Hardware instrument appreciation thread

[kilon]

but hey, what about use with a proper control surface with volume sliders, pan pots, mute buttons and a jog button.
what about

Yes that could work , but that is not software is it. MIDI controllers tecnhical are hardware and thereotically and anyway you see it. But there are always two problems:

1) That your DAW may not fully support it
2) That it will still be slower than using and actuall hardware synthesizer. By slow I mean here clearly and only ergonomics. Not there are not any bad ergonimacal hard synths out there , but it is still is a safe bet to go for a hard synth if you need only one synth with very good ergonomics. I recently read an interview of a pro that was complaing about a well know controller.

The source is Future Music magazine issue 1990 August 2007 UK edition
The pro is DJ,remixer and label owner D.Ramirez who cliams about his Mackie control : " I bought this hoping it was going to be the answer to my prayers , but it's so ingrainted in me to use the mouse and keyboard, I never touch the thing. Although since I've got the new C4 extnder , it's more useful." page 59

well, the fact you had to explain what it was shows how much I miss it. but there are half a dozen ways I could do it. and far more flexibly and powerfully than it sounds like it is on the motif. that's the beaty of an open-ended system.

I never said it could not be do done in a soft platform , but it also important how quickly it can be done. Motif and other workstations win hands down , again because of their ergonomics , and the fact they do not force user through pontless menus and multi-steps to complete a task that is so simple. Soft is more flexible and thus more complex. There is nothing general or subjective about this . Also I am talking stirctly DAWs her and not external soft applications and plugins , I am talking what is included in the DAW.

Well thats a pretty bogus argument. You dont like the plugins in Live, so all hosts have worse effects than a motif?

I cannot say that since I have not tried all Hosts. But as I see it when you move from one host to another you gain and lose features . So it won't be any benefit to other Hosts to compare to Motif if the interface for example is more complex than Ableton Live (See Logic, Cubase, Pro Tools), or they do not offer layering of instruments or if they do not have a proper intergrated sampler (see again Live which sales its sampler as a separate add on) etc. Also to answer the next point is that doing things manualy like layering to doing things automatically cause the DAW offers the right tools , is what make the diffirence and seperates top-quality samplers and sequencers from mid-quality samplers and sequencers. Of course one can resort to external apps-plugins but that rises the price.

So in the end a purchase of a pc and a DAW is not enought to compete with a pro 4 year old workstation like MOTIF ES. You will be required to pay for an extra sampler and VST synth and pro Compressors, reverb, chorus, Tube simulators, AMP simulators, etc. etc. to emulate all this hardware. Take a loook at Motif Features and you will see what I am talking about.

Of course simple PC and DAw package is enought to get you started and help you make amazing music but , a pro workstation is in a diifirent league. Soft has is advantages of course (that is why I keep using it ) but a workstation is cheaper not because it offers more than the PC+DAW but also because it has everthing unified in one higly ergonomical interface and it does not lose its value as fast as PC and Software . Do the Math , it is simply cheaper.

With hard you purchase the damn thing and that is it , the end of story.

and if it doesnt do everything you need, you're stuck, and that is the end of the story. so, thats not really a good thing, in my book.

Well that is a valid argument but let me say two things:

1) If you buy a workstationa and does not do what you want , you can always resort to software using just freeware and it wont' cost you a thing. Problem solved. I am not against software and have not problems of using it.

But I have to argue here, that is not really difficult to compensate the limits of a MOTIF. Who says that you get stuck? Just visit www.motifator.com and see for yourself that people have already found out thousands of workarounds for its limitation and the cool thing is that you can still do it the easy eay. So you can actually compensate limitation using the same hardware , following a diffirent approach. Personally I do not see any limitation to

2) I prefer sacrificing features to sacrificing ergonomics. Because the first can be added more easily than the second , according to my experience. Most soft options have serious problem to their interface and the way they work. That is why when a DAW like Ableton Live comes out with good interface it gains popularity so rapidly. If Live was hardware I do think it would had more stiff competition in this area.

But I have to make some questions here? What feature are MOTIF really missing? How difficult and expensive is to compensate this lack of features? Is it really a lack of features or really a diffirent aproach ?

For example the lack of a big monitor is a minus but then is also a plus because that means with MOTIF I can work blindly without the need of any monitor, hence faster. Only because the interface of MOTIF is made so the user can work blindly.

The lack of a clear midi editing interface, forces me to improve my playing skills and thus work much faster in the future than I could with mouse and pc keyboard. 4 months have passed and I already use midi editing less and less. Is this a bad thing? Did a lose something ? IF still I want to corect a couple of thing that my playing skills won't be enough to correct in real time , I can always resort to midi editing which it may be worse than soft for its easy to use but it is not that bad at all.

