SOFT SYNTH VS REAL SYNTH

I tried the Edirol VSC that came with sonar three and wasn't very impressed.

you can say that again

There are those that will say NOTHING beats a "real" analog synth. I would say some are damn convincing. It depends what you need...general midi sounds? Look at ROMplers like Dimension Pro, the IK Multimedia thingy, and that Colossus thing. For synth emulations, check out Arturia, (Moog, Minimoog, ARP2600, CS-80) or Native Intstruments (FM7, P-53, etc) or for some innovative stuff checkout Virsyn, Cakewalk's Rapture and z3ta+, etc. Of course there are plenty of good freeware synths like SynthOne, Crystal, etc. All of these sound WAY better than the VSC. If you have Sonar 5 PE check out the Pentagon synth. Anyway, check out www.kvraudio.com for info on all these and more.....Good luck

If you're waiting for Motif, Triton, or Fantom soft synths--keep holding your breath. Someday they'll arrive. Right now, you'll have to settle for analog emulations or 2nd rate emulations of the aforementioned synths.

Emulator X is pretty good though. It's identical to the hardware (E4 series). Real Guitar is a good one dedicated to acoustic guitar.

That would be nice. There are a lot of great soft-synths out there; but you have to spend a bucketload of cash to get the variety of sound types that come in a top-tier hardware synth. You'd think SOMEBODY could make a comparable soft synth. After all, the WAV ROMs in those hardware synths are REALLY small, compared to most soft-sampler libraries. As for true synthesis....well, you can't tell me that my X2 4200+ box can't out process/synthesize a MOTIF ES, Fantom, or Triton!

I've only seen one company so far that is pursuing the full-workstation soft-synth paradigm (i.e. something to replace a MOTIF, Fantom, Triton, etc.): http://www.luxonix.com/home/en/products.html?id=purity

If I've missed something...somebody tell me.

ORIGINAL: rockdawg

Are there any soft synths that can compare in sound quality to a real synth? I tried the Edirol VSC that came with sonar three and wasn't very impressed. I'm trying to get more out of the computer with less outboard equipment.(Lack of room)
ARF!

Yes, Yes and More Yes. I reviewed TimewARP 2600 for Recording Magazine a couple months back (Feb, 2006). I did an electronic music project using an almost new ARP 2600 when I was in college (1975). I'd been into subtractive analog synthesis about 3 years by then so I understood the importance of keeping accurate patch sheets for use in ever being able to get a sound back (remember, there were no patch memories back then). I used about 15 ARP sounds in the project and had 15 documenting patch sheets. I also took the time to record each of the sounds for a minute or 2 (longer for slowly evolving patches) on a 15 ips Revox A77 1/4" 1/2 track tape deck on Ampex tape. In the early 90s, I transfered the analog tapes to DAT (48K). When I did the review, I used the original patch sheets to recreate the patches on the soft synth and compared them to the DAT tape through my Behringer board.

Here's what I wrote in the review

"...any emulation of a classic synthesizer is only as good as the extent to which the emulation preserves the functionality and sound quality of the original. In these regards the TimewARP 2600 far exceeded my expectations. To use the term uncanny to describe the faithfulness of the sound emulation would not be inaccurate...The results were astonishing- every nuance of the original patches was reflected in the TimewARP emulations."

So, at least for the TimewARP 2600, the answer to your question is yes. I brought a refurbished 1975 MiniMoog into the studio and compared it to both the Arturia MiniMoog V and GForce MiniMonsta. While neither softsynth was perfectly capable of sounding exactly like the Moog based on the switch and pot settings, I was able to get extremely close to identical sounds out of the MiniMonsta after adjusting things for a while. The Arturia was not as good (don't even ask about my impressions of the Arturia 2600 v which I also have).

