Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Sascha Franck]

I totally believe in what Urs said. Even if I stated not being happy with amp sims yet, I'm sure we will see a more or less "perfect" emulation soon.
And we will all see large portions of studio hardware die, even in the most expensive studio (well, maybe they'll keep their Lexicons as doorstops).
Partially a sad thing. I mean, a lot of us (myself included) may like 50s-70s furniture (or cars) as well, even if a lot of it is highly impracticable. Maybe a loss of style.
But then, once he hardware has been totally overcome by software, there'll be no role models anymore. No further Moogs to be emulated. No Marshall rigs. No Lexicons. That's all done.

Great, because those will be the days when music software will start to develop its own aesthetics, paradigms and workflows, including absolutely kickass tactile interfaces (something we don't exactly see these days yet, motorized controllers and things such as Kore only being the very beginning of it all).
Finally the computer and its peripherals will make the next step in evolution, by becoming instruments of their own instead of only replacing and emulating what was there allready.
And I'm sure the lack of this (ok, there ARE some counter examples already) is responsible for a lot of people being put off by computers yet. But I'm sure this will change.
And even if I'm a rather old fart already, I will be able to enjoy these days because it's gonna happen very soon. In fact, it *is* already happening.

[Kingston]

However, time will come when computers are fast enough to render algorithms that i.e. make for truely self oscillating and fluid sounding filters like this.

Cheers,

Urs

[Stupid American Pig]

Lets just hope that computers can still run the intrusive copy protection that would go along with these uber algorithms

the filters sound great tho Urs...

[beej]

Urs what is that

He's just showing off...

[jmh]

Couldn't otherwise be arsed to participate in this (everything's been said and done already)... but

Urs that's the second pair of pants I'm cleaning because of you!

There isn't an emoticon that suits this situation.

To quote myself from irc: "I didn't know my soundcard could produce this high frequencies"

[deaf dunderkwac]

Adoption of a different pair of dimes is the crux of the issue here, imho.

I've watched the same thing happen in the mixing-side of hardware-vs.-software.
There has been a huge disparity for the last 10-15 years in mixers who would adapt to a digital audio console. Even now the 'preferred' audio console is a behemith thing with one switch-per-function.
The problem I have with digital consoles is that the manufacturers are/were basically just emulating their hardware (sometimes with little success).
Hardly any of their displays could approach the instantanous display/feedback of an analog console's settings.
This is an on-going problem.
I see a big need to approach the whole conception of mixing in a different way, but am either not smart enough or care enough to bother with it.
Adapting to a different way of working really brings out the worst in people. Most users 'mentally' balk at adopting to new things/concepts, especially if it varies far from what they learned when they first started.
The only way I can see around the issue is teaching the 'new' methods at the git-go.

As for the filter thingy, (cool, thanks for reminding me) big deal, you lose something for a couple of years. A whole lot of other techniques are still available.
I have an analogy to 'filter sounds'in multi-media (read: slides and film). In the days of slide-shows, what set my work apart from other designers was my use of different types of dissolve-rates on my images. Slides died about 20 years ago, yet the tools for my particular technique has only become available again in the last few years. I somehow managed to do acceptable work anyway.

another 2-cents worth. (perhaps less than that, even)

[Nuisances Sonores]

The only VST I may be interested in the forthcoming months is the Kontakt upgrade otherwise VSTi has to reach at least the quality of Vaz ( that is easy on the CPU by the way so ... ) and shine in brutal tweaks and also be sensitive to minute tweaks.

In the meantime I prefer to spend in Doepfer modules and DSP solutions ...

Hardware is surely dying, just ask Dave Smith ! and Waldorf is back ! pfft bunch of morons that go against the big trend !

[vista]

hhmmmm ....

and don't forget: there's still
the way from soft to hard...

...like Waldorf Attack...
...and perhaps a HGFortune-synth
in the near future...

[LiteOn]

Hi,

..... Hardware manufacturers are big companies. Thus they probably exist for shareholder value rather than for any sort of idealism. That's just like it is when you drown in debts. They probably have decision makers that care more about market than about customers (I mean, what costs an upgrade from SynthX to SynthX2 XT? Does it exist at all?). There's certainly an awful list of not so nice properties for hardware manufacturers as well.

