Hehe, probably a dumb move of sorts, I sold all of my soft synths, samplers and effects for hardware. I still don't have that much hardware yet (but I did have lots of software). Among the different packages I owned were Kontakt, HALion, Sonic Synth, Voice Machine, Battery as well as a few other classics like Model-E and PPG (plus some others I won't continue on...). Still, I'm glad I made the move. Although I think software is great, I'm the kind of musician who needs change. I played with my software for over 4 years, made over 200 songs (all of which I worked on for hours) and finally decided to switch to hardware. I'm looking into the future where hardware and software come together. Although they already are, since every module you buy has some software built in, I"m thinking more dedicated systems that use both hardware and software together. I've never really tried buying lots of keyboards and modules before so I thought I'd give it a whirl. Next on my list is an EMU synth of some kind, perhaps followed by a vintage mono analog synth (ie Pro One or something) and later on, a Triton Rack.

COmputers alone, ie PCs and such, are not yet powerful enough to handle the complex calculations needed to produce top-quality music. Thus, I will only be using mine to sequence and put together my songs. I'd prefer some external processors and memory to do the difficult task of processing my sound. Still, don't be so quick to get rid of your software. I still have a few little tidbits, just to play around with. One advantage I have to say in software is the GUI. Still, I'm not too concerned with that.


Well I thought I'd share a little bit of info, see how people react. I always get the same arguments when I talk about hardware and software differences. I don't think one is better than the other. We need both, and both will always exist. Heck, if you didn't have hardware, you'd always be playing your synths with a mouse!! (even then you need hardware.. hehehe).

Cathos

dont expect too many replies (make me wrong)
because that is total misinformation.



you pretty much hit the nail there mr.

cathos wrote:

COmputers alone, ie PCs and such, are not yet powerful enough to handle the complex calculations needed to produce top-quality music. Hehe, probably a dumb move of sorts, I sold all of my soft synths, samplers and effects for hardware. I still don't have that much hardware yet (but I did have lots of software).

hardware and software have been combined in things like the TC Powercore, Mackie UAD-1, etc...

cathos wrote:

COmputers alone, ie PCs and such, are not yet powerful enough to handle the complex calculations needed to produce top-quality music. Thus, I will only be using mine to sequence and put together my songs.

Thanks for the good laugh. Like they say, ignorance is bliss, and it's obvious you're ignorant. When you do get a clue, come back and discuss the topic. That's one of the most uneducated statements I've heard on this board.

Devon

Hi cathos,

While I don't agree with some of what you mentioned there I do agree we need both and that a change is really good at times.

Myself, I am looking forward to Absynth 2 to complement R4, my SidStation,ER-1 and Prophecy.

Best of luck with your choice - hope you'll still hang around here @ KVR?

Cheers,

who gives a shi*?

i sold all my clothes and software and bought a harp look where that got me

BINGO..

cathos wrote:

I still don't have that much hardware yet (but I did have lots of softwareCathos

This is sort of like that old proverb: A bad workman blames his tools. Maybe consider looking at improving your skills instead of blaming it on your computer and vsti's.

cathos quoth Hehe, probably a dumb move of sorts,

Possibly. Possibly not.

I sold all of my soft synths, samplers and effects for hardware.

Your choice, but informed by what?

I still don't have that much hardware yet (but I did have lots of software). Among the different packages I owned were Kontakt, HALion, Sonic Synth, Voice Machine, Battery as well as a few other classics like Model-E and PPG (plus some others I won't continue on...).

You do know that you aren't actually allowed to sell on SonicSynth?

Apart from that, I reckon you'd provably need to spend a three or four grand at least to replace what you've just sold. Sampler, Vocoder, Drum Machine, Rompler, and a mainline synth or two? I hope its worth it to you.

Still, I'm glad I made the move. Although I think software is great, I'm the kind of musician who needs change.

Okay, I can understand how that might play, but in practical terms, its one helluva expensive retool.

I played with my software for over 4 years, made over 200 songs (all of which I worked on for hours) and finally decided to switch to hardware.

Most of that software list is under two years old though.

I'm looking into the future where hardware and software come together. Although they already are, since every module you buy has some software built in, I"m thinking more dedicated systems that use both hardware and software together.

Isnt this tautology? Most music hardware I'm aware of is dedicated, anyways. And most of it is DSP based; which is
is software and hardware together...

I've never really tried buying lots of keyboards and modules before so I thought I'd give it a whirl.

Your call, but an expensive whim.

