hey everyone, my apologies if this comes up alot, I had a seach through the thread history.
ok, so the other day i was in a proper studio and listened to one of his clients work, it was an electronica piece, but I immediately thought it sounded noticably like a softsynth, kind of in a bad way. It sounded very flat and lifeless, and I was listening out of an excellent monitoring system in a deadened room.
I use VST synths for everything at the moment, but I'm thinking of searching out for some rackmount synths that I can afford. Does anyone reckon there's a noticeable differende in sound between hardware / software? Who uses what? what is preferred?
I'd be interested in hearing what you think
thanks
tom
synths - harware vs software
Total, the debate about hardware versus software has nothing to do with audio quality anymore, both are excellent.
The real issue is hands on versus mouse on!
The real issue is hands on versus mouse on!
tarekith
https://tarekith.com
https://tarekith.com
i say hardware. software has a certain gloss to it that's just way too smooth sometimes. it sounds too polished for certain things. especially for FM sounds at times. you can hear it if you've had the real shit in the past.
FM7 sounds horrible to a real DX board. And i'm not talkin the speed in editing which FM7 has over operator keyboards, because it does beat a real DX in that dept, hands down. i'm talking the imperfections of noisy FM, in which FM7 fails to bring to the table. it's too glossy and too perfect. it doesn't bring the shitty'ness of real FM in perspective. is this a good thing? not for me it isn't. but for the masses, probably is fine.
depends what you're doing. you're question is way too subjective. you'll get a thousand different answers from a thousand different people. but i think most people on this board will agree is software is better. before i get myself in trouble again, i'll just leave it at that.
FM7 sounds horrible to a real DX board. And i'm not talkin the speed in editing which FM7 has over operator keyboards, because it does beat a real DX in that dept, hands down. i'm talking the imperfections of noisy FM, in which FM7 fails to bring to the table. it's too glossy and too perfect. it doesn't bring the shitty'ness of real FM in perspective. is this a good thing? not for me it isn't. but for the masses, probably is fine.
depends what you're doing. you're question is way too subjective. you'll get a thousand different answers from a thousand different people. but i think most people on this board will agree is software is better. before i get myself in trouble again, i'll just leave it at that.
Sony VAIO 1.6 duo, padKontrol, MOTU Ultralite, M-Audio BX5's, HHB BurnIT, A&H Xone 92, Live 6, Doepfer Sequencers.
-
PurpleHaze
- Posts: 134
- Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 5:50 pm
-
JACKAL & HYDE
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am
Re: synths - harware vs software
register wrote:hey everyone, my apologies if this comes up alot, I had a seach through the thread history.
ok, so the other day i was in a proper studio and listened to one of his clients work, it was an electronica piece, but I immediately thought it sounded noticably like a softsynth, kind of in a bad way. It sounded very flat and lifeless, and I was listening out of an excellent monitoring system in a deadened room.
I use VST synths for everything at the moment, but I'm thinking of searching out for some rackmount synths that I can afford. Does anyone reckon there's a noticeable differende in sound between hardware / software? Who uses what? what is preferred?
I'd be interested in hearing what you think
thanks
tom
Every time this comes up on forums many people tend to forget that with filters like Schippmanns ebbe und flut http://www.schippmann-music.com/ and the like, a programmer can make standard VSTi's sound easily as fat/rich/thick/dense as any hardware analog synth out there. So imo, as VSTi's are cheaper than analog synths, logic tells me to get a Schippmann and then run all my vsti's through it to "get that sound" without having to drop $3,000 on the next analog synth that comes down the pipe over and over.
2p
My take - soft rompler/sample based synths that I have come across seem to be way better in terms of raw sound than any hardware romplers I have found - not suprising when you consider the sample sizes available to a computer based rompler. Performance functions on hardware tend to be way better than software - again - not suprising - romplers are stage tools.
On pure synths then I find the following:
There is more choice of synthesis types in software, interfaces to soft synths tend to be better in terms of presenting an entire patch in a single screen, so are way earsier to edit (I make a distinction between editing and tweaking).
In terms of synthesis quality, well good commerical soft synths these days are very good, but of course there are some really crap ones too. I find there is less crap in proper professional synths in hardware - ie ignoring home orientated stuff from yamaha, casio etc.
