So this is a thing I've been thinking of lately I'd like to have your opinions on.

What do you guys prefer? Software/Plugins that specialize for a specific use, or all rounder software that tries to do everything and provides you with alot of tools.

Of course, both have advantages and disadvantages but I tend to lean on software that specialises because I think you get more powerful results from that specific use you have... and it seems like slowly developers are moving more into that direction now as plugins always seem to work more powerfully than the stock tools provided from one software...

Examples of this from an audio software context are things like Ozone, which is an all rounder Mastering plugin or Omnisphere which is an all rounder vs something like Fabfilter Pro-MB, which is specifically for multiband compression and something like Diversion by Dmitry Sches, which is a very strong Analog sounding synth...

Yeah, so discuss what you all think if you have something to say...

 

i use the bx_console SSL 4000 E which is lp/hp filters, dynamics(comp+gate), eq, saturation all in one = channel strip. that thing let me do it all, hence the vote

 

both, but I lean towards versatile well-thought-out software and plugins,
less is better, meaning the lesser amount of stuff rather than lesser feature set

 

( . ) ( . ) you mention Ozone and that´s a one of a kind beast: the smoothest EQ and Comp, a superb Hall reverb, excitation and widening and a good limiter when you need it. I use it in all my music and not only in the master buss. And the same goes for Omnisphere, this thing can sound like any soft synth and much more. The thing goes more complicated with the modulation fx, there are a lot of good ones and all sounds different, Camel Space, Adrenalinn, Relayer, Uhbik, Soundtoys, etc. And the same for delays and modulated reverbs like Blackhole, B2, PSP 42 and the new Valhalla Delay. I use them at random when trying to translate a sound from inside my head. Good thread.

 

I like software that has a modular approach meaning you can select the modules that are applicable to your need. Hence giving you both a specialised and versatile environment. Why choose one when you can have both ?

 

hehe you're correct. The way I mentioned them may have sounded critical but actually wasn't. Those are great tools as well imo, just gave them as examples of plugins that have alot of features in one.

 

not trying to be grumpy or whatever, but iZotope products are poorly coded, resource and latency hogs, tend to crash more than any other plugins, stereo exciter/widener introduces too much phase issues killing mono compatibility; and Omnisphere 2 is all-round intimidating and complex kinda mess

...............

 

I find that plugins that are all rounders tend to be a jack of all trades and master of none. So i tend to fall into the specific plugins for specific purposes category. To me once you know the caveats of the tools you are using (specific or not) you will find things to perform the specific job you want. Some cases where audio quality is rarely diminished, its fine to use an all rounder tool if its about the speed and effectiveness of a creative process, but when it drills down to the mixing stage, i would start replacing those all rounders with things that might be able to realise my ideas better. Also sometimes with allrounders, they have unoptimized CPU usage. The problems then goes even further; sometimes you cant just keep one module that you like within that synth/effect sometimes which sucks. Also there are plugins that emulate strips, which kind of falls into both categories (supposedly) as they are supposed to contain saturation/compression/eq generally. Sometimes its the specific emulation of that mixer when driven that you want. I dont think there is a clear 100% answer as there are many concerns that attack different parameters of the musical creation process. (Speed of tweaking/cpu usage/oversampling capabilites/richer sound design/more mixing capabilities etc). I do think some all in one plugins are really great and each element ofthe plugin is optimized/sounds good. I guess to sumarise it really depends on the plugin in question and how it affects your workflow and your sound design, which only you will know how to fulfill.

 

Pretty heavy on the CPU but I like Nectar 3 a lot and use it on almost all vocals. Had some problems when freezing tracks in Ableton (it crashed), but I'm not sure if Nectar 3 caused it. But it is the prime suspect

As for best allrounder maybe: FabFilter Pro-Q 3
Best specialised for vocals: Nectar 3
On vocals I also often use: Replika XT
And on almost every project: Kontakt 6
As for compressors I often use: Waves CLA-2A and SSL G Master Buss Compressor

 

Last edited: May 28, 2019

It all depends for what. Sometimes an all rounder comes good because I want flexibility, and sometimes a very specialised tool is what I want because I know exactly what I want.
I don't have a general rule for this.

 

This was the first and only exception to my approach to use special software for different purposes that come to my mind.

 

Many modules for Reaktor or Max are (or were) not found anywhere else in other commercial vsts.
But aside for these two, we have pretty advanced stuff even in the big, modern do-it-all synths - in the new synth from Melda for example; or U-he Hive, incorporating envelope/lfos that are usually found in modular synths, despite being marketed as a simple trance making machine.
About channel strips - I don't use these, they look horrible, imitating some hardware and being hard to understand. Individual plugins with modern easy to read GUI are my choice for mixing.

 

I typically use all-rounders for things I don't use/understand much.

 

All you need is hardware who can handle your software and your itching fingers ;)