Sausage Fattener

 

Put the friggin phone down

 

... they did however clone a ... well.

https://black-corporation.com/product/deckards-dream-mk2/

 

Let‘s say you are using samplerobot to sample an expander like the like the korg triton rack mount - is this a an exact copy or do you need the adjustable of their devices, too?

 

Don't know if this was already made, but,
It would be super interesting, if a company created a plug-in, or even an instrument, claimed it uses 'super advanced algorithm from the hardware industry' , 'simulation of very well know hardware circuits analyzed at a microscopic level', etc c etc.... and after releasing that plug-in , they would then release a hardware version, 100% perfect copy from the software !

Then, we would compare it...

Exemple: u-he.
The guy was an industrial designer, and does know how to emulate a hardware circuit...
It would be super cool, if they could release, eg, their presswerk compressor, 100% hardware.
Which one would sound better ? Would they sound different ?

 

Has anyone ever bought floor for their houses? What hint is on all packages? Make sure that you only pick up packages from the same charge. This hint is even on packages of artificial material (pvc).

if you copy software, it is the same mix of 1s and 0s as the original one (or your data is broken).

I measured a lot of equal devices... they all have difference in audio output (cuz of different revision, components, room temperatures etc) there is no way that ONE emulation covers it all

 

Why are 90% of you completely missing the point of this post? It was asking what plugins take the source code directly from hardware; that's to say digital hardware. Not analog emulations. Granted, there are not many, but y'all need to learn how to read.

 

Even hardware sound 1:1.
Noone piece of old hardware sounds the same as other piece of hardware.

 

There is some information here:
https://www.analog.com/en/education/education-library/seminar_materials_publications.html

Last century when MIDI and audio processing began, MAC's had a DSP chip on their mainboard while a PC decided to use 16550 UART which is why the MAC for Audio along with the defunct ATARI's were first choice for MIDI/Audio for a long time. No BIAS here, just matter-of-fact.
Someone mentioned the identical digital signal processing placed into a plugin? Considering the microprocessing chip has been coded, I suppose it is feasible. It also explains why the UAD's are so popular because it has one on the board and the software uses the chip on the board in a similar analog to digital conversion.
There are experts out there who give a pile of good and bad reasons why this is and is not happening.
Me, there are many out there which are pretty close. There is a bench test with the NEVE Portico plugins versus the hardware that is very close. Exact? I may be wrong but I am not convinced yet because at a pure logic level, if it was exact, nobody would still use analog gear/processing attached to the inputs and outputs.

 

But nothing was even said about sounding exactly alike. The post was just asking what digital gear has been directly transferred to software and most people turned it into something else. It looks like Stevie is the only one that really got it

 

Yes I can read and my answer is still the same, why because even though the hardware is digital, it has electronic circuits which in the plugin has to be coded and that's why it'll never be 1 to 1 match.

 

If on the original digital hardware you would use digital in and out, it would be 100% identical to running it as a plugin with the same code. Since all converters ate designed to be accurate and not colour the audio. So any advances in converter technology are a plus, in my view.
Also are lexicon plugins mentioned already?

 

Opinion - Why Real Analog Sounds "Better" then emulations
This is an opinion of course, but an educated one...

Lots of people here argue back and forth on the merits of analog vs. digital recreations, and quality (or perceptual lack thereof) of the emulations. DoesArturia Jupiter 8V sound like a realJupiter 8, etc. I'm not going to argue that here.

I believe the reason we can have these arguments is more fundamental, and actually has its roots in the natures of digital processing and even more in the reality of the people writing the emulations.

It goes like this: I can recreate my Jupiter exactly (if more statically) using a sampler. By this I mean it can play back perfectly what I put into it. The sampler is a digital device, therefore digital can recreate analog exactly, if not exactly in the same way we mean when we say software synthesizer. But, since I can physically recreate the waveform of the Jupiter, I should be able to exactly duplicate this waveform using some calculation. And if I mimic the waveforms for a given set of Jupiter configurations, I should be able to mimic the Jupiter, yes?

