When would one use plugins?

C

Chelonian

Member
In another thread I posted recently (https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/thoughts-on-these-silent-pcs-for-recording.416613/), I got the sense that whether or not one uses plugins is the make or break issue for how much computing power you need (RAM and speed of processor).

I have never used plugins. The most I've done is use Audacity's built-in effects, applied to one track at a time (things like reverb). I am not even sure what plugins are or when I might use them. I want to do something in the general realm of progressive rock/pop, recording guitars, bass, keyboards, and vocals and then using some kind of electronic drum patches or something (I also have an ancient small Dr Rhythm drum machine but it's limited).

I don't want to be massively unnecessarily limited in what I can choose to do musically in recordings, but maybe I don't need to use that many plugins? I have zero sense of this, so if you could weigh in, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
 
I'm no expert - a relative newbie to all this digital stuff, myself.. so I'll kick this off..

Mostly, plugins are the digital software version of hardware processors (e.g., reverb, compressor, delay, equalizers, any kind of guitar foot pedal - to name a few of the basic ones). Those probably won't load down your system much. When you get into synthesizers using plugins for voices, that can begin to slow things down some if you don't have enough RAM or speed. Same with drum program plugins using hundreds of GB of samples (not all are this large).

So basically, plugins are the software versions of any kind of effects processors, drum "machines", synthesizers, guitar simulators, amplifier simulators, microphone simulators, speaker simulators.. any kind of recording hardware that a studio might have in a rack filling up their control room. There's a software plugin to replace just about any piece of hardware.
 
Plug-ins are all the effects that can be used with a recording. The "built in effects" in Audacity are plug ins, just look in the Audacity program folder. They are programs add ins that are used to reproduce the hardware tools that would have been used with old analog recording systems. Compression, EQ, Reverb, Limiter, Noise Reduction, Delay and Noise Gates are the most basic effects. There are many more things that can be done.

Audacity is a very basic audio editor program that does some things very well, but as a multitrack recording program, it leaves a lot to be desired. A real recording system such as Cakewalk by Bandlab (free), Reaper ($60), or even the entry versions of Cubase or Protools that are often included with recording gear like audio interfaces are infinitely better suited to the task.

The system you were looking at is a 10 year old system. That's not a lifetime, it's an EON in computer circles. I hope you realize that there have been NINE updates to the processors in that time, and the processor isn't even a top of the line for the period. It might be adequate for browsing and emails, but as a recording platform, you'll find it sorely lacking. A better choice would be a refurbished system with a more current processor, and enough RAM to handle the current programs. I could buy a system off Craigslist from a local refurbisher, for the same price as the one on Amazon with a 60% faster processor, twice the memory and a 500GB SSD. That would be a bare minimum system.

We aren't trying to be mean, but are trying to keep you from going down a path with little hope for success.
 
TalismanRich said:
Plug-ins are all the effects that can be used with a recording. The "built in effects" in Audacity are plug ins, just look in the Audacity program folder. They are programs add ins that are used to reproduce the hardware tools that would have been used with old analog recording systems. Compression, EQ, Reverb, Limiter, Noise Reduction, Delay and Noise Gates are the most basic effects. There are many more things that can be done.

Audacity is a very basic audio editor program that does some things very well, but as a multitrack recording program, it leaves a lot to be desired. A real recording system such as Cakewalk by Bandlab (free), Reaper ($60), or even the entry versions of Cubase or Protools that are often included with recording gear like audio interfaces are infinitely better suited to the task.

The system you were looking at is a 10 year old system. That's not a lifetime, it's an EON in computer circles. I hope you realize that there have been NINE updates to the processors in that time, and the processor isn't even a top of the line for the period. It might be adequate for browsing and emails, but as a recording platform, you'll find it sorely lacking. A better choice would be a refurbished system with a more current processor, and enough RAM to handle the current programs. I could buy a system off Craigslist from a local refurbisher, for the same price as the one on Amazon with a 60% faster processor, twice the memory and a 500GB SSD. That would be a bare minimum system.

We aren't trying to be mean, but are trying to keep you from going down a path with little hope for success.
Click to expand...

I totally understand your point and very much appreciate the feedback. I easily could go down a path with little hope for success so I benefit from the guidance.