Next on my list is an EMU synth of some kind, perhaps followed by a vintage mono analog synth (ie Pro One or something) and later on, a Triton Rack.

Call that 2 grand? What happens if it doesnt pan out? I certainly wish I had that much money to throw around like that.

COmputers alone, ie PCs and such, are not yet powerful enough to handle the complex calculations needed to produce top-quality music.

Absolutely and completely groundless, and completely incorrect.

I thought you said you had 200 songs you'd done without software? they're not music then?

Thus, I will only be using mine to sequence and put together my songs.

Again, your choice, but a misinformed one.

I'd prefer some external processors and memory to do the difficult task of processing my sound.

Again, more ignorance. There is nothing 'difficult' about processing audio that precludes software running on a general-purpose computer versus software running on dedicated hardware. General purpose processors are more than adequate for the task, as are the software developers who target these platforms.

Still, don't be so quick to get rid of your software.

I wont. For your Triton, Pro_one and EMU, I can have fifteen or twenty world-class synths and effects, and a grand in pocket change.

Well I thought I'd share a little bit of info, see how people react.

Im sure some people will react as though you're rather unsure of what you're talking about. Which is definitely the case with sdome statements you've made. The rest of it is personal opinion, albeit a somewhat strange reasoning. Buying new clothes wont give you style.

I always get the same arguments when I talk about hardware and software differences.

Possibly because you dnt have a clear handle on those differences.

I don't think one is better than the other.

I dont think milk is better than cheese, either.

We need both, and both will always exist. Heck, if you didn't have hardware, you'd always be playing your synths with a mouse!! (even then you need hardware.. hehehe).

Apart from data-entry devices, I dont need dedicated single-purpose hardware. I can use cheaper, general-purpose hardware . Thats my preference. I'm not so sure you have a preference as much as a need for novelty to spur your creativity. thats fine; I just prefer my novelty to come £20, £50 or £100 at a time, instead of £500, £1000 or £2000 at a time....

Incidentally, this board is aimed at users of software on general-purpose hardware. Guess what the predominant preference will be?

mwahh

s6000 has a mouse.. and keyboard option so does an 03d.
damn easier than staring into a shitty lcd screen for 14 hours.

finaly got my 2 17" flatron screens -)))

and with 2 phatboys and a kenton freak mousing is minimal.

running an Athlon 3000+ with 1gb ram and 8mb cache 240gb hard drives is pretty damn cool mr.

how long does it take to load a 300mb on your hardware sampler ?

who said. disc streaming -)))))

cathos wrote:

you'd always be playing your synths with a mouse!! (even then you need hardware.. hehehe). Cathos

cathos: your a simpleton. wtf are you on? i have hardware too, but with todays computers THEY can do everything. so quit spreading misinformation. WHat year are you in? 1998? even my 500 Mhz P3 DAW can accomplish what I need. what Are you using? a p166?. cmon, even if you dont have the fastest pc, you can always get a TC Powercore or UAD-1 card, excellent value, great quality plugs that beat any native ones.

hey cathos -

While I don't totally agree with your decision, and some of your comments are quite strange (ie. 'used 2 year old software for 4 years') and give me a slight whiff of trolling.. there's one thing I have to say:

You live in Ottawa? Damn, I wish you had posted (or if you did that I had seen it) some announcement about selling off your software. I'm in Ottawa too, and I probably would have bought a big pile of it from you.
If indeed that's what happened.

By the way, I hope you aren't spending money on hardware samplers. A well known DJ here in town is always gushing about his collection of hardware samplers (that he has spent a fortune on), and it seems like such a waste, as I can do more with my one copy of Kontakt then he can with his rack of AKAI's. Yet because he spent so damn much money, he refuses to believe it, and thinks that he must be 'the man' because he owns hardware samplers.

Kinda reminds me of people who think that they are 'the man' because they drive a Mustang. That thing hasn't seen a technological innovation in decades, damn it doesn't even have independant rear suspension. VW Rabbits in the early 80's has independant rear suspension. But people pay so much for their Mustang's and won't hear from anyone that this cash was wasted. Dude the Mustang has FAKE air intakes on the hood and in front of the rear wheels. FAKE, no holes in them at all. I would be ashamed to waste my money on this dinosaur car, or on a hardware sampler. At least buy good hardware synths like a Virus Indigo.

Anyway gotta get back to work...what an odd post you made. If you have more software to sell, please PM me, we can get together, and I'll even spring for the beer.

