mosspa
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 818
- Joined: 2006/04/15 23:21:26
- Location: Naples, FL
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 00:52:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: DSandberg
It is? I sure wanted to think so, but when I listened to Korg's online MP3 demos of the "virtual" Wavestation, it didn't sound even 1/10th as rich as the Wavestation EX currently sitting about three feet to my left. I was quite disappointed by those demos ... they seemed to be all about generic, electronic "beeps" and "boops" rather than the lush, evolving pads that the Wavestation was prized for. I'd much rather have heard the virtual version of some of the WS presets, for the sake of comparison.
Tell me what you want to hear and I'll gladly make you a short MP3 and send it to you. Better yet, send me a WS patch of your own unique design and tell me how to play it (or send a MIDI file).
John AsRock Taichi 399, AMD Threadripper 1950x O.C. 4.0GHz. 64GB DDR4-3200, Win 10 Pro, Focusrite Scarlet 18i 20/Scarlet Octo Pre. Frontier Design Apache ADAT routing, MOTU MTP MIDI Routing
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 00:54:45
(permalink)
i think that the M1 softsynth can give the Triton a run for its money. With the improved dynamic range, the exponentially improved polyphony and multitimbrality, and use of, basically the same sound engine, the M1 softsynth can get very close to a Triton. Comparing an M1 to a Triton????  I have an Emu E4 Platinum (hardware) and an Emulator X (software version of the Platinum) and they sound and play identically. Some aspects of the softsynth are better (more powerful filter section). Kudos to Emu for this accomplishment of recreating a RECENT and extremely powerful hardware unit.. I'm still waiting for the big three (or any softsynth manufacturer for that matter) to make something that competes sound and playability-wise with the "big boy" synths. I'm not talking about some synth that was made 10 or 20 years ago. Once again, I am talking about Motif, Triton, Fantom et al. The Kurzweil K2xxx line is different in that all of the members were TRUE synthesizers. V.A.S.T. is what sets the Ks way above any other workstation. Other TRUE synthesizers are Yamaha EX5, fully expanded Motif (your card of choice), Triton with MOSS board.
post edited by WhyBe - 2006/07/05 01:13:29
|
mosspa
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 818
- Joined: 2006/04/15 23:21:26
- Location: Naples, FL
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 01:06:14
(permalink)
John AsRock Taichi 399, AMD Threadripper 1950x O.C. 4.0GHz. 64GB DDR4-3200, Win 10 Pro, Focusrite Scarlet 18i 20/Scarlet Octo Pre. Frontier Design Apache ADAT routing, MOTU MTP MIDI Routing
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 01:08:22
(permalink)
|
mosspa
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 818
- Joined: 2006/04/15 23:21:26
- Location: Naples, FL
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 01:14:51
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
Other TRUE synthesizers are Yamaha EX5, fully expanded Motif (your card of choice), Triton with MOSS board.
What the hell males the EX5 a TRUE synthesizer. It just seems like a a glorified ROMpler to me. I don't know Motif, but if I had to guess it would be similar. Unless the MOSS board is me  i can hardly bel;ieve that it would make a Triton a "REAL" synthesizer.
post edited by mosspa - 2006/07/05 01:25:07
John AsRock Taichi 399, AMD Threadripper 1950x O.C. 4.0GHz. 64GB DDR4-3200, Win 10 Pro, Focusrite Scarlet 18i 20/Scarlet Octo Pre. Frontier Design Apache ADAT routing, MOTU MTP MIDI Routing
|
mosspa
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 818
- Joined: 2006/04/15 23:21:26
- Location: Naples, FL
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 01:21:03
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
Is this all there is to a synth?
No, which is why i don't qualify ROMplers, independently of how glorified they may be with features, synthesizers. The Kxxx series is different because, while there are ROM samples, the actual engine that processes the sound is a very novel digital synthesizer. VAST makes all the difference. Similarly, the Wavestation also uses samples, but I also classify it as a true synth because the only thing ROMpler about is is the samples themselver=s. The wavesequencing and vectoring make it a true synth, independently of what the source of the sounds is.
John AsRock Taichi 399, AMD Threadripper 1950x O.C. 4.0GHz. 64GB DDR4-3200, Win 10 Pro, Focusrite Scarlet 18i 20/Scarlet Octo Pre. Frontier Design Apache ADAT routing, MOTU MTP MIDI Routing
|
Rain
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9736
- Joined: 2003/11/07 05:10:12
- Location: Las Vegas
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 03:18:08
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
The fact of the matter is, there are no Triton, Motif, Fantom, K2600 type of softsynths available as of yet. Perhaps our DAW CPU's are a GHz or two away from that.
