VST plugins vs outboard gear

S

swelborn

New member
Does outboard gear have an edge over vst plugins? I have Waves vst plugins loaded but haven't reached the stage of using them yet. I also have a lunch box with two preamps (all that I need for tracking) leaving four empty slots. It's tantalizing to want to put some more toys in there.:p Tube Comp? EQ? any better than vst?
 
With VST, it has to pass through outboard, anyway. So, It's whatever your take on outboard is. I use a mixer often enough and I use a digital 2-chan preamp often, also. Some of my preamps could probably brown the cheese on a open face sandwich, so outboard is good, in that regard
 
garww said:
With VST, it has to pass through outboard, anyway.
Click to expand...

You will have to explain that one.

VST lives inside the box and has no need to go outboard. In the end, there is a D/A conversion, if that's what you mean. But that has nothing to do with VST.

Outboard gear has an advantage in that it doesn't use your computer's resources. However, routing to and from outboard gear can be troublesome.
 
gecko zzed said:
You will have to explain that one.

VST lives inside the box and has no need to go outboard. In the end, there is a D/A conversion, if that's what you mean. But that has nothing to do with VST.

Outboard gear has an advantage in that it doesn't use your computer's resources. However, routing to and from outboard gear can be troublesome.
Click to expand...

But the recording itself (barring any external stuff you add - guitars vocals drums etc) stays inside the box right up to the point you render it down for a wav or MP3 or whatever?
So outboard effects demand D/A AND A/D conversion, which is the weak point. Whereas VSTs do not demand those TWO conversions.

Just saying.
 
You can create music in the box, but recording music is A/D.

Poster;
"I also have a lunch box with two preamps"

How is that different than an interface, or, MIC jack ? people use outboard often enough
 
garww said:
You can create music in the box, but recording music is A/D.

Poster;
"I also have a lunch box with two preamps"

How is that different than an interface, or, MIC jack ? people use outboard often enough
Click to expand...

Sure. People use outboard often enough. But a VST stays within the box. You said earlier "With VST, it has to pass through outboard, anyway." As I noted, the VST lives within the box and does its processing within the box. You hear the results through the D/A conversion. That conversion has nothing to do with the VST itself.

There are a couple of ways of using outboard equipment. One is "on the way in". Typically this would involve stuff like pre-amps, compressors and such like. The other way is "out and in", i.e. you send a signal out of the box, into the hardware unit, let it do its processing, and feed it back in.

---------- Update ----------

Coquet-Shack said:
But the recording itself (barring any external stuff you add - guitars vocals drums etc) stays inside the box right up to the point you render it down for a wav or MP3 or whatever?
So outboard effects demand D/A AND A/D conversion, which is the weak point. Whereas VSTs do not demand those TWO conversions.

Just saying.
Click to expand...

I think you just agreed with me. Did you intend to do that?
 
Ok, I see what you see. I meant the track has to start with outboard - there is no place for the VST to exist without the outboard tracking, so it's starts life as outboard. That's the outboard, anyway part. I might of said the track is already outboard, so who the hell cares : )
 
When I was still tracking, I had a few different preamps and a couple outboard compressor and limiters that I would use. They became part of my work flow, and part of the sound.

I liked using them, but I can get the same effect (if not the same sound) by using vst emulations after the recording. I would almost never come out of the box to run signal through them, because I could do it in the box easier, and end up in the same place.

If you want a compressor or something for tracking, get one. It isn't essential, but if it makes things more fun, it'll be worth it.
 
My game for the last year, or so, has been live mixing (just karaoke synths), so there's outboard up front no matter what is doing the recording. So, I'm not really using VST for anything. I did mix in a VST/i within the last month or so, just to do it.

Oh, normally, I just use outboard on the way to tape - not for DAW mixing - Sometimes a a preamp for tracking
 
I get the impression from these responses that VST processing is pretty much equal to outboard gear in terms of sound quality.
Tracking with outboard gear though (ahead of DAW in the chain) can't be altered of course.
Running signal from DAW to outboard gear post tracking can be altered as desired but requires the extra routing complication of D/A-A/D conversions which might result in some sound degradation I'd assume.
 
swelborn said:
I get the impression from these responses that VST processing is pretty much equal to outboard gear in terms of sound quality.
Click to expand...
I would agree with this. Others will say they prefer the sound resulting from using their outboard gear. I do everything in the box, and am very happy doping so.


swelborn said:
Tracking with outboard gear though (ahead of DAW in the chain) can't be altered of course.
Click to expand...
I see this as the main impediment to using outboard gear on the way in. If you get it wrong, or simply change your mind, you have to start tracking again. Working in the box means that you have the safety net of Ctrl Z at hand.


swelborn said:
Running signal from DAW to outboard gear post tracking can be altered as desired but requires the extra routing complication of D/A-A/D conversions which might result in some sound degradation I'd assume.
Click to expand...
The D/A-A/D conversions should be lossless, so sound degradation is not likely to be an issue. The extra routing complication may be an issue; it depends on the capability of interface and DAW.
 
