squeezebox
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2004/10/05 21:46:33
- Status: offline
Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
I've recently been looking into dedicated music workstations like the Yamaha Motif ES and Roland FantomX for use in both live and studio settings. But now I'm starting to consider going the high-performance laptop/audio interface/keyboard controllerpath instead. I'd welcome any comments from folks that have gone down this path. What are the pros/cons? What are the specs of machines that have been successful, etc.
Thanks,
Chuck
|
wz061s
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 385
- Joined: 2004/04/19 14:22:11
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/12 03:25:55
(permalink)
I sold my FantomX and Emu Hardware and went soft around at the beginning of this year. I bought an AMD Athlon 3700+ based system with an M-Audio 88es controller to run Sampletank with Sonic Synth sounds, and a handful of VA and FM soft synths. I am happy as a clam and I will never go back to hardware.
I only use that system in the studio, however. I have a Dell D600 laptop with a 1.5 GB of RAM and an Echo Indigo card that can theoretically handle live playing scenarios if I don't get crazy with layering or use disk streaming for samples. I have not actually played live with it, however. My advice would be that you think about how much random access to sounds will be needed on the fly - hardware is great for that. That could be a concern live depending on your host/soft synth setup.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/12 08:00:40
(permalink)
Hi Chuck, and welcome to the forum!
I was looking at those same keyboard workstations myself a couple of years ago. But ever since I played with a soft synth demo a few years ago from Seer Systems I've had this feeling that I'd prefer synthesis on the computer.
Here's the deal the way I see it for live performance:
- Both the hardware workstation synths and the DAW/Softsynth studio environments are computers. But the hardware variety is very dedicated to a single purpose and its performance is finely tuned for a perfect match. On the DAW/Softsynth side we have a general purpose computer that might be somewhat performanced tuned for music but not nearly so as the workstations.
- The workstation synths are going to be more stable (no lockups or crashes) compared to a PC running Windws. However, you can get a rock-solid Windows music PC rackmounted and with the right drivers and careful setup of the software it should never crash either.
- The workstation synths are going to be faster at moving among presets. This is really a generalization. Most of them will have no load time. Most PC synths will have load time--but this can be mitigated by using samplers and softsynths that "preload" their sounds when the PC and audio applications initially launch.
- Softsynths are a lot eaiser and less expensive to upgrade than hardware systems.
- Softsynths provide infinitely more sonic possibilites with the vast numbers of audio applications out there. Many are even free.
- I find no discernable difference in sound quality between a softsynth workstation and a hardware workstation.
- A softsynth-based system is a lot more portable than the "equivalent" hardware systems if you have a lot of hardware gear.
There is probably a lot of other benefits and contrasts to each as well, but these are the ones that pop out at me.
For a studio I definitely refuse to be tied to hardware workstations anymore. NO MORE!
But for live performance I think the softsynth systems are just beginning to break some ground for most musicians. I have yet to perform live with a softsynth system but to tell you the truth this may be the year I try it! I will be using Project5 for it if I do (I have Sonar as well but it is definitely not geared to live performance--its like a giant digital computerized tape recorder--P5 is like an instrument).
-Techead
|
squeezebox
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4
- Joined: 2004/10/05 21:46:33
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/12 16:32:16
(permalink)
Seems that the idea system esthetically would be a Table PC, but they definitely are not "up-to-speed" yet.
I have yet to experiment with managing multiple Windows XP hardware configurations, but that also seems like a good way to save CPU cycles.
|
Bob
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 98
- Joined: 2004/05/29 07:53:34
- Location: Oslo
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/12 17:01:08
(permalink)
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/12 17:51:52
(permalink)
That would be kinda neat for the Groove Matrix, eh?
|
wz061s
Max Output Level: -83 dBFS
- Total Posts : 385
- Joined: 2004/04/19 14:22:11
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 01:50:40
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Bob
If you are ready to invest for live gigs, there is Muse receptor.
http://www.museresearch.com/
It's a great Idea, but your soft synths specifically need to support the Muse receptor. For example, lack of Sampletank support makes it unusable for my setup.
|
eriksongwriter
Max Output Level: -88 dBFS
- Total Posts : 130
- Joined: 2003/12/02 16:05:16
- Location: Kalifornia
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 07:09:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wz061s
I sold my FantomX and Emu Hardware and went soft around at the beginning of this year. I bought an AMD Athlon 3700+ based system with an M-Audio 88es controller to run Sampletank with Sonic Synth sounds, and a handful of VA and FM soft synths. I am happy as a clam and I will never go back to hardware.
