Why do producers still use hardware ?

Anything about MUSIC but doesn't fit into the forums above.
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

masterhiggins wrote:I hear a lot of big talk regarding the superior sound of hardware. You know what would kill this thread pretty quickly? A blind test.

-Sam
Sure!

http://xhip.net/temp/match_this.mp3

Plain bandpass filter applied to PWM wave. Nothing else special going on here.

Now to do a blind test you'll probably need to match it at least close enough to satisfy a deaf test first. Not that this is impossible, but it is extremely difficult.

I'm able to reproduce it in software, but only approximating it of course. Given enough time and effort (and cpu power) it is easy to run the exact model. However actually producing an accurate model to run in the first place or coming up with an approximation that comes close enough in general to pass a blind test is not an easy task.

Urs said they're still working toward modeling a relative of this filter (KORG35) and described that it is extremely difficult to do so and may never be done. I'm not sure whether I know more about it myself or how much Urs may be aware, but I agree entirely with his assessment. I think however that it isn't a question of difficulty in producing a model alone but rather it's a question of the excessive amount of processing power required to accurately model this. Given one core per filter it is entirely possible with current high-end CPUs.

This is just an example of one case where it is obviously of great benefit to be running this particular filter as hardware rather than software. In software, regardless of where it is implemented it is likely to be unreasonably expensive. The electronics of the filter itself are worth only $5 and hundreds (thousands?) of these can be packed into a PC-sized box running on about 100-watts. In software you'd be burning in excess of that, worth $100s for one filter.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

justin3am wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
vurt wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:Can anyone tell me which Nine Inch Nails song use the Buchla synthesizer?
quite a few.
Sure, but which ones?
A lot of stuff on the Ghosts I-IV album used Alessandro's 200e (before Mr Reznor got his). I couldn't name specific tracks off hand, but I did notice the trademark "buchla bongo" and very 259e-ish drones (wavetable scanning and FM) on quite a few tracks.
And there's modular plinky-plonking all over Hesitation Marks, I would guess that it kicks off with a Buchla. I was just curious as to whether people are aware of how much of "Buchla" is digital with a capital D.

Post

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
justin3am wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
vurt wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:Can anyone tell me which Nine Inch Nails song use the Buchla synthesizer?
quite a few.
Sure, but which ones?
A lot of stuff on the Ghosts I-IV album used Alessandro's 200e (before Mr Reznor got his). I couldn't name specific tracks off hand, but I did notice the trademark "buchla bongo" and very 259e-ish drones (wavetable scanning and FM) on quite a few tracks.
And there's modular plinky-plonking all over Hesitation Marks, I would guess that it kicks off with a Buchla. I was just curious as to whether people are aware of how much of "Buchla" is digital with a capital D.
Keep in mind that 'digital' implies both time-axis and amplitude-axis quantization at some point which isn't always the case. Even so some times the implementation is quite a stretch from what is possible with our fixed-rate digital systems in software.

For example the amiga computer's "paula" audio chip runs at a variable rate divided down from a few mhz to avoid ever needing to do resampling. This is identical to if you ran at the same sample rate but played back the waveform with only integer length periods between each source sample. You might also think "8-bit samples, 8-bit output", but the paula uses PWM to get 6bit (64 levels) of amplitude modulation with a full 8-bit resolution regardless of amplitude.

The result is that aliases line up with existing harmonics and while you can find people to argue that this is a bad thing, in terms of what is audible it's far better than anti-aliasing filters as there is no over-shoot of the signal.

The same applies to the juno and other synthesizer oscillators which are clocked from a fully digital pulse wave at a sample rate of a few mhz and processed by analog filters. Assuming 3.6mhz (if i recall?) you'd need 75x oversample to approximate this in software.

(Although, using a technique like sinc filters (blep, etc) you get close enough to call it identical.)
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
justin3am wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
vurt wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:Can anyone tell me which Nine Inch Nails song use the Buchla synthesizer?
quite a few.
Sure, but which ones?
A lot of stuff on the Ghosts I-IV album used Alessandro's 200e (before Mr Reznor got his). I couldn't name specific tracks off hand, but I did notice the trademark "buchla bongo" and very 259e-ish drones (wavetable scanning and FM) on quite a few tracks.
And there's modular plinky-plonking all over Hesitation Marks, I would guess that it kicks off with a Buchla. I was just curious as to whether people are aware of how much of "Buchla" is digital with a capital D.
These days, I think modular synth nerds are more concerned about whether something comes in their format than if it's analog or digital. Most of the signal generators in my modular are digital… and not the smooth, clean Synth-Tech/Modcan style digital.

