Why "audiophiles" don't use VSTs?

[Sancus]

I don't have a desktop/laptop in my signal chain and I don't want one, it just adds unnecessary complications.

I do have access to EQ and I would say quite a few audiophiles do, for example many AVRs have some sort of EQ or tone control and so does plenty of other audio hardware or software.

There's really no need for more complex effects in most cases and as mentioned above you can't modify individual instruments or vocalists because you don't have the multitracks, so you're limited in what effects you can apply without making a mess of the entire track.

But perhaps most importantly, the more you fiddle around with the sound the less time you have to actually enjoy music.

 

[MattHooper]

I use VSTs all day long in my DAW.

But I like taking a break from all that stuff - computers 'n digital things - when listening to my stereo.

 

[Londek]

Using any effect on the song will not change the mix. You can't EQ, compress, add distortion, etc to just the rhythm guitar, or vocal. You can only effect the entire mix, as in mastering, which leaves you only a few options before you destroy the song.

That's 100% right, but isn't that how sound is already colorized with rigs?

Speakers don't choose if they want to distort vocals more than instrument
...well maybe there's an exception for K-Pop and Justin Bieber...

 

[Sancus]

Speakers don't choose if they want to distort vocals more than instrument
...well maybe there's an exception for K-Pop and Justin Bieber...

It sounds like maybe your original question is more like "Why do audiophiles modify sound with expensive, cumbersome hardware like different speaker choices instead of using software?"

And there's an easy answer to that: They don't know how to use software or they have some sort of subjective bias against it. That's it. There's no other reasons, if they knew how to use the software or were open to learning they probably would.

That said, there are speaker types that add "effects" that are probably impossible or very difficult to emulate with VSTs, like speakers with unusual, non-standard dispersion patterns such as Magnepans or dipoles in general etc.

 

[LouB]

It sounds like maybe your original question is more like "Why do audiophiles modify sound with expensive, cumbersome hardware like different speaker choices instead of using software?"

And there's an easy answer to that: They don't know how to use software or they have some sort of subjective bias against it. That's it. There's no other reasons, if they knew how to use the software or were open to learning they probably would.

That said, there are speaker types that add "effects" that are probably impossible or very difficult to emulate with VSTs, like speakers with unusual, non-standard dispersion patterns such as Magnepans or dipoles in general etc.

Not sure what your getting at, if your saying VST will make a cheap small speaker sound like a large expensive speaker your wrong. I never thought of the term "modifying" the sound when buying a speaker but I guess you can say that's what's going on.

 

[MattHooper]

It sounds like maybe your original question is more like "Why do audiophiles modify sound with expensive, cumbersome hardware like different speaker choices instead of using software?"

And there's an easy answer to that: They don't know how to use software or they have some sort of subjective bias against it. That's it. There's no other reasons, if they knew how to use the software or were open to learning they probably would.

You are leaving out various concerns, compromises and rational trade offs.

For one thing the OP has been referencing VSTs, which tend not to be available for consumer gear. And just setting up a regular old passive 2 channel system can sound great and suit many people's tastes and needs, the added hassle and possibly cumbersome addition of the equipment and software needed for DSP not being needed or desired. I know how to use VSTs and even I wouldn't care to incorporate them in to my 2 channel system.

It's a bit like saying "if an audiophile knew how to use all the software for incorporating subwoofers, crossovers, (and fiddling with subwoofer positions, finding space for the subs, and outlets, and extra cables) and room DSP they would use it."

No, actually, many don't bother because they don't need the hassle. Same in many situations for why someone might not care to find a way to use VSTs in their audio system.

 

[Inner Space]

You can't EQ, compress, add distortion, etc to just the rhythm guitar, or vocal.

We're at the beginning of being able to do that. So-called machine learning AI can de-mix masters down to the individual instruments. Which then can be worked on in detail and mixed back up.

Imagine (and I'm sure it's happening) that process merged with the huge current research effort into head-stable 360-immersive sound via headphones. I'm guessing it will be the next sea change, and it will totally dominate the market.

Which will bring VST to all listeners, but in subtle and semi-hidden ways ... your headphone amp will have dials marked Size, Space, Warm, Cool, or whatever.

