ORIGINAL: /__\

...I didn't want to argue with the Roland Fantom guys... ;)

You can't argue with fanboys.

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

ORIGINAL: DSandberg

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

Well, I'd hate to take the word of a guy that has both over a guy that has heard online demos, but I too have both and the soft version is damn close if not the same.

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.

Some folks seem to like the Wusikstation - which the original version is like $10 now I think...

I really like SonikSynth2 from IK Multimedia/Sonic Reality (mentioned above as a thingy I think [;]) ). It is desgned to be a workstation synth, so there's a lot of everything in here, but its emphasis is on synth sounds. It uses the "sampletank" engine, which allows a pretty good degree of manipulation and effecting as well as multi-output and multitimbral capabilities within a single running instance - like the Edirol VSC, but with a quality level that is WAY beyond it. There are gigs of total samples from mainstream stuff to really esoteric and rare.

I know there are some who don't think the library is all that, but I quite like it and I imagine it to be in the same class as Dimernsion and I think sounds quite good - and it's a wellbehaved and easy to use app.

Also, if you get the whole sampletank product, you can load the sonik synth stuff into it as well as other compatible sound sets, and right now the sample tank program has a few more options than just the sonik synth2 app - thought ss2 is quite capable on its own.

You can get it at esoundz.com (or a bunch of other places I suppose) - they are good with customer service and whatnot

I've been looking at getting Dimension Pro, since I've received some sort of promotion from Cakewalk...but I have more important places to put my money right now, unfortunately.

Hope that's helpful.

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: DSandberg

[ I was quite disappointed by those demos ...

Sorry you were disappointed DSandberg. All I can tell you is on my system (Mackie Onyx 1640 into Emu 1820 into Event 20/20s the virtual Wavestation from the legacy collection sounds BETTER than my tried and true Wavestation SR...sitting 2 and 1/2 feet to MY left...and has every sound bank from the WS series. I would've never...ever...thought of giving up my hardware WS...until now. Anyone can push anything through a specific amp, set of speakers, EQ, etc... and "think" they've got a better sound. Perhaps you do or can. But more often than not ( and this includes me) it's all just perceived masturbational differences that we're hearing. We're atuned to this or that and we can't or won't hear the honest objective difference. This, as I alluded to above, may be happening to me (or you) here. But, of course for me, I doubt it. As Sid says, I have both and can A/B myself. Which brings up another point. I think all of us have become silly, irational, spoiled babies when it comes to Sounds, Synths, Eqs, compressors...you name it. The technology of most pro and prosumer stuff has gotten so good that we debate over nano-differences in both quality and performance. Which, if we were truly honest, most of us COULD NOT DIFFERENTIATE if we had a gun to our heads. But, of course, we must pretend as if we could, else our dreary lives might have little or no meaning.

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: Sid Viscous

They're all soft synths at this point.

No, they're not. There are new analog synths coming out. Stuff from David Smith (Evolver), FutureRetro (Revolution, XS), Alesis Andromeda, Moog Music (Voyager and Little Phatty), Jomox (XBase, Sunsyn), Studio Electronics (SE-1X, ATC-X), and all the current modular synth manufacturers (Doepfer, MOTM, synthesizers.com, PAiA, etc.)

Sure, they're mostly niche synths, but there are lots of them and they're definitely not softsynths in any sense.

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.