This is one of the big reasons that keeps me from diving down the hardware route. The other big reason is $!

Of course if my workflow was "correct" I'd just mix a track until the finished point, export, and move on to the next track. But I like to go back to them after listening in different environments and adjust. So the ability to recall settings is important to me.

@Talmi, you've got to stop making me want new plugins!!

 

I'm a victim too.....

 

It seems that the question raised by all the mouvement about this new plugin would be : could this one finally trully replaces hardware, in term of sonic behaviour ? It seems that the answer would be yes.

 

Honestly to me that point has already been reached a while back. Gold 2, Pink 2, and all the latest offerings are all extremely close to the hw they were made after.
Technically there is nothing new in the sampling process, or the Core version used in this one. Actually this specific emu has a couple of features missing (shmod and the possibility to disable the preamp) from other Acquas, which make those imo better than the hw (added features, in addition to all the bonus that you get from using a plug rather than a hw that you rightfully underlined @Grok ).
But the emulated unit (BA6A comp/limiter from RCA) is trully an amazing one, so that helps.
And well the whole GW buzz, who brought most of his pals in the promo circus, well that helps too...
There are other exceptionnal unmatched compressors in the Acustica catalogue...Try Coral or Violet on your master, you'll see what I'm talking about.
Pink 2 and Gold 2 also have incredible comps. And more features. And Taupe...By god this thing is trully magic.
That makes me question the whole marketing strategy of G, saying it's a level they've never reached before, all thanks to GW "expertise" and all....He is kind of unfairly crapping on his previous products.
So the answer for me is yes...But to me it's not really news. Which is why it's all so awesome...

 

The final thing I would like to be ported on plugins is the Quantec Yardstick room simulation, but this one seems to be fiercely resisting, no way to do that with convolution, even with dynamic convolution. The only way to have it it to buy it for several thousands €

 

There are very few plugins that cant be substituted for a similar one from a different developer. Some are even free. We just seem to want more than we need.Instead of producers some have become hoarders. Do we need over 1000 plugins to produce a decent song? Do we need 5 different DAW's? Do we need 10 different emulations of a Neve Channel Strip? Going OT here...

 

@Talmi and @Grok let us get off topic here. How many of those plugins you mentioned to be such wonderful examples of hardware emulation have you compared to the original? It seems like every time someone like Pensado endorses an overpriced plugin everyone jumps on the bandwagon and starts to praise it--- not for its sonic quality but solely on how close to the original it sounds. Seriously, how many have had the chance to compare an original 670 Fairchild with one of the many software emulations available? The same goes for emulations of API, Abbey Road, etc, etc ,etc. Don't take me wrong here. I m not saying the emulations sound bad. What I am saying is that we can't be making claims based on hearsay. I agree that plugins have an advantage when it comes to pricing and recalling settings but let us not forget what they are. They are emulations. Let us not forget also that some of them are CPU killers. Take Acustica Nebula as a perfect example. Great sounding plugin but at the expense of system resources.

 

I have to agree, no matter how much I may like a plugin/emulation it just doesn't seem to carry the same weight sonically as a hardware unit running into a good A/D preamp.

 

Lol. You're speculating way too much on why I get those plugs.
I don't think I 've ever writen once : "wow I'll get this x or y brand plug cause it sounds like the original hw". In fact I think I wrote several times : " I don't have a clue how the original unit sounds but this plugin is spectacular"

The AA plugs, the kush plugs, the PA plugs. Well they are good plugs. Sonicaly to me they do something. I enjoy using them creatively, this is the kind of stuffs the kind of guy I am, regarding sound, loves. It's about that.
Period.

I find ridiculous the notion that anyone can reduce anyone else to the tools he uses without having any sort of clue of why he uses them.

If you're happy with one hw unit (well and apparently the PA plugs that I helped you get working, those are also good tools you are right to give them a shot, no matter your motivations) and you think nothing can beat that. Well it's probably the right choice for you and please my man enjoy that, without speculating that much about why people do what they do.