Agreed that developers tend to focus on vintage hardware synths that are discontinued and which the vast majority of us couldn't afford if we had the chance to stumble upon them anyway. There are also a few classic modern synths available as software - Access Virus, Disco DSP's Discovery which can import Nord Lead sysex... As for myself, I see no interest in a software version of synths like the Triton... They're as exciting as that Virtual Sound Canva thing.... Besides, I really don't think it's matter of CPU - some people run softsynths like Reaktor on a dedicated machine, building the most compex/uncompromising synths one could imagine. Between softsamplers, which offer possibilities well beyond what you could dream of w/ hardware based units, and softsynths, which allow you to access mostly every classic synth or then to create any conceivable sound - from good old moog basslines to the most authentic piano samples that can be found - pretty much every thing is covered.
post edited by Rain - 2006/07/05 03:28:55
TCB - Tea, Cats, Books...
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 05:13:37
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mosspa
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
Other TRUE synthesizers are Yamaha EX5, fully expanded Motif (your card of choice), Triton with MOSS board.
What the hell males the EX5 a TRUE synthesizer. It just seems like a a glorified ROMpler to me. I don't know Motif, but if I had to guess it would be similar. Unless the MOSS board is me i can hardly bel;ieve that it would make a Triton a "REAL" synthesizer.
I will restrain myself and say, yes, the EX5 is a TRUE synth in every sense of the word (Analog modeling, Virtual Lead Synthesis, FDSP Synthesis, Sampling & Resampling). I won't get into an endless "my synth is more powerful than..." debate. Sonically, the EX5 smashes many synths. If you were into programming, you would know this. A Motif with the AN and VL card is similar. So is a Triton with MOSS card. Both to a lesser degree, though.
|
michael japan
Max Output Level: -22.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 5252
- Joined: 2004/01/29 03:01:03
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 05:24:44
(permalink)
very interesting thread. I do not say anything here to disagree with anyone or to try to prove a point--I speak from personal experience and being a producer with clients and deadlines for years. Believe me, Roland, Yamaha, and Korg have bigger fish to fry.-plus they'd be shooting themselves in the foot at the moment to make a softsynth that competes with their keyboards that all cost over $2000. They still sell a lot of keyboards while most of the American/European makers have kind of drifted off into the past. I think they might possibly do something hardware--I mean look how the UAD1/Powercore took the world by storm. I always thought it would be nice to have a PCI card--hence hardware--that gives you the best of your bread and butter sounds, pads, strings--I think EMU tried it but you have to have their sound card to make it work I think from the research I did at the time. Plus, who wants an EMU module anyway? I sold my P2000 2 years ago for only a few hundred dollars--I never liked the sound of it anyway. Great for making pretend and copying, but no emulative sounds. I did like the EMU Ultra Series Sampler (which was actually an Ensoniq engine after the companies merged--an I used mostly Akai sounds) and I loved Ensoniqs ZR76 for the tones. Ditched my Roland XV-5080 as well-some nice stuff--but hey, music changed--people don't use those tones anymore. Plus, you can't really say that Yamaha and Roland are sitting on their laurels--they bought Steinberg and Cakewalk so in a sense they are developing softsynths--but they are Japanese--it's not so important for them to put their name on the label--they want the market, go home and sit on the floor of their tatami rooms overlooking their ponds andgardens and eat sashimi with their friends and family:) What I do have is a Korg Karma which does thing I can't imagine a computer ever doing--but it is definitely much better as a live machine. So complex--amazing axe--I take it to all of my live gigs now because I can create long grooves on the spot that rock (if I rock that particular night:) Back to soft synths--I don't miss external modules. I'll tell you what I use--but it's not cheap. First of all I'll tell you what I have bought that I don't use--Hypersonic 2--I was hoping it was the all in all solution to the big 3 keyboards but I was wrong. What I look for are sounds that you would emulate and the best of each is what I seek after. I would imagine sampletank is the same--came with my pro-tools system but I never