Hacker News Reader

Comment by earlz | Hacker News Reader

Realistically, this is also true of most modern music. Sure it requires a bit more equipment, but with software amp simulation and the plethora of VST plugins you can get, you can almost always get a tone similar to your target for just a couple hundred dollars, at most. Combine with equipment and you're looking at maybe $600 in instruments/equipment and a basic mic for vocals. The only sticking point right now it seems is that drums are still notoriously hard to record, though MIDI/software drums are extremely realistic, and even beyond that. It's extremely easy to find a random stranger on the internet that likes your style and happens to be a drummer with all the equipment for recording drums.

And then again, EDM is cheap, but it can be extremely time consuming if you're going cheap. Good synths don't just build themselves and there's a reason people buy virtual instrument packs.

View on HN

>you can almost always get a tone similar to your target

Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig. The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Touring a band is still expensive. So much so that it was the difference between going on extensive global touring as a duo or not touring at all (4 piece) for someone I know.

As much as I want to agree with you nostalgia wise on the "real circuits and valves" thing, pretty much every industry magazine interview I've read with the top teir of guitarists basically say that "real amps" are for in the studio and when going on the road just use the Kemper[1] and nobody will be able to tell the difference. Honestly I would buy one of those in a heartbeat if I had the income/need/ability to write it off as a business expense.

[1] A Kemper review from 2012 - http://www.musicradar.com/reviews/guitars/kemper-profiling-a...

>This is the context in which the Kemper truly excels and it proves possible to create amp profiles that are good enough to fool three sets of very experienced ears during our testing process. At one stage, we even find ourselves unplugging the reference amplifier just to make sure that it's definitely the Kemper that we're hearing and there isn't some elaborate hoax taking place!

There are too many nonlinearities in real circuits and valves to perfectly model with current technology(or programming methods), but you're absolutely spot on that 99% of people can't tell the difference, even musicians. It's only the person playing the instrument that tends to care

Muse use Kemper but they also mix it up by having 3 amps mic'd up backstage. I didn't mean to suggest that VST's don't have their place in the signal chain at all.

I'm not a musician and I've never heard of a Kemper before, but that's one amazing piece of kit!

> The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

Honestly I think mixing and mastering each make a much bigger difference with recorded music. In my experience the "amateur aesthetic" usually comes down to these five things:

1) Timing

2) Tuning/intonation

3) Variation or lack thereof

4) Mixing

5) Mastering

The old adage applies to music too: Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

>Beginners care about gear, professionals care about technique, masters care about sound.

Caring about sound means caring about gear. I don't know any masters (and I know a few) that don't obsess over the gear they use in order to get the perfect sound. Shit in shit out. I think this also applies beyond music: Masters optimise at every link in the value chain.

>Therein lies the rub. You can't beat real circuits and valves especially when you're cranking it loud for a gig.

Actually you could very much can, and especially in a gig, where acoustics are not as perfect as at home with expensive hi-fi speakers.

You'd be surprised how many top artists, with huge followings, use amp simulations and plugins both on stage and on their productions.

>The difference between the (admittedly pretty amazing) VST's and the real deal is the difference between sounding good and sounding great.

No, that's talent and a good mixer, producer and masterer (neither of the three lesser acts have).

Tons of great sounding albums where recordings with VSTs. Heck, even Bob Ezrin uses the things nowadays...

Generally VST's and top gear are used together. I wasn't suggesting VST's have no place in great sounding records but the initial source needs to be great to sound great. While I'm sure that a great producer/engineer will make a better sounding record with only VST's than an amateur with all the best gear in the world generally the top producers don't compromise at all because they don't have to.

As an aside/complaint, I truly wish there was a way to emulate raw feedback. Back when I lived with my parents in the middle of nowhere, I could crank my tiny amp up to 10, put earmuffs on, and just let the noise wash over me when I crouched next to my amp. Now I'm in a house with a child, and no VST is going to give me that same thrill. I could perhaps buy an e-bow and stand near it when I'm soloing, but it won't be utter chaos.

There's no reason this isn't possible with a VST plugin, if you're willing to do it the old fashioned way of grabbing some speakers, playing(monitoring) the playback out, and standing next to them with an instrument. Now, if you're talking about emulating all of that in a VST, then yea that sounds like an incredibly difficult thing to control with traditional MIDI/sound controls

Reply on news.ycombinator.com