No! The first thing we have lost is the time element. Okay, so now I need to take into account the movement of envelopes and changing spectrum of the sound as the filters change and the envelopes open and close, etc. Many software synths don't do a good job here (Opinion:The Arturia filters are terrible at changing sound characteristics - filter sweeps, etc. They do a fair job at more statics settings.) This kind of tracking is harder to do, and many developers don't bother. (Disclosure: I'm a developer.) Envelopes are supposedly easier to calculate, but again many don't go to the "correct" place - they move at the wrong rate, etc. You may have not noticed, but analog envelopes aren't straight lines - there's voltage sags, rate variance, and even variance across different circuits of the same machine. OP-X does an interesting job at trying to mimic some of this.

This brings up my last point: Randomness. Analog circuits aren't perfect, but digital ones are. If you don't account for this in your models, then you create a "perfect" synth that doesn't sound anything like the original. Anyone who's played an analog synth can hear this on many levels - from triggering variances to tuning drift on VCO's. Envelopes aren't linear and not even always consistently different - Sound spectrum changes from voice to voice even without other settings changing - Filters "mis-trigger" or trigger slightly differently depending on their state at the moment - Distortion happens. This is where I believe the biggest advances could be made in analog emulation. This is the last mile, and without that you've just a plastic synth - not as good as a real digital synth would be because you've compromised it, but not as good as a real analog because you didn't get it right (or wrong in the right way.)

We emulate old video games nearly perfectly (or imperfectly if you will) by emulating the CPU's and video chips and even the characteristics of the displays (See MAME or MESS emulators.) If we put the same effort into emulating the circuits, or at the least the characteristics of the circuits, of the analog synthesizer, we could have much better emulations. I think most vendors haven't heard that we don't want a "perfect" recreation - we want one recreated perfectly.

Source: https://gearspace.com/board/electro...-sounds-quot-better-quot-then-emulations.html

 

I answered the question with some accuracy. "Almost" none of these emulations, except those made by manufacturers are running the "original source code". What programmer hands out their code as Open Source? I doubt some of the Manufacturer created plugins even are. Who tells you these things, someone selling something?

 

Softube - Our story (www.softube.com/about)

There’s something special about an old tube amp. It’s more than just gear. It’s an entire sonic world: it tells a story, defines a scene, it has a soul. Softube was chosen by Marshall as its exclusive software partner because our founders know this. With truly exquisite music technology, it’s not enough to merely approximate the sound and function in the software. You have to go deeper. Strive for perfect accuracy, perfect workflow, perfect sound.

Snapshot methods of modeling used to be commonplace in the pro audio industry. Softube doesn’t settle for common; we go for extraordinary. We chose to push the envelope of component-level modeling of analog systems, taking hardware apart and putting it back together in code and at the highest resolution possible.

It’s because of this dogged pursuit of purity that the most respected brands in pro audio trust us with official software versions of their most iconic products. Whether it's Tube-Tech, Solid State Logic, Buchla, Abbey Road Studios, Trident, Drawmer, or Chandler Limited, designers of the best-sounding gear of all time know that Softube is sound quality.

Our passion for sound superiority is on full display in the gold-standard Weiss DS1-MK3 plug-in. In partnership with Weiss Engineering of Switzerland, Softube completed one of the first line-for-line code ports of a digital hardware device into plug-in form.

Softube continues to lead the industry with highly-reviewed, award-winning plug-ins and integrated hardware/software systems that make computer-based studios as intuitive, inspiring, and effective as possible. Perhaps it says it all that legendary, multi-Grammy winning mix engineer Michael Brauer describes the Console 1 system as “the centerpiece” of his hybrid mix setup.

And we never stop innovating. In recent years, we’ve taken our best-in-class technology to instruments, modeling Eurorack synth modules in the Modular plug-in platform and developing new and exciting synths for the modern music maker.

For the future of Softube and the future of sound quality in computer-based music-making, the path forward is the same. Join us.

 

mercuriall ampbox comes to my mind. other than that, cubase 12's channel strip covers everything..

 

Code from digital hardware can be ideally transported into software. Example, DSP56300 (but still some bugs in functionality, stability etc, because of different behaviour in hardware/controllers vs DAW controlling/plugin/development kits/midi/vst2/vst3/GUI/more).

Sonically:
Same code in digital Virus, same in plugin.
But! Code is perfect in both cases until:
*hardware virus hits its DA, noisy wire, your AD, so its perfectness stops somewhere at virus DA (code to analog signal) or at wire section :D
*software dsp56300 hits built-in resampler from native sample rate into your DAW project sample rate (src to 44100 is the most dirtiest, but still good sound).

