| Author
|
someone convince me not to go all software ahhh
|
PoM
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
162
Posts :
8087
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 15:07
|
|
hardware dsp are just dongles ... turning knob don t make me think i play a instrument except if i play on the keyboard ... and doing automation with knobs are just too random for the trance of today when you want everyhting perfect imo. |
|
|
-aeon-
Aeon
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
546
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 17:58
|
softsynths are flexible in the way that most hardware synths aren't. they are ideal for unusual or impractical configurations, and for super flexible approaches.
have you ever sat down with a synth and just made noises?
for me, it's a *world* apart from clicking on a softsynth interface. it is a totally different thing.
and that's before you get to the sound.
i dunno man, for me it was like... i used to spend ages tweaking forever to get one synth sound close to how i wanted it. now i just program the sound, record it and move on. of course part of this is psychological - i spent money, i want to convince myself i made the right choice... 
a nice midi controller would need 30+ labelled knobs... smooth like real pots, not shitty 128-step midi i'm sure if you wanted to you could get one of those Novation or Akai midi controllers for a few hundred which would give you LED-labels... but why bother? for that money you can get a real synth!
there are some things that softsynths can do 'better'. and some things hardware can do 'better'. like i said... the Nord HP filter is something special, the Virus saw wave is brutal... why do you think people spend money for powercore versions of the Virus? why do people buy Nord micro modulars?
Virus pads are stunning, for example... but FM8 does the most amazing evolving metallic clang textures. Virus reverb is gorgeous... but Absynth is insanely flexible. i haven't heard anything quite like Zebra.
pluses and minuses...
like we all said in previous threads... what matters is the human part of the chain. very few synths write songs, hard or soft, and it shouldn't *ever* matter where a sound came from. if it sounds good, it is good... end of story.
imho, when you choose a hardware synth, what you're paying for is
a) interface
b) power
c) programming
d) connectivity
these can be addressed to a certain extent by programmers. there is no reason why U-he's VSTI filter model shouldn't sound as good as Nord's proprietary filter model, given that both are just a series of numbers. but where the gap really starts to show is when you add power into the equation.
without an accelerator, even the best softsynth will run into a CPU ceiling. so will hardware when you make megacomplex patches, but look at the Virus TI... pushing 80 stereo voices. and with Hypersaw, you can set up patches with like a thousand oscillators. think about working truly multitimbrally... i.e., 16 parts each with 4 wavetable / granular / regular oscillators, two filters, EQs, reverb, delay, chorus, distortion, phaser...
at Clavia or Access or Korg HQ there's a team of people doing the coding, and i'd imagine that they're in a sense less restricted by concerns - over CPU consumption, compatibility, etc... i'm sure designing and coding a VA synth is still one long act of compromise; but it's a different process. obviously any hardware synth is just a computer in a fancy box, but it's also a computer that has its own, designed-for-audio OS, and its own dedicated DSP resources.
connectivity is another big one. all those inputs and outputs... and all the audio processing goodness contained therein. the vast majority of software synths do not allow you to pass any signal through them.
but finally, what i keep coming back to is the interface. this is where having dedicated controls makes all the difference. yes, with VirusControl you needn't ever twist a knob, and yes, with a suitably expensive MIDI controller you could approximate a basic synth setup. but, having programmed softsynths for four years before getting hardware, i can't imagine it ever being as intuitive, creative, or fun.
but that's just me. what matters is the music people make, and i can't remember ever thinking 'oh, that CD's shit, i bet it was made with softsynths!'.
|
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 18:27
|
Colin - an emulation is where the exact same software instructions are executed on a different platform, a recreation is when a product is re-engineered and is different.
The only hardware synths that exist are the old synths that need electronic maintenance. dsp synths are only as much hardware as any cpu is, which means that by definition their instructions can be executed on any other platforms capable of executing basic dsp math. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 18:28
|
The business model is different though if u have at least one necessary hardware component, i.e. it cannot be copied. with an additional benefit of adding the unataineable mystique quality to the product, so people who buy the product will sound different.
Its an obvious move to include hardware limitations, only difference is that its not a dongle that is expected but a necessary component in the synthesis itself.
But that does not detract from the original fact that such a synth could be identically well executed in software on any platforms that was powerful enough, like a pc quad core for example.
I think that access and nord have chosen to include a hardware "dongle" that is impossible to crack, coz it performs part of the necessary operations for synthesis, and also chosen to invest their energy in these uncopyable platforms for good business sense.
|
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 18:28
|
People are bitching about software coz normal software synths dont have the commitment to quality that HW synths have, and that is simply because for the big synth companies it makes bad business sense to invest heavily in something that can be copied 4 free instead of something that cant.
On that note. If a generic dsp was launched that was powerful enough, and the legal infrastructure was in place for synth companies to be guaranteed payments from the sales of the hardware, immediately you would see great synths that would be downloadable, because the revenue has already been generated.
So personally I think Software is the future, although a few issues have to be ironed out. |
|
|
|
piXan
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
107
Posts :
807
Posted : Mar 15, 2008 21:27
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-15 18:28, bukboy wrote:
People are bitching about software coz normal software synths dont have the commitment to quality that HW synths have, and that is simply because for the big synth companies it makes bad business sense to invest heavily in something that can be copied 4 free instead of something that cant.
On that note. If a generic dsp was launched that was powerful enough, and the legal infrastructure was in place for synth companies to be guaranteed payments from the sales of the hardware, immediately you would see great synths that would be downloadable, because the revenue has already been generated.
