phil b":3txf6vuc said:
italoop":3txf6vuc said:
You can do anyhing you like, in any way you like, Period.
THIS is done differently from what you do... and applies to a lot of other sound sources.
IF you can't hear the difference between pitch and time... that is your problem, not mine.
I'm here showing things to people, not debating on how you do things.
The problem is if in a mix someone can get sounds that are so indistinguishable from YOUR sounds you refuse to believe it can be done any other way convincingly. Only thing you are showing people is what can be done with rack gear that most people done have, and if they did they wouldnt know how to program it.
You're right that you dont debate. If its not your way with only what you use then it will be impossible to get anything close. Your definitely smart enough to be able to manipulate sounds that are "close" with using plugins and would be more obtainable to the average person without top notch gear. I have seen Dave Prater get sounds out of older zoom units that I was blown away by. I know carpenters that blame their skills on the tools they have also.
You have totally derailed from my point, let alone the thread.
I haven't stated anywhere something can only be done in a single way or right one.
I am aware of how people work with technology and have designed myself both hardware d software (plugins) algorithms.
You are bending my point to your personal convenince in attacking me... for whatever other reason you may have.
MY POINT is about sounds that have been created using hardware... for a rig in live use and for recording in any type of studio, from home to professional ones.
Somebody came in presenting his opinion about the fact a pluging can do that. Yes... I'll tell you more... many plugins can do thickening or widening effects.
But the comparison between that specific plugin and the hardware it's been claimed to come from is wrong. Thay do sound infinitely different and are not even related from a code point of view. That doesn't mean it's right or wrong to use this or that... it's just not the same.
In addition to that... MY EXAMPLES do not even use pitch shifting because of issues it presents for its inherent delay latency the user can't control. MY EXAMPLES are based on the use of delays and the psycho-acoustic perception of time non alignment and frequency separation... a more advanced approach to this type of sounds, USED in studios and presented to live rig users who don't have a knowledge of this technique, for the most of them. Very simple.
I have designed hardware and software effects and have been lucky to have the privilege to listen to them on both platforms; even being the same exact algorithms and code... the do sound very different. No matter the tweaks I could add to any of them, they remained different.
I am also doing mastering work on final mixes, where stereo field adjustments, tonal refinement and final reverb need to be added... on acoustic instruments, the most complex situation you may have to deal with in a mastering job. I'm using my hardware and my plugins... believe ot or not I have a ton of them and many companies do give them to me for free, for evaluation, advise, pretty much consulting on them.
So, my Lexicon PCM/MPX/LXP reverbs and effects bundles... vs. my Lexicon 300, PCM80,PCM81, MPX-1. The Random Hall comes from the 300 and was ported over the 480 and the PCM90/91. I apply the plug and listen... I do the same with the Lex300, same settings, same everything... BIG difference. No matter how "smart and expereinced" I can be, I find no way to get the plug to sound as nice, warm, wrapping the music content in a more coherent way, fir it better. They are just different! And the engineer who designed those plugins does aknowledge that, in terms of difference. These are different technologies. Hardware has control on the whole sound, software doesn't as it's based on a chain of separate steps, software, computer, converters. It's another world. There is no plugin out there that sounds exactly like the original hardware it has been created from.
I don't debate the fact people prefer to use one or the other, the "workflow" or anything else... not even care about it.
I am stating they DO NOT sound in the same way. And that's a very easy thing to check because you have the difference in front of your eyes and ears:
-plugins software has limitations in the size that can be used and allocated. This isn't the case on hardware, where an algorithm can be much larger and more refined.
-coding is different. Yes, that matters.
-processing hardware is different... YES that matters too.
-conversions are carried externally. Me and other people, in the same room, have tested the same algorithm thru its native 5000$ processor and its plugin versions on a pro recording DAW setup, running on much more expensive stellar converter... very clear difference in the depth and spread of the sound. The box sounded better.
Does all of this mean one MUST use hardware? No.
Does that make it right or wrong? Not at all.
Is personal evaluation wrong being positive on results when using plugins? Nope.
But when you talk to me about specific comparisons between the real thing and the plugin emulating it.. I'll tell you which one sounds better... and so far it's only been the hardware.
I wish people would develop new and original things rather than trying to copy existing stuff with lesser results. So much of the code of those old units has been lost. How can you even claim your plugin is based on the same data? Good luck with that.
Do a mix with the two different resources... the real thing and its plugin version... and you should be able to tell the difference.
Do you like the plug better... because of all those excuses (workflow, MP3 being the standard (sigh!), guitarists don't use the other H3000 algorithms) and BS like that rather than the difference in quality you can hear?... fine. Live with that and be happy. Others don't do it in the same way and love to keep audio and music on a higher level, both technically and aesthetically...
Some are ok with the "good enough" approach, others go for the best possible one. Different worlds!
Go in a real quality studio and check how much old and current hardware is there and being used every day. They have more than a reason for that.
Ask yourself why many prefer using Henning Amplification amps than a guitar preamp plugin.
That's my simple point in this deviation from the thread subject... and I am NOT debating on it as much as an original device sounds always better at being itself than any imitation of it.
Then ... you are free to make your choices and let others learn how other choices work.
Come to this thread contributing to it as I won't tolerate anything different from that.
) that you didn't use micropitchshifting in your videos. We established that. I said I could use it to get similar thickening/sweetening of guitar sounds, that's all. 
