True cost analysis of ITB vs OTB plugs. Is ITB actually cheaper?

[paul999]

I want you computer experts to help me do a cost analysis of ITB vs OTB plugins and computers needed to run them. I did one years ago not knowing too much about computers but not being a complete idiot either.

The only factors that need to be analyzed are plugins vs hardware. More powerful computer vs less powerful computer. How often you need to upgrade to keep up with plugin's vs using your computer like a tape machine.

Mic's, Pre's, Monitors, convertors etc. don't matter because they will need to be the same ITB or OTB.

I am using new prices. Used prices on both sides can be cheaper but this keeps a level playing field and makes things consistent.

On the hardware side I would say this is a gear list that I think is fair

Manley Variable mu $3600
distressors x2 $2899
Neve portico comp $1999
API 2500 $2500

Toft ATB 16 channel $5000

Total cost $15,998

This does not include a high end console but on the digital side I will not include a Digidesign console or a tascam/yamaha digital mixer that most higher end project studio's would have.

I believe this makes a good serviceable higher end studio as far as basic needs go.



On the digital side to buy high quality plugs and not skimp(I didn't skimp in my hardware selections)

Waves Horizon $4312
UAD-2 Quad Omni DSP Accelerator Card $2999

Total cost $7311

Missing info that I don't know
-over the course of 25 yrs when it is time to recap the hardware for about $3000 how many times would all those plugs need to be replaced? 2,3 or even 4 times.

Total cost of plugs in 25 years $14,622 - $29,224

How much more powerful would the computer that runs the plugs need to be and how many more times would it need to be replaced to keep up with the new plugs? What is the cost of this?

What is the value of the plugs and more powerful computer in 25 years? I think it is a very safe assumption that the hardware will retain far more value then the software. Some of the hardware may be worth more then it was purchased for and most of it will be worth about 40% of the original price. The software will be lucky to get $.02 on the dollar.

The case can be made that you can do so much more with the software then the hardware. I think most analog guys would be happy with 8 killer compressors and 16 awesome eq's while still having the stock plugs from the daw maker.

Without all the missing information filled in. It looks to me like in a fairly big project studio Digital and Analog are at least the same cost in the long run. Analog could actually be cheaper.

What do others think?

[JayGee]

One could probably get away with not purchasing the UAD card and rely on a quad or dual-quad system for the horsepower.
Most companies wouldn't charge full price to port to a new OS, so the cost of plugins wouldn't actually be 2-3x full cost.

What really counts is what you want to use. You appear to be more comfortable using out board gear to achieve your sound and that is all that really matters.

I personally have a mix of both, my hardware is not anywhere near your level, but I'm not running a business, just dicking around on the weekend and recording a few friends.

If I had the cash and justification to spend on top of line gear/plugins, I would probably go your route and purchase hardware. I love the sound that hardware gives to a mix, but that's just me.

[dizzydog]

Looking 25 years ahead for either hardware or software is too far, in my opinion. Think how much stuff's changed on both sides since 1985.

[paul999]

Looking 25 years ahead for either hardware or software is too far, in my opinion. Think how much stuff's changed on both sides since 1985.

I chose 25 years because with common care this is how long a hardware piece is expected to be in service before major maintenance.

What is the expected life span of a plug in bundle?

jaygee-What really counts is what you want to use. You appear to be more comfortable using out board gear to achieve your sound and that is all that really matters.

I actually think I could be comfortable in an all digital high-end studio. When we talk Digital plugs vs Hardware the perception of people in general is that hardware is far more expensive without a doubt. The argument tends to go something like this-> Hardware is good. Digital is just as good or almost as good but is a lot cheaper and you are not limited to one instance of it.

In reality as a business person if I am told my cash is now committed to on going costs, maintenance that have no capitol value in the end, or..... I make one purchase that cost 2 times as much up front. It retains almost half its value which adds to the assets of my company and with proper care my cash is not being determined for me in maintenance and ongoing purchases. The decision is obvious.

Sure this is not a simple point of view but good financial management isn't simple.

I am not trying to be bitter against digital with this. I really want to have a clear understanding of the cost comparison realities.

[tacman7]

It's kind of hard to compare because you're not talking apples and apples here exactly.

I think there's always going to be a certain mystique to the 'real' hardware, little something you just can't get from plugs.