Cheers,

LG
Ottawa

I am 99% software, and this notion you can't make good tracks with software?????????.................are you sure your okay?


and my computer can handle anything I throw at it (so far)

yeah, it's a really retarded idea to get 50 emu z plane morphing filters. after all we've got so many equivalent tools.

[quote="topaz"]dont expect too many replies (make me wrong)
because that is total misinformation.

You guys are talking about money in a lot of your replies but have you seen how cheap hardware has gotten lately? Everybody's in such a rush to jump on the software bandwagon that you can get an E-mu esi2000 (w/ the golden filters & converters that everyone was drooling about just a year & a half ago) for less than $200 these days! Hell, I just got a tb-303 for $300, maybe the original owner figured he could get the same with Tau.

Cathos, if you MUST dump all your software then at least be a man & switch over to an Atari. No hassles, no crashes, no losing files...just a good, solid, midi-dedicated computer.

I'm using software 99% of the time. The other percent is a live recoring of such instrument as guitar, or sax, or voice. All the basic instruments are sounds from soft synths.
I also sold my triton because It was not getting used much. And to tell you the truth I don't miss it at all.

Even if I had a ton of money to throw away, I would still buy the best quality soft shynths, and maybee a few hardware synths, to play with.
The biggest strength of softsynths that they don't accupy more space, don't need stands, cables and more electricity for them. If you need one you just pull it up and it's there ready to use.

At this point I would never switch back to hardware.

I don't know, it sounds like Cathode had a bug up his ass to change, I understand that. I wouldn't sell my soft synths as I couldn't get close to replacing the sounds I'd lose going to hardware.

But that's me and most of the people here probably have similar feelings.

If it's a laptop or two hardware synths unfortunately it's going to be two hardware synths when it comes to gigging. We played with too many bands that had computers live and the always had problems If I can't have immediate backup I won't play live. I know that might sound like I'm a wanker but I think people that use higher technology without a way of working without it are wankers. You owe it to your audience to be able to play.

Maybe that's why Cathode did what he did, or he has no need for the values of using soft synths. It's true he won't be sucking up much CPU cycles. OTOH he won't be doing anything terribly creative in terms of programming hardware synths. In the end, it's his choice. Point out what you think is wrong but no reason to hammer on him even if you think he's a troll. imo, of course....

It's funny to see a lot of people getting totally pissed off by this topic...

I have been useing hardware synths for almost 20 years and softsynths for 3 years...actually not as much useing as testing. Main reason has been that many of them use so much CPU power. I have a 2.8GHz PC with 1 GB or ram...this should be enough This isn't a flexibel way to work. If someone says they can run a drumsynth and 12 softsynths on a 1GHz PC, they are just talkin BS. It's great to combine hardware and software, but software only...never.

There are a few softsynths that match the sound quality of hardware. Im talking about V-Station, Absynth, Reaktor 4 and ES2. There are some great free stuff also available like Drumatic.

I just cant see how you can sell all ya software and get even close to replacing with the same in hardware

Seems illogical to me.

I think you guys scared him off.

I use both as I'm sure many of us do. Someone said a poor carpenter blames his tools. (or something to that effect) Very true.

Hey, if there's someone out there that narrow minded, I have some "classic" hardware that I'm willing to sell.....for a price of course.

dano

Surprised to some intelligent answers to this post. You guys have no fucking sense of humor?

Yeah I sold my spectrum 69 computer because the sound was shit and it only had 16 kb memory (note kb not mb).

That didn't stop bill gates. He kept on grafting hard at making better software just in case somebody makes a better computer.

thats it
I've had it with all of you.
go out.get drunk.bang someone
and if you need a change for god's sake just move some furniture around in your living room.
and the next time one of you decides to make a move like this post it BEFORE you sell the software.

have a good weekend everybody.

Been there, done that. Now I'm drunk and can't get a bang.

Enjoy the weekend opia

-eric

I agree with Reinsant. Anyone out there know hardware drum sample player that includes kits comparable DKFH for under $300. I usually ad drums last, and at that point my softysnths are taxing the cpu.

JeffN

reinsant wrote:

Quote:

This isn't a flexibel way to work. If someone says they can run a drumsynth and 12 softsynths on a 1GHz PC, they are just talkin BS. It's great to combine hardware and software, but software only...never.

I suppose it depends on the way one works. By bouncing tracks to audio it is very possible to work with many tracks on a slower machine. Once freeze functions become more ubiquitous people will get used to working this way until machine speeds ramp up.