even tried it out--I will someday--just need to finish some deadlines first. But actually, it was the same problem when buying keyboards. Ensonic had the best drums/strings....Yamaha had the best pianos/ELP, Korg had great pads/drums/elps (horrible pianos--I hated the M1 because I was more into making music sound like real instruments) but I do see why it became so popular--you could produce a whole song on the thing that sounded great----at the time. Try it now!!!!! Kurzweil (young chang) had some delicious sounding pads ELP's and other things. I had to have about 5 modules and 5 keyboards to do what I wanted to do until I finally sold everything while I could still get something for them--I have a colleague that is going to have to pay to get rid of his gear--and it ain't cheap over here to get rid of metal. So here is what I use now and if I had time I would put it up against any of the external modules for a comparison. Pads--Atmosphere. I thought nothing could ever touch the Roland D-70 Ghosties patch and some of the Triton string pads/bells/textures. But this synth is absolutely a must have. It is really rich. Piano--Ni Akoustik Piano/PMI Bosendorfer 290/Giga Steinway/290. I still use my hardware P120 for composition and working out parts--can't beat the latency of a hardware piece--I am very sensitive even at 2.9ms. Rhodes-NI Elektrik piano/Emagic EVP 73. Lounge Lizard is ok but a little harsh for me. Organ-B4 v.II Drums-I use a real drummer but have a lot of sample libraries for demos. Bass-real bass or Bass Legends Library--Giga or Akai Guitars-I use a real guitarist but have used patches for playing arpeggios from Yellow Tools Guitars--Giga. Strings-Sonic Implants Symphonic Strings--and sometimes Atmosphere to fill them out. If I was doing symphonies I would be forced to hire out, but my genre doesn't really demand it--though it would definitely be nicer. Wurlitzer-Karma--hardware. Haven't found anything I can stand yet that is a softsynth. If I want to do something RNB, then I dig out one of my loop libraries and hook up the Karma. Wow, I was supposed to be working!!!!! Thanks for the thread. Michael
post edited by michael japan - 2006/07/05 05:39:23
Windows 10/64 bit/i7-6560U/SSD/16GB RAM/Cakelab/Sonar Platinum/Pro Tools/Studio 1/Studio 192/DP88/MOTU AVB/Grace M101/AKG Various/Blue Woodpecker/SM81x2/Yamaha C1L Grand Piano/CLP545/MOX88/MOTIF XS Rack Rack/MX61/Korg CX3/Karma/Scarbee EP88s/ Ivory/Ravenscroft Piano/JBL4410/NS10m/Auratones/Omnisphere/Play Composers Selection/Waves/Komplete Kontrol
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 05:29:29
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Rain
...Besides, I really don't think it's matter of CPU - some people run softsynths like Reaktor on a dedicated machine, building the most compex/uncompromising synths one could imagine.
I'm going to check out Reaktor. Is this thing "quick" as a hardware synth though?
Between softsamplers, which offer possibilities well beyond what you could dream of w/ hardware based units, and softsynths, which allow you to access mostly every classic synth or then to create any conceivable sound - from good old moog basslines to the most authentic piano samples that can be found - pretty much every thing is covered.
A sample is not playing the real thing, of course. Especially when you introduce trying to control the sound in a similar way that the actual machine is controlled.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 05:44:21
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: michael japan
I did like the EMU Ultra Series Sampler (which was actually an Ensoniq engine after the companies merged
Emu samplers have always been EMu inside, there's no Ensoniq in there. The requirement to use a card for the Emulator X is essentially a copy protection scheme.
|
thunderkyss
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1207
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:10:59
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:02:02
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: Skyline_UK
I've tried softsynths like Hypersonic 2 and Bandstand and got tired wrestlng with the damn things. I think I was just lazy and wanted to do everything on one screen - Sonar, soft synths, the lot. But I spent 95% of the time faffing about with audio settings, frozen applications, unknown conflicts and all the other cr*p you get with bloody computers. I've seen the error of my ways and am now concentrating on working with - and learning - my brand new Roland Fantom X6. It's connected to Sonar via my midi interface and NEVER glitches. They play together perfectly. I'm back to making music again. If you can afford it - go for a hardware synth every time.
