers.
And, that they've kept their prices to a very fair and reasonable range is a huge plus. Waves isn't the only gunslinger in town anymore, like they used to be.
There are other options now - Slate, IK/T-Racks, Softube, Eventide - that sound as good, and in many cases, even better than what Waves does, (T-Racks offered affordable plugs that supported M/S processing long before Waves ever did) and that has forced a healthy competition between processing manufacturers, which of course consumers benefit from.

audiokid, post: 442365, member: 1 wrote: Not saying I'm right but it does explain my POV which I have never asked others about until now.

I don't believe that it's even a question of "right" or "wrong", Chris. It goes back to what I was saying earlier, about how we all have our own preferences, and how it depends greatly on the context of what we are doing at a particular time.
I don't have a "This is what I always do" or a "These are the plugs I always use" template. I start with a blank canvas, and I go from there. Sometimes this includes plugs, sometimes not. It's all completely song-dependent for me.
There is no right, and there is no wrong, there's just different ways and styles. Everyone has their own preferences and mix styles, and workflows... and that's as it should be, I think. We're all artists, and that artistic diversity is a good thing. ;)

IMHO of course.
-d.

audiokid, post: 442363, member: 1 wrote: To us all,

Are you guys saying plug-in : EQ, Comps, Limiters (what am I missing?), "plug-ins" have an actual sound to them and this is why you use them?

example 3 versions of a parametric, 3 versions of a bell EQ, 3 different comps etc etc etc?

Its for the sound and not as much for the control?

I've never used an eq or comp, analog, digital, or pluggin that didn't impart its own sound or texture. Digital mixers included. The mackie d8b built in eq/comp is the absolute most transparent I've ever used. To the point where I would say it didn't have a noticable sound. They were also very very subtle even at extreme settings.

When I'm choosing an effect (eq delay whatever) I'm thinking along two lines, which is technically gonna do what I'm imagining i.e. Bel curve Ect, and which one of those is gonna impart the texture/tone that either I want, or with least degradation .

So there's two elements. Like waves in general is bright, all there stuff makes yours brighter, the Ren/H stuff to a much easer degree, slate is more 'modern' or scooped to me, ozone is transparent, softube (pultecs) are beuatiful, and others are more lofi like nomad factory.

I don't get too hung up on emulation authenticity, rather use it as a guideline for general tendency.

So I think along the lines of type and texture when it comes to plugins.

That's why I have 1-3 or so different types of eqs and limiters and comps. Think transparent medium heavy, light Medium heavy Ect.

Even delay. There's transparent, there's colored, there's whacky.

IMHO it's good to have some control over the texture becuase the 'type' of 10k you might need may vary depending on the song artist Ect.

Usually the built in eq that some DaW's have it very transparent Adobe audition comes to mind.

DonnyThompson, post: 442374, member: 46114 wrote: Pro X 1 Suite. Haven't yet done the upgrade to Pro X 2. It's not that I don't want to - I would like to - but finances this past year have been virtually non-existent, and other things have taken priority. ;)

Well the delay wasn't a bad thing D, they just released pro x3 now. Upgrade price $299 for the suite is the same from either previous various prox prox2. It includes melodyne pitch correction, and codec preveiw, and some form of Sony sound forge editor, as the main updates. The first two could prove to be very useful.

I'm on prox1 so I'm waiting a year or so to upgrade so I can get a feel for Sam since I've note yet ever used it.

Honestly if you can live without the melodyne, using the built in pitch correction, there doesn't seem to be a huge reason to rush into an upgrade imho.

With magix buying Sony creative, I expect the stuff they have in the works is going to be more substantial and is a super exciting prospect.

audiokid

Ya know I've been thinking a lot about your comment that the sound toys effected the daw even just being installed after you instanciated it.

Lol not only has this made me even more paranoid about my software set, but it's also bugging me as to why??

I'm wondering if you were able to clear the undo history or memory cache, if that would have cleared your imaging back up after removing the pluggin instance. Vs having to completely uninstall it??

Needless to say I only got stuff I really new I wanted/liked, but now I've decided to not use anything new on the daw (main) until it passes the test on the laptop, which has been now relegated to portable and Ginnuea pig status. I'm gonna use it as a buffer for trying potential software purchases and upgrades. Until I can figure out a better way, or explain the phenomenon you describe.