I have heard thet the IMPOscar is a good emulation of the Oscar, but I only actually touched a real Oscar once so I couldn't validate that claim. It'd been a long time since I had a Prophet 5 in my studio, but the NI emulation seems pleasing to me, although I was never an poloyphonic analog fan, myself. About a year ago I reviewed the original Korg Legacy collection for Recording. Korg did a very good job in emulating their classic monosynth the MS-20 and their polysynth the Polysix.

Then, there are the synths that are actually ports to a different platform but, because they were digital, the ports are identical to the originals with improvements. Such is the case for the Korg WaveStation and M1, featured in the Digital Legacy Collection. Again I reviewed this set for Recording (upcoming Aug, 2006). Both the WS and the M1 are faithful re-ports with lower noise floors, more dynamic range, and a whole host of improvements (both synths got controlable resonance filters, for example), and the multimbrality and polyphony of both synths was exponentially increased. The same thing can be said for NI's FM7, which really is a DX-7 on steroids. The neat thing about all of these digital synth ports is that they can use sysex patch files from the original instruments. For the M1 the FM7 and the WS that means about a million patches available from various internet archives.

Steinberg's Waldorf Wavve 2.0 if a very faithful replication of the Wave 2.0, so if you want to do some Thief/Exit era Tangerine Dream, it is the perfect synth. Similarly, the MTron IS a Mellotron because it is basically a simple sample player playing back digital recordings of original Mellotron tapes.

Of course, todays soft-samplers can do anything that the old hardware models can, and them some. Personally, I'm still waiting for a good emulation of a EMS Synthi-AKS/VCS3 and an EML 101 (the two synths I cut my teeth on in the early 70s). It would be nice to see a soft Kurzweil 2600 (my favorite synth in recent history), also.

So there you have it.

Hi,

I think the subject must be better "Soft synths vs Hardware Synths". Soft synths are REAL synths too! Their quality is nowadays the same or very near to its hardware equivalents. I have took the time for comparing, for example, NI FM7 to a hardware unit DX7 and I can not tell the difference between them regarding sound quality.

John

You can't replace your hardware, so don't even try. You will find yourself very frustrated if you do. However, you can add interesting and unique flavors with softsynths. NI, Arturia, Cakewalk's synths, all good. Spectrasonics is great. Atmosphere is like buying a large collection of Eric Persing's greatest pad patches for Roland, only better quality, because that is what it is. But it doesn't replace the Fantom. Maybe others' experiences are different, but I think you get yourself into a box when you try to emulate the accumulated sound design of the past 20 years of Korg, Roland, or Yamaha. I gave up trying and I gave up waiting for it in software. I love my soft synths, but they cannot replace what you are buying with a hardware workstation, a substantial amount of sound design.

ORIGINAL: Sid Viscous

They're all soft synths at this point.

Good point.

ORIGINAL: mosspa

ORIGINAL: Sid Viscous

They're all soft synths at this point.

I'm having some trouble interpreting what you mean by that, Mr. Viscous. Please elaborate.

What's so confusing about it? A modern synth is a cpu/dsp with a soundcard running some synth software in a box with a keyboard. The only difference in a computer based soft synth is the keyboard and what else the box might be doing at the time.

you'll never go back to real synths again. I got rid of mine and now only have a controller.

ORIGINAL: yorolpal
Well, I have both the "real" Korg Wavestation SR and the "virtual" Wavestation and to my ears the virtual is every bit as rich and warm.

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.

- David

I was the only person to mention a Fantom, and I am hardly a Fantom fanboy. I don't even own one. But, the Fantom contains a great deal of Eric Persing's work, whose company, Spectrasonics, made Atmosphere, which is not a replacement for the Fantom, because it was not intended to be. If you will reread my post, I stated that the accumulated sound design of the past 20 years is what sets hardware workstations apart from soft synths. It should have been easy to extrapolate from there that I believe that sound design is the important factor rather than the hardware it runs on. Web forums. [sm=rolleyes.gif]

ORIGINAL: /__\

A modern synth is a cpu/dsp with a soundcard running some synth software in a box with a keyboard. The only difference in a computer based soft synth is the keyboard and what else the box might be doing at the time.

