As long as there is a market for it, the analog stuff won't go away, but I see it going the way of vinyl records. In 5 or 10 years there will be old skool hold outs, but digital will have overrun the market and not too many people will care. I've just decided to join the inevitable. Especially since my recording career (or lack of) has been completely in the digital world.
The Only Rack Equipment I'll Use from now on
- Thread starter MadMax
- Start date
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
Since plug-ins work so well, I think all the top studios should throw away all their outboard stuff... actually, they should give to me.
Then, they should each go out and buy a Digi003, some MXL 990's, and use plugins to simulate the microphones, preamps, EQs, compressors, effects, singers, guitar players, studio engineers, room treatment, mastering engineers, record execs, music buying consumers, and money.
Shit, you could load all that into ONE program, and go from conceptual creation to spent income, with only 480 plugins!
Then, they should each go out and buy a Digi003, some MXL 990's, and use plugins to simulate the microphones, preamps, EQs, compressors, effects, singers, guitar players, studio engineers, room treatment, mastering engineers, record execs, music buying consumers, and money.
Shit, you could load all that into ONE program, and go from conceptual creation to spent income, with only 480 plugins!
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
One of the major reasons for having analog outboard gear like compressors, Equalizers, etc. (beyond the sheer difference in sound and performance), is that every time you want to upgrade or switch digital recording systems, you won't have to buy different plugins, in the event that the system you move to is incompatible with the old ones.
You also won't have to repurchase or upgrade your compressor when the plug that emulated a UA or something like that gets upgraded to sound "more like the real thing". Just seems easier. Sure, having outboard means you can't apply the same compressor to 47 channels at once, and that does drain a lot of time, but there aaare benefits to both.
You also won't have to repurchase or upgrade your compressor when the plug that emulated a UA or something like that gets upgraded to sound "more like the real thing". Just seems easier. Sure, having outboard means you can't apply the same compressor to 47 channels at once, and that does drain a lot of time, but there aaare benefits to both.
Blue Groove
New member
....
No. Quite the opposite. I’ll tell you a secret: Revenue is not really down at all.
In 2005, album sales were 618 million units. In 2006 they dropped to 588 million. A 5% drop. Not 30%. Not even 10%. Extremely negligible, and better than other industries (like computer and automobiles) that have experienced bigger reductions in gross revenue. Okay. I hear you out there reading this. You’re saying, “But Moses, 5% a year adds up. Doesn’t that mean they’ve lost money and isn’t that a bad thing?” No, because that 5% is more than made up for. The Warner Music Group said in their annual report that recorded music sales for the fiscal year 2006 rose almost 3%, to $3 billion, and that digital revenue had more than offset the drop from CDs.
Let me tell you a few secrets about what the RIAA doesn’t include in “lost sales.”
n They don’t include CD sales of independent artists, only a decline in sales of titles on major labels. Indie sales make up about as much market share as all of Warner Music Group, which is about 20%. So they are not including album sales equivalent to all of WMG in their calculations of “lost sales.”
n They don’t include the approximately two billion legally paid for downloads from iTunes, Yahoo e-Music, and many others. These are not CDs, technically, so they don’t count them in “reduced album sales” even though record companies are getting tens of millions in new revenue from these sales. Also worth noting is that there has been a 71% increase for these types of sales. (2005: 353 million units; 2006: 582 million units.)
n They don’t include the fact that the licensing fees for getting a hit song in a soundtrack has increased 1,000% since 1995 (climbing from about $80,000 to about $1,000,000) with no additional hard costs to the label.
n They ignore the tens of millions of ringtones that have generated about $90,000,000 in new revenue for labels in the past three years (and due to a new ruling in the copyright office, rates will increase in the coming years).
n They are omitting the fact that downloaded music doesn’t require manufacturing costs, nor is there any returned or damaged merchandise (with rare exceptions). The bottom line is that record companies make substantially higher profit margins on newer sales.
