| Author
|
Looking to buy my first synth
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 3, 2011 10:36
|
@Mute, ok so that was a bad example.
Discovery was made to emulate, not innovate.
But take for example 2 synths previously mentioned here, Absynth and Surge. No hardware synth can sound like them. They are unique. Yet, they can not sound like any hardware synth. Does that make either better? No. Just different.
It's easier to make a software synth, so that's why there are some crappy ones. The guys making hardware are probably trying harder, because they don't have to just write code, they also need to build something. This doesn't make all software crap. There are some excellent synths which are not worse, not better, but different and distinct from hardware synths.
And what is your point about cracking?
The fact that you have to pay for something makes it better?
And I assume that you never payed for a softsynth, but I did. Everything I use is legally bought. That's my way to support the industry and help develop new and better synths.
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 3, 2011 18:23
|
no hardware synths can do sound massive or reaktor can but the point is about pure sonics quality ,there hardware is often better, using both seems like the best thing to do cause one can t replace the other, some plugs dont have any equivalent in hardware.
but most plugs i use them cause i have no choice ,except a few i could easily replace most of them with hardware. |
|
|
|
Mute
IsraTrance Full Member
Access Gremlin
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
1046
Posted : Feb 3, 2011 20:56
|
there are some places where software synths excel and comes to mind is granular synthesis. Yes the virus has granular but not sample based. Ableton' sampler offers even modulating loop start and end points however these are techniques in my oppinion.
Now its a well accepted fact in Eq that cutting is better then boosting. So in a hardware synth the sounds are so frequency and harmonically rich that this can be applied in so much detail since those frequencies are present. In softsynths i atleast found myself doing the opposite, endlessly boosting frequencies that arent there as such coloring the sound to some degree which i dont like at all cuz they are thin plastic sounding.. My biggest gripe with software is that when new Operating systems , new daws, 64bit functionality etc are introduced it render so many of them useless, developers dont care, drop support and charge you more money for a new version which can be argued as a free upgrade or not, money well spent its upto you.. with hardware all you need is Midi or CV , they dont depend on Microsofts or Apple's fits.
Ignore the cracking comment, still tho the world aint all that thruthfull =) as one would think..
I paid for my software too , atleast the very few that i have and cant live without
|
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 3, 2011 21:00
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-03 18:23, PoM wrote:
but the point is about pure sonics quality ,there hardware is often better
|
|
What is "better"?
First of all, if you're talking about being faithful to the original signal then internal software synth is the best. When recording hardware synths you are going from the DAC of the synth, to the cable, picking up EM noise, then ADC on your interface.
Of course that some of the newer synths (like Virus TI) skip this and transfer the audio directly to the DAW, but that's not always the case.
|
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 00:00
|
true my mistake there is not better but different taste,and it all depends the sound wanted .
there is some amazing music made only with software, specially when it s pushing things forward with sound not possible with older technology but when it about sounding like hardware ,softsynth need more processing and work imo. |
|
|
|
Login
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
65
Posts :
1707
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 03:26
|
Exactly, each synth is good for what its technology alows for.
The emulations of classic synths are a step backwards, things like reaktor and absynth are more interesting and use the new technology to its full potential.
 "The dedication to repetition — the search for nirvana in a single held tone or an endlessly cycling rhythm — is one of electronic music's noblest gestures." |
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 12:39
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-04 00:00, PoM wrote:
specially when it s pushing things forward with sound not possible with older technology but when it about sounding like hardware ,softsynth need more processing and work imo.
|
|
I should make a test for you hardware fans.
Take 2 hardware pieces and 2 software pieces, start from an init patch, 10 minutes on each patch and record.
Then you need to identify which is which.
