Outboard vs plug-in processors
Home > Home Recording Forum > Gear Gab > Outboard vs plug-in processors
Posted on Sep 25, 2005 07:38 am
Soundmind??
?cixelsid I mA
Member Since: Jul 30, 2005
Since virtually all reverb, delay, flange, etc. are digitally processed, is the only real difference between plug-ins and outboard the fact that outboards have built in processors that are more efficient?
[ Back to Top ]
pjkPrince CZAR-mingMember
Since: Apr 08, 2004
Sep 25, 2005 09:45 am I don't think most effects you mention are digitally produced. I beleive that as you get higher in performance, they're analog. They may still have chips in them, but those are chips are processing sine waves, not digital bits and bytes.
I'm not gonna go looking right now, but I'm thinking that a lot of high end reverbs (for instance) aren't digital, though many probably are. (of course, i may be wrong)
compression would fall outside of that comparison, as the compression before the digital domain can keep a signal from clipping inside the computer and ruining a take. The PC compression would then be used to smooth out a track, and beef it up.
I'm sure there'll be lots of people that use the outboard gear due to it's better perfomance. I'm thinking that the big engineer houses that use high end lexicon (and other) reverbs are sold on them due to their better sound.
Sep 25, 2005 10:33 am I ONLY use outboard gear if I need the effect before the signal enters the sound card, which is compression/limiting, other than that I use all plugs. There are DSP's available for computers that have a processor for effects processing which takes load off of your CPU.
Most typical consumer effects these days are all digital, they are easier to quicker to produce.
Sep 25, 2005 12:41 pm So a high quality plug-in should have comparable sound quality to a high cost digital outboard, it will use the same algorithms but they are processed in the CPU in your computer, instead of being done in the outboard systems processor.
Sep 25, 2005 12:57 pm I have some plugs I think are far superior to outboard gear myself...I am by no means the master of this subject, but I like the plugs I use, and with software you can buy ONE reverb plug (for example) and use it set differently on as many tracks as you want whereas with outboard gear it's usable ONCE...so software is more economical as well...but then you don't have those impressive racks full of gear and an empty bank account to show off :-)
Sep 25, 2005 01:09 pm I'm looking at a TC Electronics M-One @ around $400 including tax. This is by no means a top end unit, so would I be better off with something like Waves or other VST effects at a similar price? I use a pentium 4 2.8Ghz with 1G of ram, so I don't think processing would be an issue since I rarely use more than 10-12 tracks. I also looked at PSP last night, cool stuff, I like the free VU meters
Sep 25, 2005 01:26 pm I can't say what is best for you, but I would go for the plugs myself. Like I said, I like to have a nice outboard compressor/limiter and everything else be plugs.
But that's just me.
Noize2uCzar of MidiAdministrator
Since: Apr 04, 2002
Sep 25, 2005 04:40 pm I agree with dB as well. And I am one of those guys with a couple racks full of gear. Synths and processors. I find the pluggins much more versatile as dB stated, and you can do much more then you can with a hardware piece. I have barely touched any of my outboard gear other then a filter for the synths and a compressor/limiter for incoming vox and such.
As for what package is good for you, the Waves and PSP bundles are excelant choices with a good variety of stable pluggins. I use both and find them well worth their price.
jmailjimmie neutronMember
Since: Feb 14, 2005
Sep 26, 2005 07:35 am Going from analog to digital is one conversion step. If you go from digital to analog to process in a piece of outboard analog gear, and then back to digital to return to the computer, that'll be 2 more conversion steps. From what I've learned, you record a "flat" signal, no processing, other than limiting/compression to control the input, like dB says, at as high of a frequency & bit depth as you can stand, and you keep it there until you've "finished" the "work" and go to convert to Red Book Audio for CD burning, unless you've got some really, *really*, really cool effects unit that you can only use by a conversion process, and even then, you don't do it...
Sep 26, 2005 01:36 pm Its seems logical that every time the signal is converted, some degradation would take place. This would be minimized by higher bit depth and sample rates, right?
jmailjimmie neutronMember
Since: Feb 14, 2005
Sep 27, 2005 06:47 am True, but, something will be lost in the "translation"; you might hear it, you might not. In one of the books I got out from the library ("The Art Of Mastering"?), the author (very famous - my mind is blank) does digital to analogue back to digital rather routinely. Of course, he's got $10k EQ boxes, $10k reverbs, comparable compressors, and ungodly-priced convertors. Not only that, it's all hand-crafted in custom-built desks...
