I love my guitars-Only instrument I really can play. I fool with keys, etc, but am not a keyboard player by any stretch of the imagination. But I am now in a love affair with Kontakt 4.1. If it wasn't for the untimely demise of Dim Pro I never would have been exposed to this wonderful softsynth. I agree with Lyn nalso that it's best to stay with the big players (Livesynth pro taught me that :-( But, you are correct John in saying Nothing software can ever replace my Guitars-As I mentioned above I don't even use Guiatr software at all-don't like it. well, I do ue Guitar rig 3LE since it was free, but I only use it to enhance the Scarbee Basses I have purchased for ontakt :-)
For some reason I also refuse to sell my HW Sound Canvas-It's a great time to be playing music isn't it!

It is hard for me to have any sort of feeling for a softsynth. I am a sax player and look at a saxophone as an extension of myself.

That raises a whole new realm of discourse. One of the criticisms of "electronic" music as it currently exists is that it is cold, lifeless or robotic. The thing that separates a competent acoustic performer from a great one is almost universally agreed to be mastery of expressiveness. That ability to transmit sensibility or emotion through the voice of the instrument is generally believed to be inherent in the real time control of the body. The instrument becomes an extension of the physical body, which is an extension of the emotional persona of the musician. Breath control (and to a lesser extent bowing) provide a direct feedback control of volume and timbre that is less available through a machine like a pianoforte (which received similar criticism when it was new), much less a pipe organ or an electric keyboard.

Can a synthesist (producer implies a mixer or aggregator, composer implies a programmer who depends on performers to add expressiveness to his work) manage to gain the same control of his instrument as an acoustic performer? No acoustic instrument can remotely match the range and subtlety of a synthesizer, but most synths do not permit real-time control of as many subtle variables. And as you note most acoustic musicians spend years perfecting a single voice. The challenge, if synths are to become the source of equally expressive music, is for synth/music programmers to achieve the same level of sophistication as acoustic musicians. To date I have seen little evidence that many are trying very hard.

slartabartfast I wish to totally disagree with your statements about lack of expresssion in electronic instruments. When people say this it only makes me think that they are not fully familiar with all the options that are out there at the moment.

I am someone who has come from a virtually total lack of expression into a world of expression. The midi spec carries many areas for controller codes to add taste and expression. The synths themselves have also responded well to this level of touch too.  And not just on velocity on a keyboard and that can be huge in itself in terms of touch. EMU and Kurzweil through VAST can take velocity info and route it to a million parameters and it is just a joy to play. This is expression beyond belief. And there are so many other controllers too such as the Yamaha breath control not to mention the various wind controllers that have come out over the years. We have aftertouch in keyboards and polyphonic aftertouch on some as well. You have got to hear that to believe it. You can have total control over one note in a chord.

There are foot pedals, and now weird controllers like the laser harp or the eigenharp Check that out.  All these things can be connected at once not to mention pitch and mod wheels so huge amounts of expression can be input even into one sound at once. All the data from the various input sources can be routed on many quality instruments into many sound parameters and not to mention effects parameters as well. That is another world! Even just velocity switching several sounds on a layer can be fascinating and incredibly expressive.  Native Instruments with their latest Kontakt sampler have got some serious expression control going by now morphing in the most beautiful way over many sample layers on one key!

Many people have no idea about the expression capabilites they already have with their existing instruments. I don't blame them though because you almost need a science degree to program this and set it up. It is not the default unfortunately with many instruments.

For drummers pads and drum surfaces with amazing areas of touch and response. Check out a new drum pad set from Yamaha with huge levels of touch and area of control. The new Korg Wavedrum is mindblowing!!

And not to forget guitarists and bass players. The Roland V Guitar can pick up many forms of touch and expression from the guitarist and route that info to any one of many sound parameters. And John good point (below) about physical touch. But some of these controllers themselves have their own physical feel and the interaction between player and controller could be very similar to an acoustic inastrument. Think guitar fretboard for example. Or if you are playing a Korg Wavedrum for example (eg by hand) you are touching something very real and not only that but a lot of the nuances you are adding are being sensed and transmitted. I think controllers are only going to get better.

What about the latest album from Pat Metheny. (read about it in SOS) He has built a mechanical orchestra that is all controlled as his backing for his guitar parts. He is using the guitar to input the data into the orchestra!

And you say no expression! Do you still think that now, I say heaps of expression!

Roland  orchestral expansion packs that are 10 years old are still top notch. 

Quick and dirty...  but Z3ti...or whatever it is...  that stuff is crazy

To the right person a softsynth, sequencer and a mouse are every bit as "personal" and "intuitive" as a sax, piano, violin, etc...

I would like to meet that person. LOL Somehow, and maybe its a lack of imagination on my part, mousing around on a PRV doesn't give me the same feeling of production as a good squeal on the sax. If nothing else there is the question of latency. After all its not likely to be heard until one hits play.

Perhaps the relationship you are invoking is more akin to a conductor and his baton. I don't see him having the same relationship with it as his first violinist has with his violin. The conductor normally has more then one at his disposal in case he breaks it.

In response to John:


 Softsynths are simply the instruction code that tells your computer what sound to make.  No different in principle than an Access Virus or Triton for example. 

I can have an "intimate relationship" with my computer as I consider it along with my midi contoller just as much an instrument as my guitar.   I spend many happy hours just playing my computer just as you would any "hardware" synth.  With my keyboard's velocity, aftertouch, pitch bend, mod wheel, and with 16 knobs and 12 sliders at my disposal I can have as tactile an interaction with my computer based synth as anyone could with a dedicated synth box like a Virus or Poly Evolver.

