KVR: Forum Archive - has anyone gone from softsynths to hardware?

KVR Forum [Instruments] » Archive » Instruments » April 2002 Index | KVRFA1

Author	Topic: has anyone gone from softsynths to hardware?
telxo_s	Posted: 7th April 2002 19:45
	I hear alot of people say how they have sold their hardware synths and gone all virtual. Im wondering if anyone has started with softsynths and thought of going to mostly hardware. I started in synthesis with NI generator and the only hardware synth i ever owned was a nord micromodular. I sold it because at the time it didnt fit in nice with a mix of reaktor 2.3 sounds, it just sounded SOOO much better than reaktor, and being only 4 voices 1 part multi it was rather useless. Reaktor 3 was an improvement sound quality wise but its not there quite yet. To my ears FM7 is the only synth with oscilator quality on par with a good hardware synth, but the filters are still not quite as good. Absynth might change my mind and keep me from starting to build a real studio but i dont know... telxos
clowndog	Posted: 7th April 2002 20:40
	We just need a DSP accelerator standard for PC's. Like protools but with a realistic price, and open standard so its not restricted to one manufacturer. U see, these cards have their own little OS inside, so theyre not dependent on the crapness of windows. They will virtually never crash, or go insane due to other stuff happening on the system. Its tight and dedicated. Hence peope like Access will bother coding for them (The Access virus/indigo exists as a protools plugin). This is the best of both worlds, and what we need.
Sweet Thunder	Posted: 7th April 2002 20:46
	Yes about a year and a half ago I started out using demos of Reality, Retro-AS and a bunch of free soundfonts but something wasn't quite right about them, I wasn't satisfied with 95% of the crackly instruments (strings in particular) and the damned latency. There was no comparison with my friend's amazing sounding Roland JV-880 which instantly gives that kind of glossy sound quality you find on commercial CDs. I needed a huge catalogue of clean professional quality (whatever that means) patches and drum kits to draw from like my mate's expensive Roland module and a decent velocity sensitive keyboard to make my pop songs with; but I didn't want to spend much money. Luckily at that exact same time Roland brought out the SK-500 (which is basicly a PC-300 & SC8820 combined) which delivered all those things at about £350!. I was over the moon with my purchase but these days I still use soft synth clones all the time mostly for nostalgia.
El Bastardo	Posted: 7th April 2002 21:03
	Just bought a Sequential Six-Track. Well phat sound. Six ocs unison. not used it in a track yet, I only got it on friday.
Scot Solida	Posted: 7th April 2002 21:10
	Ha! I had one of the six-tracks too, ages ago! Definately capable of a HUGE sound in unison mode! Fun arpeggiator, too. What a blast. I currently have a Prophet 600 that was bought for $25 in a pawn shop because it didn't work. I spent some time with it, and got it up and running again. I don't use it much, but I won't get rid of it, as I'm rather proud of having fixed it. I'm painting it very psychedelic, and gonna take it to shows. You are going to have a lot of fun with that Six-track. Scot Solida Christus And The Cosmonaughts
BONES	Posted: 7th April 2002 22:59
	If you think that your software synths can't stack up against hardware, just try running your hardware into the back of your soundcard and through the same signal path as your software set-up. I guarantee that you will change your mind. After all, any modern synth is just a specialised computer with a CPU and an OS and software so it's just down to you to get a really good quality soundcard that can match the quality of hardware stuff. Either that or do as I do and keep everything in the digital world when it doesn't matter how krappy your soundcard is [and I can guarantee you that my soundcard is the krappiest around]. The big advantage of software is that I don't have to spend hours eliminating noise from my studio or dusting everything off every day or replacing those aging leads or etc, etc. JX Synth sounds better than any piece of hardware I've ever used and that includes some pretty decent/expensive synths.
