....We need an entire processor to run that amount of voices in something that sounds as good?

The AN1x happened to be the one i had, and the novation supernova, and i friggin LOVED my an1x.

Unless i am misunderstanding, they were using cpu's as such to generate their sounds 16 years ago

yet today in the age of quad i7's we would need the ENTIRE processor to get 64 voices out of say diva or synthix?

I am not sure i quite get it, and i am curious, and find the idea of stimulating debate about it interesting,

especially since my knowledge of synthesis itself has never been my strong point..

it could simply be that i am completely wrong and if so would be happy to hear that also.

I guess it's something Xils or URS could chime into and explain.

Even something like alchemy uses a ton of cpu for a lot of voices, as do many other soft synths.

were dedicated dsp's in older synths more powerful "per clock" per se?

Or were they not entirely digital??

no flames, then again there is no reason there should be.
Last edited by TheoM on Mon Sep 24, 2012 8:59 am; edited 2 times in total

No sure I understand your LOGIC or REASONing

They were entirely digital and ran on very, very primitive processors. You probably wouldn't even notice the amount of CPU a Virus, a AN1x, a JP-80x0 etc would take on a modern CPU.

The problem is that the analog emulation mania has gone nuts. I really had high hopes that it would end one day but it get's worse and worse instead.
The Nord Lead is still one of the best soundding VAs imo for example.

Sadly everything now needs 0df stuff and so on. That's cool and maybe even necessary if the synth has to sound as close to analog synths as possible but it's NOT (!!!!!!) necessary for a GOOD sound!

I already gave up ranting about this a long time ago though
The majority of people still want emulations and no new stuff, so I guess it will stay like that for a while.

Stuff like Zebra, Synthmaster and Diversion are the way to go imo.
The best example is Sean from ValhallaDSP. He knows a lot of stuff about the great stuff from the past but he only uses this knowledge to learn from it and to come up with unique concepts instead of completely emulating something.

Cheers
Dennis

Programmers were much better in the old days.
Music was better in the old days.
Musicians were better in the old days.

Oh wait ...




maybe I'm just getting old.

I f**king love my AN1x. Nothing in the VST world sounds quite like it.

They had way less power. They were just really good at making something useful with that puny amount of cycles. Technically synths today are way superior. Less aliasing, per sample processing,less noise and whathaveyou.

I suspect one reason is cultural. They became the benchmark by being used on pretty much everything for a while.

The Roland JP 8000 supersaw for example is a complete joke (though really clever) by today's standards but due to it being used in all the classics people really enjoy that sound.

Thanks for fantastic answers so far that's what i was hoping for!

Ok well i have to say, i prefer the AN1x sound to probably 80% of VA's! If i was well enough and could be bothered tracking i'd get one again, why oh why did i sell it (shut up before you say)

So the power wasn't there, but they sounded fantastic, so something like that COULD be done perfectly with not much CPU? but the reason today's stuff uses so much cpu is actually because we are now MORE fussy then we were then, and even though my ears tell me otherwise, todays synths are technically far superior.

Is this correct?

Convertors.

Actual electricity running through actual metal.


For the same reason, my JV1080 sounds better than my Omnisphere despite 20 years of progress and being programmed by the same dude.

oh my 2080 still sitting here safely (well somewhere else at a relatives well hidden lol)

i can get big money for that as a perfect working unit but i have kept it

And another interesting theory.. you believe the JV series sounds BETTER than omnisphere??



WOWOW that will be one for discussion


is it not possible for the sample recording process to capture this inherent sound exactly as the jv puts it out?

I suspect pure nostalgia is also a reason. If you try one today you might just balk at the amount of aliasing and other shortcuts they were forced to make.

Weren't we all much more productive 10-20 years ago ?

I doubt that is the reason. I had a contemporary Roland sampler (S750) and to me the ADA conversion was fairly neutral. What went in sounded pretty much the same coming out again.

It would be an interesting test to make,don't know if Roland made any modules with digital outputs around that era. The 2080 doesn't have it (i believe) but the 5080 did,no ?

I'll add one more reason.

Hardware VA's usually run largely on dedicated Digital Signal Processors (DSP chips). These are far less flexible than the General CPU's we have in our PC's but they are also much more efficient. You can compare it with the graphical power of a video card versus that of the CPU itself.

Of course that's only a small part of the explanation. Modern day CPU's easily crunch those old and not so old DSP's.

The JV 1080 is quite a good example of why some people prefer older tech. Take the string ensemble for example. They won't fool anyone believing you had a real orchestra at your disposal. Technically it's a pretty awful sound but it just sounds awesome!

Don't know what to call it but therein lies the explanation i believe.

There was a similar discussion over at teh slutz (surprise surprise)

Taking into account that the 1080 and Omnisphere have very similar sounds in them programmed by the same dude, I can't think of any other reason.

It's not the timbre's themselves, more the character of the sound.

Similarly, when I had a Virus Ti, the analogue outs sounded different (and to my ears nicer) than the USB audio.

I'm not an analogue/hardware purist by any stretch of the imagination, but there's clearly a difference.

+1
As I said, sometimes (always?) it's totally worth it to sacrifice realisim for awesomeness

Cheers
Dennis