In hardware case you have many Virus options because of variety of AD interfaces and variety of cables you may have, so not perfectly same viruses because of that. Internally the same, both code in virus and code in dsp56300, until it hits all those listed above.
If there were super perfect src resampler in dsp56300, you would get way cleaner digital pc version.... But there are tc poco as well....

Other well-known codes transported to vst:
Waves L2
Softube weiss stuff

 

The only reason DSP56300 is feasible is because it's 100% digital. Aside from DACs and other alterations later down the chain, It's actual code creating the sound. Most synths aren't digital. Those that are digital, you do have a chance to objectively prove its accuracy, that the actual output bits it generates (before DAC) are identical. Digital signal paths aren't open to variances or interpretation. Plogue's emulations of the SNES sampler and DX7 are 'bit accurate', are the only examples I can think of where the scrutiny on accuracy is comparable to that of retro game emulation.

Other than that, at some point it devolves into inane placebo effect, division and dissent. Is Cherry Audio accurate? Arturia? TAL? Wildly different opinions.

I think physical modelling will continue to improve. A lot of instruments such as acoustic guitars are a huge challenge to synthesize convincingly without samples, so there's definitely room for improvement there. But I think perfection could end up impossible. Like out of the currently existing analog synth clones - I've set to see one that does not end up creating its own 'character' while attempting to recreate the character of another. If you compare the products of a company where they're cloning two entirely different analog synths, but they end up sharing certain sound characters--which should not happen in reality. Like Obsession<>Legend or J8<>UNO-LX. Certain similarities between filters or oscillators, simply due to similarities in the developers code. Obviously it makes more sense to alter existing code to conform to expected parameters rather than code the whole oscillator from scratch. And this results in certain sound signatures being perceivable between products written by the same team. That begins to attack the illusion that what's being offered is exactly, sonically identical to the original. The simple fact of the matter is, multiple independent developers have to come to the exact, singular conclusion, for perfection to be achieved, and we see that this is not true. All the countless existing JUNO 60 clones all have minute differences.

So we create the buffer of 'good enough'. Softube Model-84, TAL UNO-LX and Roland's Juno-60 plugins are 'good enough'. Few people are going to come out with a scientific paper and say "Hey, I objectively studied the circuits, analyzed the blueprints, and in conclusion, only XYZ even comes close". And those who say its not good enough, have nothing objective to back up their claims. Also, audio comparisons are still subjective, because of self-similarity. Sine, square and saw waves sound similar to us. Wildly different and imperfect ways of producing pulse waves and PWM exist, that sound exactly how you'd expect, except when you look at them through an oscilloscope...

This is not to say, that we should stop caring about accuracy. Just that we should stop fighting over things we don't understand. Just because you had synth X in the 80s, doesn't mean plugin Y is good or bad. What really matters is whether the tool in question works for you or if you are skilled enough to make use of it. Lots of 'inaccurate' or 'too simple' synths are still good in some cases. People still like the pushing Commodore SID's basic capabilities to its limits. Super early softsynths like Subtractor and Pro-53 are still very usable IMO (even though Pro-53 is pretty inaccurate as a Prophet5 clone). And ancient virtual analogs like Lead still hold up.

 

I would probably say that it is not possible to make a 1:1 copy of a hardware for an digital VST due to obvious previous mentioned things.
The other question would be if that really matters because im not sure if a human ear would be able to tell the difference between an VST and hardware when it is done extremely precise.
I know that there are hearable differences in some VST and hardware versions but if one does it precise enough I think it is not distinguishable for most.

 

The important thing for me, whether emulated or not, is that a plugin sounds good. The company Arturia from France has released
many emulations and improved them a lot, for example more voices than the original, arpeggio or better and more effects.
I find this step to clone or rebuild hardware a great thing, I am grateful for every new plugin, because it expands my horizons.

If you have an original Prophet-5 at home, you don't buy an emulation because you know the sound of the original very well and
it would be a downgrade. You can download trials and demo versions from many companies and test the sound and usability.

I also find software much more exciting than hardware. It's cheaper, takes up less space, you can make infinite presets and then save
them to your PC. Software doesn't break. In the DAW I can add effects at the click of a mouse so that the sound is greatly improved.

We have had the PC for about 24 years and in the beginning there were hardly any virtual software synthesizers
and most of them sounded very bad. As the CPU and RAM got bigger and faster, software developers have
produced a lot of software worldwide and offered it at an affordable price or even for free.