If you've got outboard gear, by all means use it and see if *you* like it. Another idea would be to use it while recording, devoting a track to the "clean" signal and one to the "wet" signal, then mix to satisfaction...
Sep 27, 2005 10:43 am I'm learning a lot from you folks, thanks. I guess the bottom line is ...if it sounds good, it doesn't matter how much it costs or how it was "in the signal path". I just want to avoid wasting money on gear as I try to continually improve my abilities and quality of recordings. I've bought some cheap gear that's junk, some that isn't, some expensive gear that isn't junk, but not as useful as I thought it would be when the salesperson convinced me to buy it. I really appreciate your time and input! More questions to follow as I learn about this.
Sep 27, 2005 10:45 am Listening to a sales persons opinion is your first mistake...ask others in the biz, like us... :-)
When my music enters the digital domain, I try very hard to never leave it again, straight to CD from there...no degredation in the digital world...or at least not like analog...technically, as you process effects and such, the file does get bastardized, it's not the same as analog...and that is where high bit rates and such help...then there is headroom for a bit of bastardization.
Good luck, we'll be here for ya.
Sep 27, 2005 11:06 am Thanks, for the advice on purchasing Db, you're absolutely right. If I knew about you guys a couple of years ago, I'd have a few more grand to spend on good gear! Again, I appreciate the advice and will certainly help when I can too. Back to processing, I the processor has SPDIF or other digial connections, then AD/DA conversion is avoided and you can stay n the digital world, right.
jmailjimmie neutronMember
Since: Feb 14, 2005
Sep 27, 2005 10:14 pm Correct-o-mundo; this is also true. Watch the sample & bit rates, tho. Some S/PDIF do only 44.1, some only 48, some do 44.1, 48 & 96 (very expensive ones). Some only do 16 or 20 bits, some do 24...
Edit: If you originally recorded at 48k-24 bit, and go to use an S/PDIF that only does 44.1k-16 bit, you would almost certainly end up with the proverbial "polished turd". It would also most likely be something that would sound worse than a couple generations of A-D-A-D conversions. Down-sampling and up-sampling are to be avoided if at all possible (maybe more-so than ADA conversions?), unless you have a *good* "converter" (not the correct term)...
Sep 28, 2005 10:29 am True, jmail, changing sample rates should only be done to burn a CD. It makes sense that changing sample rates would distort the sound as well as changing bit depth. I know that recording a CD in 48Khz or higher will do nothing for the sound quality, but can the dynamic range be increased by increasing the bit depth? For example, increasing the volume of crescendos by remastering a classical CD that needs some improvement in dynamics and burning it as an audio DVD. During processing though, I should stick to the sample rate and bit depth of the recorded material...very important...right?
Sep 28, 2005 10:37 am Well, the primary reason to record at high bit rates and sample rates is to have the best master recordings possible. Much like analog recording on thick tape at double speed, even tho it's sound funny in any commercial tape player that way.
Also, as computers do the math whilst processing effects it continually throws away "leftovers" of the math processing and therefore bastardizes the audio. Dithering is what helps fill in those gaps from thrown away bits and bytes of data. The higher resolution your original recording, the higher it will remain before converting down to 16/44.1 for the final master burn to CD.
Also, DVD audio and film scores are much higher resolution than the audio CD standard. Surround sound film scores are often 24 bit 96 sample rate, and that is the standard used quite often...however, now real 100% accepted "standard" for DVD audio has been adopted yet that I am aware of, there are 2 or 3 fighting for it (imagine that).
There are many good reasons to do all your inital recording at high bit rates...but, make sure when converting down you use the best converting software and best dithering tools you can...cuz some don't downscale well...this is where the difference between Steinberg WaveLab and shareware or freeware can often be the most visible...er, audible, as it were...
Sep 28, 2005 10:55 am Thanks dB (finally got that right dB, not Db). Should I consider the max sample rate and bit depth of any outboard gear I will use in the recording, or record at the highest rate possible and convert it to the appropriate rate for the final master and route through the effects at the highest rate the effects offer? I use cubase SX2 and Sonar 4 Producer for recording and Samplitude 8 Pro for mastering. What do you think of Samplitude's dithering? Trying not to get off subject, but they are all related on this question.
Sep 28, 2005 10:59 am I like Sonars 4's dithering personally.