In terms of should there be any difference - well not really - your average digital hardware synth is a soft synth in a dedicated box with a dedicated interface. The only difference really comes down to chosen algorythms, quality of DACs, latency, immediacy of interface, amount/speed of CPU/RAM/ROM available etc - ie typical computing resources.
A crappy old computer aint going to be useful for running NI massive as an example.
The real difference in sound between hardware and software are more between analog and digital - ie analog synths vs digital synths, analog connectivity, midi jitters (affecting tightness of resulting mix/sounds etc).
For music that is played rather than programmed, I do generally find with jusicians that I know that music they record playing a hardware synth local on with zero latency is tighter and more dynamic or expressive than music they record playing a soft synth. This is really down to latency distracting the player and typically unbeleivably cheap nasty crap we have to choose from with dedicated controllers. Hardware synths generally have way better feeling keyboards than current midi controllers, but if you using say a Virus TI or something with a really good keyboard, then that goes away.
Alot of people can get better sounds out of a soft synth because they can understand the editing easier. Theres also a bunch of us who can get better sounds out of hardware due to interface immediacy and becaue they hate using a mouse for editing.
Hardware synths are easier to tweak - again down to immediacy f the interface.
Personally, more favourite synths at the moment are all hardware - actually I only use two softsynths - one of which is a drum/looper (Stylus RMX) and the other is an additive synth that I use really only for creating morphable sounds from samples for transition effects.
Hopefully people will eventually stop recycling this hardware vs software sound crap and remember digital hardware synths ARE soft synths...
On pure synths then I find the following:
There is more choice of synthesis types in software, interfaces to soft synths tend to be better in terms of presenting an entire patch in a single screen, so are way earsier to edit (I make a distinction between editing and tweaking).
In terms of synthesis quality, well good commerical soft synths these days are very good, but of course there are some really crap ones too. I find there is less crap in proper professional synths in hardware - ie ignoring home orientated stuff from yamaha, casio etc.
In terms of should there be any difference - well not really - your average digital hardware synth is a soft synth in a dedicated box with a dedicated interface. The only difference really comes down to chosen algorythms, quality of DACs, latency, immediacy of interface, amount/speed of CPU/RAM/ROM available etc - ie typical computing resources.
A crappy old computer aint going to be useful for running NI massive as an example.
The real difference in sound between hardware and software are more between analog and digital - ie analog synths vs digital synths, analog connectivity, midi jitters (affecting tightness of resulting mix/sounds etc).
For music that is played rather than programmed, I do generally find with jusicians that I know that music they record playing a hardware synth local on with zero latency is tighter and more dynamic or expressive than music they record playing a soft synth. This is really down to latency distracting the player and typically unbeleivably cheap nasty crap we have to choose from with dedicated controllers. Hardware synths generally have way better feeling keyboards than current midi controllers, but if you using say a Virus TI or something with a really good keyboard, then that goes away.
Alot of people can get better sounds out of a soft synth because they can understand the editing easier. Theres also a bunch of us who can get better sounds out of hardware due to interface immediacy and becaue they hate using a mouse for editing.
Hardware synths are easier to tweak - again down to immediacy f the interface.
Personally, more favourite synths at the moment are all hardware - actually I only use two softsynths - one of which is a drum/looper (Stylus RMX) and the other is an additive synth that I use really only for creating morphable sounds from samples for transition effects.
Hopefully people will eventually stop recycling this hardware vs software sound crap and remember digital hardware synths ARE soft synths...
Nothing to see here - move along!
J&H - what's your evaluation of the Shermann Filterbank, first time I heard one I shit my pants.
My take... it's all GAS, most of us go through phases of software and hardware, few people know that firmware is where it's at.
OP - what's harware anyway?? har har har!!
My take... it's all GAS, most of us go through phases of software and hardware, few people know that firmware is where it's at.
OP - what's harware anyway?? har har har!!
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
-
JACKAL & HYDE
- Posts: 224
- Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 7:26 am
Tone Deft wrote:J&H - what's your evaluation of the Shermann Filterbank, first time I heard one I shit my pants.
I like the shermann very much, its rock solid. For fattening up VSTi's the Jomox M-Resonator is also always a favorite.
But as far as the Schippmann goes, its the heavyweight champion hands down at the moment.
Listen to what it does (among many examples) to this little cheesy synthline... > http://www.schippmann-music.com/downloads/Funk_1.mp3
I recently got this message from the creator of the Schippman >>>>
"Hi there!