For example, I'm working on an aging 1GHz PIII but I use 100% softsynths for my music. I have an Alpha Juno 2 and an HR-16 drum machine but the former is used only as a controller and the latter is collecting dust in the closet. I do most of my composition and sequencing in Reason. It's easy enough on my machine to have an entire song running with effects. Then I import it into Cubase where I begin the "serious" programming and sound design. As I complete individual channels I bounce them to audio so I can play them back with the track I'm currently working on. This results in virtually no overhead for the processor. When I'm finished I render everything down to a WAV file for final mastering.

I don't see this as being any different than the way a lot of people work in real studios by laying down one track at a time. Sure you could have all your hardware synths going at the same time and recording it all but it's unrealistic to work this way and you lose a lot of control.

I can't wait until freeze is implemented in Cubase to make it easier to work with multiple tracks. In the mean time I'll have to explore other solutions such as Tracktion.

some of you ppl can really be rude

anyways.. cathos.. before firing.. I need to ask questions

where did you get the idea that computers are not at the level (performance wise) to "handle the complex calculations needed to produce top-quality music" ?

While I agree there are a few softsynths out there that eat cpu for a small snack.. you can easily work around this by dumping to wav...

anyways.. 64bit processors should be around the corner.. fsb is increasing steadily.. and hd's are getting larger/faster..

this time next year it will be a whole different ball game i suspect.

when 3-4 ghz 64bit processors are around.. and fsb is around 1 ghz.. I really dont think cpu eating softsynths will be much of an issue.... as it is they arent much of an issue today imo.

Now im not going to shout yell or scream at you... or even raise my voice.. I dont consider you an idiot either.. it was your personal choice to sell your software for hardware.. but it does (to me) seem like a spur-of-the-moment event. especially since computer performance is seemingly increasing by leaps and bounds every few months.

other bad spur of the moment events include the ones that get you behind the wheel of fancy sports cars (complete with car notes for years and years) when you were "just looking" .... or make you a daddy with someone you just met at a bar

hindsight is always 20/20 my friend.

I think (this is my opinion) that a combination of hardware and software is the most ideal... I think if I had 5 grand to spend on audio equipment.. I'd buy 2 decent 19" lcd screens.. some quality monitors.... an access virus indigo or C... a great midi controller.... and some more softsynths.

I dont think one is infinitely better than the other (hardware or software) but the two can work together.. in harmony

cathos: get used micro Q, the best bang for the buck in both soft and hard worlds. as to the rompler. get 2 gigs of ram and 2 sb live cards. load 1.5 giga of samples to ram directly and screw sample loading / browsing.

(opening files really gets on my nerve)

pfff, this is nothing. i sold my full suite of NI software and am now happily making music by playing the spoons and shaking a can full of beans, with the occaisional thigh-slap solo.

Cool, M. Got any MP3's? Sounds like my kind of groove.

I am still on 700 mhz celeron and I can run many soft synths and samplers at once. I think that it is worth it to learn how to tweak a bit. Otherwise you end up running a 2.8 gigahz box and actually complaining about cpu!!! WTF????
Track down, my brother! track it on down!
Just like we used to do, back in the good old days. Track it on down, and then do some even more cool shit to it.
Or don't, but you should still be able to make some "serious" music with anything over 500 mhz.
Then again, I am using windows XP with only 256 megs of SD ram... Would you take someone who does that seriously?

reinsant wrote:

If someone says they can run a drumsynth and 12 softsynths on a 1GHz PC, they are just talkin BS.

Actually I have a 1GHz PC and I belive I have been known to do that. Next time I load up my sequencer I'll try it.

The problem with your statement is there really is no clarification.

If you said - 12+ instances of Crystal (or some other CPU hog) then I'd probably agree.

However, synths don't have to take up much CPU at all these days.

MuZynth in Muzys is a synth/sampler and represents the basic patch management system of the sequencer. Therefore, if I can just run more than 12 tracks of audio through filters (so I can say it's 12 synths) I've already proven you wrong.

In any case, it's an interesting statement. May go back and experiment later.

I'm in the middle of selling all my hardware synths and am more than happy with the software synths I've got. Why? One word: fiddly! Hardware is so much more fiddly. After years of wasting time creating patches, saving them to a MIDI library, remembering to set it up the next day, etc., I'm so happy with software, where you can just do everything so easily. Why waste time when I can now just create music with a computer? Saving presets takes seconds instead of minutes. And there are so many software synths coming out every day I'm not worried about missing some sound that I could have gotten on one of my hardware synths. The number of presets for each software synth is so much greater than the corresponding hardware synth.