hmmmmmmmm. .......... well I've got a FantomS, and in another room, I've got an X8...... there are still so many things I wish they'd do, that would make them more like Softsynths.... For instance, I compose a lot in Sonar.... It would be nice, if I had a VST interface like the TI has, where the exact settings I use can be recalled from the project file...... instead of me having to write a note, saying which patch I used, or which Performance.... Then I'd be free to manage my performances/patches, independant of any project that currently sits unfinished on my hard disk. I also only have 4 audio outputs on the FantomS, and the X8, and my XV5050.... So when it comes time to record the Audio, I'm having to do the realtime recording/muting thing in several passes.... with VSampler, I push a couple of buttons, and it's done. The main thing I hate about VSTis....... DXis.... is that with everything powered down, I have to start up the computer, Start Sonar, then Start my softsynth, then select the patches/instruments I want to use. Alot of that is solved, by leaving my DAW on all the time........ I'm OK with that...... and setting up a Normal.cwt for the way I work, so it seems like I'm just starting Sonar...... I'm okay with that as well. So for me, those problems have been solved. The next thing I hate about softsynths, is that I have to stop what I'm doing click, scroll, wait for instrument to load....... etc.... where with my Rolands, patches load automatically...... and the tactile experience is more gratifying. I especially like how I can select a bass patch, work out a part, then go scroll through, and here how other patches work over a looped part... if I decide to keep the original patch, I just hit the exit button, and it's still there. It doesn't really work that way on a computer. Now, I'm not too big on synths to begin with. The FM7, Pro52, and B4 saves me a lot of space, and gets me what I need(want)....... One thing, however, I can't ever see me doing is getting rid of my FantomS in favor of a straight up midi controller. It's nice to have the option of getting on with making music, without the computer stuff....... and it's a snap to transfer a midi project over to Sonar to really flesh it out.
|
mcdonalk
Max Output Level: -80 dBFS
- Total Posts : 547
- Joined: 2004/04/05 19:04:22
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:02:49
(permalink)
I haven't heard everything that is out there, but I am qualified to day the following:
1) I have found that sample-based software-synthesizers sound at least as good as sample-based hardware counterparts.
2) I have KDLE, a Wavestation AD, a Wavestation SR, and a Lynx sound card. The sound of KDLE Wavestation is virtually indistinguishable from the hardware counterparts.
3) I also have an M1REX. KDLE M1 sounds more clear than the hardware counterpart.
4) I also have a SE Omega 8 and Arturia MMV. The SE Omega 8 sounds DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR to the MMV. I have tried duplicating patches between the two, and this observation still stands. The Omega 8 sounds DRAMATICALLY SUPERIOR to my Nord Mudular, also, again, when patches are duplicated as closely as possible, and in any other circumstance. How does the Omega 8 sound better? In any way that you can imagine. However, its architecture is limited compared to SW synthesizers, and it requires occasional (automated) tuning.
5) Then, there are SW synthesizers that are not sample-playback, and are not virtual emulations (e.g. Cube 2) that stand on their own, and are beyond the scope of this post.
So, the conclusion that I live by is that sample-based SW synthesizers sound as good as hardware, but this does not hold true for actual analog synthesis and emulation, unfortunately.
Keith
|
attalus
Max Output Level: -58.5 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1687
- Joined: 2004/05/18 11:39:11
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:07:52
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
ORIGINAL: Rain
...Besides, I really don't think it's matter of CPU - some people run softsynths like Reaktor on a dedicated machine, building the most compex/uncompromising synths one could imagine.
I'm going to check out Reaktor. Is this thing "quick" as a hardware synth though?
Between softsamplers, which offer possibilities well beyond what you could dream of w/ hardware based units, and softsynths, which allow you to access mostly every classic synth or then to create any conceivable sound - from good old moog basslines to the most authentic piano samples that can be found - pretty much every thing is covered.
A sample is not playing the real thing, of course. Especially when you introduce trying to control the sound in a similar way that the actual machine is controlled.
Make sure you check out tassman 4 and luxonix purity too. As for me i get what i want out of software synths i own and thats whats important. As long as i have the tools that lets me know i can compete with anyone regardless to what rig they have i'm doing just fine. And the tools that let me realize my ideas as well as offer inspiration i'm cool.It takes awhile to find the right tools for self,one just has to go over the market with a fine tooth comb.As for emulation of certain modern synths i'm not big on this anyhow, i just look for tools that sound great whether its a innacurate copycat or something totally original.Actually my greater preference lies in originality.It is'nt the softwares job to stick to emulating hardware especially since the future is theirs. SSL and many other large companies read the writing on the wall, thats why we have duende and many other products by big companies here in our virtual world.Triton, korg and yamaha i'm sure are'nt fools they know who the market is being driven by more and more as time passes by.I'm sure their doing deep thinking on this matter all the time now.
post edited by attalus - 2006/07/05 20:30:47
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:16:54
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: thunderkyss
well I've got a FantomS, and in another room, I've got an X8...... there are still so many things I wish they'd do, that would make them more like Softsynths....