The native plugs never did that much for me, the first plugs I was really impressed with was UAD. I really like them. I have seen some native plugs that impressed me recently though.

The main thing for me though is workflow.

I have my one piece of hardware fx on a digital loop and setup in cubase as an external effect so it's real easy to try it here as an insert of here as a send etc. But I can only use it once.

I use a lot of instances of UAD compressors all over the place.
You would have to multiply your estimate quite a bit to be able to do that with hardware. Or do a lot of processing one track at a time, back to workflow.

You can get into UAD for a lot less than $3k to try it and see if you like it.

That would be a drag if you bought the whole plug in setup but couldn't stand to use it.

[dizzydog]

I chose 25 years because with common care this is how long a hardware piece is expected to be in service before major maintenance.

What is the expected life span of a plug in bundle?

the question is when does it become functionally obsolete, not how long before it needs maintenance or repair. with software and computers, after five years it's likely to be worth zero. with good classic hardware, it can last nearly indefinitely and maybe even increase in value. so trying to apply an equal amortization schedule is impossible.

[paul999]

the question is when does it become functionally obsolete, not how long before it needs maintenance or repair. with software and computers, after five years it's likely to be worth zero. with good classic hardware, it can last nearly indefinitely and maybe even increase in value. so trying to apply an equal amortization schedule is impossible.

I understand. I chose a conservative value of 40% to hardware retains in the end. I have heard Danny Danzi say that he has plugs that are 10 years old that he still uses all the time. I assume this doesn't mean every plug he bought 10 years ago though.

I guess the "it is impossible to do a cost comparison" argument doesn't hold water with me because people are overwhelmingly stating the plugs are cheaper. How do they come to this conclusion. Just because it is cheaper today doesn't mean it is actually cheaper. That is poor mans thinking.

[bozmillar]

interesting. I see your point, kind of. The way I see it though, I spent $500 on my computer over 5 years ago. As a DAW, I use reaper, which cost $60. The only plugins I find worth paying for are sample libraries, which don't really have hardware counter parts, and if there are hardware counterparts, they are expensive and sucky.

I am due for a new computer really soon. I plan to spend no more that $800 on that.

Almost any plugin I need, I can find for free. There are millions of eq and compression plugins to choose from out there that don't cost anything. Plus with each plugin, I have unlimited simultaneous use.

so my cost estimates of staying ITB are about $800 every 5 years or so.

and, why is there any reason to upgrade/replace a plugin unless it originally didn't have functionality that you needed? By replacing a plugin with an updated version, you are actually getting more functionality. Hardware upgrades are pretty much non-existent without buying a new unit.

In short, there will always be free versions of plugins. They may be a few years behind the most up to date expensive plugins, but being a few years behind the times shouldn't be an issue, especially when you are talking about using hardware that was invented 30 years ago.

[paul999]

interesting. I see your point, kind of. The way I see it though, I spent $500 on my computer over 5 years ago. As a DAW, I use reaper, which cost $60. The only plugins I find worth paying for are sample libraries, which don't really have hardware counter parts, and if there are hardware counterparts, they are expensive and sucky.

I am due for a new computer really soon. I plan to spend no more that $800 on that.

Almost any plugin I need, I can find for free. There are millions of eq and compression plugins to choose from out there that don't cost anything. Plus with each plugin, I have unlimited simultaneous use.

so my cost estimates of staying ITB are about $800 every 5 years or so.

and, why is there any reason to upgrade/replace a plugin unless it originally didn't have functionality that you needed? By replacing a plugin with an updated version, you are actually getting more functionality. Hardware upgrades are pretty much non-existent without buying a new unit.

In short, there will always be free versions of plugins. They may be a few years behind the most up to date expensive plugins, but being a few years behind the times shouldn't be an issue, especially when you are talking about using hardware that was invented 30 years ago.

Thanks for the insight boz.

Lets compare a low end analog system then.

FMR rnc x2 $350
FMR RNL x2 $425
Mackie ONYX 1220i $699

Total cost $1474

This is actually a pretty solid rig. Sure there is no manley but your not comparing to the newest waves bundle either.
I believe the rest of the logic stays about the same.

[bozmillar]

Thanks for the insight boz.

Lets compare a low end analog system then.