It's the control and the ability to make it happen faster. I'm selling my FS1r, Fizmo, and a dozen others (already sold my K5000). The only thing I'm keeping is my Kork Karma (some things you just can't sell).

Cathode,

I'm not going to pass any judgement on what you did - each person must find their own way - but I wonder if you have thought your decision through...

It's all very well having hardware (my studio is 50% hardware, but it's decreasing all the time) but it's not just as simple a matter as having a bunch of synths in order to make music. You need a lot of other stuff - mixing desk, outboard effects, midi interface and some sort of recording device.

Starting at the beginning - the mixing facilities inside most decent sequencers these days are equal to or outstrip those offered in the cheaper end of analogue or digital desks. In fact, I'd say you'd have to spend a lot of money to get a desk that clearly exceeds what you can do in cubase or logic, say, with a decent multi I/O soundcard. A small analogue desk from a decent manufacturer (e.g. allen & heath) may well have a better sound, but then you can kiss automation and total recall goodbye.

You face a very similar dilemma with regard to effects. Other than (possibly) reverb all other outboard generally sounds better in software: there's not a hardware delay (at any price IMHO) on the market that gets near Ohmboyz, for example. You can get boutique items (like space echoes, moogerfoogers or a sherman filterbank) or top of the line units (eventide, lexicon, TC, fairchild, manley) that are not available in software but there are ways of very easily integrating these into an (almost) all computer setup...

As for dynamics - I have found very few budget compressors sound better than software ones. Only the expensive ones REALLY make a difference. And if you're using them for tracking, you can only use them for one instrument at a time anyway.

Then - the synths themselves: you're talking about emus and tritons (mainly). These are digital synths and software synths do a very good job of exceeding their capabilities anyway. You might have megabytes of samples available in most hardware romplers but gigbaytes are possible with some of the VSTi romplers. Analogue synths are (still) a different story - as good as many of the current crop of VSTis are, they are still no replacement for *certain* hardware synths (there is no VSTi on the market that sounds like a Jupiter 8 or an MS-20). But I mean this in the way that I would say a viola is no replacement for a violin for certain sounds: both are capable of making sounds that can sound very similar, but each has their own special place. I love the tone of certain analogue synths so I will continue to keep them, but the day that someone releases a decent emulation, I will use that instead. BTW - there's an excellent emulation of the pro one for Creamware's cards. It's not 100% exact but it's still an incredibly good sounding synth.

Finally, recording. If you aren't going to use a computer you have to get a multitrack recorder. Anything decent is going to be expensive and you're still going to need to get it down to some sort of stereo device so that you can master it and record it to disk. And you're going to have to keep notes of all your setting if you ever want to recreate a mix for that occasion when the (only) master copy gets lost by your record label (not that it's ever happened to me, though ) .

Expenses, expenses, expenses. And there are many things, processor limitations nothwithstanding, that a computer-based setup does much better (or at least as well) than comparably priced hardware. Where hardware is head-and-shoulders better it can be integrated into a computer-recording setup pretty easily. You have flexibility with current computer-based systems that was entirely unheard of even five years ago.

Anyway good luck.

I can understand his point and maybe his frustration. There are some great soft synths with amazing sounds. Then you load up one of those sounds and notice that one patch is taking 50% of your CPU. You have to really work at getting all parts to play on soft synths with a single computer. Then you look over at your hardware and realize that the machine does not care which patch you call up, they all take the same power.

I still use a mix of hardware and software. It is really not that expensive to go with hardware. My latest purchases are

Emu Command Station - $600
Yamaha A5000 Sampler - $500
Yamaha DX200 - $200
Yamaha AN200 - $200

Throw in some money for memory and drives for the sampler and you are around the $2000 mark. I find my best balance using hardware for the base of the song, and using software for those parts I cannot afford to produce on hardware. Nothing in hardware compares to a good GigaStudio piano or orchestra. Nothing I can afford in hardware produces what I can get from z3ta+, Rhino, ABSynth or LoungeLizard. Why spend $3000 for a Hammond B3 or $900 for the Roland VK8M when you can get NI's B4 for $150. Just remember that DX200 is cheaper than FM7. And I have not found anything in the software world as intuative as the editor for the Nord Modular Rack.

Robert

Probably not the best place to slag off software, eh?

splattabreakz wrote:

who gives a shi*? i sold all my clothes and software and bought a harp look where that got me

HARP?!
I'd love a Harp right about now...You can't get it in this country! I especially miss the black & tans...best thing to drink in the winter...