For instance, I compose a lot in Sonar.... It would be nice, if I had a VST interface like the TI has, where the exact settings I use can be recalled from the project file...... instead of me having to write a note, saying which patch I used, or which Performance.... Then I'd be free to manage my performances/patches, independant of any project that currently sits unfinished on my hard disk.
You could always use the Sys Ex view in Sonar to dump your hardware synth state into your Sonar project. This way your hardware can be recalled to its exact state as when you were working on that particular project. It's the closest you can get to the convenience of softsynth total recall.
|
yorolpal
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 13829
- Joined: 2003/11/20 11:50:37
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:36:35
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: michael japan
very interesting thread. I do not say anything here to disagree with anyone or to try to prove a point--I speak from personal experience and being a producer with clients and deadlines for years. Believe me, Roland, Yamaha, and Korg have bigger fish to fry.-plus they'd be shooting themselves in the foot at the moment to make a softsynth that competes with their keyboards that all cost over $2000. I think that today's market is segmenting. More and more there are hardware folks and software folks. Used to be (going all the way back to the original DX7...heck to my first Rhodes) I'd have to have every new keyboard that appeared. Both for the latest technology and the latest sounds. Plus hardware was all there was. But those days have past. Now whether you seek sample based "authentic" sounds or "synthesized" sounds your options are many and mostly top notch. I haven't bought a new keyboard in years...I use an Alesis QS8 as my controller. I do have some rack units...Triton, Roland xv3080, Wavestation SR...but that's it. Where I used to have scads of units in several racks, I'm now mostly "in the box". I don't see any of the big boys keyboard sales being overly impacted by software emulations of their "big guns". Folks who are "keyboard" people will still by 'em and folks who are "software" people will buy that. And...even better for Korg, Yamaha, etal...some will buy both! But in the end I don't think anyone can stop the demise of hardware...it's coming whether we like it or not.
|
juca
Max Output Level: -63 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1376
- Joined: 2003/11/05 19:00:49
- Location: Itajai - Santa Catarina - Brazil
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 12:48:41
(permalink)
Hi:
I have the Korg Wavestation EX (hardware) and the software Korg Legacy Digital Edition. For my ears, the sound I hear is the same from the two.
Greetings.
****** Juca Nascimento ******
Keyboards/Composer/Arranger
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 13:42:31
(permalink)
I see no interest in a software version of synths like the Triton... there are certain signature sounds in Triton that makes things much easier in the Urban market. So virtual Tritons would be welcome here...
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 13:48:08
(permalink)
The main thing I hate about VSTis....... DXis.... is that with everything powered down, I have to start up the computer, Start Sonar, then Start my softsynth, then select the patches/instruments I want to use. Alot of that is solved, by leaving my DAW on all the time........ I'm OK with that...... and setting up a Normal.cwt for the way I work, so it seems like I'm just starting Sonar. have you look into Track Templates? this completely solves the problem without having to rely on Normal.cwt. I usually fire up SONAR on instinct not readily knowing which instruments I'll be using. A track template lets you select an instrument completely ready to go, with MIDI tracks, multi-output audio tracks,patch selections, selected track for echo etc.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 14:20:32
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: D.Triny
I see no interest in a software version of synths like the Triton...
there are certain signature sounds in Triton that makes things much easier in the Urban market. So virtual Tritons would be welcome here...
I 2nd that...
|
thunderkyss
Max Output Level: -66 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1207
- Joined: 2003/11/12 12:10:59
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 15:14:59
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: WhyBe
ORIGINAL: thunderkyss
well I've got a FantomS, and in another room, I've got an X8...... there are still so many things I wish they'd do, that would make them more like Softsynths....
For instance, I compose a lot in Sonar.... It would be nice, if I had a VST interface like the TI has, where the exact settings I use can be recalled from the project file...... instead of me having to write a note, saying which patch I used, or which Performance.... Then I'd be free to manage my performances/patches, independant of any project that currently sits unfinished on my hard disk.
You could always use the Sys Ex view in Sonar to dump your hardware synth state into your Sonar project. This way your hardware can be recalled to its exact state as when you were working on that particular project. It's the closest you can get to the convenience of softsynth total recall.