I only use that system in the studio, however. I have a Dell D600 laptop with a 1.5 GB of RAM and an Echo Indigo card that can theoretically handle live playing scenarios if I don't get crazy with layering or use disk streaming for samples. I have not actually played live with it, however. My advice would be that you think about how much random access to sounds will be needed on the fly - hardware is great for that. That could be a concern live depending on your host/soft synth setup.
I like wz061s went from hard to soft. I had a korg triton and did everything on it. It took much much longer to write songs on the korg triton then P5 and Sonar. Not to mention the deep midi editing you can do on P5. I will never go back.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 08:29:06
(permalink)
When Motifs, Tritons, and Fantoms are truly duplicated in software, then I'll totally dive into the software thing. Softsynths, with the exception of a few like Emulator X, do not have the "playability" of a hardware synth. They are either of the analog synth emulation or sample playback variety. Where are the plug-ins that mimic Yamaha FDSP (EX series), or VL synthesis (Yamaha) or the different synthesis types in the Triton MOSS card, or the Kurzweil K2600 etc? Quite frankly, I believe that a soft synth totally replicating hardware (from sound to playability to stability) will consume most of the CPU cycles of the fastest PCs available today leaving room for nothing else to run. Also, hardware is a lot quicker to navigate and program than fiddling with software interfaces that try to duplicate the physical interface of hardware--software makers need to quit doing that. I'm sick of trying to spin on-screen knobs with a mouse pointer  Waves plug-ins have excellent "software" interfaces. So, while softsynths are definitely the future, they still need some growing up to do before they truly outperform hardware in all respects.
post edited by WhyBe - 2005/06/14 08:33:34
|
Grey
Max Output Level: -90 dBFS
- Total Posts : 32
- Joined: 2004/04/01 12:25:43
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 11:07:25
(permalink)
But for live performance I think the softsynth systems are just beginning to break some ground for most musicians. I have yet to perform live with a softsynth system but to tell you the truth this may be the year I try it! I will be using Project5 For the record, I've been using softsynths and samplers on stage in one form or another since the mid 90's. The only problem I ever had was when I tried streaming audio live from a desktop. The thing would go crazy every time. Had no problems with a laptop though...
post edited by Grey - 2005/06/14 11:10:27
|
ZuN
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 622
- Joined: 2004/04/01 11:57:50
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 11:15:34
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
When Motifs, Tritons, and Fantoms are truly duplicated in software, then I'll totally dive into the software thing.
Softsynths, with the exception of a few like Emulator X, do not have the "playability" of a hardware synth. They are either of the analog synth emulation or sample playback variety.
Well there are romplers out there, for example Ravity by Luxonix is similar to the way Motifs, Tritons generate their sound. ORIGINAL: WhyBe
Where are the plug-ins that mimic Yamaha FDSP (EX series), or VL synthesis (Yamaha) or the different synthesis types in the Triton MOSS card, or the Kurzweil K2600 etc? Quite frankly, I believe that a soft synth totally replicating hardware (from sound to playability to stability) will consume most of the CPU cycles of the fastest PCs available today leaving room for nothing else to run.
That is very true, these Soft Synths will eat up your CPU, but the brains at Cakewalk have given us the Ability to Freeze those tracks and thus freeing up those precious CPU cycles. ORIGINAL: WhyBe
Also, hardware is a lot quicker to navigate and program than fiddling with software interfaces that try to duplicate the physical interface of hardware--software makers need to quit doing that. I'm sick of trying to spin on-screen knobs with a mouse pointer Waves plug-ins have excellent "software" interfaces.
I think thats a matter of opinion thos cos i have no problems tweaking my synths by using the knobs on my controller, instant gratification. ORIGINAL: WhyBe
So, while softsynths are definitely the future, they still need some growing up to do before they truly outperform hardware in all respects.
I can see your point, but I think putting these tools into the proper hands can have amazing results, Its all about the Artist and not his tools.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/14 22:41:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
When Motifs, Tritons, and Fantoms are truly duplicated in software, then I'll totally dive into the software thing.
Softsynths, with the exception of a few like Emulator X, do not have the "playability" of a hardware synth. They are either of the analog synth emulation or sample playback variety.
Where are the plug-ins that mimic Yamaha FDSP (EX series), or VL synthesis (Yamaha) or the different synthesis types in the Triton MOSS card, or the Kurzweil K2600 etc? Quite frankly, I believe that a soft synth totally replicating hardware (from sound to playability to stability) will consume most of the CPU cycles of the fastest PCs available today leaving room for nothing else to run.
