What's your relationship to gear/plugins?

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
Post Reply
User avatar
TritoneAddiction
Competition Winner
Posts: 4219
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

11 Sep 2017

Does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill? Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?

Are you constantly looking for new exciting things?

Are you a hoarder of plugins/REs? Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use?
Or do you only buy the stuff that you really need?

How important are specific tools/plugins for you? Is it "an EQ is an EQ", "they all do the same thing basically", or do you have strong opinions on what tools you love or hate working with?

Maybe there are other things to consider: price, supporting a developer, good/bad business models etc...

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

11 Sep 2017

TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill? Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?
Yes it does matter. The tools don't decide the quality of your music per se but rather the character of your music.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you constantly looking for new exciting things?
No. I look for the tools that have a progressive impact on my music.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you a hoarder of plugins/REs? Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use? Or do you only buy the stuff that you really need?
I have a lot of RE's that I will probably never use again to be honest just because my taste has evolved and I have a set of top tools now that I use regularly. I still remember how exciting it was when Rough Rider compressor and RP Predator came into the rack. Some people might still use those but my experience and taste has moved on from using such tools. With that said, I'm pretty sure I've hit my peak of accumulation. I'm at a point now where I just need to make music and save money for the logistical side of things.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
How important are specific tools/plugins for you? Is it "an EQ is an EQ", "they all do the same thing basically", or do you have strong opinions on what tools you love or hate working with?
No "an EQ is not just an EQ" granted I do love my MCLASS purely for functionality! As mentioned previously, the tools provide your music with a different sonic character. I have a strong opinion on this and can't nobody tell me that native devices or any RE for that matter can treat my drum group the same way that something like Soundtoys Devil-Loc Deluxe can. :twisted:

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

11 Sep 2017

(stealing CaliforniaBurritos format here)
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill? Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?
In terms of composition no, not really. That is something that I use my ears for.
For me, Creativity is a byproduct of experimentation, skill is a result of experimentation. Sometimes another individuals experimentation and knowledge gained from said experimentation is passed onto me. I would call that learning.

Different types of compression, reverb, eq, etc don't really make a huge impact on the quality of my music at all. More so, how I use those tools to process sounds.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you constantly looking for new exciting things?
In terms of gear/plugins? No. In the big picture, yes. Combining processes in experimental ways often leads to happy accidents that are exciting and those are the things that shape my sounds, on top of knowledge gained from the experience of others.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you a hoarder of plugins/REs? Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use? Or do you only buy the stuff that you really need?
No.

I don't use a lot of the REs I got in the Mix N' Mastering bundle(the GQ-7 and DR-1 was mainly what I was after but as I was just starting out fresh with Reason I wanted to get a broader scope of tools) although I've experimented with a few that accidentally imparted a very unique tone/character on my sounds and that knowledge from experimentation will always be with me.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
How important are specific tools/plugins for you? Is it "an EQ is an EQ", "they all do the same thing basically", or do you have strong opinions on what tools you love or hate working with?
No. For example, the GQ-7 is more versatile than the MClass EQ. Although the Mclass device still gets used for the sake of CPU, if I don't need the capabilities of the GQ-7.

User avatar
ejanuska
Posts: 680
Joined: 27 May 2016
Location: USA

12 Sep 2017

I find what works for me and use it. I like REs with a lot of good patches, I don't do a lot of sound design with synths, just tweak existing patches.

For REs that don't have the ability to save a patch I make a combinator with that device for a purpose.

My go to effects are super important. I can't live without The Echo, The Cakewalk RE-2A, Selig De-esser.

In reality I could live with just a Thor, the MClass stuff and the RV-7 if I needed to.
Everything else just makes it easier.

User avatar
TritoneAddiction
Competition Winner
Posts: 4219
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

13 Sep 2017

What gear I use matter a lot to me. Sure it's possible to make interesting music with gear I don't like, but it's a lot more fun to use tools that fit my taste and workflow.
What REs I use can really influence what I write and the overall sound.