I've been told, but I have not been smart enough to figure that out yet.
|
awilki01
Max Output Level: -74 dBFS
- Total Posts : 817
- Joined: 2005/09/20 23:58:29
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 16:50:58
(permalink)
I'm new to the music scene, but I feel it is only a matter of time until software synths take over. In my opinion, PC/Macs are extremely powerful and more than capable of pushing out what hardware synths can given the right software. As someone said, it is all software (save the few true analog synths out there). Software synths are considerably more cheaper than the hardware synths. As the hardware synths lose market share, their prices and resulting profits will drop. They will find themselves in a position to have to compete with the software synths. As a result, you will start seeing the sounds of today's high end hardware synths end up in software. Will Roland, Korg, and others still be around? Sure they will, but they will mostly offer software synths in the future - just to stay alive. They may even dominate in the software synth market. PCs have changed the face of many industries. The music industry is not in any way immune from the changes the PC market has made in the world. I feel this thread has responses that are somewhat emotional. Not many people like change, and quite a few of you have been doing this for a very long time. You like the way you do things. I understand that. However, what really mandates things are consumer demand and competition. And, I'm just afraid these hardware companies will be forced in the software arena.
post edited by awilki01 - 2006/07/05 17:03:25
|
lightninrick
Max Output Level: -71 dBFS
- Total Posts : 972
- Joined: 2004/10/30 03:36:24
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 17:57:38
(permalink)
Issue number 102 of Computer Music magazine (July 2006) includes a number of side-by-side comparisons between freeware synths and comemrcial products. In most cases, the freeware holds its own; in one or two cases, it's ranked more highly.
There are plenty of great soft synths out there, and some of them are free. I use plenty of commercial instruments, but everyone should have Synth 1 and Crystal, to name two, in their VST Plugins folder.
As to whether software synths in general are any good -- of course they are.
Regards, Lightninrick
|
Rain
Max Output Level: 0 dBFS
- Total Posts : 9736
- Joined: 2003/11/07 05:10:12
- Location: Las Vegas
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 18:22:23
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: awilki01
I'm new to the music scene, but I feel it is only a matter of time until software synths take over. Just what I felt when I was first exposed to NI's Generator back in the late 90s (Reaktor's ancestor). I thought it was rather funny when they released softsynths like Pro-5 and B4 a few years later and people were raving about those amazing developments when the technolgy had been there for years - Generator just wasn't stripped down and packaged as a single synth recreation with a pretty GUI - and admitedly, it was far from being user-friendly. But the essence of those synths was already in there.
post edited by Rain - 2006/07/05 18:33:36
TCB - Tea, Cats, Books...
|
jlgrimes
Max Output Level: -59 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1639
- Joined: 2003/12/15 12:37:09
- Location: Atlanta, Ga, USA
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 19:43:06
(permalink)
Both has their pros and cons.
With 2+gig softsynths, I am hearing far more detailed sounds than most hardware (overall).
One thing hardware synth sounds tend to have though is character (I'm talking character).
My hardware sounds tend to jump out at me, hit harder etc, wheras my software sounds are more uncolored sounding. This could be a sound card issue (Layla 3g).
|
Blades
Max Output Level: -43 dBFS
- Total Posts : 3246
- Joined: 2003/11/06 08:22:52
- Location: Georgia
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/05 21:40:51
(permalink)
What's interesting is this thread kinda started as "what can I get that's like a hardware workstation like a Triton or Motif or whatever". There have been a lot of suggestions, but they are tending towards the single application/niche synth stuff - not that analogs are not cool, and not that I mean they can only sound like one thing or another, but workstation synth lovers seem to tend towards things that cover a lot of bases and do each of them pretty well - not expecting stallar all the way around, but not a slacker in every area either, like the VSC - weak everywhere.
There really aren't many "ready made" softsynth replacements, and that's why I mentioned SonikSynth2 and SampleTank as options - as well as dimension and some others. Everything else is just a lot of fiddling around to get sounds that work well together.
Just a few other thoughts. If there are others out there, I would like to know what some of them are - GM not a requirement. I know there is something in the Kompact like, right? Anyway, I looked around, checked demos, read reviews, listened to online mp3 demos, and checked out the forums for each product as well as weighing the prices and the SonicReality/IK stuff worked for me.
|
WhyBe
Max Output Level: -70 dBFS
- Total Posts : 1009
- Joined: 2004/01/01 11:59:36
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/06 00:30:43
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: jlgrimes
Both has their pros and cons.