I guess my problem has been my current baseline, in that I have been using a 12 year old computer, an Inspiron 560 (Pentium dual core E6700 at 3.20 GHz and 4GB RAM with an old and possibly somewhat fragmented regular hard drive) and have been able to record simple (and often short) things on Audacity with that, including a few basic effects. I thought surely if I jumped to that Amazon offering (8GB RAM with an i5 and a 512 SSD) it would feel like going from a beater 1994 Dodge to at least a 2004 Camry--and silently. But I'm getting the sense that it's more like I'd be going from a 1974 Pinto to a 1981 Chevette.

But I bet the issue is, I just haven't really put my current desktop to legitimate recording/processing tests. Heck, this computer daily bogs down if I have too many tabs open and I have to wait after I type something for my text to appear. It's time for something better for sure.
 
Things like EQ, which are just frequency filters, are very efficient because they use tight recursive algorithms, so their main cost is processor speed.
Virtual instruments that are sampled, will require significant memory space.
Delay effects like Chorus and Reverb, sit somewhere in the middle.
 
Plug ins are a bit like buying cooking ingredients, you end up with cupboards full of things you never use, but often, you might actually have tucked away. In normal use, they just take up a bit of disk space so it doesn’t matter. However, many people nowadays use templates. I don’t. If I record a guitar, I start by creating an empty track. My good friend has a guitar template (actually he has lots) each one brings in a new track, with a few reverbs, processors, delays, eqs and God knows what else. He sends me a project sometimes and there are hundreds of active plugin, that I usually haven’t even got! He uses them automatically, without even thinking.
 
Like with many questions the answer always seems to start with "it depends..." In this case it depends on what DAW and what plugins you plan to use. I use Reaper that, at least to my knowledge, requires less CPU to run than many other DAWs. I use many of the plugins that come with Reaper that are also CPU friendly and when I choose other plugins I always make sure they are not CPU hogs. I use an ancient HP laptop with 8g ram and I run loads of effect plugins and virtual instruments and I have zero issues, and that's running at 128 buffer in Reaper. I generally have 20 to 30 tracks most of which have 4 to 8 plugins per track.
 
The primary plugins I highly recommend learning to use are compression, EQ, and reverb. Obviously, Audacity (like every DAW) comes with built-in implementations of these. Alternate versions of these same plugins can accomplish different things and affect your workflow and results in various ways. It's best to experiment and figure out what you like.

As long as you're using Audacity, the performance of your computer hardly matters. Audacity doesn't run effects in real time. It applies them to the track offline. So if you try to use "too many" plugins, it just means you'll spend a lot of time running the effects dialog. Most other DAWs do apply effects in real time, so if you run too many at once, playback will slow down and stutter.
 
markmann said:
Like with many questions the answer always seems to start with "it depends..." In this case it depends on what DAW and what plugins you plan to use. I use Reaper that, at least to my knowledge, requires less CPU to run than many other DAWs. I use many of the plugins that come with Reaper that are also CPU friendly and when I choose other plugins I always make sure they are not CPU hogs. I use an ancient HP laptop with 8g ram and I run loads of effect plugins and virtual instruments and I have zero issues, and that's running at 128 buffer in Reaper. I generally have 20 to 30 tracks most of which have 4 to 8 plugins per track.
Click to expand...
That's really encouraging! Can you tell me the specs on that HP laptop? Year, make, CPU, and anything else? (SSD?). What about fan or other noise from the laptop getting into your recordings? (for quiet passages)
 
I can do a basic 24 track mix in Reaper on my 2004 vintage Acer laptop using Reaper's own plug-ins - and that's at 96kHz sampling rate. My main computer is currently a 2012 vintage Dell Precision M4600 with a 2nd generation i7 processor and 8GB of RAM which handles just about anything I throw at it.

Edited to correct model number - the 4600 is what I have while the 4800 is probably what I'd go for now if buying a refurbished machine.
 
Last edited:
TalismanRich said:
The system you were looking at is a 10 year old system. That's not a lifetime, it's an EON in computer circles. I hope you realize that there have been NINE updates to the processors in that time, and the processor isn't even a top of the line for the period. It might be adequate for browsing and emails, but as a recording platform, you'll find it sorely lacking.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to reconcile that statement with the posts on this and my other thread of people using 2004--2012 era computers and them working just fine, including with plugins running. I'd really like to understand this better before I commit to a purchase.
 
