hardware multi-effects units

Chris Tondreau

Chris Tondreau

Member
I've been reading stuff, seeing ads, etc., and I find myself wondering this more and more these days.... There are lots of hardware multi-effects processors out there. Many of us are using computers to record with. Is there any reason/advantage, etc. of having a unit like this as opposed to having it all software driven, where you can open up many units simultaneously, choose which reverb you want on which track, etc. - essentially free from all the limitations of a hardware unit?

The only ones I can think of are:

1. A full rack with lots of lights and knobs LOOKS impressive.
2. You happen to LIKE the particular effect the hardware is offering, and CAN"T get it in software format. (rare?)
3. For adding effects for monitoring - but that's kind of an expensive way of doing THAT, isn't it?

any others?

Chris
 
it seems like for the money you can get an effect unit that does as much or more than a plugin. This mayvary with the Multi track program being used. The downfall of most out board units is having to do an additional D/A to A/D conversion unless they offer digital IN/OUTS. One low cost unit i was looking into was the TC electronics M-one, that has a vareity of effects for 300, as well as digital in/outs. i dont think i could get that kind of functionality in a $300 plugin, not to mention if i ever get an ADAT or reel to reel, it makes effects at mixdown much easier having an outboard unit.
Duno thats my take on it anyway
 
1. many people believe that the hardware units still sound much better than their software counterparts... especially the reverb units and compressors. but a cheapie Lexicon isn't gonna sound better than a good plugin... a PCM81/91...well? or even the lexi big guns.

2. many people still mix thru an analog board from their computer (using their computer like a tape deck), and hence would have a need for hardware based stuff.

3. many people, including myself, had a shitload of rack stuff before the plugins became popular, and can't bring themselves to parting with all those blinking lights.

4. many people feel adjusting parameters on hardware units is MUCH faster than software. especially without scrolling thru all those screens.

5. how ya gonna get a reverb in the phones, and several different mixes, EASILY with all software, WITHOUT latency, etc.?

6. you might want to track with those effects, say like in a gtr rig possibly. You say track WITH EFFECTS?...sure, why not?

I agree, you have a very good point, and I am slowing shifting to ALL computer...mixing and all. If I were just starting out and buying equipment, without a doubt, ...total DAW.
 
I agree that if you are using a DAW, good quality plug-in effects are probably at least as good as cheap (sub-$1000) effects boxes, plus you get the added advantages of complete parameter automation, recallability, and no added conversions.

On the other hand, really good outboard (top end Lexicon, TC, Eventide, Kurzweil, Quantec, Sony, etc.) still blow away anything you can get in a plug-in. But unless you are spending $2000+ on a box, I'd say you're fine sticking with plug-ins.
 
I agree on the TC M-One if you want a good sounding hardware unit without spending a fortune... though make sure it's the M-One 'XL' version... the XL has better algorithms and more of them.
While it's not top of the range, IMO it beats the equivelantly priced Lexicon units.

As for reverb plugins, these days they can sound as good as any hardware unit. The current trend in high end reverbs is now using convolution for both hardware and software reverbs. The sound is really only limited by the impulse file used to create the effect.

You happen to LIKE the particular effect the hardware is offering, and CAN"T get it in software format.
Click to expand...
I have a TC Electronic M3000, a Quantec Yardstick and Lexicon MPX500 all 'inside' my PC. In reality the reverb algorithms have all been digitally sampled from the hardware units with the impulse files obtained being used within Sonic Foundry's Acoustic Mirror.

How do they all sound?... well basically just like the hardware units! ;)

The only catch is it doesn't happen in realtime.

For adding effects for monitoring - but that's kind of an expensive way of doing THAT, isn't it?
Click to expand...

For monitoring you could still consider something like an M-One XL, or even the cheaper TC M300 isn't too shabby. They both have digital I/O so you could even sample these if you wanted to!

Have a look into some of the convolution based 'verb plugins. If your going Mac and have plenty of horsepower (and dollars) then 'Altiverb' (Mac only) or TC's Powercore is probably the way to fly.

For PC, either TC's Powercore (VST etc) or Acoustic Mirror (directX).

Acoustic Mirror now only comes as part of Soundforge but you may be able to track down a stand alone copy if you look around. ;)

Cheers
 
Last edited:
Wassup Chris!
I'm usin' the Lex 500. Excellent box with adjustable parameters
in minute increments for developing your own 'Verbs according to taste. Chorusing, Pitch and delay patches are all outstanding.
Superb DSP!
 
Chris, I scored a used Sony DPS-V55M of Ebay for just $220... and from what I hear, it's up to par with a Lex MPX-1 and a TC M2000 (when it comes to reverbs)
I've done some scrolling through the 200 factory presets, and there's some impressive stuff going on.
The cool thing is that this unit has also surround reverbs. It has 4 inputs and 4 outputs. Check Ebay.
The other cheaper unit that I have is a Boss SE-50, which has several nice grainy reverbs and a Rhodes-sim that keyboardplayers adore...

BTW, the Sony has some Leslie-sims that are outstanding. You can't hear them much, but they're there, giving a bit of tubey/grainy feel to your Hammond-parts...
 
Actually, it was the TC Electronics unit that finally got me to posting here. Using Cubase, I can open up as many plug-ins as my processor can handle on as many channels as I want. Unlike hardware units, I'm not stuck with one setting and being stuck with using that as a send effect where each channel I want to have, say, reverb on, would have to have that same effect - just compensated for by the amount of send dialed in. In this regard, I think software is WAY more flexible.