In terms of sound quality and number of patches and variety there are softsynths that have far surpassed any of the hardware synths you've mentioned. We have at our finger tips tons of subtractive synth engines, quite a few physical modeling engines (including the waveguide feature of Dimension), several granular synthesis engines, several FM synth engines, several additive synth engines. There are synth engines that mix several types of synthesis methods into a single package. There are synth engines that focus on modeling a particular vintage synth, electric piano, or organ as closely as possible. We have incredible sounding (compared to plain samplers) guitar simulators. It just goes on and on. I will not be buying any more hardware synths--I get more power for the money with the softsynths. I am looking forward to faster general purpose computers, improved user interfaces, and greater platform stability as this part of the music software industry continues to mature.
Also, hardware is a lot quicker to navigate and program than fiddling with software interfaces that try to duplicate the physical interface of hardware--software makers need to quit doing that. I'm sick of trying to spin on-screen knobs with a mouse pointer Waves plug-ins have excellent "software" interfaces.
So, while softsynths are definitely the future, they still need some growing up to do before they truly outperform hardware in all respects.
Yes, this is true. I agree about some of the user interfaces I've encountered and I find that the hardware synths are much faster at loading patches up.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 09:00:04
(permalink)
I haven't tried to listen to every softsynth out there. But a majority of them sound "cheap" compared to the hardware big-boys--Dimension being one of them. Dimension isn't bad sound-quality-wisel--just not up to par to hardware presets. I think it takes more than just a bunch of high quality samples on a hard drive to make a great "playable" instrument. Sound quality doesn't equate to great/usable patches. RealGuitar is a plug-in that I am definitely going to buy. That's an example of a softsynth being a truly playable instrument.
I would love to see a software version of the Yamaha FS1r too.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 09:05:27
(permalink)
Hmm...I think the opposite. I think the Dimension blows the doors off of the hardware synths like Motif and Fantom. Sound quality is excellent and René has very careful programmed some of the controller parameters to be very responsive and expressive.
post edited by techead - 2005/06/15 09:09:17
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 09:11:52
(permalink)
You think Dimension play's better than the Top-of-the-line hardware? I don't know.....
To sum up my feelings, Yamaha, Korg and Roland have a secret-ingredient in in their hardware that puts them above most soft-synths. I don't know what the ingredient is, but it sure sounds and feels good.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 10:12:25
(permalink)
Okay, I'll lay off a little. I'm probably over-enthusiastic about the softsynths. Let me back up and say that all of those hardware synths sound excellent.
But for some reason I probably can't explain very well I was personally more impressed with Dimension and felt the Dimension synth was more expressive than anything I have ever played (hard or soft). I think some of the impression depends upon the patch programming and the controller. If you eliminate that and could peer down into the synthesis engine you will find that the "hardware" synth is a dedicated computer running on a specific CPU processor platform just like a soft synth is. Given that, what is the difference?
Really, I think the only thing the hardware synths have over the software synths is their speed and reliability as a performance instrument. Once a good MIDI controller and stable computer/software platform is available I begin to prefer the option of the softsynth because it feels more versatile. That's why I have chosen to move forward without buying any more hardware (be they effects boxes or synthesizers).
|
wrench45us
Max Output Level: -25.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4991
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:57:01
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 10:39:10
(permalink)
Rene has made Dimension an expressive instrument because a lot of velocity senitivity modulation etc. etc. A few synth and preset designers go to some lengths to make 'playable' expressive sounds. The BT albino series is a great example as are many many of Daniels' banks for rhino.
my experience with hardware synths goes back quite a ways and basically my wife and I bought a few because we loved the sound, esp. the Oberheim Matriz 12 -- which nothing in software has quite touched yet. But I've also found that if I run my computer through the same BIG sound system that hardware is run through, it's getting harder and harder to tell the difference. and for convenience there's no contest -- so given past history teh convenience factor will drive the features and quality to equal what is les convenient.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 10:41:14
(permalink)
I don't disagree with the benefits of software. I'm slowly evolving my studio to software synths. Even though everything is technically a "software synth", doesn't make them the same. I'm going purely on playability and sound and overall experience. Softsynths piss me off all to often because of the compromises one has to make. I have a Yamaha EX5, EX5r, FS1r and an Emulator Platinum. They all have great effects, patches and zero latency. The only one of those units faithfully duplicated (some ways improved) is the Emulator Platinum by way of the Emulator X (the RFX32 still gives the Platinum a little edge though). ...."hardware" synth is a dedicated computer running on a specific CPU processor platform just like a soft synth is. Given that, what is the difference?