Basically what Gecko said. Running out of the box to a piece of gear should be equal to running it into the gear on the way in. Any extra noise or distortion will come from the outboard gear you are running to, which would happen no matter where the signal was coming from.

For the most part, VST's just as good as outboard. Maybe even better, since you might only be able to afford a single hardware 1176, but for 1/10th the cost, you can have one for every channel in plugin form. The hardware emulation VST's do act like the real thing, even though they may not sound exactly like a specific unit.
 
Thanks for the replies. It's as I thought. It seems it would be simpler/practical and more bang for the buck now to invest in UAD plugin bundle and the required accelerator card. I don't know if I'd need any more hardware devices than that to get set up with UA plugins. I see they have interfaces to go along with their stuff. Is that needed to operate their plugins since I already have a Fireface 800? (for those who know)
 
There are UAD interfaces with the dsp, but there are also dsp cards and outboard dsp that isn't an interface. There are advantages to their interface...
 
if you can get a good tone outside going in then you dont have to mess with the rest as much, right?
this means less daw time, less mouse time, less burn out... ? so there could be workflow benefit.

I think of outboard as old school tracking brainbuzz and albums mixed in a day or 9 days and no going back to perfect it.
reading the Glyn Johns book and its just strange they were knocking Led Zepplin I out so fast or all the Stones albums or BEatles Le It Rot album..at least he did the single GetBack/DontLetMeDown...and it was kind of done in such a simple way. No computer, no DAW. Mic Technique and all that tube engineering mojo...wow..great book, i mean they didnt have a lot of bass or anything as today...but it was all outboard and it worked somehow.
It would be fun to do about 4 songs without any ITB VST. Use the DAW as only a Reel to Reel, nothing else, no VST allowed..track old school (maybe some splicing and editing allowed). That would be fun.
get a nice tube mic, tube pre, comp, pultec eq clone copy replica ..my son was wanting to try old cassette multitrack recording just for kicks, hes never done that so its like a novelty thing. like making wine with your feet or ice cream with your cow instead of the grocery store, or maybe like driving to work instead of taking a chariot and wearing a funny roman helmet with feathers on it and a dress with a leather crotched underwear to protect the family jewels from a Ben Hur gladiator match.

anyway, you have empty slots in the 500 rack! comps and a pultec eq no problem. try some old school outboard recording see how it goes for you. im curious if you'll hear a big difference , some claim they do. I havent yet.
 
swelborn said:
Thanks for the replies. It's as I thought. It seems it would be simpler/practical and more bang for the buck now to invest in UAD plugin bundle and the required accelerator card. I don't know if I'd need any more hardware devices than that to get set up with UA plugins. I see they have interfaces to go along with their stuff. Is that needed to operate their plugins since I already have a Fireface 800? (for those who know)
Click to expand...

You don't specifically need the UAD hardware, but as others have said it offloads some of the work from the computer. If you're not doing a ton of multitrack live performances (a la 'studio' tracking) then any modern PC should be able to handle what you need with a budget audio interface [obviously your Fireface 800 should be more than up to the task].

I'm a huge fan of VSTs and doing everything in the box. For my purposes, there's zero reason for outboard gear unless I specifically need or want a sound when capturing something using a mic, then a valid argument can be made for the caliber of preamp and mic used. Adding compression, EQ, and reverb can and should all be done inside the box (ease and control). Stacking VSTs, using plugins for effects, and routing/chains are seamless in the box.

Some people have workflows they're accustomed to that started and remain in the outboard gear realm, but for anyone starting fresh in home recording there's no reason for the added complexity and expense.

As far as quality of outboard vs VSTs, unless it's tube or somehow extremely specialized, most outboard gear is digital in nature anyway. There's no difference running a properly replicated/simulated algorithm in a computer or in an outboard gear's processor. And with so many things audio related, how it sounds and the results you get are what matters above all else. If someone is happy with how it sounds, and they accomplish it with greater ease and at 1/10 the out of pocket expense, then it's a win.
 
Last edited:
VST quality has become pretty darned good, I don't think that you'll be losing anything by doing everything in the box. Plus like Farview said, you can use many instances of a single plugin, whereas with outboard gear you'd need one unit for each track you want to use it on. Either that or bounce/freeze tracks one at a time to go through your one outboard compressor. That becomes a drag in a hurry.

That being said, I do love to use outboard compression. I'm not deluded into thinking its better or superior, I just like the tactile experience of using the knobs, buttons, meters, and blinky lights. Its just one of those things that I've chosen for myself.
 
Since I started at the tail end of tape, I still prefer to compress things on the way into the computer. Mostly just bass and vocals. I had a couple of compressors that were really awesome for that. I also had an outboard reverb unit that I would use to feed reverb to the headphones for vocal tracking, but it wouldn't get recorded.

Other than that, everything else for mixing was in the box. If I were starting now, I would just spend the money on good mics, then good preamps.

The advantage to the UAD apollo is you can record through the plugins, essentially using them as if they were outboard units. The preamps are pretty nice as well. The only reason I don't have one is because they were only for MACs when I was in the market for an interface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top