To anyone besides a synth nerd, a Buchla may as well be a spaceship console.

Post

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
justin3am wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
vurt wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:Can anyone tell me which Nine Inch Nails song use the Buchla synthesizer?
quite a few.
Sure, but which ones?
A lot of stuff on the Ghosts I-IV album used Alessandro's 200e (before Mr Reznor got his). I couldn't name specific tracks off hand, but I did notice the trademark "buchla bongo" and very 259e-ish drones (wavetable scanning and FM) on quite a few tracks.
And there's modular plinky-plonking all over Hesitation Marks, I would guess that it kicks off with a Buchla. I was just curious as to whether people are aware of how much of "Buchla" is digital with a capital D.
Yeah, I was thinking perhaps the mid-range sequence on "Copy of A".

The Buchla modules are pretty much all digital today except for the CV stuff, aren't they? It's simply modular and digital.

Post


Post

Right- how many trance producers use a real CS80?

Post

aciddose wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
justin3am wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
vurt wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:Can anyone tell me which Nine Inch Nails song use the Buchla synthesizer?
quite a few.
Sure, but which ones?
A lot of stuff on the Ghosts I-IV album used Alessandro's 200e (before Mr Reznor got his). I couldn't name specific tracks off hand, but I did notice the trademark "buchla bongo" and very 259e-ish drones (wavetable scanning and FM) on quite a few tracks.
And there's modular plinky-plonking all over Hesitation Marks, I would guess that it kicks off with a Buchla. I was just curious as to whether people are aware of how much of "Buchla" is digital with a capital D.
Keep in mind that 'digital' implies both time-axis and amplitude-axis quantization at some point which isn't always the case. Even so some times the implementation is quite a stretch from what is possible with our fixed-rate digital systems in software.

For example the amiga computer's "paula" audio chip runs at a variable rate divided down from a few mhz to avoid ever needing to do resampling. This is identical to if you ran at the same sample rate but played back the waveform with only integer length periods between each source sample. You might also think "8-bit samples, 8-bit output", but the paula uses PWM to get 6bit (64 levels) of amplitude modulation with a full 8-bit resolution regardless of amplitude.

The result is that aliases line up with existing harmonics and while you can find people to argue that this is a bad thing, in terms of what is audible it's far better than anti-aliasing filters as there is no over-shoot of the signal.

The same applies to the juno and other synthesizer oscillators which are clocked from a fully digital pulse wave at a sample rate of a few mhz and processed by analog filters. Assuming 3.6mhz (if i recall?) you'd need 75x oversample to approximate this in software.

(Although, using a technique like sinc filters (blep, etc) you get close enough to call it identical.)
Sure, but I was referring to the sound, in a poetic sense. I love Buchla sounds, but let's face it they are not "analog" in cliched Moog-to-tape-to-vinyl sense.

btw I love your technical posts, and as one long familiar with analog, I think xhip is uncannily similar to the particular analog stuff it is based on.

Post

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
aciddose wrote:...
Sure, but I was referring to the sound, in a poetic sense. I love Buchla sounds, but let's face it they are not "analog" in cliched Moog-to-tape-to-vinyl sense.

btw I love your technical posts, and as one long familiar with analog, I think xhip is uncannily similar to the particular analog stuff it is based on.
Hah!

I've always been of the opinion that the majority seem to be totally unaware of what any reasonable definition of "analog" would be.

In the early 90s it became a term to refer to subtractive synthesis, mostly influenced by the new "digital" synthesizers using wavetables, samples and other (DX-, D50, etc.)

I believe a vast, vast majority of people commenting on how "analog" a piece of software is have used either very few or no true analog synthesizers in their lives. I don't just mean briefly playing one in a music shop, but actually owning/borrowing and using one to compose at least one track.

I agree that Xhip does come a lot closer to certain synthesizers like the SH-, juno and jupiter series than many other pieces of software do, but I also believe it's very, very, very important to note (did I mention very?) that it was never based upon any particular synthesizer, nor was its goal ever to emulate anything whether "analog" or not.