Like I said previously, obviously, the big three synth manufacturer have a "secret recipe" that is exclusive to hardware (I think it boils down to CPU power). Current CPU's can't handle what it would take to create the hardware synth experience. Remember, a synth is more than a CPU with some D/A convertors. It's an interface, playability, editing ease, effects, stability, ergonomics, and etc.
|
techead
Max Output Level: -31.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4353
- Joined: 2004/01/24 08:40:20
- Location: Macomb, IL, USA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 10:42:08
(permalink)
Interesting article in the June issue of Electronic Musician:
8 Virtual Synths go head-to-head with the Analog Classics
Our panel of synth experts pits seven vintage "dinosaur" synths against their software emulations.
Some were really good emulations that were indistinguishable, others had some minor issues (sometimes related to the fact that the original hardware synth was so old and unreliable). It was an interesting read.
|
ZuN
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 622
- Joined: 2004/04/01 11:57:50
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 11:09:11
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: wrench45us
my experience with hardware synths goes back quite a ways and basically my wife and I bought a few because we loved the sound, esp. the Oberheim Matriz 12
Now thats something you don't read everyday 
|
wrench45us
Max Output Level: -25.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4991
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:57:01
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 11:35:29
(permalink)
Now thats something you don't read everyday well i think at the time the Oberheim was over a month's take home and that's not something a reasonable person concerned with maintaining a happy home just goes out and buys without some negotiation -- fortunately she was very taken with the sound
|
harmony gardens
Max Output Level: -40.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3490
- Joined: 2004/01/10 18:50:48
- Location: Richland Center WI
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 13:29:24
(permalink)
I have gone completely to softsynth, myself. Rather than going with a laptop, I bought a Carillon computer which is rack mountable. It's not quite as convenient as a laptop, but it's well built, and combined with a rackmount sound card, makes it portable. There is only the issue of taking a monitor along with me, but 17" monitors are so cheap used, and any basically any monitor will work.
To me, the difference between Softsynths and hardware synths is small, in the sound area, but huge in the space and convenience area. Nobody has mentioned how much easier it is to navagate a sound source on a monitor, rather than the usual little screens that most hardware synths have, and the fact that you don't need a separate librarian program. I agree that having freeze track is a major step forward to making softsynths a viable option for DAW's. They integrate so nicely with Sonar and P5. They are also much easier to upgrade. I like them a LOT! My 2 cents.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 15:24:55
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: techead
Interesting article in the June issue of Electronic Musician:
8 Virtual Synths go head-to-head with the Analog Classics
Our panel of synth experts pits seven vintage "dinosaur" synths against their software emulations.
Some were really good emulations that were indistinguishable, others had some minor issues (sometimes related to the fact that the original hardware synth was so old and unreliable). It was an interesting read.
Analog Analog Analog. Is that the only thing they make softsynths do well? Analog is a very simple thing to mimic computation wise. That is why they are so prevalent. Now thats something you don't read everyday What I would like to read one day is: "8 softsynths go head-to-head with the top "Big Three" hardsynths in a jam session. The conclusion of the article would say something like: "...Unless you are just nostalgic, there is really no reason to invest in hardware synths anymore. The softsynths equalled or bested the hardsynths in every aspect." I'm expecting an article like that within a few years. Especially with the introduction of multi-core CPUs.
|
wrench45us
Max Output Level: -25.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 4991
- Joined: 2003/11/06 15:57:01
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 16:27:04
(permalink)
Analog is a very simple thing to mimic computation wise. That is why they are so prevalent. actually a subtractive synth is a fairly easy thing to model analog performance, most people would tell you is the most difficult to render faithfully because the digital world doesn't model the anomalies of analog circuitry all that well much of the richness of clasic analog produced tone is due to odd behavior of oscillators that is difficult to emulate with DSP formulae. This is a case where precision works against the harmonic richness the ear appreciates -- much as digital clipping is much less pleasing than tape or tube saturation.
|
cmusicmaker
Max Output Level: -52 dBFS
- Total Posts : 2328
- Joined: 2004/01/18 08:21:47
- Location: UK
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 19:42:09
(permalink)
Hi WhyBe FWIW I think Dimension is a sensational synth. The way it is embedded into the fabric of Project 5 is icing on the cake (device chains for instance). You mentioned Korg in one of your earlier posts... "You think Dimension play's better than the Top-of-the-line hardware? I don't know.....