For me it's just as much about workflow and ease of use as it is about the sound itself. I've tried several synths that sounded really good but the workflow, GUI or too many options turned me off completely.
I prefer to use many plugins that all do specific things. I'm typically not a fan of devices that set out to do everything. Expanse is the exception because even though you can do a million things with it it's still easy to make new cool patches with very little knowledge.
I personally hate devices that forces me to be a tweaker in order to get something decent out of it. If I can't get good results with it quickly it's not for me. I'm not at all fascinated by the technicalities of things or endless options if only a few options sound good and musical.

I don't really care too much about prices. If I like something and I want it, I'll buy it regardless if it's 9 or 150 bucks. I simply don't care much about money. I don't spend a lot of money in other areas so affording new music stuff isn't a problem.

Ever since I got into the RE world I rarely use Reasons stock devices anymore. I just think my REs mostly work better than the stock devices or at least are more fun to work with.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

13 Sep 2017

Working with gear puts you in a different mind frame, plus there are a few user experience differences between the two.

Patch browsing is a great deal more intuitive and loading is often faster with hardware. That being said in software you have access to much larger sound banks.

I have committed to getting the most out of my old Sonic Reality Gold, Ultra Reloaded and BitleyTM refills at the moment, so I'm not too eager for REs or VSTs right now.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

15 Sep 2017

avasopht wrote:
13 Sep 2017
Working with gear puts you in a different mind frame, plus there are a few user experience differences between the two.

Patch browsing is a great deal more intuitive and loading is often faster with hardware. That being said in software you have access to much larger sound banks.

I have committed to getting the most out of my old Sonic Reality Gold, Ultra Reloaded and BitleyTM refills at the moment, so I'm not too eager for REs or VSTs right now.
I see that, unlike anyone else in this particular thread you are making a distinction between hardware (as being gear) and software (presumably not being gear in your view).

Was there a point in making that distinction? I'm curious.

I think I'm with the rest of those sharing here seeing software and hardware as being the generic amalgam of 'gear' that's being referred to, much like a photographer would consider an application such as Photoshop as being very much part of their gear.

IOW I don't see a distinction between hardware and software, I'd group 'gear' in terms of it's function toward a particular task i.e gardening gear, photographic gear, music gear etc, rather than in what form it manifests itself as.

Another difference too is that I don't see 'soundware' as being gear, no more than having shit on your shoe is required to take a walk, its something I have to keep thinning out as there's more sounds already on my hard drive than I could audition even given several lifetimes of doing nothing else, so having some sounds I want to work with for awhile wouldn't affect my decision to buy a different compressor RE or VST, if I wanted a particular thing for example.

My relationship with gear has changed somewhat over the years, I've been through thinking that the more tools I have the more I'll get done to collecting stuff for the sake of it. I allocate myself an annual budget and pretty much stick to that. I'm certainly long past the stage where I 'need' anything else but I do enjoy the odd new thing that brings a new characteristic or way of working to the table.

It's taken me a long time to get into a healthy relationship with gear though as I've made plenty of pointless and costly decisions throughout my life.

User avatar
selig
RE Developer
Posts: 11685
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: The NorthWoods, CT, USA

15 Sep 2017

Strictly plutonic, I can assure you.
;)


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk
Selig Audio, LLC

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

15 Sep 2017

Ostermilk wrote:
15 Sep 2017

I see that, unlike anyone else in this particular thread you are making a distinction between hardware (as being gear) and software (presumably not being gear in your view).

Was there a point in making that distinction? I'm curious.
To me gear is hardware and physical equipment. So I see photography gear as the cameras, tripods, grips, and so on, and software as just software. That's also how it's defined. The distinction describes my relation to gear / plugins in answering, "does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill? Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?"

I he meant gear as in software (which is not the common usage) so I can see how my wires were crossed. So when I read, "Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use?" I was picturing physical racks.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

15 Sep 2017

avasopht wrote:
15 Sep 2017
Ostermilk wrote:
15 Sep 2017

I see that, unlike anyone else in this particular thread you are making a distinction between hardware (as being gear) and software (presumably not being gear in your view).

Was there a point in making that distinction? I'm curious.
To me gear is hardware and physical equipment. So I see photography gear as the cameras, tripods, grips, and so on, and software as just software. That's also how it's defined. The distinction describes my relation to gear / plugins in answering, "does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill? Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?"