So, when record executives give interviews that bemoan the pending death of the music business, to me they just sound like old school types, trying to crawl back into some decomposing chrysalis.
Quoted from "EQ" magazine
author Moses Avalon
No. Quite the opposite. I’ll tell you a secret: Revenue is not really down at all.
In 2005, album sales were 618 million units. In 2006 they dropped to 588 million. A 5% drop. Not 30%. Not even 10%. Extremely negligible, and better than other industries (like computer and automobiles) that have experienced bigger reductions in gross revenue. Okay. I hear you out there reading this. You’re saying, “But Moses, 5% a year adds up. Doesn’t that mean they’ve lost money and isn’t that a bad thing?” No, because that 5% is more than made up for. The Warner Music Group said in their annual report that recorded music sales for the fiscal year 2006 rose almost 3%, to $3 billion, and that digital revenue had more than offset the drop from CDs.
Let me tell you a few secrets about what the RIAA doesn’t include in “lost sales.”
n They don’t include CD sales of independent artists, only a decline in sales of titles on major labels. Indie sales make up about as much market share as all of Warner Music Group, which is about 20%. So they are not including album sales equivalent to all of WMG in their calculations of “lost sales.”
n They don’t include the approximately two billion legally paid for downloads from iTunes, Yahoo e-Music, and many others. These are not CDs, technically, so they don’t count them in “reduced album sales” even though record companies are getting tens of millions in new revenue from these sales. Also worth noting is that there has been a 71% increase for these types of sales. (2005: 353 million units; 2006: 582 million units.)
n They don’t include the fact that the licensing fees for getting a hit song in a soundtrack has increased 1,000% since 1995 (climbing from about $80,000 to about $1,000,000) with no additional hard costs to the label.
n They ignore the tens of millions of ringtones that have generated about $90,000,000 in new revenue for labels in the past three years (and due to a new ruling in the copyright office, rates will increase in the coming years).
n They are omitting the fact that downloaded music doesn’t require manufacturing costs, nor is there any returned or damaged merchandise (with rare exceptions). The bottom line is that record companies make substantially higher profit margins on newer sales.
So, when record executives give interviews that bemoan the pending death of the music business, to me they just sound like old school types, trying to crawl back into some decomposing chrysalis.
Quoted from "EQ" magazine
author Moses Avalon
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
Who the fuck was buying ringtones to begin with?
It just seems like a lot for such a stupid little thing.
My phone stays on vibrate all the time anyway, since I hate people who let em ring because they want to listen to the music... get an mp3 player!!
As for rack equipment, I think it really just comes down to what BRAND you will only use... as for me, I think I will solely stock my rack with...
BEHRINGER!?!?!!???!?
It just seems like a lot for such a stupid little thing.
My phone stays on vibrate all the time anyway, since I hate people who let em ring because they want to listen to the music... get an mp3 player!!
As for rack equipment, I think it really just comes down to what BRAND you will only use... as for me, I think I will solely stock my rack with...
BEHRINGER!?!?!!???!?
Cult_Status02
New member
MadMax said:
I haven't read through all the posts, but do some research on the comparisons between analog compressors and plug-ins and see if you change your mind just a bit.
mshilarious
Banned
I think that UA is holding back on us, quite honestly. I mean the 33609 takes more than half a card. Did they do the early plugs to the same standard? I mean you can run a kajillion LA2As, by comparison. But they probably don't want to admit the early plugs were effectively SE versions because they don't have enough processing power to make up the difference.
Just talking out of my ass, pretty much
Hey, what about global warming? What is the power consumption of the 1176 plug vs. the hardware box?
Just talking out of my ass, pretty much
Hey, what about global warming? What is the power consumption of the 1176 plug vs. the hardware box?