My guess - you will have no idea.
|
|
|
|
klippel
Stereofeld
Started Topics :
91
Posts :
1153
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 13:45
|
this reminds me of the discussion high resolution digital audio vs. vinyl audio.
i guess it´s all subjective in the end and there is no right and wrong as this would indicate we have an objective tool at hand to determine what is "better". better is subjective after all in terms of sound.
however, what you can say is:
if you compare hardware vs software (analogue vs digital as even v.a. synths like the nord are to some extent analogue with their d/a and amp sections ore analogue filters) there is a notivable difference..
it might be getting smaller indeed over time as software keeps getting better and better..
but the listening quality is different so far, i won´t say better for analogue as it is subjective but there is a noticeable difference, at least to me and on a high resolution play back system.
i guess some of the drawbacks of the analogue world, mainly the distortion artefacts give a certain flow that the digital world is simply not yielding.
you won´t be a better musician if you buy hardware. and you can very closely match the hardware world in the software nowadays,
but i for myself still like spinning a real record, the organic feel a record gives me is still sometimes better than the ultraclear superhighresolution 24/96 studio master wavs that you can get now.
on a sidenote. processing your hardware synths signal with tons and tons of digital processing tools will end in a digital sound after all..
http://www.ektoplazm.com/free-music/stereofeld-frequenzwechsel
"I've always been a believer in musical repetition to draw in the listener and make the music hypnotic. Another thing I believe in is repetition." Alan Parsons |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 15:20
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-04 12:39, Mike A wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-04 00:00, PoM wrote:
specially when it s pushing things forward with sound not possible with older technology but when it about sounding like hardware ,softsynth need more processing and work imo.
|
|
I should make a test for you hardware fans.
Take 2 hardware pieces and 2 software pieces, start from an init patch, 10 minutes on each patch and record.
Then you need to identify which is which.
My guess - you will have no idea.
|
|
i dont need you do that i use hardware since almost 15 years and plugins since few years, i know it s possible to make plugins sounding great.
it s subjective to taste but for me they both have strenght and weakness. |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 15:54
|
|
we were talking about digital but with analog there is really a difference ,you will see in 10 years plugins will be a lot better for this.they make lot of shortcut to free cpu,when they will truly emulate all the circuits it will sound great ,for now it s still 2 different worlds. |
|
|
|
Outolintu
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
63
Posts :
1477
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 17:15
|
a guy wants to know something about synths and you come blasting in with some arguments for software.
they're out of place in this thread. nobody was arguing against software. software was not discussed until you brought it up.
there's a software section for software and a equipment section for hardware. maybe if you dislike hardware synths you might want to stick to the software section?
"no one ever sweats on a plug-in" -moby |
|
|
|
Mute
IsraTrance Full Member
Access Gremlin
Started Topics :
51
Posts :
1046
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 18:11
|
too much subjectivity , to what??
Being rich and poor is subjective and oppinion based =)
|
|
|
|
Mike A
Subra
Started Topics :
185
Posts :
3954
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 18:24
|
@Outolintu
Software is much cheaper than hardware, and for some people who lack some moral values also free.
I'm just showing care for this person, since I've seen SO MANY friends of mine thinking that a hardware synth will make it possible for them to make super music, when in fact it wasn't true. They were just throwing their money away.
Then people started saying for a fact that hardware is better than software, when it's not.
Well, if the guy wants to buy hardware without being able to exploit it properly (I don't know actually, maybe he does. This is why I was asking in the first place), then so be it.
I have no problem with hardware. It's just much more expensive. And I do own 2 hardware synths, so I know what I'm talking about. |
|
|
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Feb 4, 2011 19:04
|
|
when he get is nord 2 ,i doubt he will be disapointed and resell it cause he like more his plugins. he will probably be blow away if he was after that sound. |
|
|
|
Outolintu
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
63
Posts :
1477
Posted : Feb 5, 2011 13:22
|
Quote:
|
On 2011-02-04 18:24, Mike A wrote:
I'm just showing care for this person, since I've seen SO MANY friends of mine thinking that a hardware synth will make it possible for them to make super music, when in fact it wasn't true. They were just throwing their money away.
|
|
if they're smart and buy 2nd hand hardware they're certainly not throwing their money away as they can re-sell it later for the same price.
it's not very logical to think that having a hardware synth makes you a better artist.
it may or may not inspire you more depending on your personality and workflow.
so this hardware vs. software battle is all about money or the lack of it? quoting your quote of "being happy":
why not do so about the fact that making electronic music is nowerdays relatively affordable instead of
feeling threatened by the "old ways"?
"no one ever sweats on a plug-in" -moby |
|
|
|