I he meant gear as in software (which is not the common usage) so I can see how my wires were crossed. So when I read, "Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use?" I was picturing physical racks.

Image

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

selig wrote:
15 Sep 2017
Strictly plutonic, I can assure you.
;)
Actually that made me think about whether there was a correalation between my relationship with gear over the years and my romantic relationships over the same time frame.

Sadly the parallels are embarrasingly close... :shock:

I've gone from having to have the latest, shiniest, most expensive stuff I could get hold of, else I wouldn't perform properly, to occasionally re-arranging old ideas into new ways of working, not being sure there will even be a final outcome

:oops: :D :lol:

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

aeox wrote:
15 Sep 2017
Image
If you expand the definition there's more:

synonyms: equipment, apparatus, paraphernalia, articles, appliances, impedimenta; More
tools, utensils, implements, instruments, hardware, gadgets, gadgetry


Hardware is also a synonym of equipment.

Physicality is the common theme.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

16 Sep 2017

avasopht wrote:
16 Sep 2017
aeox wrote:
15 Sep 2017
Image
If you expand the definition there's more:

synonyms: equipment, apparatus, paraphernalia, articles, appliances, impedimenta; More
tools, utensils, implements, instruments, hardware, gadgets, gadgetry


Hardware is also a synonym of equipment.

Physicality is the common theme.
It also says "mental resources" Generally, physical and mental are considered different things. So it surely can't only mean physical equipment because it also mentions mental equipment. So I'd assume that "gear" encompasses all utilities we have at our disposal.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

aeox wrote:
16 Sep 2017
It also says "mental resources" Generally, physical and mental are considered different things. So it surely can't only mean physical equipment because it also mentions mental equipment. So I'd assume that "gear" encompasses all utilities we have at our disposal.
1. Context.
2. Word is gear, not equipment.
3. Words have multiple defined / accepted / understood meanings as well as contradictory synonyms.
4. Therefore you cannot determine the meaning of gear by looking at just one synonymous word and then looking at just one of its defined meanings (which is typically prefixed to infer that meaning) while ignoring the common common theme of physical goods.
5. Most common use of gear is in relation to physical objects.
6. Good use of language tends to follow the principle of least surprise.

If I told my friend who is helping me move my 'contents' from my old office and I ask her if she has 'storage' space for my $10,000 worth of music production 'gear' I've collected over the last 20 years, I would expect her to be thinking about physical space, not hard-drive space. Following the principle of least surprise I would instead ask her if she has hard-drive space for my $10,000 worth of music production software. Immediately she was be thinking about hard-drive space.

Gear is also synonymous with baggage, which has a definition of "a cheeky or disagreeable girl or woman." Clearly a desirable girl is not gear. Gear is also synonymous with stuff, so that strategy of understanding a word is quite erroneous.

I can understand its use to refer to software though. I just think it's very unclear to use it in that manner. I'm sure someone would argue, but others in this thread have, ... still makes it no clearer.

On the other hand perhaps the 'ideal' of gear was more concerned with the abstract role than the concrete manifestiations, but since it took several hundred years for any other concrete manifestations of that abstraction it may never gain wide adoption as such.

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

16 Sep 2017

avasopht wrote:
16 Sep 2017
aeox wrote:
16 Sep 2017
It also says "mental resources" Generally, physical and mental are considered different things. So it surely can't only mean physical equipment because it also mentions mental equipment. So I'd assume that "gear" encompasses all utilities we have at our disposal.
1. Context.
2. Word is gear, not equipment.
3. Words have multiple defined / accepted / understood meanings as well as contradictory synonyms.
4. Therefore you cannot determine the meaning of gear by looking at just one synonymous word and then looking at just one of its defined meanings (which is typically prefixed to infer that meaning) while ignoring the common common theme of physical goods.
5. Most common use of gear is in relation to physical objects.
6. Good use of language tends to follow the principle of least surprise.

