kats wrote on Mon, 21 February 2011 13:01 |
The point (for eg) is that an 1176 is a compressor. It is designed to compress. A plug in that models the distortion and perhaps the tone of it's circuitry without actually compressing, while perhaps useful, would be a little ridiculous to market as a digital replacement for an 1176, with a GUI to match. What you would be modeling is only the negative (used positively) artifacts of the design.
|
[I apologize in advance for the length of this post. I am going to excessive lengths to avoid confrontation and make super-clear what I mean. Please don't take it as an insult that I'm being this careful. Even at that, it's highly likely I'll be misunderstood, but that's just the nature of human communication and forums in particular. I have a high regard for my colleagues - both those I know personally, and those of you I've never met, and I really wish that was always clearly understood by all of us. All we can do is try.]
Interestingly enough, the UAD 1176 LN actually does compress, and even eschews the analog signal path shmutz of the hardware. So UA is not deficient in their understanding of what's important and what's not in a particular device.
I actually sympathize with the difficulty that can arise when someone prizes analog for resolving power, and views that as its chief marketable value, if they then conclude that must be what's being marketed, at least by implication, but it clearly is not!
This is not a product for the analog market. It's not being marketed as superior to, or a replacement for, analog hardware for those in an analog production environment, including people recording for vinyl. It's a plug-in for DAW environments that don't have analog tape, and aren't in the market for it.
Among those of us who get to hear analog tape, we may discuss things like superior resolution to eg 24/96 digital, but we're always assuming "all other things being equal."
While it's not insignificant, in the total spectrum of factors affecting the final sound of retail content, the resolving power of the tracking medium is not foremost. Almost any other choice performers, producers, and engineers make can have more prominent audible consequences. The choice of analog versus high-resolution digital tracking, while eminently worthy of discussion, is not the primary contributor to quality. Again - I'm not discounting it, or saying it's insignificant. I'm not even saying some people won't disagree that it's not the most important decision. I just don't think most people believe that. Otherwise, they'd set up the tape deck, go home and party, and let the B Team run the sessions!
So, in light of that, I really don't think tracking resolution is the first thing people think about when they want "the sound of tape" on their digital recording! I think they want the most easily audible characteristics, which I'm sorry to hear you describe as "negative," because clearly many people like them. You do a very good job describing how people view this plug-in - as a way to interpose certain easily identifiable characteristics of tape into a digital recording.
Feel free to say this doesn't appeal to you, or that you consider that a naive or overly romanticized view of tape, lacking real appreciation for the finer points, but it is nonetheless real.
I don't think kats is disrespecting anybody, but I think a company like UA, that has done much to preserve our analog hardware heritage by re-introducing classic hardware like the 610, 1176, and LA-2A, and who show a deep appreciation for and understanding of the analog hardware world, should not be denigrated for giving customers what they want. After all, they polled their UAD customers several times, and this was always at the top of the list of what they wanted. So they tell me, and I can't imagine why it wouldn't be true.
At least "analog tape emulation" was - not necessarily this one. But maybe it was a good idea to start "small" in terms of the audible footprint, and work up to more character-laden tape emulations, which I hope they will do. At least I hope this is not their "last word" on the subject.
But for what it is, and what it does, I would call it a very good signal processor, and a successful design. For what it cannot do, outside design criteria, it's hard to find fault, and nobody should have such expectations. It would be an insult to customers to assume they're incapable of understanding that. IMHO, YMMV...