Chelonian said:
That's really encouraging! Can you tell me the specs on that HP laptop? Year, make, CPU, and anything else? (SSD?). What about fan or other noise from the laptop getting into your recordings? (for quiet passages)
Click to expand...
My HP is a 2011 model, 2.7g quad core, 128g HD (no SSD), 8 g ram. Like I mentioned in your other thread, this laptop is not quiet but it is not heard on my recordings as long as my mic isn't aimed at it.
 
Chelonian said:
I'm trying to reconcile that statement with the posts on this and my other thread of people using 2004--2012 era computers and them working just fine, including with plugins running. I'd really like to understand this better before I commit to a purchase.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying you can't run on an old system but what you are looking at is below even markman's and Jamesperretts system. It's a 1.6 or 1.7GHz processor vs their 2.7G. That makes a difference. I have an old Asus laptop with a 2nd Gen I3-2350, two cores, at 2.2GHz, 8GB ram and 320 +500GB hard drives. I tried to do recording on it and it stumbled. I can do mixdowns on it if I set the buffers high enough. Would I depend on it for recording? No way. You can buy them on Ebay for under $100. Dump the hard drive and put in a 500GB SSD and it gets even more quiet. Total outlay of under $200. I still think it's a mediocre unit for the task.

My recordings are done on a Lenovo H50-50 with an Intel Core i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz which is 4 cores with 12GB of RAM. I swapped in an SSD for the system, and put in a 2TB drive for data. The system was bought in 2015. I don't have any problems with mixing or recording 8 channels at one time. I do video work on it. You can buy a used one on Ebay for under $150 right now.

If you really think you need a PC with no fan so that you can record, be my guest and place the order. I just think you can do better for the same amount of money, with a more current system. You don't need to go with the latest/greatest thing, but starting out such a low end system just seems foolish.
 
TalismanRich said:
I'm not saying you can't run on an old system but what you are looking at is below even markman's and Jamesperretts system. It's a 1.6 or 1.7GHz processor vs their 2.7G. That makes a difference. I have an old Asus laptop with a 2nd Gen I3-2350, two cores, at 2.2GHz, 8GB ram and 320 +500GB hard drives. I tried to do recording on it and it stumbled. I can do mixdowns on it if I set the buffers high enough. Would I depend on it for recording? No way. You can buy them on Ebay for under $100. Dump the hard drive and put in a 500GB SSD and it gets even more quiet. Total outlay of under $200. I still think it's a mediocre unit for the task.

My recordings are done on a Lenovo H50-50 with an Intel Core i5-4460 CPU @ 3.20GHz which is 4 cores with 12GB of RAM. I swapped in an SSD for the system, and put in a 2TB drive for data. The system was bought in 2015. I don't have any problems with mixing or recording 8 channels at one time. I do video work on it. You can buy a used one on Ebay for under $150 right now.

If you really think you need a PC with no fan so that you can record, be my guest and place the order. I just think you can do better for the same amount of money, with a more current system. You don't need to go with the latest/greatest thing, but starting out such a low end system just seems foolish.
Click to expand...

Thanks again for this info. Yeah, I hear you: I don't want to buy something laughably underpowered just because it's quite cheap and silent (though those are virtues). I'd be up for the trying the hutch approach, as you have, but I'm a little concerned about a) overheating inside that (though I guess yours doesn't, so that's good) and b) that I can't get the mic 10' away because I'm only in a 10'x10' room, so I might hear it in recording vocals or quiet things. I really would love to not hear it ever, at all, because just as a computer user I am sick of hearing computers for this many years.
 
Cheap is relative. My first "PC" was a TI 99/4A that cost me $150. 16KB of ram, and a cassette for loading programs was another $30. Extended Basic was another $60. Total initial cost was almost $250. My first DOS machine was a 386-SX20 with 128KB RAM, 2 floppies and a 10MB hard drive. It cost me $1600, and that was 40 years ago. In that respect, I'm a bit biased when I see people trying to go "cheap" on a machine that is below par. I'm not adverse to saving money, but it should be bang for the buck, and the right tool for the job.

As an example, I bought my sister a laptop 2 years ago for $250 on sale with a Celeron 5205m 1.9GHz, 8G RAM and a 500GB HD. This is only for doing email, and for getting online for things like Medicare, Social Security and taxes (things you REALLY don't want to do with a phone). She has no internet, so I set up a hotspot internet through her phone, so only VERY limited access.

A few months ago, she brought it over to tie into my internet, file her taxes and do any Windows updates. It took 7 hours to do 3 months of updates to Windows 11. I was ready to go to Staples and buy an SSD, clone her drive and put it in. However, since she doesn't do ANYTHING more difficult than downloading pictures off her phone and reading email, there's really no reason to "fix it".