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2018

It is NOT speculation. It is a fact. You claimed you have never written something similar but see below:

That statement plus the one made by @Grok ("could this one finally truly replaces hardware, in term of sonic behaviour ? It seems that the answer would be yes") originated my comment:

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2018

And I retiterate, and please prove me wrong with one of my quote if you have the time and leisure to go through all my comments.

Which was the point of your comment :

No my point is : that's not why I use those. I've never praised any product from AA that I've presented here for the fidelity to the original unit, I've always praised and descrbed in details their sonic quality. Which is what you claim indicated, that I use those plugin unit because Pensado said they are like the hw, or that's why I praise them.
Pensado and GW jumped on AA bandwagon way after me. I'm sure I inspired them not the other way around.
I'm also sure that's why you come after AA. You're jealous that a big shot like me praise them. You need a hug ?

To me again that's not the selling point.
And I reiterate that I never said such a thing ("I use x or y emulation because it's like the original unit that I've personaly tested and compared"), and until you can prove it with a quote from me, I advise you stop speculating on why I use what I use as plugins, or hw or whatever.


Edited and side note : none of what I've just said denies that some plugins, indeed, have for strong points to bring the qualities of HW in our computer. Now that's one of the things that I like about those. But I couldn't care less regarding the "fidelity" to the original unit, or wether someone I don't know recommanded it. That's just you man.
Regarding why I believe it's faithfull to the original ? Well because of the tech simply. It's just because of the tech. AA just applies advance sampling technics to hw.

Oh, I won't entertain your OT thingy anymore. On the topic of what I've not said that you claim I said I'm pretty much done.
Cheers.

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2018

@Talmi Ok.You win. I hope you are happy now.

 

AA threads are usually filled with this kind of discussions. The concept "use what you like" doesn't seem to apply to their threads, lol. It's either very passionate fans or rabid haters.

I'll just say that they're one of the few plugin companies I give my money. At least they're doing something different from everyone else. You may love them or hate them, but certainly they don't leave anyone indifferent.

BTW, I have zero experience with any of the HW they replicate. I just don't care. If it sounds good, it is good.

 

Last edited: Nov 27, 2018

I think some people missed one obvious argument: money.

I can barely afford to buy the AA plugins, but if they represent a 99% emulation of something that represents hardware and lives in my dream state I will make an effort to buy them. As someone brilliantly told, there are a lot of details while handling hardware. If I can bypass all that crap and get a 98%-100% plugin version and save 95% (arbitrary percentages) of the money, I will.

I'll just buy a new processor (300-400€) every year and run 10 000 instances of amethyst or ruby or el rey and then have some money to go to a restaurant during the weekend with my happy, returning, clients.

It's about priorities. The hardware vs software battle will most likely never end, unless someone emulates hardware to perfection - and for now, AA are the ones closer to it.

 

@Agent007 everything you write I read in Nicholson's voice, sorry off topic

 

@Agent007 ; do I have the auditive and user experience about ALL the hardwares COPIED & sometime "enhanced" (with AA, it's not exactly a mathematic emulation but more a copy+maths, because of the "deep dynamic -not static- sampling" involved), clearly no. I don't know if one such person, who has the auditive and user experience about all the hardwares involved, exists. The AA work is somehow fine for a kind of "universal auditive hardware museum for all".

I have some "limited" experience about some of the hardwares. I have a long auditive experience about sound (audio technical sound and natural real sound without audiotechniques involved, I guess the second part is not so prevalent with contemporary people), from several decades. This "long" auditive experience is enhanced every day, by listening and comparing, and liking or not liking (concerning audio techniques).

All this "auditive bubble" attached to the lived present and past auditive experiences and consciousness leads me to AA ; 99% if not 99,9%, with some hassles (these AA "brute force" hassles will totally disappear in a near future with computer power evolution, I guess ; but currently they are already sustainables with today computers), and with some advantages on hardwares (money, electricity, workflow convenience when all the related computer issues are cleaned).