I've experienced degradation from instansiating pt stock plugs before, and I've also noticed more than once, a graininess and image collapse when I hit a certain level of processing (plugins) at the studio. Particularly at the studio I recall not getting that fidelity back even after removing the pluggin.

This leads my to my undo/memory cache theory. But it's driving me nuts.

I also wonder if this is exclusive to native processing or dedicated dsp cards exhibit the same thing?

Phew, thank goodness it's just the fabfilter and a couple odd singles left before I reach the 99% for my effects....

Maybe @bozwell or pcrecord would have an explanation about what's going on behind the scenes???

kmetal, post: 442387, member: 37533 wrote: Ya know I've been thinking a lot about your comment that the sound toys effected the daw even just being installed after you instanciated it.

Lol not only has this made me even more paranoid about my software set, but it's also bugging me as to why??

I'm wondering if you were able to clear the undo history or memory cache, if that would have cleared your imaging back up after removing the pluggin instance. Vs having to completely uninstall it??

Once I removed it,and rebuild my plug-ins, my DAW was back to its awesomeness. ;)

audiokid, post: 442392, member: 1 wrote: Once I removed it,and rebuild my plug-ins, my DAW was back to its awesomeness. ;)

What I'm wondering is if removal is the only way. Not that I want plugs that make my system crappy, just curious about the whole since since most people don't bring it up.

Having a plugin or a suite of plugins make a computer go bad seems like a rare thing.. But, the way I see it, each time we install something, your computer is configured to make it work at it's best for this software. Specially with windows computers, any maker can modify anything in the OS to optimise its own product.
So it's not surprising that a move from one is the worst thing for another software.

I think if Chris would have put this new plugins as his priority tool, he could have achived stability by uninstalling other softwares and he might have found (by chance) the one who was incompatible... Thankfully, it wasn't the case and uninstalling the last installed was the best thing to do...

To sum it up, our customers who brings us slow or unstable computers, often just need a format and fresh install. It's a classic ! ;)

pcrecord, post: 442396, member: 46460 wrote: I think if Chris would have put this new plugins as his priority tool, he could have achived stability by uninstalling other softwares and he might have found (by chance) the one who was incompatible... Thankfully, it wasn't the case and uninstalling the last installed was the best thing to do...

I should clarify, The plug-in I mention may well sound less noisy, if not completely well designed on another DAW.
The plug-in mentioned, like others I have heard over the years too, sounds terrible when it is loaded and active (but dry). Meaning, adding noise or "its own character if that's part of the intention" when it shouldn't. I've also noticed bad code will become more obvious when certain freq trigger are dominant. Meaning, HPF that should be trimming off subs, actually increases noise in the subs. Thus, giving you noise at the expense of the rolloff . Bad trade.

I have noticed similar behavior, not just third party plug-in in my DAW like Pro Tools. Characters like, once they are activated, yet later turned off, they can still share the audio path in a way adding artifacts and anomalies on both stereo or just one side. This not only messed the phase, but added a noise to the track. This isn't just unique to my DAW. I've also noticed Sonar as sounding noisy all the time. The code itself, in comparison to Samplitude is simply put, a noisier platform.

I've had this discussion with other mastering engineers, who's system are like mine, very clean and truthful. We choose a system so we are able to notice when something isn't right. Or better put, when it does sound right. :)

This is why I choose Sequoia for my DAW platform. I prefer to not want to look for better EQ's etc in other DAW's and third party software because I believe what I hear to be true and why Samplitude has the reputation of sounding better. Sequoia is Samplitude's full meal deal, a complete DAW system, very accurate , Nobel for recording, mixing, mastering, broadcast and everything hybrid.
There really is no need to look further. It works flawless for the most part.

The being said, I've owned most of the Waves stuff , Brainworks, Some UAD and like it all but still prefer to avoid it now that I have Sequoia and a few dedicated hardware processors.

My point isn't to brag, or rave about Sequoia, but rather to say, I hear things in plug-ins that come at a cost sometimes which isn't worth the trade-off. I love digital audio but the one thing it doesn't have over analog... when a particular analog product doesn't work, it's usually pretty obvious. Code on the other hand, creep in like a virus and does things hard to detect, often distracting blame on the wrong things. Crashing, stalling, latency, noise, shrinkage, loss of imaging and so on.

so the question is, is it only 3rd party plugins. I've experienced this phenomenon w stock plugs in PT on a laptop, so it's not necessarily restricted to high performance computers. The other times have been in DP on a Mac.