When I first used software synthesizers back around 2000 I was absolutely horrified at the things these ex game-programmers had done and then had the gall to even associate these with analog subtractive synthesizers let alone actually claim they were "faithful reproductions of the famous analog ______ synthesizer."

Xhip was always motivated to accomplish three things:
  1. Provide a reasonable example of a subtractive synthesizer to compare against
  2. Solve the issues I was having with analog synthesizers while maintaining some of the benefits
  3. Put those making ridiculous outlandish claims about "virtual analog emulation" in their place, head-first in a toilet bowl
It was certainly never intended to be anything resembling analog.

Any reason it might come close is merely due to the fact it does things the right way. The way they were done for 20 years after circuit designers became familiar with subtractive synthesis. During the early 2000s we were sent back to the 1960s and 1970s, the "dark ages" of subtractive synthesis with alchemy, spritzing of holy water, leeches and so on.

I have been very, very glad to see things turn around significantly over the last three years. Now we can expect a new digital revolution as everyone becomes bored with subtractive synthesizers and wavetables, additive, "FM" (phase modulation), phase distortion and other various things become popular. All we need is to have them used in the latest yet to be "invented" genre.

Then I can snap up all those analogs on ebay for $15 like my first ms-10 :hihi:
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.

Post

I'm a software guy, but I have to be honest, if I ever want top notch plinky ploinky tweedle tweet sounds, I would use analogue for sure.
My other host is Bruce Forsyth

Post

Only ever got the chance to play a B3 through a Leslie once and at high volume (before someone's gig), but sitting there and hearing that is exactly why I would buy the combo if I had the money and not search for a software equivalent.

Post

I was fortunate to play at a small rehearsal studio that had a Leslie + Hammond. The guy who owned it showed up one night and played for all he was worth. Great player ... what a magic sound!
... space is the place ...

Post

robojam wrote:Only ever got the chance to play a B3 through a Leslie once and at high volume (before someone's gig), but sitting there and hearing that is exactly why I would buy the combo if I had the money and not search for a software equivalent.
This is true with electric guitars and amps as well - however, when recorded and played back at reasonable levels, none of the other hearing mechanisms (chest and stomach, hair on arms and legs, etc.) get triggered. It changes perception - in fact there's a psychophysical term for it: Cross-Modal response.

The double blind that would be needed would either remove the loud volume aspect of triggering other senses by simply recording output of software and hardware, or duplicate it by playback through systems which can trigger the other sensation modes.

I'm trying to ignore this thread as it really doesn't matter to me which are used if I like the music in the end, but this other niggly thing is still bothering me...

I still think we should ban the words 'producer' and 'producing' until someone is actually credited with the title on a piece of music that has generated sales.

If people want to use the title 'remixer' as in: "My name is Spiral-Down and I've been remixing artists songs for the last 6 months and I'm wondering what this thing called MIDI is...." I'm fine with that.

But to immediately call oneself a 'producer' without any actual production credits has co-opted the word to mean something entirely different than the long-understood meaning of the word.

I've been doing home recording, songwriting, mixing, etc. since the 80's, first using a TEAC reel-to-reel believe it or not. The first computer generated music I did was with a BASIC program invoking peek and poke statements on an IBM PC in about 1982 or 1983 if I recall correctly. Does that mean I've been 'Producing' since the 80's?

Post

SODDI wrote:The Buchla modules are pretty much all digital today except for the CV stuff, aren't they? It's simply modular and digital.
The 291e/292 (filters and Lowpass gates) are analog as are some other signal processors, the 261e's wave shaping section is analog. Most of the control system is digital with DA converters to spit out voltages, otherwise the preset system and control distribution wouldn't be possible. Maybe the 266e (Source of Uncertainty) and 281e (Quad Function Generator aka envelopes/LFOs) may be analog as well.

The lines are really blurred in 200e Buchla systems because you are dealing with audio signal and control voltage, but you also get complex internal routing and presets.

Post

ZenPunkHippy wrote:I was fortunate to play at a small rehearsal studio that had a Leslie + Hammond. The guy who owned it showed up one night and played for all he was worth. Great player ... what a magic sound!
I have had a similar experience, they really do sound incredible. It's tough to even capture in a recording.

Post Reply

Return to “Everything Else (Music related)”