you've brought Graham Chapman from a Monty Python's skecth to my mind...I wasn't even going to enter into this topic, which is patently silly
Is the Minimonsta as good as Access Virus?
-
- KVRAF
- 1959 posts since 10 Aug, 2004 from Valencia, Spain.
-
- KVRian
- 1032 posts since 2 Aug, 2004
"I see no point in comparing a $1000-$2000 synth with a $200 one if it's value for money you're after."
Well, perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Virus, so this particular instance of the debate isn't that interesting to me, but it seems to me that there are 2 main ways of looking at the debate. One is to compare a $1500 piece of hardware with a piece of software running on a computer that runs other things, and determine that the hardware does more, and that it's a silly debate because the hardware also costs more.
The other, though, is to try to make a comparison of some of the factors that are relevant. For instance - the sound quality. If you have good converters on your sound card, why exactly should the Virus sound better? It's just a software program playing throught the Virus converters. So, I've never really heard a good argument as to why a comparison of sound quality isn't relevant. Obviously you're paying for the Virus hardware - there is no argument there, so why consider it part of the debate at all. There definitely are reasons to own a hardware synth, and if you want one, and it's interface, then you're probably going to want the Virus or some other hardware synth.
Similarly, it seems to me that a comparison of features is relevant. Why is it ridiculous to compare, say, the mod routings implemented in the Virus software, versus, say the mod routings implemented in a soft synth? And, in fact, the Virus has never struck me as being particularly extraordinary on that front, which is one reason why I always preferred Waldorf synths.
given that how one constructs a studio - mostly hardware synths, mostly software, what combination, and what advantages one finds in either, is an evolving discussion, I just don't see the debate in a general sense which compares the features and sound of hardware vs software synths to be silly.
Well, perhaps you're looking at it the wrong way. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the Virus, so this particular instance of the debate isn't that interesting to me, but it seems to me that there are 2 main ways of looking at the debate. One is to compare a $1500 piece of hardware with a piece of software running on a computer that runs other things, and determine that the hardware does more, and that it's a silly debate because the hardware also costs more.
The other, though, is to try to make a comparison of some of the factors that are relevant. For instance - the sound quality. If you have good converters on your sound card, why exactly should the Virus sound better? It's just a software program playing throught the Virus converters. So, I've never really heard a good argument as to why a comparison of sound quality isn't relevant. Obviously you're paying for the Virus hardware - there is no argument there, so why consider it part of the debate at all. There definitely are reasons to own a hardware synth, and if you want one, and it's interface, then you're probably going to want the Virus or some other hardware synth.
Similarly, it seems to me that a comparison of features is relevant. Why is it ridiculous to compare, say, the mod routings implemented in the Virus software, versus, say the mod routings implemented in a soft synth? And, in fact, the Virus has never struck me as being particularly extraordinary on that front, which is one reason why I always preferred Waldorf synths.
given that how one constructs a studio - mostly hardware synths, mostly software, what combination, and what advantages one finds in either, is an evolving discussion, I just don't see the debate in a general sense which compares the features and sound of hardware vs software synths to be silly.