To sum up my feelings, Yamaha, Korg and Roland have a secret-ingredient in in their hardware that puts them above most soft-synths. I don't know what the ingredient is, but it sure sounds and feels good". As for the secret ingredient....
"Korg's newly developed CMT (Component Modeling Technology) models the characteristics of the electronic circuits themselves (transistors, condensers, resistors, etc.), allowing the Legacy Collection to perfectly reproduce the complex sound and deliver all the power and subtlety that up until now only true analog synthesis could provide" Maybe the ultimate example for you of a hardware synth emulated in software that would meet your requirments is a product that is already on the market. Maybe you have already seen it... Korg Legacy Collection MS-20 (CMT component modelling technology was used for the MS-20 and Polysix) Polysix Wavestation (Korg apparently used the original underlying code from the hardware original for the software version) Surely the Korg Legacy is what you are looking for? Five minute Korg Legacy video "The Legacy Collection synths can be used on Macintosh OSX/Windows XP in stand-alone form or as VST/Audio Units plug-in instruments within a compatible host application" This means of course that you could plug them straight into P5v.2 if Dimension does not meet your requirements.
|
René
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1103
- Joined: 2004/01/06 13:15:57
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/15 20:29:53
(permalink)
I have a Yamaha EX5, EX5r, FS1r and an Emulator Platinum. They all have great effects, patches and zero latency. The only one of those units faithfully duplicated (some ways improved) is the Emulator Platinum by way of the Emulator X (the RFX32 still gives the Platinum a little edge though).
This is unfortunately a myth. Every hardware workstation has latency exactly as softsynths have, though in lower values. I've measured the Triton Pro, and it exposes ~1ms for the first note, and ~6ms when maxing the polyphony. The MIDI protocol has an inherent latency of ~1ms for note messages as well. Zero-latency exists in true analog synths only. -René
|
DayDrumFour
Max Output Level: -68 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1112
- Joined: 2005/05/10 02:43:34
- Location: Philadelphia, PA
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/16 03:57:52
(permalink)
This is such a great topic.
We can all agree that these super-workstations are essentially customized computers. But whatever advantage they may seem to have, the price tags on some of these “instruments†are just plain suspect. Given the PC is a mandatory appliance in many homes, are we comparing a $3000 keyboard versus a $700 controller and $2300 worth of software? And it’s just one of these keyboards as your “everythingâ€, not a Triton, Motif, and Fantom right? And what happens when their next super-synth comes out? What are you playing on now? And how do those companies treat you? Can you upgrade a Trinity to a Triton for 100 bucks? Maybe they’ll FedEx you a brand new Triton for free.....
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/16 16:30:05
(permalink)
The single most important aspect is the sound, playabiltiy, and the music making process. The absence of the Triton, Motif, FS1r, Fantom plugs is evidence that software hasn't quite achieved the prowess of top hardware. Every "analog/vintage emulating" softsynth released only further proves that point.
I'm sure the "Big Three" are working on their "hardware-replacing" softsynths as we speak. Perhaps they are coming up with hybrid solutions (which I would like to see) that will make the hard vs soft debate moot.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/16 16:45:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: René
I have a Yamaha EX5, EX5r, FS1r and an Emulator Platinum. They all have great effects, patches and zero latency. The only one of those units faithfully duplicated (some ways improved) is the Emulator Platinum by way of the Emulator X (the RFX32 still gives the Platinum a little edge though).
This is unfortunately a myth. Every hardware workstation has latency exactly as softsynths have, though in lower values. I've measured the Triton Pro, and it exposes ~1ms for the first note, and ~6ms when maxing the polyphony.
The MIDI protocol has an inherent latency of ~1ms for note messages as well. Zero-latency exists in true analog synths only.
-René
Here's a scenario: Musician A-room full of hardware synths, mixer, and proper connections (audio/midi) to a DAW Musician B-dual core/dual CPU computer full of great plugs. Who has the latency issues during the music creation process? Though this may be a matter of opinion, all else being equal, Musician A's sound probably kicks more butt too!
post edited by WhyBe - 2005/06/16 16:51:00
|
ZuN
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 622
- Joined: 2004/04/01 11:57:50
- Status: offline
RE: Project5 & Softsynths versus dedicated workstations
2005/06/16 16:54:34
(permalink)
Musician A-room with all top notch stuff and a musician with basic Engineering knowledge or Musician B-room with dual core/dual CPU computer full of great plugs and a Talented Musician/Engineer My vote goes towards Musician B To me, its all about the Talent that is using the equipment. wohoo earthquake as i type frigging SoCAL
post edited by ZuN - 2005/06/16 16:56:59
|