clowndog	Posted: 7th April 2002 23:06
	Thats quite a strong statement about JXsynth. Especially considering such synths are available as: http://www.waldorf-gmbh.de/q_plus/
Mr. Tunes	Posted: 7th April 2002 23:15
	All I can say is after buying Sonic Synth, my face is yet to appear in a music store It's all I really need for now, and I can't believe that last year I was considering saving up for an E-MU or Roland sound module
Scot Solida	Posted: 7th April 2002 23:33
	Nope, I'm NEVER EVER EVER going back! I keep only the stuff I need for live and that which has sentimental value. I have been playing synths for twenty-three years, and I have never had the capabilities I do now, nor have I ever been as productive, and to me, that's key. I "indefinately" loaned my old Yamaha CS40M to my bassist, yesterday. I'm not sure if I give a damn if he ever brings the thing back. Okay, so I'm building a modular analog, but that's more for the smell of the solder and 'cause I like to build electronics, but I'm sure most of my modular sounds will STILL be made on the virtual variety. When I want any sound, I ALWAYS go to the virtual stuff, first. The purists who say the hardware is better are entitled to their opinions, but I don't agree, and more importantly, most of the hardware is nowhere near as easy to program. Just say NO to tiny LCDs and tangles of cables! Scot Solida Christus And The Cosmonaughts
telxo_s	Posted: 7th April 2002 23:35
	quote: After all, any modern synth is just a specialised computer with a CPU and an OS and software so it's just down to you to get a really good quality soundcard Yea but harware synths dont have to worry about making their algorithms run ok on a RANGE of different processing powers. They know exactly what they have to work with. My athlon xp 1800 is hardly being pushed to its limits by modern softsynths. 4 instances of cpu hog reaktor only takes up about 50%. I cant imagine how many triangle IIs it could run. I love the tight integration of vsti within the sequencer, to me that is the main benefit. Not having to deal with getting the sound IN is so nice. The sound quality just isnt there though. I wish reaktor sounded as good as the korg oasys, it would be god like, but it just doesnt. Everyone raves about triangle II, i think it sounds superb for a free softsynth but you cant possibly tell me it has the sound quality of a kurzweil k2500. If you cant hear that you either need new speakers or new ears.
Rabid	Posted: 7th April 2002 23:47
	I have quite a collection of soft synths but they stay on the sidelines until the process of creating and sequencing a song is over. As of late only three pieces consistantly get used; Battery, B4 and GigaStudio for piano. For a while I thought I would never buy any more hardware other than a controller. Now I realize that everything has its place. I would probably use soft synths more if the latency would match my hardware, but it doesn't, so I don't. There is also something special about sitting at a keyboard and producing the sound you want in real time. Robert
clowndog	Posted: 8th April 2002 00:13
	The latency matches hardware easily. Go buy a proper soundcard (www.rme-audio.com) and it gets down to 1 or 2ms.
four_thwacks	Posted: 8th April 2002 00:35
	I just got a Korg Oasys. Besides the lack of 2000/XP drivers, this must be one of the best sounding and most versitile synths ever for both physical models and extreme virtual analog and hybrid sounds. Every labelled parameter can easily be modulated from multiple sources. I almost bought a virus, but this was 1/3 of the price and is much more versatile. The most extremely complex programs + FX may constrain polyphony, but at that point the sound is SO crazy (better than any VSTi I've heard), it doesn't seem like a big deal. Simpler sounds = more polyphony and multitimberal programs. My computer does crash slightly more easily with the card alongside a Delta 1010 and Logic, but compared to the hassle of using a software editor and sysex dumps (which don't always work) to save the work done in external hardware synths, it's like night and day. I would buy this over software or external hardware.
Caleb	Posted: 8th April 2002 00:50
	My Pulsar card is cool. The synths, samplers on that can by played by me realtime with zero latency - or as much zero as a hardware synth anyway. With VSTs, it's a bit different. You can't get that playability, but you can realistically expect maybe 4ms if you're auditioning just one VSTi. It's not perfect but I enjoy it. Bones made a pretty good point I thought about the signal path. It's true that a VSTi might not sound as good out of a pair of SB16s as a hardware synth will sound by itself. Personally, I think it unlikely that a VSTi will produce the sound quality of a hardware synth. On the other hand I think the margin would have to be pretty slight these days. Slight enough that it's probably academic to discuss it really. And VSTi aren't as noisy of course. I've always imagined that a synth on Pulsar, ProTools or TC Powercore etc. would more likely to stand on par with hardware synths, but I know Bones has owned/used several hardware synths and ditched them in favour of the software set up and not just because of convenience. So if Bones or other experienced hardware users say VSTi competes quite successfully with their hardware counterparts sonically, then that seems to suggest that if there is a difference it isn't too great. As for the virtues of swapping from software to hardware, I can definitely see some merit in that and had thought at one stage that I had made my investment in the wrong area. Having several components all responsible for their own element, whether it be effects, sound generation or mixing brings an element of security to it, especially when you are comparing it to a scenario when all the work is done by one unit. But as usual you can further argue or counter-argue this sort of thing into the ground. I don't even think there is a right answer in the end, it's just a set of pros and cons that has to be measured by weight of importance to the person actually making the decision. Can I ever post anything without rambling? Oh well, you guys must be used to me by now. Caleb
cnt	Posted: 8th April 2002 12:22
	This is my "sequencer-history": ProTracker (Amiga) --> FastTracker II (PC) --> Cubase 2.8 + Hardware ($6000 studio) --> Cubase VST Softsynths + one MIDI Keyboard. Most fun, definitly the Tracker-period!
