Those are all your opinion and one flat out lie. Thanks for nothing

 

The spectral difference in these examples is always higher. It's in the mids and mostly highs. Also there's a dynamics difference.
So I have a counter-question: Why is fix them bloody ears so hard for gear consumers?

 

NVM read it further and it seems to be a clown thread.

 

It's not just the low mids. It actually affects everything and is - as @ᑕ⊕ֆᗰIᑢ said earlier - due to the precision of the program and computers in general.

If you want to simulate an analog device at the component level, you measure each component and simulate it. Even at this computationally intensive stage (which is non-realtime), precision is lost because the behavior of the components is described by mathematical formulas that are only an approximation of reality. In the next step, the effect of the components is grouped together, and the effect of these groups on the signal is again described by one or more simplified formula. The result of 50 components - whose pinch simulation is already inaccurate - is summarized in a single inaccurate function. This process is continued accordingly and here and there additional inaccuracy is sometimes accepted to increase the efficiency of the program.
In the end, an 100% accurate simulation of analog hardware is not possible yet, since the CPU contains transformers whose state is always 1 or 0. To accurately simulate analog hardware, these transformers would have to be able to be in a non-specific superposition. Or in other words, a quantum computer is needed.

Did you know that most computers can't even divide and therefore have to take incredibly complicated detours to solve a division problem?

 

Last edited: Jul 10, 2023

I want to know why sex doll devs can't replicate a real woman one for one! Come on fellas, please try harder.

 

just buy the most expensive vst with emulation or vintage in the name and your good to go

 

Asking why plugins do not sound exactly like hardware is an absolute valid question.

It's really not only 200Hz, it's basically every tiny aspect of a sound. Fabien Shivre (TDR) said not that long ago in substance, it is possibile to code a plugin so that it sounds like hardware. Sadly, no computer is able to calculate this in realtime.

So, as @Sinus Well said, we maybe need to wait for quantum computers.

 

It's not as if plugin developers are intentionally leaving money on the table or trying to snub anyone by making <200Hz deliberately worse. If you can give a precise, technical description (no mixing jargon) of what you think that plugins aren't getting right, chances are someone will implement what you suggest and turn it into a product - if they agree that it sounds better.

 

To run such simulations in real time, mature silicon photonic processors would probably be sufficient. We'll probably see in the next 10 years what comes out of it.
When I mentioned quantum computers, I was referring to the precision of the computation, taking into account all the variables present in every possible additional state in a complex circuit.

 

Thank you. So technically it's simply impossible to get the sound.

Why can't devs make use of samples and algorithmic techniques then?
I don't believe we have to wait for quantum computers or stack up vsts to do this.

For example I like to add acustica corresponding nebula library after to algorithmic eq, compressor etc and I get the thicker sound I want. There's ways round it

 

Exact about Nebula and similar solutions.
I use Nebula only as "final polish" with a single instance or few on bus.

It is enough to "fake it".

Same with guitar sims : even the cheapest Mooer profiler get BETTER results than algos ones.
Of course Kemper is better ... and QC/ToneX even more.
But still realistic enough.

Because technology behind profiling is different than usual algos.
There are SO MANY variables that simply "capturing" them is more effective than reproducing them one by one.
Even if the capture is partial only.

 

Exactly. You want different. Not more accurate or better. Different. It's not an analog quality that can't be approximated accurately enough with current computing capabilities, it's a sound quality you desire that some of the developers of the plugins you use simply don't find desirable enough to implement because [reasons]. Not everyone likes the same stuff or cares about the same things.

Maybe try sandwiching your saturating plugins between emphasis/deemphasis EQs for the low end?

 

It doesn't solve the problem, it shifts it a bit.
Look, in analog hardware you have all kinds of components. Resistors, capacitors, diodes, transformers, etc. etc. All these components can filter, distort, and so on.
That is, in one component the signal gets distorted under condition xy, in the other component it gets filtered under condition xy, there again something different happens both under condition xy and under condition xy, because the component before the component just mentioned reacts differently than before, because the amplitude or the frequency is different. And mostly "under condition xy" does not mean either or, but is a smooth transition. I'll leave logical gates aside here.
In software programming, as already mentioned, it works differently. Even relatively simple circuits would require hundreds of thousands of lines of code. And a lot would have to be calculated in parallel.
So instead of filtering and distorting, etc a hundred times or whatever, you filter a few times and distort a few times with a certain function like sin, tanh, arctan, etc. And as I said, all these functions are only approximations. No filter, no function, no anything is just like in the analog world. Are they close enough? Mostly yes, but it adds up. Do you see the problem? Acustica makes no difference. There are a few samples which are controlled dynamically and then the same approximating functions are used to saturate. Does not mean that I don't find acustica audio's results interesting and sometimes impressive.