I think that people really need to rethink the real advantages of soft and computer music and not try to exagerate. I respect soft DAWs, and soft in general and I am no evangelist of going all the way hardware. I still use soft for 10% of my music production and of course I find it usefull. But I do not believe that I can replace my MOTIF with a pc and some soft for the same price. 1700 euros.

[mkdr]

2) I prefer sacrificing features to sacrificing ergonomics. Because the first can be added more easily than the second , according to my experience.

YES! This is so true. This is no doubt coming from a real musician. I learned this myself when i changed from Cubase vst5 to SX. The ergonomics of SX compared to the earlier vst5 are horrific! Tho it does have alot of cool features that the vst5 lacks. I'm still thinking of going back to the oldie.

The lack of a clear midi editing interface, forces me to improve my playing skills and thus work much faster in the future than I could with mouse and pc keyboard. 4 months have passed and I already use midi editing less and less. Is this a bad thing? Did a lose something ? IF still I want to corect a couple of thing that my playing skills won't be enough to correct in real time , I can always resort to midi editing which it may be worse than soft for its easy to use but it is not that bad at all.

And i bet you can import the midi from your motif to some soft sequencer and edit away.. Very good point about the lack of midi editing. I admit i've lost some of my playing skills after using too much "step record"-mode and the mouse.

I think that people really need to rethink the real advantages of soft and computer music and not try to exagerate. I respect soft DAWs, and soft in general and I am no evangelist of going all the way hardware.

I totally agree on this too, altho i don't use any hw sequencer myself.

To summarize a bit, i think the hw sequencing workstations suite musicians better than engineers or hobbyists. If you are a serious player(hehe..) the hw things might work better with your workflow(just my opinion..). Korgs Trinitys and Tritons for example are very popular among these type of people.

[vurt]

i had bowed out but you speak even more bollocks.
real musicians prefer to get on and use whatever they have available rather than try to justify their own purchases to everyone else.
which is why ive spent the past few days making music with other musicians instead of worrying what interface with the music they were using.

[whyterabbyt]

I recently read an interview of a pro that was complaing about a well know controller.

or you could read that as being a pro singing the praises of the ease of use of a mouse.

I never said it could not be do done in a soft platform , but it also important how quickly it can be done.

no, its important you you how quickly it can be done. Its important to me how flexibly it can be done, and how much control I have over it.

Also I am talking stirctly DAWs her and not external soft applications and plugins , I am talking what is included in the DAW.

Which is, basically, deliberately ignoring the point of an open-ended system in order to try and define it as less capable.

But as I see it when you move from one host to another you gain and lose features .
So it won't be any benefit to other Hosts to compare to Motif if the interface for example is more complex than Ableton Live (See Logic, Cubase, Pro Tools), or they do not offer layering of instruments or if they do not have a proper intergrated sampler (see again Live which sales its sampler as a separate add on) etc.

Only if you focus on the features you consider important. I dont want 'an integrated sampler'. I want choice, and flexibility. A Motif doesnt give me any of that, at all. Its completely useless to me.

So in the end a purchase of a pc and a DAW is not enought to compete with a pro 4 year old workstation like MOTIF ES.

That's only your opinion, and your argument to back it up isn't compelling, based as it is entirely on statements of the nature of 'The motif does X and I like X and DAWs dont do X the same way so the motif is better'.

You will be required to pay for an extra sampler and VST synth and pro Compressors, reverb, chorus, Tube simulators, AMP simulators, etc. etc. to emulate all this hardware. Take a loook at Motif Features and you will see what I am talking about.

No you wont. You only need pay for what you want. In fact you wouldnt necessarily need to pay for anything extra, at all.

Of course simple PC and DAw package is enought to get you started and help you make amazing music but , a pro workstation is in a diifirent league.

Yup. A closed system, more efficient at some things, but generally more limited at others, with no possibility of changing that.

Soft has is advantages of course (that is why I keep using it ) but a workstation is cheaper not because it offers more than the PC+DAW but also because it has everthing unified in one higly ergonomical interface and it does not lose its value as fast as PC and Software . Do the Math , it is simply cheaper.

Clue : A higher resale value doesnt make something cheaper to buy.

Here's some maths for you though:

Motif ES £1200

SampleTank £230
Dimension Pro £145
Sonar Home Studio £75
CME UFE60 £125
LiveCut £35
Core2 Duo laptop £480
Edirol UA-4FX soundcard with built-in effects £100

Total : £1200

Note that I could have saved money on the soundcard, the keyboard, and just gone for one of the 'big name' sampler type packages. So no, the Motif isnt cheaper. As 'the Math' proves. The fact that you can get hold of some pretty capable freeware to add to that is just a bonus.