 

[Sancus]

Not sure what your getting at, if your saying VST will make a cheap small speaker sound like a large expensive speaker your wrong. I never thought of the term "modifying" the sound when buying a speaker but I guess you can say that's what's going on.

This is a meaningless statement though. There are small, cheap speakers that sound far better than the majority of large expensive speakers, and vice versa. Size doesn't really tell you anything about anything other than output capability.

It's a complete misconception that there is any magical "big speaker" sound that is different from "small speaker" sound.

I did point out there are certain types of speakers that produce "effects" that can't easily be duplicated with VST... that said I don't think it's necessarily impossible. Maybe if you are restricting yourself to 2 stereo speakers it's impossible, but that is a very limited and sort of pointless scenario.

For example, the Smyth Realiser can make a pair of headphones sound like pretty much any speakers out there.

 

[fpitas]

Do they even use a computer?

Analog computer. All DHT single-ended.

 

[ZolaIII]

Not sure what your getting at, if your saying VST will make a cheap small speaker sound like a large expensive speaker your wrong. I never thought of the term "modifying" the sound when buying a speaker but I guess you can say that's what's going on.

Cheap good speaker can both sound very good to the extent you will hardly get better sounding one's and be able to play louder (internal cabinet resonance and harmonics) then lot of uter garbage with a high price tag on it.
For prime example take Elac DBR62 and understand that whose Andrew Jones parting retirement gift. Any correction tool is only as good as person using it really know how to use it.

 

[Ricardus]

Is the OP using VST as a term to describe all plugins?

 

[kchap]

Why "audiophiles" don't use VSTs? Concept is pretty clear - you would get objectively saying the most precise amp, speaker - entire audio rig - and then colorize signal digitally at source (well, you could route analog signal to the actual analog rig, but plugins mimic analog rigs so well already), add up some distortion (Ozone Pro Exciter, Fabfilter Saturn etc), EQ (Pro-Q etc).

I've been observing the audiophile community for a pretty long time now and I've noticed all conversations come down to one thing:
People just don't like the mix, it's literally that simple, either song is actually poorly mixed or people just don't enjoy the tonality that audio engineer offered them.
Also why don't we have DSP's with support for VSTs? (I don't know any, if you know one, let me know)

Maybe money is the issue as always? Amp can be sold for 5k USD, typical plugin goes for <500 USD (and that's most often the price of entire bundle!), so it might not be worth it for audiophile companies to change the mindset behind the "audio quality"

Or maybe, I don't like to put it this way, but maybe audiophiles are just too dumb and they think measured gear distortion is different from the same but digitally applied one? (Same thing goes for EQs etc)

Would not the job of creating the sound be the job of the the creators? It's up up to the artists, recording engineers, producers and so on to make the sound. Apart from room and/or headphone EQ my playback chain should be transparent.

PS, I inadvertently clicked like instead of reply. Sorry if I know appear to be contradictory.

 

[Londek]

Is the OP using VST as a term to describe all plugins?

Yes, so there is freedom of will for all people that'd decide to go with such solution.
Thinking of that, I can imagine subjectivists comparing 2 same EQs just with different UI lol

 

[Ifrit]

Yes, so there is freedom of will for all people that'd decide to go with such solution.
Thinking of that, I can imagine subjectivists comparing 2 same EQs just with different UI lol

And there are many of those, as some plugin manufacturers use readily available libraries of DSP effects. Just put on a new or another skin and voila.

 

[Londek]

Would not the job of creating the sound be the job of the the creators? It's up up to the artists, recording engineers, producers and so on to make the sound. Apart from room and/or headphone EQ my playback chain should be transparent.

PS, I inadvertently clicked like instead of reply. Sorry if I know appear to be contradictory.

I'm also on that side of spectrum, but many people like slightly warm sound, maybe with some air added and IMO we can't really fight with people taste.
All I'm saying maybe subjectivists/audiophiles should move from #HardwareMasterRace to #SoftwareMasterRace + with TRANSPARENT speakers, just imagine the flexibility such transition could bring. You don't like the sound? Just bring the knob down and make it subtle, no need for experimenting with different amps and such, audiophile companies could shift their R&D on other sector than golden audio cables, bad power filters, upsamplers etc, less ewaste, less marketing bs etc. I'm feeling like an ignorant a bit right now, but I just like science and I feel like I'm describing part of bigger problem with audio industry.