crimsonwarlock	Posted: 8th April 2002 12:41
	My "old" studio: - Yamaha DX7 and DX100 - Ensoniq ESQ-1 - Kawai K1rII - Alesis D4 - Kawai REV4 - Ibanez DM1000 - Atari running Cubase with... - Midex, 80 MIDI channels, SMPTE-synced to... - Tascam 488 8-track deck - 2x Roland A-880 to patch the stuff (almost all for sale, any takers ) My NEW (new..new..ew..ew..w..w..) studio - Dual AMD Athlon 2000+ (1,5 Meg Ram, 2x 80 Gb in raid) - Orion Pro/Platinum - PPG Wave VSTi - Pro52 VSTi - FM7 VSTi - Battery VSTi - Linplug Drumstudio VSTi - PSP Vintagewarmer and Endorphin - Ohmboyz delay - ... loads of more plugins, but those are my favs - Sound Forge 5 You might see how I actually tried to replace almost every hardware item in my "old" studio with a software counterpart in my "new" studio (and I definitely feel I succeeded). I never look back
Tronam	Posted: 8th April 2002 13:46
	quote: Originally posted by cnt: This is my "sequencer-history": ProTracker (Amiga) --> FastTracker II (PC) --> Cubase 2.8 + Hardware ($6000 studio) --> Cubase VST Softsynths + one MIDI Keyboard. Most fun, definitly the Tracker-period! CNT, I couldn't agree with you more! I spent 5 years continually being inspired by that "little" program known as ProTracker. Without that experience, I'm not sure I ever would have gotten into electronic music. As quickly as things change in this industry these days, I don't know that I'll ever attain that level of proficiency in an audio program again. Reason is about as close as it gets for me and in some ways it is vastly more limited (obviously superior in others). I stumble along inside huge, modern sequencer/DAWs these days, but will never forget that wonderful little (126k!!!) program. Oh sure, it was replete with limitations by today's standards, but amazing things can happen when working against them. Sometimes resistance can stimulate creativity in remarkable ways. Heck, how do you think we've managed to squeeze so much diverse music out of the piano over the past 300 years? By pushing against the physical limitations of an instrument and accepting them, you might be more likely to seek out and focus on it's strengths, rather than dwell on it's weaknesses. It's that same level of focus that I think I have come to lack these days. There are so many technical details, configuration issues, compatibility problems and other potential pitfalls in modern computer based audio that I feel vastly more scatterbrained and distracted than ever before. I have to unplug at least once a day and simply play my piano or guitar to help maintain my sanity. Only then do I truly experience that same level of focus again. -Tronam [ 08 April 2002, 16:48: Message edited by: Tronam ]
Rabid	Posted: 8th April 2002 16:36
	My "evolved" studio. Software: P4 running W2K with 1 gig memory Sonar 2XL Reaktor 3 Pro52 B4 Battery FXpansion DR-008 PPGv2 Reason Reality SonicSynth SoundForge 5 Acid Pro 3 GigaStudio 160 on a dedicated WinXP computer Various effects plug-ins and other seldom used DXi synths and samplers Hardware: Roland Fantom Korg Karma Roland XV-5080 with 128 meg sample memory E-Mu Proteus 2K E-Mu XL-7 Nord Modular Roland Handsonic Roland SP11 kit Yamaha RM1x Korg Electribes StudioLogic 880 Various seldom used beat boxes and samplers What I use 95% of the time: Roland Fantom. Roland XV-5080 NI B4 Battery/DR-008 Softsynths are very nice for getting good sound at a low budget, but when choosing between equivalent software or hardware sound sources hardware is much easier and quicker to deal with. I guess one other bonus of softsynth is tighter Midi timing. Especially with drum tracks. Robert
BONES	Posted: 8th April 2002 21:52
	quote: Originally posted by telxo_s: [QUOTE]you cant possibly tell me it has the sound quality of a kurzweil k2500. If you cant hear that you either need new speakers or new ears. Why? What would be the difference? They are both just pieces of software generating sound and playing it out through some kind of pre-amp and some D/A converters. If the hardware side of your set-up is up to snuff then a good VSTi will definitely sound as good as a K2500. I agree, however, that Triangle II is not the VSTi for making that comparison but I would put JX Synth or JUNGLIST up against a K2500 any day, especially given that at render time I can turn JX Synth's filter quality up to a non-realtime level that just has to be better than realtime hardware. After all, in terms of computing power I doubt that a K2500 could run Photoshop at a usable speed. [Gratuitous I know, but it illustrates my point.]
