How can I make my Vst's as "full" as hardware?

[Compyfox]

People say its a matter of opinion but im not buying it. I've always mixed ITB, but I've never heard a soft synth as "full" as hardware. Ever.

You haven't heard a Kurzweil K2000, Calvin Board, v1 with a half-broken DAC yet. Or a Yamaha MU-15. Both directly connected to a RME ADC.

I more than often need to apply drastic EQ in order to let these sounds fit better in uber-modern and uber-produced sounds scapes and samples.


Hardware can sound different, but I wouldn't say better. It's always a matter of the output, read for digital synths: the DAC of both the synth and your computer. And how well your synths are programmed of course.

[Quietinthedark]

I have not read the whole thread, so sorry if redundant...

I used to use hardware synths, I'm old, and I liked the way they sounded thru my guitar or bass rig.

But I'm almost all ITB now and a friend was asking me how I get my synth sounds sounding so organic.

Quite simply, the actual synth sound is buried under a wash of very short, i.e. tail-less reverb, with only early reflections.

and tube sim saturation.

I have tried soft synths that purport to have these features, but they have never been adequate.

So every synth sound goes thru verb and tube before it hits a buss or master.

of course, for me, that is all just adding back in the effect of the hardware amp and natural acoustics of a room. Otherwise, I've not noticed a dramatic difference, except that the software synths dont break.

[bobbybland]

The reason I brought up a hi end converter, is becuz it unmasks alot of what's there from the start. Alot of times a dev's soundcard or converter might be worse then what you've got.So they think they are hearing something beautiful,but in reality it's not,it could be thin sounding,whereas the dev thinks it's full..

My point is if you have nice set of monitors,converters, good room for checking mixes,your ahead of the game. You can hear correctly, that's everything in sound. Sometimes a bad eq can destroy a sound.


The best sounding software synths to my ears have been named in here imo.They will definitely stand up to any hardware I've ever heard.

[bobbybland]

FWIW. take the blind hearing test, you'd be suprised, how much placebo will affect your opinion.

without a blind test, your walking in circles.

[lfm]

I don't agree with this either. The vast majority of knowledge comes from universities and research institutions, and it's public or available for licensing.

Of coruse, there's place for improvements, but what I am watching in the most recent years is that there's a lot of independent programmers that are coming with far better algorhithms and acgieve far better results than the big companies. Of course, those also have the resources and the skills, but you see them acquiring smaller companies, and hiring independent developers - why do you think they do that? And why do you think that suddenly some fantastic products stop to be developed?

I recall here the story about the Oberheim Ob-MX, and what happened when the main developer broke with the company (and what happened to Korg Z1 after the main developer died - I just read about that yesterday in a forum right here on KVR). Sometimes, the power resides where we don't expect it to be.

Of course there are new hungry talents, forming companies, then bought by the biggies.

But reasoning is strange to me - why would the biggies still reuse so much old stuff if they aquired these new companies - as you seem to claim.

And that they would just buy smaller rookie companies, to stop competition - and then continue put out their old stuff and not use what they spent money on.

Companies are not better than sum of skills of employees.
I'm pretty sure they use it to implement in new products - but hardware versions with chips.

Why assume bigger companies consist of just idiots?
I have quite another view than you on this.

Have nothing happend since the D50 or DX7?

Among the most recent hardware synth I had was Clavia Nord Rack II, and it was fabulous sound I must say. But also read they use chips from Yamaha(if my memory is not all gone).

So the knowhow is based on Yamaha but added something new.

But software developers of VSTi have no chips - they have to build from scratch. I assume there is quite a bank of knowledge there too - but still - is it up to compete against 30 years of knowhow of the biggies.

And the big advantage with hardware is that you cannot download if from internet without paying for it. So why should the biggies even make software versions - it's a bad idea alltogether.

They implement their knowledge into chips and are then components of new products. And licensed to others like Clavia to use as well.

Piracy is really killing the clean software business for synths. It's a bad idea - compared to sell your knowledge to the biggies.

I guess that some that worked for the biggies quit and start their own busines - I don't know.

How about the semi hardware synths then - thinking UAD based ones etc - are there any?


Being tied to hardware the risc for piracy does not exist in the same way.