Ironklad Audio
New member
fucking kids, man...
and yea, the price of a hardware comp/limiter/eq/whatever is well worth it if you're going to use it enough to get your money's worth
even if a given piece of hear is $2000....if it gives you the exact sound you want, which might help the end product sell better, it's possible for a piece to pay for itself in little to no time
Ironklad Audio said:
I don't know of any Home Reccers that could financially justify $2000 for ONE compressor. I was hesitant to buy two UAD cards and 4 plugs! And that gave me about 20 times the horsepower of one hardware La2a.
Again, I contend that NOBODY will ever be able to tell the difference in the final mix. And that's why hardware is on it's way out. Also, the plugs are only going to get better and better.
cusebassman
Freakin' sweet
Yeah, I think this raises a good point - budget perhaps dictates a lot of what goes into the studio.
We'd all love to have the hardware (aside from the OP, apparently), but the cost just cannot be justified... now, if I were making half a mil a year and had nothing else to spend flexible income on, then yeaaaah I probably buy a couple mic pre's at 2k each, maybe some compression...
But since there still seems to be perks to buying the hardware over its software counterpart (I still say hardware requires no upgrades over time, as compared to software, and it has already been perfected for the most part), people who can afford it and the studios who want the stuff can and should go for the hardware
We'd all love to have the hardware (aside from the OP, apparently), but the cost just cannot be justified... now, if I were making half a mil a year and had nothing else to spend flexible income on, then yeaaaah I probably buy a couple mic pre's at 2k each, maybe some compression...
But since there still seems to be perks to buying the hardware over its software counterpart (I still say hardware requires no upgrades over time, as compared to software, and it has already been perfected for the most part), people who can afford it and the studios who want the stuff can and should go for the hardware
amra
Well-known member
The question that needs to be asked in this Outboard Vs. Plugin debate, is this:
To the average home recorder or small studio, is a $2500 piece of hardware going to make any given recording sound $2000 better than a $500 plugin?
and
Are there other places a home recordist or smaller studio could put that $2000, to make a greater sonic impact?
To the average home recorder or small studio, is a $2500 piece of hardware going to make any given recording sound $2000 better than a $500 plugin?
and
Are there other places a home recordist or smaller studio could put that $2000, to make a greater sonic impact?
bigwillz24
New member
amra said:
no
amra said:
Yes most of the time the money would be better spent on room treatment.
BTW: The Waves SSL while it does sound good does not sound anyware close to the real thing.
Same thing with the 1176, and I'm pretty sure it's the same way with the other emulating plugins.
They may sound similar but as far as sonic fidelity forget about it.
bigwillz24 said:
Depends on what you mean by Sonic Fidelity. I think the plugs have just as much (actually more, kuz they're digital) headroom. They just may not have the MoJo of the hardware. But I'd like to see ANYONE do a blind test and tell the difference between a UA plug and the real thing.
amra
Well-known member
Ok, for the sake of comparison why doesn't someone who does not have a preconceived opinion on this, and access to both some high quality outboard gear and plugins, post a recording of a mixed track. On one, use outboard hardware version, and post another using the plugin versions of that gear or comparable quality plugs.
Let's hear the difference....
Let's hear the difference....
bigwillz24
New member
MadMax said:
This was done as a class project using the UA1176 and it's UA plugin equvalent not the SE version of the plug. Most of the class was able to tell which was which using the same settings on the plug as on the hardware.
1. they responded differently to the waveforems presented.
2. maybe I'm using the wrong words here by saying "sonic fidelity" but the hardware had a more "polished" and "refined" sound. Maybe those words work better.
3. I'm not saying the UA plugs don't sound good. In fact they are far from it. I use them on a regular basis. I'm just saying they don't compare to the real thing.
Will
bigwillz24
New member
amra said:
Actually arma I may be in a position to do that but not on a full mix maybe a vocal track or something. I have access to the 1176 plug and the real deal 1176 as well as the SSL 4000 plugs and the real deal.
Hmm... maybe I could do a mix of a simple song using just the SSL plugs then take it to school pull up the same settings on the boards and see what we come up with.