If I told my friend who is helping me move my 'contents' from my old office and I ask her if she has 'storage' space for my $10,000 worth of music production 'gear' I've collected over the last 20 years, I would expect her to be thinking about physical space, not hard-drive space. Following the principle of least surprise I would instead ask her if she has hard-drive space for my $10,000 worth of music production software. Immediately she was be thinking about hard-drive space.

Gear is also synonymous with baggage, which has a definition of "a cheeky or disagreeable girl or woman." Clearly a desirable girl is not gear. Gear is also synonymous with stuff, so that strategy of understanding a word is quite erroneous.

I can understand its use to refer to software though. I just think it's very unclear to use it in that manner. I'm sure someone would argue, but others in this thread have, ... still makes it no clearer.

On the other hand perhaps the 'ideal' of gear was more concerned with the abstract role than the concrete manifestiations, but since it took several hundred years for any other concrete manifestations of that abstraction it may never gain wide adoption as such.
Ok ok! :) I won't go around calling software gear.

I'm not sure what the OP really meant. I find it rather trivial anyway. We understand what he meant when he said gear/plugins and it doesn't make a difference whether it's "physical" processing equipment/synths or a collection of code on a computer. Well, besides the incredible difference in money invested.

So, what's your relationship to gear and or plugins? (trying to get back on the original topic)

User avatar
TritoneAddiction
Competition Winner
Posts: 4219
Joined: 29 Aug 2015
Location: Sweden

16 Sep 2017

Alright, I didn't expect this thread to turn into a discussion about definitions of words, but ok. As long as the thread doesn't turn into arguing about Mac vs PC or an endless discussion about "the Reason sound" I'm all good :D

What I meant with "gear/plugins" was: Whatever shit you use to make music. :D
(And please don't look up every possible way to use the word "shit". This thread is already autistic enough as it is.)

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

aeox wrote:
16 Sep 2017
I'm not sure what the OP really meant.

...

So, what's your relationship to gear and or plugins? (trying to get back on the original topic)
Oh I agree, I only realized after Ostermilk's response.

So my relationship to plugins is that I'm quite reluctant to buy without a clear advantage. Korg Mono is vastly different to many other synths because of its analogue modelling.

I have few synths, and I hardly use them anyway. I even have a SynthMaster license I've never used. As in, I've never used it other than creating a demo track around the time of its launch.

But I can't say they make no difference, it's just that there are so many kick ass Combinators that sort of create new synth sounds from existing ones that I have much less need for more. Plus I've the patience to stack up synths to create what I want.

I have, for example, a Combinator with 32 Thor patches I used to sort of replicate a Korg Triton patch.

I imagine there's another me in another universe happily hoarding gear and making much more creative and overall better music than I am while I bask in my ignorance of that fact.

Occasionally I've dabbled just to challenge my worldview, but here I am in the comfort of a few select Refills & bundles.

Ostermilk
Posts: 1535
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

Oh my goodness, isn't pedantry ugly?

I think I need some gear now as it turns out.


plffft....ahhhh, that's better.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

16 Sep 2017

Ostermilk wrote:
16 Sep 2017
Oh my goodness, isn't pedantry ugly?

I think I need some gear now as it turns out.


plffft....ahhhh, that's better.
Were you not the first to bring this up? :roll: :roll: :roll:
Last edited by avasopht on 16 Sep 2017, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oquasec
Posts: 2849
Joined: 05 Mar 2017

16 Sep 2017

Copped all those free RE, 9$ synths and a few 100-200$ plugs.
Have a handful of vsts also.

Use what you like, use what you think you need for what situation.
But I think I will save my dunk for refills.
Producer/Programmer.
Reason, FLS and Cubase NFR user.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

18 Sep 2017

Yeah as you mentioned, Tritone, GUI is very important for me too. This is all creativity and I just can't work with tools that have an uninspiring vibe. Diva is a great example and I'm thankful that somebody did a pretty bad ass GUI modification for all of the modules of one of my favorites. Granted, I would still be using her, but the GUI modification makes it a much better experience!