[ew]

Another important thing to realise is that is probably doesn't matter most of the time.

I've tested hardware vs software side by side many time. Hardware sounds different, and to my ears it sounds better.

But...

In a mix, it's almost always likely to be totally irrelevant.

This.

That being said, the earlier points raised about levels is valid. Also- what hardware are we talking about? Modern VA hardware synths and ROMplers are for the most part indistinguishable from software equivalents if you have decent DACs in your interface. Analog's a different subject, because you don't have band-limited oscillators. While we don't actually hear tones below 20 Hz and above 20k (at the best; most people (myself included)'s hearing rolls off a half octave or more below that), we definitely perceive higher and lower frequencies than the ones we actually hear. And, while you'll get the higher frequencies if your sampling rate's higher (a minimum of 88k), you'll be missing the subsonic frequencies, as almost every interface has a brickwall HPF at 20 Hz.

ew

[antto]

brickwall HPF? can you explain what is that?

i've had 3 soundcards so far, (two of them were integrated, huh) and they all have 1st order HPFs (aka simple RC HPFs)
my current one is at 1Hz (m-audio audiophile 2496)
my previous one was at 16Hz (via HD Audio Deck)

anyway.. such low frequencies do make an audiable difference if you intend to put things thru a nonlinearity (saturation/distortion)

on the subject: really try to make more music

burrying myself into such small details is what made me start many projects, and never finish any of them because they didn't quite sounded "pro enough" or i was afraid not to ruin them, or other silly reasons

now, i see it.. keep things simple, don't be too darn critical with yourself, learn your tools and don't be afraid to use them in weird ways as long as you get nice sounds out if it and have fun while doing it

[EvilDragon]

Brickwall HPF simply means a very steep HPF at the output, AFAIK.

[antto]

Brickwall HPF simply means a very steep HPF at the output, AFAIK.

i hope you're wrong.. steepness usually comes from higher order filters thus you most probably have ripples in the impulse response.. seriously, i think any sane DC-filter for audio-gear should be 1st order HPF and not "steep"

[ew]

Brickwall HPF simply means a very steep HPF at the output, AFAIK.

Yep.

ew

[antto]

can you list a few soundcards (or brands? ) which use such brickwall HPFs on their inputs/outputs?

[Jace-BeOS]

I moved to Mac OSX because of problems with running windows and music apps. Initially this was a great move to a much more stable system but over time i've noticed it has degraded. I also recently installed Windows 7 on my Macbook Pro and it runs more stable and faster than any version of Windows i've ever had. I have to say I think the reason is because it is a clean install, with just a few music apps. Not heaps of games and I don't use the internet on it. My verdict is that having your music apps on an install where you download torrents and continually add & delete new programs is detrimental to the health of your OS. I'm certainly not arguing with what you are saying, just noting that a more closed system is always going to work better.

You're right. I've moved to Mac similarly. But the registry on Windows doesn't exist in Mac OS X. There's no similarly monstrous central failure point. And yes, a closed system is exactly the point of hardware. Our computers are incapable of that. It's terribly impractical. Software demands Internet access (primarily to punish legal license holders). Updates need to be installed or no one supports their product when you call for help. Etc. The closest to a closed system we have is ios devices, and the geeks call that "dumb." Sigh.

Microsoft should dispose of the Windows registry but they just cannot comprehend the reality of basic engineering concepts (namely, simplicity). I'm equally unimpressed with the fractured landscape, legacy and hackish ethic present in Linux, and therefore am totally against it being an embedded OS.

[padillac]

I'm no expert, but in my experience running a signal hot into a hardware sampler or mixer does wonders.

[sophtrazor]

This thread has enlightened me so much

lets not for get the mastering process!

[fateamenabletochange]

Getting a vsti going with a fuller sound ??

If you have a spare Stereo out and stereo in; try some cheap hardware.

This is an RMX snippet, dry and then with a send to a Lexicon MX400 on a reverb/compression preset. Similar units are cheap second hand, probably cost less than equivalent software.

Dry https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9504745/stylus.dry.mp3

volume matched

MX400 send https://dl.dropbox.com/u/9504745/stylus.mx400.mp3