So personally I think Software is the future, although a few issues have to be ironed out.
|
|
thats it...
and when people start pointing advantages of harware synth as "power" it makes me wonder.... i mean what does that mean?!
 www.soundcloud.com/elektroakustica/sets/downtempo/ |
|
|
|
-aeon-
Aeon
Started Topics :
10
Posts :
546
Posted : Mar 16, 2008 12:06
|
Quote:
| I think that access and nord have chosen to include a hardware "dongle" that is impossible to crack, coz it performs part of the necessary operations for synthesis, and also chosen to invest their energy in these uncopyable platforms for good business sense. |
|
agreed.
of course the 'hard' and 'soft' distinction is a false one (unless you're talking about analogue hardware, or something like waldorf stromberg or DSI stuff).
Quote:
| If a generic dsp was launched that was powerful enough, and the legal infrastructure was in place for synth companies to be guaranteed payments from the sales of the hardware, immediately you would see great synths that would be downloadable, because the revenue has already been generated. |
|
like TC powercore? 
Quote:
| and when people start pointing advantages of harware synth as "power" it makes me wonder.... i mean what does that mean?! |
|
erm... it means 'power' as in dedicated DSPs with enough grunt to perform serious synthesis... a TI has two DSPs, doesn't it?
|
|
|
|
heretical
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
77
Posted : Mar 16, 2008 17:03
|
TC powercore is a good example of why that business model won't take off either. I imagine it comes down to that its cheaper for Roland to produce their own hardware than it is for them to share profits with TC by using their platform. Maybe access wouldn't have been able to make the C/TI without waiting for TC to upgrade their hardware.
I'm in the process of going back to all hardware. A big reason is that although its counter intuitive but the limitations hardware puts on you is a benefit, not a detractor. With software you have an unlimited pallet of colors to pick from. Outside of the most gifted painters, an unlimited pallet will end up mixing into nothing but brown/grey mush. Most time will be wasted trying to sift through what color combinations to use. With hardware you have a small pallet of fantastic quality colors and can simply focus on painting. |
|
|
|
neuromantik
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
28
Posts :
593
Posted : Mar 16, 2008 19:11
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-16 17:03, heretical wrote:
A big reason is that although its counter intuitive but the limitations hardware puts on you is a benefit, not a detractor. With software you have an unlimited pallet of colors to pick from. Outside of the most gifted painters, an unlimited pallet will end up mixing into nothing but brown/grey mush. Most time will be wasted trying to sift through what color combinations to use. With hardware you have a small pallet of fantastic quality colors and can simply focus on painting.
|
|
I'm kind of in the same predicament but with hardware (well it is more software plus a great controller: Clavia's Modular G2)..
Sometimes limitations are a great thing, you can think of the possibilities of your piece of hardware and how you can tweak it to get the sound you want.
To quote a friend "Having no limits is like jumping into the middle of the atlantic ocean without knowing how to swim." |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 06:53
|
the limitations argument is false. What your problem is - is that you don't know how to define a task and follow it through. Not because u have too many choices, but because u don't know how to limit your options based on what your original idea was, and implement it.
Predictably Im going to say "Learn some music theory" then you will learn to separate your work pallets into limited tasks into which you can pour your creative energy, instead of wasting your time looking for "accidents" that sound cool.
And then Im going to flake when its time to give examples |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 11:47
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 12:46
|
Well said - In either case I would have to argue that going software only is a lot cheaper, lighter and therefore better. After all if u really know how to be creative with the tools you have then you wont need the expensive ones.
For example, people who play quake3 on a fast computer know how the physics work much better than people who run on slower machines, and when these faster people are forced onto slower machines they can still play a very decent game internally compensating for variables they know are there. While the people who are on slower machines still perform as ignorantly of the faster physics on a faster machine until they get time to get used to it.
although its not that HW or SW is faster or slower, just that knowing how to use it is a bigger part of sounding good then having the most expensive gear. |
|
|
|
heretical
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
77
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 15:52
|
Quote:
|
On 2008-03-17 12:46, bukboy wrote:
Well said - In either case I would have to argue that going software only is a lot cheaper, lighter and therefore better.
|
|
Its only cheaper though because its so easy to steal. To actually buy a high quality software setup is quite expensive compared to an older hardware setup. Compare the price of kontakt to what an older akai goes for on ebay.
I agree the problem is not being able to define a task and follow through. The issue though is at the average, with given unlimited choice for free, everyone will naturally have this problem and its a HUGE distraction from the actual composition process.
To pretend your a musical genious who can simply ignore this fact is to be delusional. |
|
|
|
bukboy
Hyperboreans
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
803
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 15:58
|
yeah but the key is to choose 5 or 6 of ur favourite synths and stick to em, and not download any more.
Not overcompensate and drop software for hardware. |
|
|
|
Speakafreaka
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
18
Posts :
779
Posted : Mar 17, 2008 16:43
|
hehehe, my arbitrsary limitation is not to use a synth more then once in a piece of music.
Never use the same chorus/eq/whatever twice in the same tune.
Or predetermine what plugin comes enxt before the event and make it work...
Basically, even though thats the complete opposite of what you are doing, it is fulfilling the same function and providing a framework to work in. Thats what this is about, the framework that works for you. And that is very unlikely to be the framework that is right for anyone else.
.
http://www.soundcloud.com/speakafreaka |
|
|
|