FMR rnc x2 $350
FMR RNL x2 $425
Mackie ONYX 1220i $699

Total cost $1474

This is actually a pretty solid rig. Sure there is no manley but your not comparing to the newest waves bundle either.
I believe the rest of the logic stays about the same.

right, but the functionality of this setup doesn't even come close to being able to compare with the functionality of plugins and a DAW. It's like comparing a low end car with a low end bike.

[paul999]

Functionality wise I have never felt even a little "less than" with a 4-7 compressors and a console of eq plus having a Daw

[bozmillar]

Functionality wise I have never felt even a little "less than" with a 4-7 compressors and a console of eq plus having a Daw

right, but if we are comparing costs, 4-7 compressors and a console, if we're assuming low endish, will run you a few grand.

For $60 I can get reaper which has unlimited track count, unlimited buses, buses that bus to buses that bus to buses, unlimited compression and eq use, a very powerful compressor. An analog console can't come close to replicating this functionality without spending tons of money. Then, if you are doing cost comparison, you have to consider the size of the room that you would use to house these things. I have all my recording stuff on my desk, and I still have room to use it as a desk. If i put a console there, it would become a console holder instead of a desk, in which case I'd have to buy a new desk.

That isn't to say that hardware is no good and that it can't be cost effective, but I think for 95% of the home recording population, when going about it sensibly, software is cheaper and more powerful both long and short term. I still think it's like comparing a car to a bike.

For someone like you who actually makes a living off of music, this stuff actually is an investment and can be cost effective. I think you are one of the few people I've ever seen that can call a piece of gear an investment and actually be right about it.

[paul999]

Finally we are back in the familiar position of being on opposite sides of the fence.

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

right, but if we are comparing costs, 4-7 compressors and a console, if we're assuming low endish, will run you a few grand.

For $60 I can get reaper which has unlimited track count, unlimited buses, buses that bus to buses that bus to buses, unlimited compression and eq use, a very powerful compressor. An analog console can't come close to replicating this functionality without spending tons of money. Then, if you are doing cost comparison, you have to consider the size of the room that you would use to house these things. I have all my recording stuff on my desk, and I still have room to use it as a desk. If i put a console there, it would become a console holder instead of a desk, in which case I'd have to buy a new desk.

That isn't to say that hardware is no good and that it can't be cost effective, but I think for 95% of the home recording population, when going about it sensibly, software is cheaper and more powerful both long and short term. I still think it's like comparing a car to a bike.

If you are going to run free plugs then I agree you are going to be more cost effective no doubt.

For someone like you who actually makes a living off of music, this stuff actually is an investment and can be cost effective. I think you are one of the few people I've ever seen that can call a piece of gear an investment and actually be right about it.

There are quite a few serious hobbyist's that I believe have bought into the belief the hardware is expensive and software is cheaper. They may be able to benefit from this.

I am all for buying the right tools. If Software is the right tool get it. If hardware is get that. We are looking at spending stupid amounts of money either way.LOL I hope this thread gives some people the thought that they can afford some hardware if it is the right tool for them.

[bozmillar]

your right. i think people should be informed of the advantages of hardware processing without having to refer to the buzzwords involved in analog processing, and I think this thread does a good job of analyzing some of those benefits.

I guess the only thing I don't understand is how upkeep of plugins would run you $14,622 - $29,224 over 25 years unless you had to have the latest version of every plugin. If you are going to include plugin upgrades to the cost of playing ITB, then shouldn't you have to include the cost of replacing older versions of hardware with new versions?

Unless the VST or TDM standard disappears (very probable btw), then there's no reason why a plugin I buy today shouldn't work equally as well 25 years from now. But you are right, in that sense, there would be some upgrading required over time.

[fHumble fHingaz]

Just a question, Paul... Do you process your tracks exclusively in the analogue domain? I don't mean not use a computer at all, but rather not use any plugins at all. The reason I ask is because I'm thinking it would be difficult to process the standard track counts required from, say a modern rock band, exclusively in the analogue domain unless you have a LOT of multi-channel outboard processors, or even a fully featured, self contained mixing console (with gate/comp/eq channel strips). Wouldn't you have to resort to plug-in processing for some less crucial elements to be able to process all those track simultaneoulsy? The reason I raise this point is that, from what I've read, even guys with the most elaborate analogue systems still use plugins for some less critical tasks, & high-quality plugins at that... If that is the case, the argument isn't as simple as digital vs analogue - even an analogue guy would need to factor in the redundency of his plugins... or am I barking up the wrong tree?