 

Last edited: Jul 10, 2023

Also every component has tolerance, so there´s slightly variations on component level, now add that to the formula on every component. But as said I´m also pretty sure this is tackled with future processors, just not yet

 

A few month ago I listened to Boris Brejcha and I was thinking about how the hell he produces this incredible buttery, deep and punchy bass. After that I watched a short clip (Tech Talk on Electronic Beats TV), in which he talked about what he uses etc. Guess what, he mainly produces ITB, often using FabFilter One and just one specific preset (to create sidechain fx) in FabFilter Saturn. I was somehow relieved and somehow inspired by that video, because I had the fear Brejcha was one of those artists with an impressive arsenal of great sounding analog synths. It's the ear, not the gear.

Saying that, I would still buy many of these beautiful sounding hardware units, if I was had the money to do so. Not only because of the low freq spectrum though ...

I also ran into the problem around the low mid area over and over again (with plugins, I can't really compare with hardware). Maybe there is some kind of "competition problem". Nowadays it is really easy to compare different plugins. Having your plugins thick sounding in the lows and low mids make them "fatter" sounding in comparisons. In a similar meaning as the loudness war.

 

why do so many bass synths or bass patches just sound like farting? seriously, most do. think about it...

 

Acustica Audio's Hypertechnology is exactly this, a combi of both.
But even without, there's a YT vid where someone compared Ivory (IIRC) to the hardware. Try to differentiate them, good luck.

 

maybe because the plugin has diarrhea

 

I may be wrong, cause my equipment is not high quality or expensive. I have always used softsynths (developing country here),had never touched an analog synth until recently. Bought a Minilogue when it was somewhat affordable in my country. It is not better or worse than software (which I love), but it is different, and not only due to character (in this regard, many software synths sound different from each other due to character also) but also as if it has more of everything - lows, mids, noises, highs, movement - all over the spectrum. When I compared just the pure waveforms, I could get the same sound with softsynths (rolling off a little of the highs in a sawtooth in the softsynth, or increasing the lows with an equalizer in a triangle wave),but when you start to mix the waveforms and use the filter, the sound starts to get more complex (?), full (?) of everything (lack of better description) in the hardware (the softsynths usually sound less detailed, as if some frequencies were somewhat tamed, constrained).
Ok, the Minilogue is the only analog synth I have touched, and I know it has its quirks soundwise (it can sound very metallic, piercing, lots of high mids compared to softsynths). With it, I tend to CUT frequencies in order to approximate the sound of a softsynth, or to make it fit with itself in a mix. As I said, I may be totally wrong, but that is the impression I get from my low budget equipment.

From the softsynths I tested, Softube modular, Waldorf Largo, Thorn, Spire, Way out ware Timewarp 2600 and the OB-E from Gforce had a "similar" vibe (as if there were more frequencies going on, moving, colliding and interacting). And yes, I tend to increase the mid lows (and also the mid highs) in many softsynths when I want to approximate the sound I can get from my Minilogue (which is far from a fat sounding synth).

 

Last edited: Jul 10, 2023

First off, from the harsh tone you used to respond it seems like you're offended, why?

Second, it's not my opinion nor I am a lier (so for sure here you like to offend), but statistical consolidated test procedures, inform yourself.
If i was providing such methods used in test like that one seen in the clip to the companies I worked for, they would have laughed loud, maybe they would have fired me.

Third, your thesis is clear: vsts suck, and they're not able to code properly to reproduce real stuff.
Perfect, they're different beasts, probably it's right, so there is one solution: buy the real stuff, and you're happy.

I'm really interested in comparing real and virtual stuff, but in this case, I don't give a shit on your "200Hz issue", providing it's not just your obsession.

GoodBye