Your VSTi sounds analog? - OK then emulate this!

[IncarnateX]

Eh?

Man, you really are something Hakey.

If you ever need an ally in a flamewar or just want to piss somebody off, I am at your disposal. It will be an honor.

[trimph1]

all those and more, hence the ploral usage

Did you notice the "rock-troll"?

What is next? "Trance-troll"?

And no Bitwig Troll?

[Speakeasy]

here's another one!try to emulate this on softsynth...
and no external prosessing is allowed... the sound has to come from soft synth!..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UODsYm8euE

[hakey]

try to emulate this on softsynth...

Why?

[vurt]

[bmrzycki]

Pffft...synths emulating synths. Here's a real challenge!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHddRct4S_o#t=50s

[zerocrossing]

I 'll try to explain in a syllogism then:

1. Premise: Nothing to me beats the convenience of software
2. Second Premise: I love the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig
3. Conclusion: I want a piece of software that can emulate the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig.

I am not a master of logic but as far as I know my syllogisms, this argument should be valid. If not plz tell me the stage at which I fail.

Uh, the part where you post it on the internet, silly.

[Aubrey Lamont]

BTW i found it's odd that someone who currently is not using an analog synth is starting such a topic. And you mentioned you got analog synths stored somewhere at the roof (which you currently not use) so my question of posting demos is not totally absurd...

So the best solution would have been if you got the synth in the video yourself and used a plugin like e.g. Diva and post a comparison yourself to show your point.

I do not get you at all Ingo. Are you really confused that someone wants to be able to emulate a very specific piece of analog hardware unless he uses analog synths himself in general? If that was the case, why would anyone want to buy VSTi emulations and not the real thing in the first place?
I 'll try to explain in a syllogism then:

1. Premise: Nothing to me beats the convenience of software
2. Second Premise: I love the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig
3. Conclusion: I want a piece of software that can emulate the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig.

I am not a master of logic but as far as I know my syllogisms, this argument should be valid. If not plz tell me the stage at which I fail.

I am a master of logic.

The argument is not technically valid because the "I want..." clause (in the conclusion) cannot be found in either premise.

For the argument to be valid, there must be another premise stating something to the effect of, "If I love the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig, then I must want a piece of software that can emulate said sound character," and so forth.

But just because an argument is valid, doesn't make it sound (i.e., meaningful).

You asked.

[trimph1]

try to emulate this on softsynth...

Why?

No kidding.

[IncarnateX]

The argument is not technically valid because the "I want..." clause (in the conclusion) cannot be found in either premise.

For the argument to be valid, there must be another premise stating something to the effect of, "If I love the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig, then I must want a piece of software that can emulate said sound character," and so forth.

But just because an argument is valid, doesn't make it sound (i.e., meaningful).

You asked.

Yeah you are right, thank you, but at least there is no contradiction between conclusion and premises and that was point. And yes, an argument that is technically right can be based on lame premises that can not be proven in themselves and thus the argument maynot be sound. However, in one such case I actually believe it not to be so:

All who post at KVR are stupid
[name of member] post at KVR
[name of member] is stupid

Now try to convince me that the first premise fails.

[BBFG#]

[tomtoo]

The argument is not technically valid because the "I want..." clause (in the conclusion) cannot be found in either premise.

For the argument to be valid, there must be another premise stating something to the effect of, "If I love the sound character of Telemark and Leibzig, then I must want a piece of software that can emulate said sound character," and so forth.

But just because an argument is valid, doesn't make it sound (i.e., meaningful).

You asked.

Yeah you are right, thank you, but at least there is no contradiction between conclusion and premises and that was point. And yes, an argument that is technically right can be based on lame premises that can not be proven in themselves and thus the argument maynot be sound. However, in one such case I actually believe it not to be so:

All who post at KVR are stupid
[name of member] post at KVR
[name of member] is stupid

Now try to convince me that the first premise fails.

You posted on kvr
So you are stupid
What makes all you posted irrelevant.

Strange loop.

[BBFG#]

All who post at KVR are stupid
[name of member] post at KVR
[name of member] is stupid

Now try to convince me that the first premise fails.

The first premise is based on a cognitive distortion and therefore renders the statements that follow as equally irrational.

It fails by disputing the irrational thought; declaring an absolute where none exists.

[glokraw]

here's another one!try to emulate this on softsynth...
and no external prosessing is allowed... the sound has to come from soft synth!..

*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UODsYm8euE*

I could chum the bullfrogs down in the swamp,
and an hour later, they would put it to shame,
and syncopated, to boot

Can't tell if it's the guard, or an inmate at the controls.
Sure beats waterboarding...

[IncarnateX]

All who post at KVR are stupid
[name of member] post at KVR
[name of member] is stupid

Now try to convince me that the first premise fails.

The first premise is based on a cognitive distortion and therefore renders the statements that follow as equally irrational.

It fails by disputing the irrational thought declaring an absolute where there is none.

Yes, under normal conditions but not in this case I will still say. You will have to convince me that the first premise is based on a cognitive distortion and not a fact. Thus to show me a posting member who can be proven not to be stupid (and don't point to the fact that I am a member myself: I am about 20% more stupid than a piece of plywood and would confirm the premise). Now ain't that some challenge?