 

[dorakeg]

I'm also on that side of spectrum, but many people like slightly warm sound, maybe with some air added and IMO we can't really fight with people taste.
All I'm saying maybe subjectivists/audiophiles should move from #HardwareMasterRace to #SoftwareMasterRace + with TRANSPARENT speakers, just imagine the flexibility such transition could bring. You don't like the sound? Just bring the knob down and make it subtle, no need for experimenting with different amps and such, audiophile companies could shift their R&D on other sector than golden audio cables, bad power filters, upsamplers etc, less ewaste, less marketing bs etc. I'm feeling like an ignorant a bit right now, but I just like science and I feel like I'm describing part of bigger problem with audio industry.

While software is able to alter the sound, it cannot overcome hardware limitations.

One of the biggest difference between higher end and mainstream or budget speakers is in psychoacoustic effects.

I believe you may have listen to a song/music where the sound does not appear to come from the speakers. You can easily pinpoint the location of the singer, the instruments. You can even tell whether whether they are Infront of behind (depth). I am not sure how much software could do to improve this if the gear is not capable of reproducing this effect.

 

[Londek]

While software is able to alter the sound, it cannot overcome hardware limitations.

One of the biggest difference between higher end and mainstream or budget speakers is in psychoacoustic effects.

I believe you may have listen to a song/music where the sound does not appear to come from the speakers. You can easily pinpoint the location of the singer, the instruments. You can even tell whether whether they are Infront of behind (depth). I am not sure how much software could do to improve this if the gear is not capable of reproducing this effect.

No offense, but I don't know if you noticed the part "#SoftwareMasterRace + with TRANSPARENT speakers". I think high-end gear is a must, but colorization could be shifted from hardware to software entirely.

But other than that, yes I highly agree with your answer

 

[ZolaIII]

While software is able to alter the sound, it cannot overcome hardware limitations.

One of the biggest difference between higher end and mainstream or budget speakers is in psychoacoustic effects.

I believe you may have listen to a song/music where the sound does not appear to come from the speakers. You can easily pinpoint the location of the singer, the instruments. You can even tell whether whether they are Infront of behind (depth). I am not sure how much software could do to improve this if the gear is not capable of reproducing this effect.

And they are not because you are not using it (equal loudness normalization), you don't respect their physical limits (of driver's, their excursion rates, enclosure types, refractions and harmonics) and such. Still nothing to do with the price really (to the extent you do need bigger drivers in order to do it in the first place and good enclosure and they do cost more). Of course you will use subwoofer for it with any speakers. Rest is more on the psyho-delic than psyho-acustics side.
Unfortunately I must say I didn't find a good easy to use and integrate VST (wide 2, 3 and newer) or other type of plugin that does it (ISO 226 2003). Shame is it whose standard in the past on mid range amplifiers (in older revision of course) along with tone controls and such but now days it's rarity (can be found on some Yamahas and Denons with Audicity). Today you have bare bone audiophile grade one's without anything that cost a lot. Because some assholes without real understanding of things insisted on as possibly direct not altered in any way reproduction path.

 

[kongwee]

Not many people are well verse using such tech.

 

[IPunchCholla]

I use IK Multimedia’s ARC 3 software, running as a VST/AU in SoundSource for all of my music listening over speakers and equalization for my headphones. ARC 3 is an automated version of EQing using REW that measures 21 points from both speakers in predetermined patterns for various setups. In addition to EQ it will adjust balance and phase to optimize the stereo image. You can have as many setups as you want. I have one for my near field position and one for farther away position. You can also PEQ the resulting EQ to taste. And it will simulate various other forms of speakers (laptop, sound bars, headphones, etc. which is nice for mastering).

While I have treated my room a bit, it is non-ideal in size and symmetry so I consider ARC3 non-optional to the extent that I run my turntable through my computer. And since I’m doing that, I use de-clicking VSTs as well. If I could find a good one, I would likely use a noise filter as well, but all the ones I have tried still alter the music.

I don’t consider myself an audiophile, just someone who really enjoys listening to and making music.