Sweet Thunder	Posted: 8th April 2002 22:06
	'After all, in terms of computing power I doubt that a K2500 could run Photoshop at a usable speed. [Gratuitous I know, but it illustrates my point.]' In my experience a dedicated chipset almost always does the job better than a more powerful chip emulating one. I've still yet to see a PC scroll a screen horizontally with the same smoothness as some 15 year old coin-ops.
clowndog	Posted: 8th April 2002 22:29
	JXsynth runs realtime on my machine with high quality mode on. Sure its a nice little chunk for making a little sound here and there.. but the filter sounds like utter crap compared to my waldorf or a real analog! That is not what resonance sounds like, thats just a simple EQ on the filter cutoff! Not analog modelled. Perhaps this is what he meant about the k2500 argument, although that is hghly flawed argument to compare such a sampler with a VA synth.
Shmoe	Posted: 8th April 2002 22:42
	I know the VSTi vs. hardward debate is a bit tiresome, but I wanted to say this: Softsynthesis is still in it's infancy (many of us have gotten in VSTi's only in the last couple of years) and is as interesting for where it is heading as for where it is now. I'm not sure hardware can claim as much. If you compare softsynths in these early stages of development with hardware in their similar early stages, then VSTi's compare very nicely.
clowndog	Posted: 8th April 2002 22:54
	yeah thats right. Its bullshit, since hardware IS software now. From now on it depends entirely on who has the best german scientists. Build one of these for your software: http://www.ucapps.de . Then try arguing which one is hard or software.
telxo_s	Posted: 8th April 2002 22:55
	quote: They are both just pieces of software generating sound and playing it out through some kind of pre-amp and some D/A converters As if the processor itself is making the sound?? Unix and windows can run on the same processor, huge difference in what the software is actually outputting to the screen. How many years has korg had to let perfect their algorithms, 15-20 years? Softsynths have had what, 3-4 years? I dont care how fast the processor is, its not making a sound on its own. I tend to believe native software will eventually sound BETTER than hardware once the people at this have had years to perfect their knowledge(having a 10ghz native cpu wont hurt either) That time is not here yet though. The waldorf q is good example, go play one at a music store, youll understand. The k2500 is hardly just a sampler
chagzuki	Posted: 8th April 2002 23:43
	I've still yet to see a PC scroll a screen horizontally with the same smoothness as some 15 year old coin-ops.[/QB][/QUOTE] That's bollocks. Windows tends not to update the screen very quickly, depending of course on how much the processor is doing. Those old arcade games had 60hz refresh rates, and PC monitors are faster, so as long as whatever is scrolling is updated at around 60hz it'll be perfectly smooth. All those old games run as emulations with no trouble on a 600mhz machine.
BONES	Posted: 9th April 2002 00:26
	quote: Originally posted by pentacloud: JXsynth runs realtime on my machine with high quality mode on. Sure its a nice little chunk for making a little sound here and there.. but the filter sounds like utter crap compared to my waldorf or a real analog! That is not what resonance sounds like, thats just a simple EQ on the filter cutoff! Not analog modelled. Perhaps this is what he meant about the k2500 argument, although that is hghly flawed argument to compare such a sampler with a VA synth. ... except we aren't talking about the capabilities of the machine, just the quality of it's output. I don't give a rat's fat arse whether it's real Q or just EQ on the cut-off, the fact is that I can make audio of an extremely high quality on my PC - good enough that no-one who listens to our album will be able to say "Oh, that's krap, the've done it all with VSTi". To think that any other scenario is possible would make the whole VSTi thing a total waste of time, which it clearly isn't. I mean, can anyone say that they have huge problems getting their hardware synths to sit into a mix with their virtual instruments? Do you have to EQ all the high and low end out because it makes the virtual stuff sound too flat? I don't think so. Christ, I can't get anyone to buy my old hardware for half what it should be worth so it's hard to imagine that it has any advantage over softsynths.
