Architect said:
The purpose of software isn't always to emulate hardware, it can't totally do that YET, and we should remember Analog is one thing, Digital is another. We can argue until the cows come home about which one is better analog or digital, but I believe that once you understand how to work with each one it's up to your skills to deliver the results needed. Don't get me wrong I own hardware too, I have a Motif ES6 (which I love) and a Yamaha EX5 synth, as well as a Roland MKII drum machine, Masterlink ML9600, a BlueTube compressor, a mackie 1202, RME multiface, a few other things, and they all get used at some point but for Hip-Hop music especially there is no reason why you can't get excellent results with the software available to us today. The reason there is latency in plugins in the first place is because of how it was programmed (I recently learned this) it has nothing to do with the host audio program, but what the Sonar's and Cubase, etc makers did was incorporate a fix in their programs for something that wasn't there fault in the beginning.
Getting result is not the issue, you can get result by any means, it's up to the man's insight and perspective on software and hardware, so that's all relative and you can say you're content on what you have will make revenue but that's not the point. I mean, I know and work by all means I know so that I dont have to rely on a single program and prevent myself from doing the same routines. The issue is quality difference and probably personal preference but the hardware you mention of are not the hardware I comparing to and even so, a lot of the gear you work with are also based on pcm engines and not on a modelling engine. They're digital and cheaper than the equivalent as to gain the same result you'd expect from such machines which make digital practical.
About latency yeah, but take notice and dont confuse monitoring latency from processing latency. The multiface has zero latency on monitoring for example, which I bet you know.
Also keep this in mind, the software audio market is still young, it hasn't been around as long as analog and hardware audio devices so of course it still is premature in some areas. Shit analog has been used for over a hundred years or more (I could be wrong but my point is it's been a long time) so it has had time to develop into what it is today. For home project semi pro studio uses software is a very viable option and not because it's cheaper than hardware but who wants a huge 24 channel or 48, whatever channel analog mixer in their studio, IF (read this carefully) they can get the same control, speed, better accuracy, sound quality) IN THE BOX. I'm not downing hardware but I'm just saying don't sleep on audio software it can compete, just ask all the pro tools, FL Studio, Sonar, Cubase, Logic, Sequoia, Sawstudio, etc, users out there making money using these tools everyday (of course in conjunction with the right hardware).
I'm not arguing with you formant but just wanted to share another point of view that I think is very valid for people to understand.
Word, I agree ( but I'm arguing with you hehe ) and even more important is that most people dont have the option to compare this issue because for the biggest deal of producers work with small little setups, I mean, this is an expensive hobby. And the rule is, the more expensive the gear, the better. So I, logically, dont assume that most people will tell or really know to talk differences. That's the pain for most, even for me because there's so much I dont have grrr. But I do want to point out some issue you've mentioned.
Like analogue devices haven't changed in concept, new achievement also haven't been made and that goes for all. What does change are materials, conductors develop, the concepts really remain as is, in fact, it's been boring since '81, just plain old formantic synthesis, even to this day, well, ok, there's some new physical modelling, neuro synths ( hartman ) and granulising synthesis ( but that's sampling really ). After that not much has happened besides arise of the digital realm after the great analog supercomputerdriven synths were established ( Wendy Carlos's Synergy, EMU Audity ) and sampling/emulating devices were too expensive and unlucky due to marketing demand ( Fairlight, PPG ). All analogue untill FM ( yamaha ), LA ( Roland ) and Vector ( Tom Oberheim who joined SC and after that Yamaha ) started working with IC programmed synths clearly emulating the different realm but it was hot back than. (PPG actually made the first plugin like emulator build called the Realizer, after that nothing I've seen came close untill the plugins came like we know today. ) After that the most worthy of mentioning was the Kurzweil 2000/2500 and all of the rest are based on PCM + modelling, which is just like sampling with control over envelopes and filters but the source is a sample.
Now, why would you want a big ass console in your bedroom studio ? No you dont indeed, because monitoring would also be lousy in term's of roomsize and gaining a nice hotspot. And you dont want any console, you need a good console because crappy ones will have leaking channels, eq that would only make worse noise than you'd put into it, so you really want to know what you're getting yourself into. Another disadvantage ( well for most in our budget that is ) is the lack of total recall, saving the mixer settings to the tracks you working on, meaning you have to finish one track before you can start anything else ( but which doesn't need to be the case, depending on outboard gear and the amount of such ). But like the comments I mentioned above, it only takes experience ( insight ) to control such human errors and a good perspective on what you're doing and by which means you want get the prefered result. Like a smoking you can buy from shop and the tailor made tux on which I'm not wondering which is better. Now, you can compare your digital vs. hardware yourself when looking at your setup, but considering you dont have a multitrack setup it demands some rearranging in your setup since I assume your synths go through the 1202 with the stereo out into the multiface. Your tracks are recorded on the Multiface which is also responsible for blending during mixdown to 2track master. Now, I dont recall the amount of analogue outputs on your Multiface, but take a minimal amount of tracks for mixdown, say drumtrack, tune and bass. Route them to the output of the multiface, inserting on the channel inputs of the 1202 and balance out level's and eq for a 2 track mixdown and record that back into the input of the multiface at the highest resolution. Now do the same but just the internal mixdown on the multiface itself notice the difference ( and I hope you have some nice nearfield or else you wont notice nada, not much anyway ). Now I have to say, using the HDSP9652 that RME makes fine farmcards, like really nice and that the 1202 is also okay in it's class so the only thing that can cause trouble is wether you used balanced cable or not. But in a setup like this, the console makes the quality, hence why PT HD user in the biggy studios always have a Neve or SSL something to route to and blend their mixdowns with, pt itself is just for recording which is probably excellent but does not contribute to quality. Now, Im not saying you need a 30K mixer because only then it's efficient in effect, in fact I have heard mixdowns on a Behringer ( ok, a new one after a year you should throw it away ) that sound twice as nice than any software platform could calculate ( render ). We've been using a soundtracs topaz which come fairly cheap these days, is small, has 72 inputs ( 32/32/8/2 ) in total and the quality of the mixdown can not be matched by the HDSP rendering through logic. So we have 24 channels from logic ( rme ) going out to 24 inputs on the topaz and 24 tape outs going back again ( for studio recordings ). Just to give an example.
So, I'd say go try and compare for yourself and then tell me the difference between adding 0's and 1's oppossed to adding voltages. All of the platforms you've mentioned indeed come or should come with the proper hardware, but considering that all those that create revenue using these platforms have a good quality console for blending, make the purpose of such a daw for recording/playback only and midi after that. So that's a matter of difference in perspective.
What's left to say is that we might be talking about different levels, pro vs. bedroom but I aint talking that pro since a lot will benefit in your bedroom techie's setup and cost considerably less than SSL gear for example. The issue then becomes what you're trying to achieve by which means. You talk about the all in the box solution in which I personaly dont believe in, so that leaves me wanting to work with the real deal, but Im also a passionate hobbiest which makes all this knowledge mine to judge about it and to use it. I might not have all that I want because then I'd need some serious 100K but I can build a MEQ5 myself because I wouldn't be satisfied with a UAD-1, same for the 1176, 1178, build it myself, SSL compressor, neve1066, 1073, 1081, 2145, 33609, LA2,3,4, API312,325 and even a Fairchild670. so to me it's about how much effort you're willing to put into it. And yeah, the dont come overnight and it wont come by the boxed solution. It's just practicle ( read easy ) and cheap ( read easy ).
( yeah, ima nerd )