I think a lot of poeple might not notice it for one reason or another.

But to me if it's happening in various DaW's, with 3rd party plugins and stock, then it's got to be something with the way computers are handling audio.

Like if the pluggin once loaded was still loaded in the RAM cache, even when un-instansiated, then it would still technically be in the audio path. I'm not even really sure how it works technically I'm kinda brainstorming.

If for instance you un-instanciated the pluggin, and restarted the computer so the ram drained, and re opened would the effect/artifacts still be there? Would saving or save as-ing cause this artifact to be permanent.?

The pluggin code itself shouldn't remain in tact after the pluggin is not active (removed from session) anymore. To me that's the computer or daw rather than the pluggin itself. Unless maybe the coding of the pluggin somehow causes the permanent change.

This still begs the question if dsp chip processing would sidestep this? Is it strictly a native daw/effect issue?

To me it's not so strange that some plugins don't have clean code, what's strange is why so the effects linger? And what's responsible the daw or the pluggin for the lingering. That to me is the big question.

Since in that case uninstalling the effect fixed the problem, where as far as the daw/session is concerned, was it lingering in? The ram, the session data, the undo history? What wasn't the daw referncing after the uninstall, that it was referncing up until the uninstall.

It's not a cpu usage thing becuase when I removed the plugins, several actually, the artifacts were still there. As if the line had been crossed and that was it. It's like once you get a hairline fracture in a glass, there's not going back.

It's not the artifacts of the plugins disabled or not that's surprising, it's why do the effects remain once they are introduced. Lol it's like the pluggin left a light on on its way out.

This is baffling to me. I'm not trying to perpetuate the daw/plug preference side of things, rather I think there's a fundamental part of audio computing that we are shining a light on.

I would tend to blame the plug since not all of them exhibit the lingering effect. And not all of them exhibit the 'modulation' type artifact that the digi eq did.

So would in a plugins code could leave a lasting effect on the session? And why does that dissApear only when the pluggin does. As if it's like a phantom in the daw, not saved within the daw/session itself.

The how and the why is what I'm after, not the what...

kmetal, post: 442400, member: 37533 wrote: so the question is, is it only 3rd party plugins. I've experienced this phenomenon w stock plugs in PT on a laptop, so it's not necessarily restricted to high performance computers. The other times have been in DP on a Mac.

I think all DAW's are vulnerable. Its the nature of digital itself.

kmetal, post: 442400, member: 37533 wrote: The pluggin code itself shouldn't remain in tact after the pluggin is not active (removed from session) anymore. To me that's the computer or daw rather than the pluggin itself. Unless maybe the coding of the pluggin somehow causes the permanent change.

One effects the other. I'm not a coder but I would guess there are more stable times in a DAW platform than others. Which are effected by whatever each and every one of us loads into our DAW platform at the time. Thus, everything sharing the platform. Everything is intertwined. Cause and effect is never ending.
Which is where analog rules over digital.
Which is why I don't make a habit of intertwining unless it is absolutely essential. I would rather keep stability and phase dead locked to how my DAW was designed. And so it goes.

kmetal, post: 442400, member: 37533 wrote: Like if the pluggin once loaded was still loaded in the RAM cache, even when un-instansiated, then it would still technically be in the audio path. I'm not even really sure how it works technically I'm kinda brainstorming.

That's interesting. Honestly I didn't live that with Sonar unless it crashed and froze with an anoying sound. (older version, long time ago)
I can understand that if you put a plugin on a track it could alter the sound even if on idle. That's the bad trade virtualisations.
But having that trade even after the plugin is removed ?? That's shocking !!!
Yes closing down a software and having it still using some computer resources is common. but again still affecting the sound :eek:

This topic should be on it's own thread tho ;)

To clarity,
I did not find "that noise" I've been talking about with SoundToys.
My comment about Sonar is an overall (subtle) smear to it . It sounds like a thin plastic bag over the mix in comparison to other DAW I've used.
I noticed it immediately.

I'm not saying this noise I hear is even a bad thing and I'm definitely not saying we can't mix a hit song on it either. Your mixes are just excellent Marco. Sonar is an excellent DAW platform but it isn't as transparent as other platforms. Why that is, I have no idea but I'm sure other ME would be using it, if it was cleaner sounding.

I also believe what I say and hear has little influence or importance on others less interested or less concerned in transparency and hybrid integration. Every DAW has its pros and cons.