With 2+gig softsynths, I am hearing far more detailed sounds than most hardware (overall).
One thing hardware synth sounds tend to have though is character (I'm talking character).
My hardware sounds tend to jump out at me, hit harder etc, wheras my software sounds are more uncolored sounding. This could be a sound card issue (Layla 3g).
This is my main gripe with most ROMpler softsynths....the dinkies....that stale, lifeless sound. When the dinkies are conquered, I'm all in. Until then, I'm goiung to keep my eye on all the new softsynths. I won't blame the soundcard for softsynths sounding slightly different. I record my hardware synths into my soundcard and the sound played back is exactly as what I recorded. So I don't believe the soundcard is coloring the softsynth whatsoever.
post edited by WhyBe - 2006/07/06 00:41:57
|
DSandberg
Max Output Level: -89 dBFS
- Total Posts : 87
- Joined: 2003/11/18 19:29:46
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/06 01:04:27
(permalink)
ORIGINAL: mosspa
ORIGINAL: DSandberg
... when I listened to Korg's online MP3 demos of the "virtual" Wavestation, it didn't sound even 1/10th as rich as the Wavestation EX currently sitting about three feet to my left. I was quite disappointed by those demos ... I'd much rather have heard the virtual version of some of the WS presets, for the sake of comparison.
Tell me what you want to hear and I'll gladly make you a short MP3 and send it to you. Better yet, send me a WS patch of your own unique design and tell me how to play it (or send a MIDI file).
Now that would be downright awesome. I wouldn't need to hear anything other than a couple of the default patches played on a note or a chord for some period of time (like ten seconds or so). Here are three simple examples that would tell me a lot more than Korg's demos did: WS-EX ROM patch 1 "Deep Atmosphere" ... hold a C-D-G chord right around the middle of the keyboard and let it evolve for a little while WS-EX ROM patch 9 "Time Traveler" ... same chord as above WS-EX Card WPC-00PIII patch 39 "Rain Dance" ... hold a lower C note (C4) and let the percussion play for a little while, and maybe throw in a few high notes at some point If you really do feel motivated to whip up a clip or two based on the above, you can get them to me at mystic_fm (at-sign) yahoo (period) com, and I'd be ever so grateful to receive them. (Oh how I long for the days when one could post such information plainly on a forum without fear of robots.) Or just post them somewhere and give me a link ... that works too, if it is easier for you. I do have a question about the "virtual" Wavestation ... does it provide any ability to modify the patch while playing it in the same way as one can with the vector position joystick that the hardware keyboard has? Don't know if I could call it a Wavestation if those abilities aren't available in some way (and so I hope they are, because I'd love to have my WS sounds in the computer and not be slaved to an aging keyboard). By the way, I should clarify something to others in this thread who seemed to take offense at my prior post: I wasn't doubting the word of others in the thread that have both instruments, and I know that online demos MAY not reflect the reality of the instrument. I was simply expressing that, having only Korg's MP3 demos to guide me, I was left with the impression that the "virtual" Wavestation didn't sound the same as my hardware. That was meant as a possible indictment of those demos, not of the word of others in this thread. I was hoping that owners would assure me that the Korg demos are not representative of the product, because I was very interested in the "virtual" Wavestation up until I heard those demos, and believe me when I say that I'd love to feel confident that I could ignore the demos and go ahead with a purchase. - David
|
nachivnik
Max Output Level: -78 dBFS
- Total Posts : 604
- Joined: 2003/11/04 11:42:55
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/06 01:10:13
(permalink)
|
D.Triny
Max Output Level: -73 dBFS
- Total Posts : 870
- Joined: 2003/11/04 10:24:39
- Status: offline
RE: SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH
2006/07/06 01:47:14
(permalink)
There really aren't many "ready made" softsynth replacements, and that's why I mentioned SonikSynth2 and SampleTank as options I tried SonicSynth and SampleTank - while good technology and good sounds I didn't find the sound design had the character and bite of the top "hardware" workstations. Some of the best sound designers are still working exclusively for Korg, Roland, Yamaha etc. Strategically I think a combination of Spectrasonics (Stylus RMX drumkits, Trilogy basses) and Korg Legacy Collection would be good areas of focus for musicians interested in Tritonesque or Motifesque production. Hopefully Spectrasonics will do some Rolandesque guitars in the future.
post edited by D.Triny - 2006/07/06 01:58:57
|