Recording audio is a more demanding task than reading email and watching tiktok videos. It's best to get a proper tool.
 
Some plug-ins are designed to clean up your recordings and remove unwanted noises etc. They arent designed to improve yourself playing/singing/talking. They are designed to remove unwanted noise that you have 'recorded'.

Izotope RX9 (soon to be 10) is purposely designed to post process your recordings. Reverb, mouth noises, mouth clicks, S'ss, pops, background noise (fans), rumble and the usual EQ are all available to remove or lessen in post processing. If you go to the more complicated and expensive plug-in, you can even isolate sounds from recordings such as singing from the instruments etc.
 
Specs rarely help you very much with computers unless you understand all the micro-specs that surround the processors. How some hand over part of their work to a processor on another purpose designed chip to let it have more time on the real job, or how data is distributed around the motherboard to prevent bottlenecks. The music folk have different but similar needs to the graphic designers, who are different to video editors.

A good way to look at a computer is by comparing it to a car. A Range Rover does different things to a Maserati. Both could be fitted with a twelve year old 1100cc 4 cylinder engine, rather than the modern one they have. Engines, transmissions and suspension - would you be able to personally get that tiny engine into your brand new car, or worse, into a four year old car when the model has moved on.

My computer evolution has always been ignore cutting edge new technology. Those charts you get with processor comparisons seem to come in three versions. The latest top 50, then the favourite mid range still hanging around versions, then the oldies but goodies. My choice rarely comes from the latest list. Somewhere near the top of the second category, with more RAM than I've had before - so an i5 with 16Gb is my current computer. It's just started to feel the strain, so soon, I'll be looking at the top of list two again.

Old computers are NEVER good computers. They were. but demands from users and software make them ancient. For me, video editing is the toughest, so I upgrade that one, then the old video machine becomes the audio one and so on.

If you plan to not buy things because your computer isn't up to running them, you're doing creative work with a hand tied behind your back. You should be able to install new software that comes with loads of plugins without even thinking. If they slow your machine down, or make it unreliable, it's the computer that needs investment in.

Anyone intending using a cast off computer that struggled with Word and Excel really is NOT a good start for music. 4Gb of RAM is crazy now - a sample package might be bigger than that. Pressing load on a synth or sample package can make red lights come on, and you can go and make a coffee waiting for the screen to unfreeze!
 
Here is a pc story for you.

It must have been about 2009 and I purchased the latest 1080p digital camera. I then purchased Adobe so that I could make my videos. I was new to all this and wanted to get going. My pc was only 2 years old and all was good.

But on editing my videos, Adobe used to stop and drag. I found out if I waited a few minutes everything used to catch up and I could carry on. I didnt understand what was wrong with this but progressed. Then it came to converting the finished video or rendering. The pc would just lock up or even simply crash.

I didnt have a clue what was wrong until on a forum someone explained it to me. Basically if you buy the latest video camera, you better buy the latest spec pc at the same time. This is because the demands of what that camera has produced requires a high spec pc.

In video the processor, graphics card and ram are the key. They have to be high spec. It is essential.

In audio it is becoming similar, but not as extreme until you start adding in plug-ins etc. Space on hard drives soon disappears with audio, because there is now never just one file. As you edit it you could end up with 10 versions of the same file from the one recording.

A powerful processor will eat through editing your recordings. An old processor may not be up to the job when you have plug-ins running at the same time
 
Chelonian said:
In another thread I posted recently (https://homerecording.com/bbs/threads/thoughts-on-these-silent-pcs-for-recording.416613/), I got the sense that whether or not one uses plugins is the make or break issue for how much computing power you need (RAM and speed of processor).

I have never used plugins. The most I've done is use Audacity's built-in effects, applied to one track at a time (things like reverb). I am not even sure what plugins are or when I might use them. I want to do something in the general realm of progressive rock/pop, recording guitars, bass, keyboards, and vocals and then using some kind of electronic drum patches or something (I also have an ancient small Dr Rhythm drum machine but it's limited).

I don't want to be massively unnecessarily limited in what I can choose to do musically in recordings, but maybe I don't need to use that many plugins? I have zero sense of this, so if you could weigh in, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Think about things much? You use plugins like you would use hardware - only you are using plugins since you can run so many of them - versus hardware which is limited to on track (or a buss) at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top