Another FM video with cracked Sylenth. ...and Martin Garrix.
- KVRian
- 1146 posts since 24 Jul, 2008 from England
I think it's Sylenth's huge amount of available soundbanks that makes it attractive to a crack user. A quick google for 'Sylenth soundbank' and the 6th entry is a download of 180+ soundbanks in one download (crack site, naturally).
That, and it being an excellent synth. Sylenth1 is not "dead", at the very least in it's use.
That, and it being an excellent synth. Sylenth1 is not "dead", at the very least in it's use.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105846 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
Mushy Mushy wrote:Defamatory matevurt wrote:i didnt know that either tbh
i know were not allowed animated images, deflamatory, politcal or religous stuff. but i didnt know about quotes?
im an arsonist and a terrible speller.
- Banned
- 10196 posts since 12 Mar, 2012 from the Bavarian Alps to my feet and the globe around my head
I see what you did, you tried the wrong spell...vurt wrote:Mushy Mushy wrote:Defamatory matevurt wrote:i didnt know that either tbh
i know were not allowed animated images, deflamatory, politcal or religous stuff. but i didnt know about quotes?
im an arsonist and a terrible speller.
-
- Banned
- 18651 posts since 2 Oct, 2001 from England
- KVRAF
- 7397 posts since 20 Jul, 2004 from Clearwater
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
That is because you pick the most ridiculous possible tests where the outcome is likely to be entirely random.
If you pick a test with more obvious conditions such as a solo tone, unprocessed, that is more likely to have a statistically significant result.
With a fully processed track you're asking me to analyze the 1% of a sound that I can separate from the others to try to assess whether it may have been sourced from an entirely digital or entirely analog process.
Ultimately since I'm starting out with only 1% of the information about the sound, I'm only going to be at best 1% accurate.
If you pick a test with more obvious conditions such as a solo tone, unprocessed, that is more likely to have a statistically significant result.
With a fully processed track you're asking me to analyze the 1% of a sound that I can separate from the others to try to assess whether it may have been sourced from an entirely digital or entirely analog process.
Ultimately since I'm starting out with only 1% of the information about the sound, I'm only going to be at best 1% accurate.
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.
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.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105846 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
aciddose wrote:That is because you pick the most ridiculous possible tests where the outcome is likely to be entirely random.
If you pick a test with more obvious conditions such as a solo tone, unprocessed, that is more likely to have a statistically significant result.
With a fully processed track you're asking me to analyze the 1% of a sound that I can separate from the others to try to assess whether it may have been sourced from an entirely digital or entirely analog process.
Ultimately since I'm starting out with only 1% of the information about the sound, I'm only going to be at best 1% accurate.
what?
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
Apparently I was replying to a signature.
My point is still valid in any case regardless of the particular clip. It's a stupid, smart-ass signature for sure.
My point is still valid in any case regardless of the particular clip. It's a stupid, smart-ass signature for sure.
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.
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.
- KVRAF
- 7397 posts since 20 Jul, 2004 from Clearwater
Oh, you thought what I posted was in reference to my signature? Haha. Nope, not even close considering it's pretty obvious those are all VA sounds.
When using options such as Diva, Monark, TAL BassLine-101 and U-No-LX... now those are options people will fail to tell the difference between analog and plugin synths.
http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/SH ... ne-101.mp3
http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/ju ... arp_01.mp3
https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstrument ... comparison
When using options such as Diva, Monark, TAL BassLine-101 and U-No-LX... now those are options people will fail to tell the difference between analog and plugin synths.
http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/SH ... ne-101.mp3
http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/ju ... arp_01.mp3
https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstrument ... comparison
You are currently reading my signature.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105846 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass
ah ok, i wondered what the hell was going on.aciddose wrote:Apparently I was replying to a signature.
My point is still valid in any case regardless of the particular clip. It's a stupid, smart-ass signature for sure.
thought one of us had gone mad and was worried it was me
- KVRAF
- 12555 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
djanthonyw wrote:When using options such as Diva, Monark, TAL BassLine-101 and U-No-LX... now those are options people will fail to tell the difference between analog and plugin synths.
Derailing the thread a little bit here although as if this particular topic requires all that much further discussion anyway...
Those examples I see often attempting to compare the two are not really valid though. You can find a lot of cases where there is absolutely no difference between an analog vs. software subtractive. I don't just mean that you can't tell the difference, I mean there is literally no difference at all!
There are however cases which occur rather often in music when using especially mono/lead sounds, although also in polyphony/chords although less often in which the differences can be obvious.
It depends upon how you choose your tests and it is easy to pick either way: to make the difference obvious, or zero.
It doesn't make sense to use such comparisons as a general guide regarding how closely you can match any particular instrument as the complications involved in reproducing an identical sound in two different analog or two different software synthesizers can be more than 50% simply a process of getting the settings just perfect.
The other of course is about a matching implementation, getting a 12db brass sound with a 24db filter is simply not possible regardless of whether it is analog or software.
Most importantly, it depends upon the particular sound you choose to work with, some being exceedingly difficult to match even with two of the very same synthesizer and of course some being trivial.
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.
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.
-
- addled muppet weed
- 105846 posts since 26 Jan, 2003 from through the looking glass