The plugin scam exposed. Did you fall for it?

[Starship Krupa]

I've gone through phases in my development as a mix engineer, and as the audio software industry has changed over the past decade.

Initially I budgeted nothing for plug-ins, just went with whatever was bundled with Mixcraft (which, admittedly, is known for bundling some nice plug-ins, such as the way underrated ToneBoosters stuff).

At the time, the industry was moving to 64-bit, and the one-person freebie developers were stuck with SynthEdit, which took a LONG time to get a 64-bit replacement. Now we have JUCE and others.

Then MeldaProduction kicked off this era of loss leaders by topflight developers. That was a watershed moment. MeldaProduction has since made a fortune from people who tried their free bundle and were hooked (like me). The sound and features were so far ahead of anything else available for free.

Got deals on the iZotope Elements suites of the time.

At that point, my mixes and masters got the the point where I was no longer frustrated with the results I was getting, it was then all about shaving off that final 10% of skills and tools.

Being a fixed income frugal dude, when I switched to CbB as my primary DAW and discovered this forum, it was off to the races.

Plugin Alliance virtually giving away licenses, IK Multimedia TRacks freebies (I now have every TRacks processor I ever wanted, not paid a dime for any of them), Plugin Boutique freebies (which have included some top-tier things like sonible and Kilohearts specialty EQ's), Native Instruments freebies, iZotope Exponential $10 reverbs, Waves freebies, I now have a FEROCIOUS collection of top-tier processors and synths for which I've paid very little in the scope of the hobby (and thanks to my main DAW being freeware).

I think the only thing anyone would find "lacking" in my quiver of tools would be if they were really fond of Waves, FabFilter or UAD.

The only plug-in categories that now interest me for acquisition are sound-design-y things like Unfiltered Audio, Glitchmachines, Freakshow Industries and the like. Also synths, but only freebies.

There's no way I don't have all the bread-and-butter mixing and mastering categories covered multiple times over. I have so much stuff that I've barely touched the iZotope bundle since I got it. No buyer's remorse, it's industry-standard stuff and I'm glad it's there.

On 5/23/2024 at 9:39 AM, bitflipper said:

Nearly every YouTube advice-giver starts with the same premise: I've found a secret that nobody else knows about...

Indeed. And heaven knows plenty of "This One Secret!" videos that were "all you need is your DAW's stock plug-ins." ?

They get clicks, though, even from us jaded skeptics who click on them just to roll our eyes.

[Mark Morgon-Shaw]

3 hours ago, kitekrazy said:

Imagine if there was one similar on softsynths.   Many of us have way too many of those.

I use Akai VIP ( sadly discontinued but it came free with my midi controller ) which brings all your softsynths into one place and you can quickly browse all the presets from multiple synths from one big centralised GUI.

The thing it made me notice , is that when you can 't seen the synths own native interface... they all kinda sound pretty much the same.    

Edited May 25 by Mark Morgon-Shaw

[Carl Ewing]

Just wanted to add one important point, especially when comparing passive vs. active EQs. A passive EQ, like the Massive Passive or Pultec, don't actually "boost" frequencies. What actually happens is that when you "boost" a frequency by 2db it will drop other frequencies by 2db (*), giving the perception that the target frequency is being boosted. Depending on the unit (or emulation) 2db of makeup gain is then added to the entire signal. (**) Because of this process, technically, a passive EQ does not require a power supply except for the purpose of a providing a kind of "auto gain" to compensate for lost signal. And of course the gain amp in many passive EQ units gives each unit a very signature sound.

* = the frequency curve of this process wildly differs between models. Some do steeper cuts to frequencies closest to the target frequency, others have a more uniform curve across the whole spectrum.

** = again, how this is done differs wildly between models. For example, you get quite a different sound if the fixed-gain amp is before or after the EQ circuit. A proper emulation of these units would have to take this circuitry into account. 

I noticed that a lot of these "all these EQ plugins sound the same" claims often mix match entirely different types of EQs without understanding the circuitry / physics and how it would be literally impossible for them to sound the same.  If they are getting a "they sound identical", then there is either something wrong with the emulation (quite possible), or something very wrong with the test.

Not sure if I explained that correctly - but here's a Sweetwater site explanation: 

Quote

Passive vs. Active EQs:

Another difference is that the emulated EQ may have a passive or active circuit design. Passive EQs don’t use gain in the filter sections themselves, so theoretically the filters can only cut, not boost. However, many passive designs include an output amplifier that adds makeup gain to all the filter sections, and the filters’ boost/cut controls add a constant amount of attenuation at the “0” setting that offsets the amount of output boost. Therefore, when you’re boosting at a particular frequency, the filter circuit itself is simply reducing the amount of attenuation, which results in a “boost” by taking advantage of the gain provided by the output amplifier.

Active EQs are variations on amplifiers, so they can boost as well as cut and can add resonances that would be difficult to achieve with passive EQs. Many people consider passive EQs gentler and more “musical,” and active EQs better at problem-solving.

 

 

Edited May 25 by Carl Ewing

[Jesse Screed]

16 hours ago, Carl Ewing said:

I don't think it's so much sounding good - what we think sounds good is product of 100 years of recorded music made on very specific pieces of equipment, by a relatively small group of people, who essentially hammered the sound of "good" into our brains. In a parallel universe, where entirely other engineers made entirely different pieces of gear, it's likely our idea of "good" would be entirely different.

[Mr No Name]

What music would sound like if everyone used only one digital eq.

 

 

[telecode 101]

20 hours ago, pwal³ said:

tbf, stock plugs are really rather good

Yup. I wish I had followed this path when I first started getting into ITB DAW. I have found that trimming down the plugins you have at your disposal improves productivity. Less options to tinker with and more time really focusing on and learning how to use well the plugin you have and what it can do. 

[Zo]

Waiting for the HW version !

[jude77]

23 hours ago, dubdisciple said:

"The secret technique the pros don't want you to know revealed!"

So true.  And that secret technique is don't spend your day watching videos on Youtube.

[kitekrazy1]

On 5/23/2024 at 9:39 AM, bitflipper said:

Nearly every YouTube advice-giver starts with the same premise: I've found a secret that nobody else knows about...

It's really all about making youtube videos and getting clicks.  I'd probably say that every youtuber buys something and does a short video with it and never use it again. 

 You see the same type of videos in the gaming community regarding tips.

Then there's the ones who haven't figured out to do a voiceover (plenty of tech people) and they need to stop. 

[Mr No Name]