question regarding the use of hardware versus software

C

cooljoebay

New member
I am not really a newbie. But having been recording since I was in elementary school, using speakers and anything else I could get my hands on, its a load of fun using 99% software to do my recordings. The only thing I would consider hardware in my DIY studio would be the audio interface and the pc. It seems like software has come a long way and can pretty much cover anything. But I see a lot of cool looking home studios on this website that are still using a lot of high priced hardware. But I don't really understand why. Wouldn't it make sense to keep the investment as low as possible while still getting the same result? Wouldn't this keep the cost down for clients, or possibly a bigger profit? I just don't see the point of running the audio signals through a bunch of rack gear and consoles when the pc can do it all. Would love to hear some opinions about it.
 
Not everyone agrees that digital FX and soft synths and such are as good as the original analog stuff.

Do you really think B4 sounds as good as a real Hammond B3 organ and a well-maintained Leslie, or even an M3 for that matter???
 
i think some software is very close to its hardware versions, and in some cases surpassed due to its convenience (thinking old synths lack of midi and/or ability to stay in tune)..but there is no way a $150 software compressor is going to trumph its $3000 counterpart...its just that Im never gonna own that $3k one so UAD will do just fine thanks ;)
 
A couple of the main areas of interest between deciding on DAW vs. outboard processing are quality and capability vs. cost. Some people are happy with the results they get doing as much as possible in the box. DAW processing is certainly capable but not exactly equal to the outboard counterparts. Some people will argue that for their work flow it's quicker and easier and it sounds better to use outboard processing and summing. Quality factors aside (and it's not a small point for professionals) time is money. Throwing up faders or dialing in a compressor can be much faster than clicking on a mouse all day. At the same time, DAW processing enables things that can be done much more quickly and easily than in the outboard world. Waveform editing comes to mind.

Both have their pros and cons.

Also consider that computer hardware and software platforms generally have a shelf life of around 5 years. Quality outboard signal chains can have a much, much longer span of non-obsolescence. It's something to consider when thinking about cost.
 
Software only deals with the digital results. Which has limits. Dynamic range, frequency range, and other things are finite once you get that digital version. You can do things before converting to digital at a higher sample rate (infinite) BEFORE taking a sample. Like compression, reverb, eq. Once you've gone digital you've lost resolution. Every edit you do from that point on removes content (or tries to "simulate" it). Granted that we can sample at some pretty high rates (these days) beyond human hearing that can then be edited with no noticeable effects on that part still audible by humans. To a point anyway.

That being said the higher end gear is for other things as well. Like a lower noise floor. Most of my higher end upgrades were to reduce the amount of work needed in post.

As far as synthesized sounds, there are reasons for using a human. Most of which is content creation, and stylistic interpretations in realtime. Where if you synthesized it you'd spend half a lifetime adjusting the content to have a style other than robotic. Even with a very skilled real world player, it's still near impossible to play the same note the same way twice, especially back to back. But that's the default in midi. There are physical limits on some instruments that can be violated in midi, without the composer knowing about it until trying to get a real world musician to do the impossible. And BITD there were trends and cutting edge styles that would be long out of date before there was a plugin to mimic the style. Less of an issue these days given our diluted gene pool and lack of music education to have enough fans that know that there's a difference, much less recognize it.
 
Some hardware has a sound that's hard to emulate in the computer. That's the stuff worth having on hand during tracking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top