Why I Don't Buy Extensions

[Vyckeil]

lol no. there's no way in hell you'll ever get the sound of DCAM modelled racks like etch red. it's not just the filters, it's the drive section. if i whack it on an NN-XT or malstrom it's like using new devices.

Pretty much this. I agree a lot of things can be done with stock devices and patience, but some REs offer much more than just making things quicker and easier. The Sallen-Key filter on Antidote is another one that's unique. The Audiomatic Retro Transformer also has some pretty nifty effects that are unique, or simply very hard to replicate.

I challenge anyone to make a combi patch with stock devices that sounds as good as Echobode, and as easy to use.

[gak]

But that is not the point! The point is that all ones and zeros sound the same and thus every plug in sounds the same.

You FOOLS for buying RE's!

[joeyluck]

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101

[gak]

Don't waste your time joey, the ones and zeros don't lie! They are all the same.

[Scoobyman II]

REs led me to harder stuff like VSTs. I honestly didn't know about the whole plugin world till the REs came along in Reason.

[4filegate]

some RE's like - AI are confused, thus far sighted a blue planet and now water without color!

old wisdom - some RE's support the whole range of your audio project settings

[zakalwe]

still i do agree with the basic sentiment but more because crack extensions are a danger to your financial health.

(seriously i'm eyeing those d16 REs and i said i was cut from spending on reason lol)

[kitekrazy]

I can't afford most of them and my knowledge of Reason needs to deepen before considering REs.

[ZombieFightsShark]

You can compare some really well made early combinators that very nice people gave away and now have RE's as a replacement. I'm thinking of the RE-2A specifically (or RC-2A). They are close to the RE but the RE's are a bit better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dante]

Analog audio is made by voltages. You can do everything you want with some wire, power supply, tubes, transistors, capacitors resistors and transducers. So I won't be buying any more gear.

[gak]

And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be shown?

Tell me why?
I don't like RE's
Tell me why?
I don't like RE's
Tell me why?
I don't like RE's
I want to shoot
The whole thing down.

[shredmiyagi]

*shrug* PredatorRE sounds more like the Predator VST, than like a Reason stock rack (Thor).

What's the draw-back of trying REs for 30-days and deciding if your stock racks can do it all?

Well, the draw-back is you're persuaded to buy it, cause it sucks making something sound cool and then have that device disappear forever.

[Raveshaper]

What I mean is, mathematically, operations performed on the floating point values of an audio stream behave identically. It all comes down to math in the end.

If I have to get explicit, I will only invest in plugin suites and bundles that are on a platform I can resell and migrate as I choose.

But my main argument is math works the same way regardless of code, and that REs are constrained to the same range of capabilities as stock devices.

As for portability of code issues and optimization problems, I refer you to this thread:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 5&start=15

And the final feelings from a developer's perspective:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 5&start=75

[gak]

Fine except for one very important thing: They ARE NOT all the same. I'm no Joe Barresi, but I have ears.

[OldGoat]

Can someone please show me how to create a device like AutoTheory with stock-devices?
I assume that at least this is not feasible.

[Chizmata]

Can someone please show me how to create a device like AutoTheory with stock-devices?
I assume that at least this is not feasible.

its actually pretty easy. you can play notes and chords from the PC keyboard

[normen]

What I mean is, mathematically, operations performed on the floating point values of an audio stream behave identically. It all comes down to math in the end.

If I have to get explicit, I will only invest in plugin suites and bundles that are on a platform I can resell and migrate as I choose.

But my main argument is math works the same way regardless of code, and that REs are constrained to the same range of capabilities as stock devices.

As for portability of code issues and optimization problems, I refer you to this thread:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 5&start=15

And the final feelings from a developer's perspective:
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 5&start=75

You misunderstand his comments, he's mainly talking about vector operations. As said, you can use vector operations in REs now, even do so in a platform independent way - without using assembler code. Maybe you ask him if he thinks his plugins are the same thing as others that exist just because they're math - I'm pretty sure he'll disagree.

Math works the same way in the whole universe (as far as we know) sure thing but how you apply that math is a whole different thing. Otherwise there would be no reason to do research or develop new algorithms, would there? The last two decades saw massive improvements in audio processing algorithms from analog simulation to completely new ways to work with audio material. Melodyne, new denoising algorithms, dynamic convolution processing just to name a few. Some of these just became possible because of the current processing power of computers and were conceptually known for a longer time, some are completely new developments.

So no, I still don't follow you at all - audio algorithms definitely don't behave "identically" just because they're based on math. As Jiggery indicated, thats the same logic as saying all poetry is the same because its based on words or all pictures are the same because they're made with paint.

[gak]

All coffee is the same.

All cars are the same.

All cornflakes are the same.

All people are the same.

All sample rates are the same.

All gummy bears are the same.

Do not adjust your dial, it's all the same.

[MannequinRaces]

But my main argument is math works the same way regardless of code, and that REs are constrained to the same range of capabilities as stock devices.

REs might be constrained to the same range of capabilities as stock devices but there are lots of things REs can do that don't exist in current stock devices. How is your point even an argument?!

[Vyckeil]

[C//AZM]

You can only get so far, then the complexity is never going to make it feasable to use the combinator you have just made.

Come back when you have recreated polar.

...and sell it to me as an RE!

[C//AZM]

If I have to get explicit, I will only invest in plugin suites and bundles that are on a platform I can resell and migrate as I choose.

But my main argument is math works the same way regardless of code, and that REs are constrained to the same range of capabilities as stock devices.

Not to pile on, but blues musicians are constrained to the same range of chords, notes, instruments, vocal range yet you've got Cannonball Adderley, John lee Hooker and Led Zepplin all of whom are completely different from each other as well as the original church musician who started it all.
Within certain constraints lies a lot of subtle but appreciable differences. But obviously some synths, EQs, reverbs and compressors can be identical.

[Some Desperate Glory]

You can only get so far, then the complexity is never going to make it feasable to use the combinator you have just made.

Come back when you have recreated polar.

Remember that guy back in the PUF who claimed he could make a full 909 in Kong no problem? People hounded and trolled him for months and he never delivered as far as I remember.

[Some Desperate Glory]

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101

Haha! You just wasted five minutes of my life looking up an old ASCII table!

[gak]

01010100 01101000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01101101 01100001 01101011 01100101 01110011 00100000 01101110 01101111 00100000 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110011 01100101

Haha! You just wasted five minutes of my life looking up an old ASCII table!

(shrug) a translator could have done it in 5 seconds