It's almost like an Orwell novel, where they have successfully scammed the populace so well; they cannot see the obvious difference between a physical object and a virtual representation of one on a screen. It's also amazing, the sheer brilliance behind Virtual Instruments (ala Steinberg). How else can you establish a value of one "entity"/item, which does not exist based on something that does? How else do you sell someone a $100 file and send them off to exclaim it's the same as a 10x more expensive physical unit?

How else do you sell something that does not exist? It's absolutely brilliant. and a scam.

 

When you're convinced it's the real hardware but everyone knows it's a plugin

 

For me the "virtual" thingy kind of tells the story.

There're bad practices like in everything. I understand your point but I don't agree. Which is fine. For me the problem is the advertising. Claims like "the best and perfect emulation of blablabla, with all the analog-mojo-warmth-saturation-AI-god-mode-one-more-beer-please".

Oops, ignore the last four, I'm on holidays already

 

Last edited: Jul 28, 2022

Has anyone ever cloned a soft synth into a hardware unit? I'm asking for a friend

 

Is it enough for you?

Ok, not really a clone (just a controller) but it's nice to know it's real, unfortunately a prototype not on sale. I imagine that to really recreate all the functions of Diva in a physical way it would take a huge wall of circuits

Info: http://www.synth-project.de/diva.html

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jul 28, 2022

One of the best videos comparing compressors ITB and OTB

 

This topic is not about comparing analog hardware and software :

( purple bold added )

EDIT : ... then when one knows that CLA prefers to use his racks than the p-i with his name on it... ( If my memory's good, this can notably be heard by the man himself in an interview with Rick Beato. )

FOUND : =>

5:15 min etc.

What a character !

 

Last edited: Jul 28, 2022

don't know about synth but there's this one reverb unit though :



https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/ams-rmx16

 

Okay, my bad. I meant exact copy of the source code. It's kind of obvious what I meant, or so I thought...

 

You may have been, but his answer remains almost entirely correct then. Short of the manufacturers like Roland/Korg/Novation who make plugin versions of their own synths, this isn't going to happen. And even then, how true to the original "source code" is often cause for debate.

 

+1
I was about to write the same. It's obvious and logical.

 

They get pretty close but I wouldn't say 1 to 1 likeness. Not yet anyway.

 

Those are crude digital replicas of (parts of) schematic diagrams, ignoring the nuances of electric and physical properties of concrete components [given in their elaborate data sheets]. Properties of PCBs, wiring, type of grounding, jacks, connectors, relays etc.) used in the real gear affects the sound, but are (naturally) also not taken into consideration, and most prominently the power supply, which is of critical importance.
So they do not sound like the real gear more than ~50%, taken generously.

 

But with most stuff there is hardware in between...
Now, it may be that what's being used is BETTER than what was original.
In that case it might be fairly easy to make it sound just a little bit more shitty.
Run it through one of these and you are all set!

 

absolutely 100% right.

1 : 1 replica / emulation = myth.
I've a/b'd my Manleys with the UAD plugins, close, very close but no cigar. Same with some of the Arturia V's close but not carbon. I've a/b'd Waves too with some of my hw. Laughable.
Electronic circuits have analog, electronic 'character' - code does not. : )
Some originals have major flaws, like my memory Moog wich drops a semitone depending on the season and,or depending on how long it's been on. You wouldn't want to reproduce that with code LOL.
I would say though, both the UAD 1073 and UA 610 are the closest to the real thing as far as I can tell. So thats it for me.

edit: big feeling of dejavu.

 

Last edited: Aug 17, 2022

"my audience on the internet in 2022 doesn't know the difference between the Arturia and the Moog. Sounds the same when it is in the DAW"

 

Here is a meaningful dialogue, I have copied it and translated it into English:

Rolleum wrote:
Your statement, however, contradicts the component modeling technology that Brainworx, for example, has been using for at least a decade, including for the UAD. Just there every transistor, tube, transformer, etc.pp in the signal path is exactly reproduced, and as in the HG-2 Saturator the interactions among themselves are also taken into account.

livingsounds wrote:
We have already had it all. This is technically impossible.

Even simulating a simple circuit in Spice takes 10 times the time of the audio file offline, and then it still sounds different from hardware. I've tried it. At best, manufacturers use grossly simplified models that then fiddle with the signal within the limited sample rate. Up/downsampling in real time in the plugin mitigates the sample rate problem a bit, but adds new artifacts.
I have never heard of a halfway convincing transfer simulation. It would also go beyond the scope of any computing power.

Source: https://recording.de/threads/warum-emulation.209993/page-3

 

Agreed. My "only if the hardware inside is a digital DSP" is a BIG if.

This is totally true. Physical modelling has its limits. There's also benefits. For me its only about if it sounds good, and many sound more than good enough for me. That being said I'm not a music hardware guy.

But... if you know the original hardware and they sell you the plugin like it's identical or even 99% I can understand people complaining or simply denying it. Because they're right.
The marketing about plugins is really crazy, oftentimes I have a load of laughs such is the raw amount of BS they say.
Some of my "favorites" are Denise Audio and Analog Obsession. But the God Testicle, I mean Particle, has set a new record hands down.

 

Last edited: Aug 17, 2022

Does Nebula count?

 

Serum.