Sweet Thunder	Posted: 9th April 2002 00:32
	'That's bollocks...Those old arcade games had 60hz refresh rates, and PC monitors are faster, so as long as whatever is scrolling is updated at around 60hz it'll be perfectly smooth.' Charming, Actually graphics don't have to update at 60hz in order to scroll smoothly, they just need to be in sync with the vertical blank (be it 60hz, 50hz or whatever.) As for "All those old games run as emulations with no trouble on a 600mhz machine." That simply isn't true; I could list pages of various bugs and inaccuracies but that's not even what this post's about. I've been into arcade emulation since 1995, own several PCBs and am currently running a 1ghz AMD Athlon and to this day have yet to see ANY emu (or any piece of software for that) running on either Windows or Dos capable of consistantly smooth horizontal scrolling, although Sparcade & KGen have come close. I've researched this at length & quizzed many programmers and so far, they've all concured. [ 09 April 2002, 03:34: Message edited by: Sweet Thunder ]
clowndog	Posted: 9th April 2002 01:50
	Christ, I can't get anyone to buy my old hardware for half what it should be worth so it's hard to imagine that it has any advantage over softsynths.[/QB][/QUOTE] Yeah, thats because its old hardware. Were talking new stuff here. New hardware synths are still way more powerful than new software synths. Thats what I meant. If u had a virus or Q for sale at half price, it would be gone instantly.
telxo_s	Posted: 9th April 2002 02:07
	Just to contradict myself check out this mp3 that was posted on the NI forums. The guy said he just used cubase / absynth / and studio drums for the drum sounds. http://herwig.krass.bei.t-online.de/mp3/ unreal.....
BONES	Posted: 9th April 2002 03:32
	quote: Originally posted by pentacloud: Yeah, thats because its old hardware. Were talking new stuff here. New hardware synths are still way more powerful than new software synths. Thats what I meant. If u had a virus or Q for sale at half price, it would be gone instantly. I'm talking about a Korg TRINITY V3 with most of the expansion options, hardly old. Synths like VIRUS and Q don't really interest me that much, I'm not an ANALogue-head and I don't go in for knob-twiddling. Just for interest, here is my old set-up vs my new one: Sep 2000 - KORG Trinity V3 with Z-1 board and HDD recording, Ensoniq ASR-10, Yamaha CS2x, KORG O1R/W, Kawai K5000R, Ensoniq D/P-4, Behringer Composer, Boss SE-50. [plus my mate's PROPHECY & DW8000] Sep 2001 - ORION Platinum [9 Generators, 20+ effects], JX Synth, JunoX, Junglist, Scorpion, PSP MixSaturator, Cool Edit 2000. [ 09 April 2002, 06:33: Message edited by: BONES ]
clowndog	Posted: 9th April 2002 04:03
	Those synths youre using there are all virtual analog, and they all have a bunch of knobs. Perhaps you are an analoghead, yet havent realized it.
crimsonwarlock	Posted: 9th April 2002 06:03
	Just to put another perspective to the discussion, does anyone have any idea how much VSTi synths are actually used by the big guns in their commercial records. I've read somewhere that Depeche Mode is using quite a bit of plugin's (including VSTi) on their latest album. Production is awesome (tmo) and I can not tell which sound is coming from a VSTi (although I know about one track exactly that one specific sound is coming from a VSTi, because they told in the interview).
BONES	Posted: 9th April 2002 06:05
	... or perhaps there isn't a whole lot of choice about that these days. You will never catch me critising anything for not sounding like an old, krappy, analogue synth, of that you can be sure. As I said earlier, the paradigm is useful but that is as far as I need it to go.

Forum topics in the archive are read only. New posts should be made in the main KVR Forums.

Disclaimer:
All communications made available as part of this forum and any opinions, advice, statements, views or other information expressed in this forum are solely provided by, and the responsibility of, the person posting such communication and not of kvraudio.com (unless kvraudio.com is specifically identified as the author of the communication).

User:	Pass: