The emphasis on authenticity in software emulations of vintage gear seems to have become a hallmark in the industry. In our pursuit of the perfect sound, we often turn to software emulations of legendary hardware, thinking that these tools bring us closer to the sonic qualities of the original gear.

But there's an elephant in the room - many of us, born long after these iconic units defined the sound of an era, have never even heard or worked with them in person. Yet, we find ourselves chasing the dream of 'authenticity' sold to us, without a real, objective baseline for comparison!

Why do we accept our creative journey to be influenced by an elusive standard, without being offered concrete examples of the original sound?

Would you be interested in an easy solution to experiencing authentic comparisons between software emulations and their hardware counterparts? Such an opportunity could deepen our understanding of the gear that shaped generations of music, allowing us to make more informed decisions in our creative processes.

What are your thoughts??

 

-> youtube.com.

 

cost and availability

some older hardware sells for hundreds more than the original price or there weren't many made.

also for a lot of really old stuff re soldering is a must.

ive been looking for a 4 track cassette recorder and the cheapest ive come across is $200

 

Sorry for getting a little bit offtopic, but everytime I read a sentence with this, I always think of those Boom Boxes, I had as a teenager.
Man, those things took about 8 of those big Alcaline Batteries, and I took it everywhere I went.
Good times.

I even found a pic of the model I owned. Now I feel old.

 

i dont know really but some hardware synths and units are really good.. and most of the time hardware cost more than software bundles

 

I don't think it matters that much in this context. If you've never worked or heard a real la2a, then you just use whichever emulation works best for you, even if it turns out to be the "worst" emulation. Knowing which one is closer to the hardware doesn't matter that much.

However, if you do know or have the hardware it might be useful to have a faithful emulation because that way you can have a bigger number of said unit or just better recallability.

Then of couse there's the marketing, but who believes in that anymore. Every emulation under the sun is "100% faithful" according to that. Just pretend it's not there.

 

It depends on what sound you need. Yes, with digital you can fly beyond analog

But these two systems are not equal due to engineering reasons

 

Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2024

It is the best system to check music

 

Yes that's right

 

My LA-2A emulation promised to be faithful but left me for some wannabe Pulsar Audio Mu (tha-fuker). I'm heartbroken.

 

it started a long time ago, as an example every major guitar amps maker out there. ALL of them started with a remake of a known successful thing. Fender Bassman as an example being the most copied amp. Proving you can do the exactly copy is a proof of competency, proof of understanding the concept, of how great things work. Next stage is mod, added features, "better" tone, if people starting to like it, slowly you push in your own original design after few years and see if it works. If it didn't, maybe learn from it and try again till you die (or bankrupt), even if you failed you still have the job selling those copy. As long as people keep liking it, you can improve your own design. That's how instruments business work. Plugin is no different.

you have 20 phd in music and software engineering, fresh from MIT with intership at NASA on your resume. You start a new plugin company, create a new unique design of virtual instrument, the most powerful synth, out of the world creation that technically could beat a Jupiter 8 in every single area, arguably sounds better.... nobody gives a shit 2 weeks after the hype's over. That's just how it is.

so the thing about authenticity and everything is just business idea, developers self proclaiming stuff on release saying "painfully" "accurately" "1:1 match" "couldn't tell in a blind test" "Vince Clark approved it and sold his hardware" and then the users continue, fight their battle for them and get us here today. At the purest state of music making, it doesnt matter that much if any emulation sounds exactly the same, yet everyone talking about it. where does the stupid idea comes from ? where else.

Aint nobody dream of starting a company that make a copy of anything and get it 100% the same being the ultimate goal. So, it's not possible because the intention was never there since beginning. It's okay, it doesn't even matter. They know, we all knew, still we talk, fight over it. They clap and hope it's about their products, thinking about the next logical step to take.

 

The whole truth here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/07/learning/should-parents-tell-children-the-truth-about-santa.html

 

I said this in another thread today:

If we want to go to the psychology route, I think it's just human that we want to have the most valuable thing available to us. A hardware emulation that is so perfect that it sounds just like the real thing, we could just as well say that we own the original. People want to add value to their work, even if it's all cosmetic. Maybe that's a way of coping with personal insecurity, like being unable to chase a certain sound because your ability is not there yet. You know, the Arturia Juno emulation doesn't sound good enough, but not because I can't make good music, it's because the original Juno sounds so much better. For me, I've had countless "this is finally what I need" orchestral libraries only to find that I still suck at writing. Once I got rid of that thought, I started to enjoy making music. Same goes for mixing.

To put it in simple terms: humans are insecure. Humans chase adding value, even if technically fake, to make up to their own insecurities.

 

There are things even in the software realm that never wax or wane. Like the UAD essential plugins 1178, fairchild, LA-3A, etc, kontakt, UVI, protools, cubase, nuendo, etc... These are tools that never rust in the audio toolbox. However these days it's more fashionable (i.e. profitable) to simply capture a few lame IR's and call a "new" plugin a done deal. This can be seen first hand in the plethora of junk that has been released in the scene as of late. Bundles of no name trash that seem better suited to taking up valuable storage space rather than be useful tools that one simply cannot live without. The really well done (meaning sounding/operating true to the original piece of hardware) soft emulations of vintage (or even more modern pieces) hardware are without a doubt the best tools IMO. I have to LOL every time I see a "new" plugin that has a superbly beat up and meticulously "weathered" photoshop interface - because as we all know the more vintage it looks the better the plugin...

 

radical thought: use the best sounding tool, not the most authentic.