Hardware vs software

PorterhouseMusic

PorterhouseMusic

Well-known member
I appreciate his point of view. And while he does kinda overstate it - I appreciate his emphasis about this simply being his opinion - no need to get wrapped around the axle about it. And, at the end of the day, it's about what works, what you like, and what you can afford.

 
Last edited:
I wasn't sure what his opinion would actually be. 3 mins in and he is still sitting on the pivot. Then, he nails his colours to the hardware is best flag. Then we got into the "I love you stuff", and he just lost me. I think in the end he is saying that in the box is the most sensible, and then you improve what you do by buying external hardware. He then says it's not practical. What a pointless video - what is best. The answer is X, however ........
 
Ok, Opinion noted.

So far, there's nothing that has convinced me I need to spend multi thousands of $$$ for the things I do. Maybe when Beyonce and Mariah stop by the house and ask me to master their next record, I'll buy some heavy duty high end hardware. In the meantime, I'll just use my plugins.



As the saying goes, you're welcome to your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.
 
For me, all that old gear went on ebay a long time ago. The thing for me though was that it was ordinary boring stuff. Reverbs, compressors, graphics, a gizmo with a big bottom button, stuff like that and all these things are absolutely better in the box. I still have, I just remembered, and auto tune and a harmoniser somewhere. I kept them just in case, but never needed them.

As for the improve the sound hardware, the named and now reimagined stuff, I’ve never been convinced they actually deserved the labels they got? Placebo effect is my feeling, but I do know it is not an area that would improve my own recordings. Probably because mine are ‘functional’, they’re not some kind of high art. Possibly if my clients or me myself, needed that layer of gold leaf on the surface and I had budget, maybe, just maybe I might buy some, and then use the photos for promotion to other clients who might see these products as evidence of perfection?

Boutique gear seems to indicate a whole new marketing opportunity. I work in an area where musicians are, in British speak, permanently skint. They have no money for anything other than strings or reeds or slide juice which improve their performance huge amounts. They want me to dedicate an entire day to their project, and cannot understand I don’t work for less than minimum wage, yet ask me if I have Neve outboard?

Making money from paying clients is so hard, so like in the 70s, studios are still struggling. Everybody wanted Abbey Road and got what they got.
 
The same arguments have been going on with "tube amps vs SS" and now "tube amps vs emulators" for years. We also have the "vintage mic vs clone" arguments. And now "outboard vs plugins". It usually starts with playing something via a tube amp, then playing the other amps and proclaiming that as proof that the tube amp is better. The same happens with mics, even if someone doesn't even have the original vintage mic. The Plugin makers will talk about how they have mirrored a piece of gear exactly, then someone claims they can hear a difference. The arguments continue.

About 20 years ago, I went to a Music of Queen show with the Louisville Orchestra. How surprised was I to see that the guitar player's cord was going right to a Line 6 POD? There on stage was that distinctive little kidney shaped red box. I can guarantee that not a single person in the audience walked out complaining about how digital the guitar parts sounded. The fellow had Brian May's sound dialed in. No modified AC30s. No glowing tubes. It just sounded like Queen with an orchestra.

How many people remember Bob Carver? He created the Phase Linear 400, at the time one of the most powerful amps around. He also came up with a Carver amp that he claimed could match any amp, regardless of how expensive. Two high end stereo magazines took up the challenge.... Bob was given an amp by each (unknown to him) and given 48 hours to exactly match the amp after which their expert listeners would test. Bob used his techniques to null each amps. One was a Mark Levinson amp, the other a Conrad Johnson tube amp. Carver matched both amps to the point that listeners were unable to tell the difference in blind testing. His $400 amp matched the $6000 CJ amp.

So many of these types of posts turn out to just be click bait opinion pieces. Rarely is there any valid comparisons. One of the few that do is Sound Pure of North Carolina. They will compare a number of mics, post hi-rez files blindly. They say make your judgement, then write to them and they'll give you the identity of the products. Inevitably they get flamed about how they wasted everyone's time by not telling them what they are listening to.

I've always said "give me the answers and I'll score 100% right on the test."
 
I don't have near enough experience to make informed judgements one way or the other. I have some hardware. Couple of compressors, an EQ, and a couple of preamps. I like them and use them. For me - there's a little irony in that I've just started to work in Reaper on a more regular basis and am warming up to and liking the huge selection and ease of plugins. It's to be noted that I know very little. I'm a schmuck.

Seems to me these judgements are best left to pros and/or more serious hobbyist folks who have many options available.
 
I have for many many years been pro digital audio. Everything done in H/W can be done just as well in software.
I'm not rushing to give up my modelling amps, which are really software in a box.
But I also like the touchy feely old school analogue hardware too.
Mix and match to taste is my route.
 
Back
Top