And dont try the 'the Motif would be cheaper second hand' line. If we're going for second-hand gear, you've already admitted PCs and software would be cheaper.

Well that is a valid argument but let me say two things:

1) If you buy a workstationa and does not do what you want , you can always resort to software using just freeware and it wont' cost you a thing. Problem solved. I am not against software and have not problems of using it

So your workstation is better because if its not good enough then you can use free software to boost its capabilities?

And yet somehow the fact that you could do that with a DAW like Live if you dont like its effects somehow completely escapes your logic.

But I have to argue here, that is not really difficult to compensate the limits of a MOTIF.

And yet you complain when I say its not really difficult to compensate for the limitations of a DAW.

2) I prefer sacrificing features to sacrificing ergonomics. Because the first can be added more easily than the second , according to my experience.

Since your means of adding features to a Motif is actually to add software to your DAW, then you kind of proved my point, not yours.

Most soft options have serious problem to their interface and the way they work.

Not as far as Im concerned. Why do you assume your preferences are universal?

But I have to make some questions here? What feature are MOTIF really missing? How difficult and expensive is to compensate this lack of features? Is it really a lack of features or really a diffirent aproach ?

Well, when you're being defensive about your motif, you say its a difference. However when you're claiming its a better solution than a DAW, you talk about the DAW having a lack of features. So you're being disingenuous, really.

I think that people really need to rethink the real advantages of soft and computer music and not try to exagerate.

Its a pity you can't seem to take that advice yourself. Maybe you should try it without the entirely self-centric perspective.

[whyterabbyt]

i had bowed out but you speak even more bollocks.
real musicians prefer to get on and use whatever they have available rather than try to justify their own purchases to everyone else.
which is why ive spent the past few days making music with other musicians instead of worrying what interface with the music they were using.

you forget, vurt. only keyboard players who use workstations are 'real musicians'. if anyone makes music any other way, using any other instruments, then it clearly cant be 'real music'. everyone knows guitarists, drummers, and singers dont make real music anyway, they're all just hobbyists and engineers.

just as well some of those 'real musicians' have started making software though, so we know how much they must know about how software on a PC is always worse than software on a hardware synth.

[jupiter8]

So a hw synth is superiour to a DAW because you can use it with a DAW and not the other way around ?

[vurt]

boy do i wish i hadnt been suckered into that violin
it was in a music shop, i had every right to assume it was an instrument

[exonerate]

for some reason i've just wasted half an hour reading this thread, so i may as well post.

i don't get this hardware sounds better than software, what hardware? and what software?

this would imply that what is being said is anything in a box that use's knobs to control is better than something else in a box that is controlled with a mouse. it doesn't make any sense digital is digital, and a hardware synth that uses a dedicated chip to process sound is in effect no different to a PC CPU, and will not magically make it sound better.(because it a dedicated chip)

it's the algorithims and implementation that make the sound not the chip or the electronics that run it. a PC is hardware so whats the difference? i don't get it.

put it this way as far as i'm concerned if you implemented the exact same algorithims and set up of a digital hardware synth on a pc they would sound exactly the same. i can't see any reason at all why they would not, unless someone can enlighten me?

cheers

exo

This thread isnt here because math on a chip works different than math on another chip. It's here because some think that hw synths sound better and some dont. Nothing to do with "how things could be" or "how processor architecture doesn't change the output", etc. Yes quite probably it's the algos and implementation that make the difference. That still doesn't change the fact hw synths do sound different(way better? or worse?) whan sw synths. That's it. Nothing more. And that's what needs to be discussed here as people seem to have pretty biased beliefs. The point of all this is not to decide on wether the opinion i have is right or wrong, but to keep the "related" conversation here(and not start flaming on every possible thread that don't have anything to do with hw synths). Venturing off to mixing and effects is kinda off-topic, but there seems to be good examples of hw stuff sounding quite nice too. This should still be about synths.