I agree, the final output depends on the host program and souncard's "sound" .. the SOUND itself of the digital synths
that run in your PC can use exactly the same elements (OSCillators, LFO's, filters and logic opertaions , modulations..) and sound the same - regarding some sounds you should also think in samplers and "sound library" terms.. some presets just use close to plain samples without much processing (again, the PC can output both the raw samples and the processing anyways.. like any hardware synth)
thanks for saying the (sad?) truth here, the thread and some comments here just show lack of knowledge or experience with the better softssynths, I didn't want to argue with the Roland Fantom guys... ;)

what is it in its engine that makes it impossible for a software on a PC to do the same? nothing really.

Seems that the posts that are favoring hardware over softsynths are mentioning notoriously bad softsynths. Edirol VSC? Bandstand? You are not listening to / trying / buying the right stuff (though Bandstand "should" be good because NI stuff generally is). Try Tassman, Reaktor, etc. -- great sound and much more flexibility than you can get from hardware.

ORIGINAL: /__\

A modern synth is a cpu/dsp with a soundcard running some synth software in a box with a keyboard. The only difference in a computer based soft synth is the keyboard and what else the box might be doing at the time.

I agree, the final output depends on the host program and souncard's "sound" .. the SOUND itself of the digital synths
that run in your PC can use exactly the same elements (OSCillators, LFO's, filters and logic opertaions , modulations..) and sound the same - regarding some sounds you should also think in samplers and "sound library" terms.. some presets just use close to plain samples without much processing (again, the PC can output both the raw samples and the processing anyways.. like any hardware synth)
thanks for saying the (sad?) truth here, the thread and some comments here just show lack of knowledge or experience with the better softssynths, I didn't want to argue with the Roland Fantom guys... ;)

what is it in its engine that makes it impossible for a software on a PC to do the same? nothing really.

It's easy to press middle C on a hardware and software synth then say they sound the same or not. That means nothing. The question is, does it sound the same when you play the patches? Does the softsynth patch "feel" just like the hardware synth patch? So I think it largely falls upon your music genre (or musical technique) whether you are "fully" into softsynths or not.

The argument about "every synth is software" is obvious. However, that argument is irrelevant to the musicality of an instrument/preset (hard or soft).

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.

ORIGINAL: WhyBe

It's easy to press middle C on a hardware and software synth then say they sound the same or not. That means nothing. The question is, does it sound the same when you play the patches? Does the softsynth patch "feel" just like the hardware synth patch? So I think it largely falls upon your music genre (or musical technique) whether you are "fully" into softsynths or not.

The argument about "every synth is software" is obvious. However, that argument is irrelevant to the musicality of an instrument/preset (hard or soft).

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.

Well, until you try it yourself you may not believe it. The Korg WaveStation softsynth is identical to the keyboard version. As Mr. Viscous points out, the only difference is the hardware surrounding the software (Sid... I tried not to post 15 replies to this thread). I bought a hardware Wavestation about a month after they were released. Mine was upgraded to an EX and still sits 3' from my mixing desk. I can tell the difference between it and the software emulation only because there is less background noise in the softsynth. It doesn't matter what key you press, it sounds identical.. Why wouldn't it. The wavesequences sound identical and the vector mixing is identical. As I said in my initial post here, it will load sysex patches from any WS out there. The comparisons are easy to make. Read my review in Recording this month

As to whether there are softsynth emulations of the more recent ROMplers (e.g. Triton, Motif, Fantom) 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. For any practical purpose, it can get dead on. What does the Triton have that a computer with 2 GB RAM, and unlimited disk space have that an M1 doesn't? Better samples? If so, that's an easy fix? Phase distortion in the oscillators? Again trivial. Except for adding more "computer-like capabilities" the ROMpler workstation hasn't changed a lot since the days of the M1. 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. Now that the K2600 is showing its age, I hope somebody sees that a software emulation might bring a few more dollars before the whole line goes belly up.