ORIGINAL
Image

VOLTA GUI
Image

User avatar
aeox
Competition Winner
Posts: 3222
Joined: 23 Feb 2017
Location: Oregon

18 Sep 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
18 Sep 2017
.


I think VK-2 sort of suffers from having a "uninspiring" GUI for some people. The layout is nice, it's just the ugly panel trying look like old metal that throws it off. Luckily, I don't get any inspiration from the GUI. I'm in the minority on that one though.
Last edited by aeox on 03 Oct 2017, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

18 Sep 2017

aeox wrote:
18 Sep 2017
I think VK-2 sort of suffers from having a "uninspiring" GUI. The layout is nice, it's just the ugly panel trying look like old metal that throws it off. Luckily, I don't get any inspiration from the GUI. I'm in the minority on that one though.
:-o I actually really like the VK-2 GUI FWIW. It gives the feel of dark and sinister beast which it really is! :twisted:

Speaking of which, that marks your 666th post. It's a sign! :clap:

dana
Posts: 335
Joined: 29 Apr 2015
Contact:

24 Sep 2017

TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Does it even matter or is it all about creativity and skill?
Sometimes i will just to back to one instance of thor and create amazing sounds.

But to get that extra bit more, you need some extra synth power like expanse and a load of rack extensions like fritz, polar, etc.

I still use the staple fx like pulverizer, the echo and alligator. The other built-in rack devices, not so much. maybe rv7000.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Do they make a difference in the quality of your music?
Yes. Although i got 80% of the way there without REs eventually, that 20% is the hardest part.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you constantly looking for new exciting things?
Yes, but i tend to see beyond the hype / marketing (i studied it in-depth!) and try out the plugins for myself and see

a) the usefulness of the device by itself
b) the quality of the presets
c) its not ridiculous cpu on a descent machine if its just a simple fx
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Are you a hoarder of plugins/REs? Is your rack filled with stuff that you hardly ever use?
I'm bad enough with hardware, never mind software.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Or do you only buy the stuff that you really need?
As said above, i buy what i think has value in addition to what i've already got.

RP-EQ is a difficult purchase at the price for instance, because i already own GQ-7.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
How important are specific tools/plugins for you? Is it "an EQ is an EQ", "they all do the same thing basically", or do you have strong opinions on what tools you love or hate working with?
I tend to work in either one of two ways:

a) I know exactly what i need and use the right plugin for the job.
b) i will randomly add things quickly and flick through presets, and if it adds something useful, i keep it, and maybe tweak it a bit.
TritoneAddiction wrote:
11 Sep 2017
Maybe there are other things to consider: price, supporting a developer, good/bad business models etc...
Price is one thing.. Another is licensing! I can run Reason on any machine i want, but if i want to use softube modular for instance, i can only install it on 2 computers at the same time.. Moving it around is a pain.

I sometimes see some very simple plugins go for ridiculous prices - what should be 9 euro/dollar is well into 2 digit sums.

The more rack extensions you have, the more difficult it is to justify what is new.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

24 Sep 2017

I'm definitely an "an EQ is an EQ" guy but I'd be stupid to ignore it when some device makes a job super simple or more enjoyable in any other way :)

The only type of plugins I "collect" are compressors because most of them work so differently with different sources, its almost more than its the case with microphones. Otherwise I don't have many plugins installed on my mixing system, mainly the Sonnox suite for most of the basic craft, a whole bunch of UAD plugins for color (many compressors) and some specialty things like Drum Leveler, era-D, Drumagog and Melodyne Studio.

As I treat Reason as a "Synth Rack" in my studio, having it on a separate computer I also have a bunch of REs but not the n-th subtractive synth and EQ either. I like devices that do stuff no other devices do, if I can see a proper purpose I might buy the device even if I know I probably won't have a need for it any time soon :lol: But then again I'm decidedly an engineer and not a creative person (as in musically creative - I suppose engineering is actually very creative).

As for musical creativity coming from devices.. No, I've never REALLY seen that with the musicians I worked with. I've seen sparks or small ignition flames when musicians play with some new synth or something but the good stuff I saw always comes from them. Instead of that synth it could have been a movie creating that spark - or a tree for that matter.

For those that have certain pieces of gear - like a guitar or something they "can't live without" - it's just a comforter, they are (or aren't) brilliant guitarists with or without that guitar :)

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: Adabler and 6 guests