This pretty nice unit is very often compared to Sherman or Mutator. This is true in view of the similarity of concept and structure. But this unit was designed under different preconditions:
1. To get a clear and lively sound, it was absolutely necessary to take only best components, especially in the audio pathes.
2. I wanted to create a very flexible unit so, it became fully modular. So, the most parameters (LFO, envelopes,...) are voltage controlled.
3. I wanted to apply my own filter technology. This technology is building the core of all and provides that unique fat and explosive sound. So, it's clear that these filters are totally discrete.
4. Because I love modulations in any manner, I put a lot of different modulators in it with emphasis on possibilities to create weird modulations even when using acoustical instruments like guitars ( but not exclusively! ). It was important for me, to extract modulation parameters directly from the audio input signal. (dynamic audiotrigger, RMS follower (linear/logarithmic), noisegate, multiplication of input level with modulation index of the envelopes,..).
5. At the end the quality of all, housing, design, knobs, powersupply, etc...
should be excellent....and 'ebbe und flut' is the result.
ebbe und flut sounds warm, clear, smooth, sharp, deep, exploding with a lot of aggressive potential.
Ebbe und flut contains 2x 4-pole filters (true analogue). Moreover the hole ebbe und flut is fully analogue.
What I can say is, the 'ebbe und flut' isn't expensive for that what you get. And that's much more than only a big feature list. The connectors on the rear side could be for somebody a drop of bitterness, but in my experience (and in the experience of my colleges) the quality of 3.5mm plugs is far away from good Neutrik 6.3mm size. And because that 'ebbe und flut' provides more than 30 ins and outs I made the decision to choose stereo plugs. To put all the plugs to the front would lead to a higher housing price and so to a higher price for the customers.
If one don't want to use patchbays, make yourself a kind of cable whip. Take 2 shielded thin mono cable with 3.5mm connectors at the one side an solder the other both ends to tip and ring of the 6.3mm connector. Adhise some clear readable plastic labels close to the 3.5mm connctors.
Thanks for your comments. (Sorry for my English.)
Have a good time."
-
the girl next door
- Posts: 637
- Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:37 pm
- Location: Back in the UK :-) Reading, Berks
- Contact:
-
leedsquietman
- Posts: 6659
- Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
- Location: greater toronto area
I used to own a DX7. Although I loved it, I wouldn't swap it for FM8 and a good MIDI controller, the range of actually usable sounds on a DX7 is very limited.
Yes, it can do nice bells and eps and one or two rubbery synbass sounds and the helicopter sound was and that preset rez sweep were pretty good for the time but Yamaha wasted too much time on horrible acoustic piano and guitar emulations which it clearly was not suitable for in the presets and add-on soundcards.
Granted you could get some pretty weird distorted shit out of it via programming but programming a DX7 effectively required a degree in astrophysics !!!
I much preferred the SY77, a combination AWM/FM synth Yamaha released around the time of the Korg M1, that was an amazing combination of sounds for the time.
Yes, it can do nice bells and eps and one or two rubbery synbass sounds and the helicopter sound was and that preset rez sweep were pretty good for the time but Yamaha wasted too much time on horrible acoustic piano and guitar emulations which it clearly was not suitable for in the presets and add-on soundcards.
Granted you could get some pretty weird distorted shit out of it via programming but programming a DX7 effectively required a degree in astrophysics !!!
I much preferred the SY77, a combination AWM/FM synth Yamaha released around the time of the Korg M1, that was an amazing combination of sounds for the time.
http://soundcloud.com/umbriel-rising http://www.myspace.com/leedsquietmandemos Live 7.0.18 SUITE, Cubase 5.5.2], Soundforge 9, Dell XPS M1530, 2.2 Ghz C2D, 4GB, Vista Ult SP2, legit plugins a plenty, Alesis IO14.
The phreshmaker, no doubt, instant GAS.JACKAL & HYDE wrote:Listen to what it does (among many examples) to this little cheesy synthline... > http://www.schippmann-music.com/downloads/Funk_1.mp3
One thing I haven't done yet is dig through all the racks people posted here
http://www.ableton.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=54296
Are there any that people have found with similar qualities to the filters in question? I know they won't be as deep or phat but I gotta use what I got before getting more gear. Any freeware manglers out there that people like?
In my life
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz
Why do I smile
At people who I'd much rather kick in the eye?
-Moz