Rabid wrote:

Yamaha AN200 - $200 Robert

i'm selling that actually (anyone interested ?). i got an1x instead.

reinsant quoth I have been useing hardware synths for almost 20 years and softsynths for 3 years... actually not as much useing as testing.

And? I got my first synth 18 years ago, and I started playing with computer-based synthesis back then as well.

I have a 2.8GHz PC with 1 GB or ram...this should be enough This isn't a flexibel way to work.

Well thats a non-sequiter and a half.

But I'd like to ask how a computer-based system in which the audio chain can be reconfigured, rerouted, bounced down and remangled withut the necessity of even touching a cable counts as 'not flexible'.

If I want to swap a sampled rhodes for a physically modelled one, and double it with an FM'd one, it takes about ten seconds.
If I want to run that through a Masrhall amp simulation, stick on a spring reverb, and a 4-way phaser, that takes me anothr ten. If I change my mind it takes 5 seconds to undo. How the hell is that less flexible?

If I want to run fifteen instances of the same piano, I can do it in realtime, without bouncing. How is that less flexible? If I want to run that through ten different delays and five reverbs, I can do it. How is that less flexible?


If someone says they can run a drumsynth and 12 softsynths on a 1GHz PC, they are just talkin BS.

If you say they can't, you're the one talking BS. But even if they could only run two out of twelve, it'd still be a hell of a lot cheaper, more flexible, and easier to manage than the equivalent option in hardware.

It's great to combine hardware and software, but software only...never.

Tripe.

a cathos, more power to you,everyones workflow is different and if working with more hardware is what will get your work more efficiently than good for you,i would say that in a way your making more progress than all these lab-rats in here that live for the next software update more than to make music.

good luck to ya.

I love my hardware synth...

It runs at 1.8 Ghz, has 512 MB of RAM, a 17 inch LCD display, and there's no shortage of easy to use expansion modules containing new sounds.

And if I get bored, I can play Quake 3 on it.

cron wrote:

I love my hardware synth... It runs at 1.8 Ghz, has 512 MB of RAM, a 17 inch LCD display, and there's no shortage of easy to use expansion modules containing new sounds.

I guess we got our synths from the same place... Mine is called Epox 8KHTA+, and it boasts a 19" CRT display with 32-bit colour, a full-scale QWERTY controller with hundreds of configurable buttons, a MOUSE-controller for easy and natural 2-d access to any parameter, 40 Gigabytes of ROM, 2 Mb cable connection to the internet, 24-bit converters - and the FREE modules: various drum synth modules, a sampler module, a beat box module, numerous V/A synth modules, modular synth modules (!!), an audio+midi sequencer module, a wave editor module, a synth building module, one singing monk and some great porn movies.

It was around 1700 € a year ago, but I can live with that because me and my lady can also use it as a TV, radio, word processor, image editor and earn our living by taking work home.

I love hardware. It just has to be versatile. It's 2003 anyway.

Spot on Pakana... Hardware rules!

The different sounds you can get out of a comp are excellent. I had a synth, they are fun and I wouldn't mind one if it was free, but I certainly don't miss hardware samplers.
Having said that; this thread is totally out of order, different strokes guys?
Best hardware I own is my guitar, although it could be my electric violin, not sure.

pretty much software all the way here
except a crappy old yamaha keyboard for input control


altho wish i had the money for all this hardware stuff,then i could afford to feed my family and buy new clothes and a car

cash like that should not be used on ill advised whims

Rabid wrote:

Just remember that DX200 is cheaper than FM7.

Perhaps, but how many instances of that DX200 can you have running at one time?

MEC wrote:

a cathos, more power to you,everyones workflow is different and if working with more hardware is what will get your work more efficiently than good for you,i would say that in a way your making more progress than all these lab-rats in here that live for the next software update more than to make music. good luck to ya.

i actually dont wait for new software updates
i do actually make music,albeit not great music
but if you check the link i below you will find many tunes all posted in the past year
also i have other bits and pieces floatin around


so another incorrect opinion laid to waste i believe

lbn wrote:

Rabid wrote: Just remember that DX200 is cheaper than FM7. Perhaps, but how many instances of that DX200 can you have running at one time?

Only one FM part, but it will also throw in a bass and a couple of rhythm parts with no CPU usage at all.

And real knobs are great. There is a templete to use it as a knob controller for FM7. I need to set that up but I don't always have the DX200 connected to my computer.

Robert