The advantage with a computer based synth is that it's open architecture.  It can do FM, Subtractive, Sample Playback, Granular Synthesis, Modular synthesis, Wavesequencing etc in any combination. As a long time lover of synths and sounds this is Nirvana for me.

I remember stacking several hardware synths together through midi to get a complex sound except now I don't don't have to mess with all the Midi spaghetti from the miles of cables needed. 

I can understand someone who plays live a lot would want a dedicated hardware box as I'm not too sure a laptop could withstand the rigors of the road although there are lots of musicians who use them live.  There are road rig desktops with 19" rackmount cases that could be an alternative as well.

To each his own I just want to get across the point that a proper computer/soundcard/midi controller is a hardware synth and should be considered an instrument just like any dedicated hardware box............

To slartabartfast:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mrmp2EaVChI


To everyone. Softsynth?  Omnisphere:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zF8SYLjl07g

Jeff, you miss my point. I am saying that synths are much more capable of expression than any acoustic instrument

 
how can you say that??  is there some sort of tool that can measure the amount of expressiveness of keyboardist/synthesist, to any ordinary musician..thats silly.. music is a craft man...you either have a voice or you dont...
 
anyway back to the OP ...10yrs ago the hardware workstation was the way to go, but the software just keeps getting better and better. i dont like alot of synthy tectures, so my keyboard needs are simple. piano, rhodes, and organ and the Scarbee stuff sounds fantastic..Superior Drummer..WOW!!  if you have some-what of a background in arranging you can get expressive enough with GPO/JABB.. i would never use guitar/bass software either, getting bass/guitar to gel dynamically with a vocals is too crucial. and those old beat up stock Fenders still sound the best to me.

Jeff, you miss my point. I am saying that synths are much more capable of expression than any acoustic instrument.

I wouldn't go that far. They are quite capable of expression but to say that a synth is more expressive then a violin for example or even a sax is it bit hard to agree to.

John

Jeff, you miss my point. I am saying that synths are much more capable of expression than any acoustic instrument.

I wouldn't go that far. They are quite capable of expression but to say that a synth is more expressive then a violin for example or even a sax is it bit hard to agree to.

What?  You've never heard Clara Rockmore play the theremin?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSzTPGlNa5U&feature=related

John

Jeff, you miss my point. I am saying that synths are much more capable of expression than any acoustic instrument.

I wouldn't go that far. They are quite capable of expression but to say that a synth is more expressive then a violin for example or even a sax is it bit hard to agree to.

To say that synthesized sound is capable of more expression than a sax is not to say that a significant body of synthetic music has been produced that is more expressive than the acoustic music we are familiar with. Capability is inherent in the range of sound produced. A great sax player is obviously capable of moving us emotionally and creating a deep sense that he is speaking to our unconscious with his instrument. On the other hand he is quite incapable of morphing his sax voice into a ride cymbal, a feat that is relatively simple to do with synthesis. Not that doing so would be a good idea. It is one of the tragedies of synthetic music that it has been diverted into sampling acoustic sounds and creating pale imitations of sounds that are clearly better done with brass wood and string, by the accomplished performers who have spent years mastering those tools. To the extent that the immense flexibility of synthesis can be harnessed, there is a potential (capability) to be more expressive than an acoustic instrument. The question is why this is not generally realized in synthetic music.

I wonder how much part training the listener to the expected sounds of acoustic instruments plays in our response to them. I expect most of us here respond more to the sound of a well-played guitar than to a shamisen in the hands of an equally accomplished performer. Synthetists often suffer from a self-imposed lack of focus on perfecting an individual voice in favor of generating new and interesting (not to say weird and distracting) sounds. But there may also be limits imposed by the listeners, who have spent many hours listening to traditional instruments, and learned their language.

I have not used the Triton, but for flexibility, variety and expression either Z3TA+ or Rapture should blow away any box with a keyboard. For usability not so much. Combining ease of use with expression and variety is a very difficult task. Nothing is easier than pushing a button to load a preset. For noodling, I still use my Yamaha SY 77 (sort of a really limited Dimension in a box with 16 bit samples).

In the broadest sense Sonar itself is a humongous additive synthesizer. It is possible to use a softsynth instance as a single sound source (oscillator) and mix it with other softsynths on unlimited separate tracks each controlled by it's own midi track to result in one highly controllable voice. That lets you use the sophisticated automation, effects, filters etc. of Sonar to control the final sound. But that is not anything like real time playing of a softsynth as a sound module driven by a midi keyboard.

John

yorolpal

John

Jeff, you miss my point. I am saying that synths are much more capable of expression than any acoustic instrument.

I wouldn't go that far. They are quite capable of expression but to say that a synth is more expressive then a violin for example or even a sax is it bit hard to agree to.

What?  You've never heard Clara Rockmore play the theremin?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSzTPGlNa5U&feature=related

That was low blow and you know it. LOL

But that's the kind of blow (these days) that I'm so good at. 

Which of the synths are likely to be supported in Sonar 5 or 10 years from now?

Stratman70 mentioned "the untimely demise of Dim Pro"; does that mean Dimension Pro is getting discontinued? 

Synths are better in numbers and they need to conspire to say something great. Why not love all of it and not single out anything against the other. The more music you like the more you will enjoy what it is you are listening to.

Here you and I are of the same mind. My first post on this thread was that I like software and hardware. I like real and not so real instruments. I like music. However it comes to me.