For monitoring - say if a singer wants to hear reverb on the vocal but doesn't want it printed to the track, I have a super cheap and simple solution. Tell him "too bad.... If you can't sing without reverb, then you can't sing." :rolleyes: Kidding, there.... I use my guitar processor between my Delta 44 and my mixer to effect the vocal (or whatever else) AFTER it has gone to Cubase (monitoring set to Global disable) , but not the music mix. Sure, the effects wouldn't likely be what I would want for recording, but they're only used for monitoring. Record a dry signal and add the reverb later...

Yeah.... I do all my mixing in the software too.

So, I guess, for me, that a hardware unit wouldn't be all that much of an asset, but for the instances quoted above, I agree that there most certainly is a place for them in the market.

Chris
 
Maybe this is off topic but sometimes I think the flexibility offered by software plugins really confuses the music making process. Of course it all depends on your style... but for me I find with software units I am easily tempted (distracted) to effect everything just cause I can ... and you don't necessarily get a better result. You can end up skimping on the quality of the original raw tracks cause you think "I can fix anything !"

I too use Cubase and have my eye on some software effects. But for the moment I think untill my mixing skills and dicipline are better my single MPX-500 suits me just fine.

No question that software is more flexible though.
Food for thought anyway

dres
 
I've tried using the Cubase SX reverb plugs -- they're crap compared to my outboard stuff (which is mostly sub-$1000 Lexis, Yamaha, and Roland units)....

And it's not just a "tiny difference" -- it's grossly obvious that the plugs are worse.... metallic, harsh, not realistic at all - a vry obvious effect sound instead of the generally smoother ambience I can get from the outboard stuff........!
 
I have the Waves Gold Bundle, which is awesome....Rennaisance eq.. Trueverb..L1 etc.... I love it, and I am definately always going to use it before I use any of the oudboard gear I own...Basically due to the fact that I don't own any great outboard equipment.....


Even my RTAS stuff is good.....If someone is going to offer me a choice between a hardware Behringer Reverb or Alesis Microverb unit, against the generic RTAS plug-ins that came with my Pro Tools... I am going to choose my plug-ins....No question.

Now on the other hand... If I have to pick between having a real Drawmer EQ in my rack, or having a virtual Drawmer in my plug in menu, I am going to pick the real one....

There are different levels to this....

I am totally on the fence... I love my Waves.. But, I also love a good piece of rack gear....

When it comes to expensive gear with names like Drawmer, and Lexicon, I would always lean towards having the proper hardware version of it with all the electronics inside, rather than a "clone" that a programmer made.

I guess this is a "Your mileage may vary" thing.







Bruce?.. What plug-ins you running?
 
Vox -- my comments were specifically about the Cubase SX reverb plugs.... (Chris mentioned them above)

I should HOPE the pricey plugs do FAR BETTER than the SX ones!!!


Personally - I only use my DAW for editing... I'll track to the HD24, transfer any tracks for editing over to the DAW, then transfer them back to the HD24 for analog mixing...........
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Vox -- my comments were specifically about the Cubase SX reverb plugs.... (Chris mentioned them above)

I should HOPE the pricey plugs do FAR BETTER than the SX ones!!!


Personally - I only use my DAW for editing... I'll track to the HD24, transfer any tracks for editing over to the DAW, then transfer them back to the HD24 for analog mixing...........
Click to expand...

Oh.. I see Bruce.. Cool.
 
I by far prefer the hands on gear. This may well be due to me being old school as well as a guitarist more than a producer. But I have a far greater comfort with the turn a knob or tap a switch method. I admit that in any studio I have been in where theres a hunched over madmad comanding the helm of a million dollars of computers and gadgets the the sound is better than me stomping away, but I just can't seem to master the whole plugin deal.

Not to mention I tend to play "better" when I feel and hear the actual sound that I am shooting for. I cant make a plug in squeel for the life of me.....
 
I recently chose to go with hardware (M-One) over software for a few reasons:

1. Hearing changes immediately as I turn knobs helps out a lot over stopping playback, making an adjustment, starting again, over and over...

2. Someday (hopefully), my budget will be a little higher, and I may look to upgrade my gear. When I do, hardware will resell for a better price than software.

3. With software there's the chance that it may not grow with me -- I may someday discover an incompatability with the newest operating system or recording software I want to use.

4. I just liked the way it sounded. :)
 
Hey;

Points #2, 3, and 4 are quite good. I'm a bit confused over #1. Can you not, with your software plug-ins, tweak and hear the changes as you listen??!!:confused:

As far as much of the rest of the thread, as it has developed thus far, it seems that we need to make an assumption that we are talking about hardware/software of similar quality.

If I had a choice between a $2000 hardware unit that sounded brilliant, and a freeware plug-in that sounded like crap - I would re-evaluate how I was working and probably make a change. It's a pain in the neck to run a signal out from the computer through a hardware unit, and then re-record it on a separate track in the computer. Particularly considering that, if you don't like it later in the mix, then you have to repeat the whole process over again. With a disparity in quality like what I mentioned, though, I would do that.

However, if I had, say, a hardware unit and a software plug-in of similar quality, then I'd have to say that the sofware one would easily win out for me. There is the routing/re-routing/re-recording scenario as above, and the fact that with a hardware unit, I would have just one. With the software plug-in, I could open up a whole whack of them - each instance set with completely different settings, rather than simply adjusting the amount of send on a send/return loop.

Chris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top