This is continuing the thread in the commercial announcement and I'll post in a minute. Just need to create the thread so I can post the link there...
So. A digital reverb in a box has dedicated DSP.
In the late '90s through around 2004, one of the great topics of discussion was dedicated DSP vs. native processing (usually meaning that everything runs on computers rather than using Digidesign Pro Tools TDM).
There were a few arguments. The most convincing one is that dedicated chips were optimized for the task so they could do a better job. I'll come back to that.
The others were that they could use more horsepower for the task, they didn't have to compete with everything else running on a general-purpose computer, nobody would be interested in (for example) a reverb that took over an entire computer, dedicated chips guaranteed you could run x amount of processing without your computer system soiling the bed... all variations of "processing is limited resource on general-purpose computer."
Processing isn't unlimited today, but it's so far ahead of what we were using 15 years ago that it isn't funny. I have a pile of Pentium 4s in my garage to prove it.
But what about the first argument? Can dedicated DSP chips programmed with low-level machine language sound better?
I remember asking one of the engineers at Universal Audio when they first started producing plug-ins, and he said I was confusing the algorithms themselves with what they were running on. The algorithms were the same!
If he was right, the only difference you'll hear between a digital hardware box and a plug-in is the box's converters (unless you go in and out the boxes digitally, as I do in the PCM91 I have the good fortune to have).
Analog emulations are a totally different thing.
***
Bill, I think the movement you're talking about with the Lexicon is the same thing they always had: the Spin parameter. It's part of their secret sauce. Convolution can't do that, although you can chorus the end of the tail.
FWIW, I read on GS that an M7 has about the processing power of a UAD Octo & quad combined. That's for just one stereo instance but apparently there are 4 (?) engins going on in the background. And this year with Version 3 updates there will be new algorithms and 3 times the processing power.
I'm pretty sure there's just one latency for all plug-ins.
FWIW, I read on GS that an M7 has about the processing power of a UAD Octo & quad combined.
I'm not sure what you mean. Different plugins have different latencies in order to accommodate the processing needed and balance that with what's reasonable to tax the cpu.
I'd buy an M7 in a second if I could justify the cost.
i have the quad and i dont get a lot plugin power. it max's out very fast.
plus the ton of latency. which is why i dont use it a lot.
You speak the truth!!!Ah...you left out the natural sound of the space.