well, yes, the point is they're "big" and not they do "hardware", they by historical chance just went big selling hardware. Apart from the "only-true-analogs-sound-and-feel-like-analogs" paradigm - which I agree is simply a matter of cpu performance and algorithms (Xhip!) - pure software will win in the middle run, for sure.
Why? Because hardware firms are big! Big players usually don't take risks. And even if, they do mostly take the route of calculated risk. The Andromeda A6 wasn't a risk - neither sonically nor economically - because at the time of product decision the analog-"hype" could indeed have been expected to persist long enough. The V-Synth might have been an "instrumental" one, but it wasn't a "real" one because it was/is backed up by the standard brigade of bread-and-butter instruments. Or take the Korg Radias: sure, it might have a unique sound, it might be welcomed by live performers. But is it innovative to provide as much as 6 (correct me if I'm wrong) modulation routings per patch? Is it innovative to have a wave shaper? Is it innovative to have inbuild drum samples? Is it innovative to be able to load and mangle samples? Is it innovative to have a seqencer controlling controllers? Does it mean any real progress to provide all that in conjunction with 24 voice polyphony and 30 they-are-OK-for-a-qick-demo effects? Is all that worth 1700 Euro? No! Is, for instance, Virsyn's Tera worth 300 Euro? Yes, because it is offering a vast amount of sound quality AND flexibility. Is Virsyn's Cantor worth 350 Euro? I don't know, but it's truly a "next step". To me all the big players are largely selling new wine in old bottles, period.

But: MS or Oracle became giants selling software. Are they still innovative in terms of actively pushing technology and concepts forward? Currently, I don't think so very much. They're largely reactive, finally listening to their users/customers (which is good when looked at isolated). NI was innovative, too. These old days they were conquering a new territory alone, founding a total new way of sound creation. But today they're facing the very same sort of problems characteristic of big players (besides the hardware Kore, is nothing more than a VST "host" system like EXT providing a fairly sophisticated patch management and combination system..).

So, hell yes, SIZE is what really matters...and software is in danger to loose in the long run, too.


cheers,
LiteOn

[beej]

But do the general public *really* want innovation? Anyone bought a Continuum? Would've bought Korg's *original* Oaysis?

For every guy I know who can program synths well, is really up on the market, knows which products are good and which aren't, and which demand some really sophisticated and modern features and have the desire and motivation to exploit them, I know a hundred that just like to flick through the presets, find stuff they like, and make music.

Yamaha, Korg and Roland survive, where the small companies that really understand what the more geeky of us want (Waldorf, Sequential, Hartmann etc etc) all have a hard time.

Whichever way it goes, it's a hard market to be successful in. Doesn't make me wanna crack open the DSP books and the IDE and start making my own...

[Urs]

Urs what is that

XMF - Cross Modulation Filter (internal name: Xtreme Mother f**ker), unfortunately it uses too much cpu to put into a usable plugin. The self oscillation at 15+ kHz can cause ear damage. However I think, with some extra work it can prove that, after 30 years, one could reproduce the interesting stuff in Oxygene Part II with digital means.

Urs

[Z3R0T0N1N]

But do the general public *really* want innovation? Anyone bought a Continuum? Would've bought Korg's *original* Oaysis?

i would have bought an Oasys (the original, DSP sound card / modular synth) if i had the money, and had known about it.

but your main point is taken.

not sure i am in total agreement, but your point is taken.

[LiteOn]

But do the general public *really* want innovation?

Certainly not only, just as I don't want to have Bratwurst every single lunch.

I think the "average general public customer" is the problem anyway..

[Funkybot]

This is a long thread and I haven't read all of it (I'm stopping at page 8 ), but a point that hasn't been brought up at all yet, is that the tide is slowly turning even among the hardcore-old-school-audiophiles. Just about every issue of Tape-Op in the last year and a half has had reviews of some of the better or more esoteric plug-ins and quite a few have gotten "wow" kind of responses. For instance, the PSP MasterQ was said to be on par with analog EQ's (probably costing 10 times as much), I think some Audio Damage stuff may have even been in at some point, etc. The same goes for places like Gearslutz, etc. Suddenly big name mastering engineers are saying, "hey, I'd use this" in reference to plug-ins.

Now I think the point of this thread is spot on, but I still want a good tape machine plug-in for some reason. I think this makes me somewhat guilty of buying into the hype of hardware. I have interned in a studio with tape (two Studer units, one of which formerly belonged to Sonic Youth) and it certainly colored the sound in a way I found pleasant especially when running hot (which seemed to work well on drums and guitar amps), so I don't think I'm entirely guilty, but I may be just fondly reminising and making it seem better than it actually was.

But if someone does model a tape machine properly, gimmie what I did like about it but skip the hiss, wow and flutter, and me having to spend hours biasing the damn machines before new projects. That's somewhere where software will always have a clear lead over hardware.

[Spaceman Sounds]

One thing that hardware does have over software..... if the hardware company goes bust you can still use the instrument. If the software company goes bust, how are you going to re authorize your software when you have to do a re format etc???