Actually I can't post the dry samples, 'cause I don't have them. I just received a rough mix of a track.
Bummer. Maybe someone else can post a dry track and one run through a couple of the SW Lexicon settings?
But I gotta' tell ya', I don't get much into the "this sounds just like that" sorts of things, or "I can make it sound 90% of this or that". I've been through that with people claiming to use EQ to make a Studio Project's C1 sound like a U87, and there's nothing to gain for my time.
We must politely semi-agree - it all depends on the type of effect, sound-source (instrument(s)) etc. When you bring up a U87, that's a mic, and we would never claim to be able to get the same sound from a mic, not even with any of the mic "emulators" we've tried and heard. Which is why we buy mics.
So we'll say that if you're talking reverbs, that's one thing. Trying to simulate a U87, esp. a vintage one - good luck. But if you read our posts, you'll note that we said that once something goes analogue
- then it's a completely different story. And a U87 is definitely analogue. So we think we tried to cover that, yeah?
Usually this sort of conclusion (and occasionally delusion) comes from monitoring shortfalls. They say it does, I say it doesn't. Unresolvable.
We completely agree. Monitoring shortfalls, and you forgot another major factor that we've run into more and more each year (with others, we're very careful): hearing loss
! So many ppl think something sounds "right" but their ears are so wrecked that it's a joke, really.
But your point about learning to use what ya' got is the most valid point that can ever be made--but we all know it's easier to buy the next "sound".
That's our main point - sit down, learn what you have, and write musick. Spending time trying out the latest this or that - we know one friend who'd prolly have several 12" singles done and ready for pressing if he didn't keep upgrading his software and spending all his spare time learning it - only to upgrade something else and waste time going down that path.
Much of the best musick we've heard has been done with minimal setups. And the bands that get big and start buying tons of gear and writing songs in the studio rather than at home and/or on tour (cough... Sonic Youth... cough... Decemberists... cough... Sigur Ros... cough... et. al) well, they tend to start to suck.
That's why we like Eno & Lanois' approach - like with U2, they force them to pick their gear out, put it in the studio, and only when they've practiced some basic song structures and ideas. And then maybe Eno/Lanois will do some little/lot of post-production, but they force the band to "work with what they've got". Like they had to when nobody knew them.
Great points! Cheers!