Cheers

ok, so the short version of what i was saying is, 'it's all the same'

I'll be honest I've not used much hardware, but i do own a novation xiosynth which is a hardware synth and midi controller. i bought because i wanted a midi keyboard and it's also very cheap with an included synthesis engine.

i don't use the in built synthesiser because i have soft synths that sound alot better. so i only use it as a midi keyboard.

and this is the problem with your question all hardware doesn't sound better than all software, it could only be judged on an individual basis, and then it's down to the individual.

so theres is no universal 'hardware sounds better than software'
or 'software sounds better than hardware', so this is why i voted it's all the same, because it is.

now if you where comparing a hardware version of a synth with the soft version, with audio examples, i might be able to say 'I' think that the hardware one sounds better.

but as it is the question is too loosely defined and encompasses basically every synth ever made, so to me the question is pointless, but again me thinking it pointless is only my opinion.

and as it stands for me i prefer software because i find it easier to work with, and to my ears it sounds no worst than hardware.

i think that maybe the thing with hardware is the physical and emotional connection people have with it that may affect there perception of the sound?

anyway I'm 100% certain that any sound from a hardware synth could be recreated in software. and if there was a difference it would be down to some flaw in the implementation and nothing to do with the fact the sound was recreated on a computer.

if i sound like I'm trying to ridicule your thread, I'm not . it's just these sort of questions grind on me a bit, firstly because there pointless and sure to start a shit fest of flaming ect..and secondly i feel pissed off with my self for reading it all and then feeling compelled to post.

cheers


exo

[mkdr]

but as it is the question is too loosely defined and encompasses basically every synth ever made, so to me the question is pointless, but again me thinking it pointless is only my opinion.

Well i thought we could have statements like "a car is faster than a horse" without having to be overly precise on what that means. What car? What if it has no gas? Maybe it's lost it's tires etc nonsense.. I understand your point, and maybe i should redefine what i ment. "Good hw synths sound better than good sw synths". Better?

Also if you wan't to measure best sw synths against worst hw synths, shouldn't it work the other way too? Should we also define what is good and what is bad? Over complicating things wont change anything. It will just leave us walking in circles wondering what it was that was actually the point here.


Well anyway, that was just my opinion. It's good that you bring out yours.. in a civilised manner. Which is quite different from other people hanging around here.. I'm actually very amazed how long these kids keep it up. Shouldn't they get kicked for behaviour like that? Oh well, i'm not that much into forums so i don't know how these things work. Maybe I'll just have to wait a few years, i'm sure they'll grow up... I mean c'mon.. Like these overly dumb remarks

you forget, vurt. only keyboard players who use workstations are 'real musicians'. if anyone makes music any other way, using any other instruments, then it clearly cant be 'real music'. everyone knows guitarists, drummers, and singers dont make real music anyway, they're all just hobbyists and engineers.

just as well some of those 'real musicians' have started making software though, so we know how much they must know about how software on a PC is always worse than software on a hardware synth.

Does this person seriously understand english? We were talking about "not sacrificing ergonomics". Erconomics are very important when playing an instrument(ANY INSTRUMENT ) If you are serious about playing you will appreciate your working conditions.

Ah.. im out of this mess (again)

[living sounds]

>> I'll be honest I've not used much hardware
>> anyway I'm 100% certain that any sound from a hardware synth could be recreated in software.

Sloppy argumenting. And also a bad combination, to be 100% sure - while lacking experience.

Plus, it's beside the question. It's not about what could theoretically be done, but what is availible now. To me at least it's about making music, not debating technical possibilities.

No real doubt hardware will be obsolete one day (if development is continued). But right now, the software emulations are a pale image of the real thing (analog synths, FM synths, outboard - see my post above).

[kilon]

no, its important you you how quickly it can be done. Its important to me how flexibly it can be done, and how much control I have over it.

Are you actually saying that for the average musician flexibility is more important than speed? Why you believe that Motif does not a significant amount of flexibility than its equivelant? When you are saying that you need control what you mean exactly? Why and where Motif has less control?

I am not try to pen a debate her because I knwo that we can debate untill "kingdome come" . But All I can say is , yes soft is very flexible and offer a enormous amount of control , but so does the MOTIF.

Clue : A higher resale value doesnt make something cheaper to buy.

No but but it makes it cheaper or if you want .

Here's some maths of your though:

Motif ES £1200

SampleTank £230---> Nice choice
Dimension Pro £145---->Nice
Sonar Home Studio £75----> Good
CME UFE60 £125 --->is this the midi controller? I could not find it with google.
LiveCut £35-----> nice choice
Core2 Duo laptop £480 ----> excellent
Edirol UA-4FX soundcard with built-in effects £100------->14 types of powerful, easy-to-use onboard effects, including COSM® tube mic-preamp simulator

Now here is a big problem , because MOTIF offers many many times more effects , take a look :

Reverb x 20 types, Chorus x 49 types, Insertion (A, B) x 116 types x 8 blocks, Master Effect x 8 types, Master Equalizer (5 bands), Part EQ (3 bands, stereo), Plug-in Insertion (available when the PLG100-VH has been installed to slot 1)---> and most of them are considered top-notch.

Total : more than £1200

Bare in mind that the keyborad is one of the best in the market with semi-weighted key , so a cheap replacement won't do.

Going Freeware is not a good option as most freeware is a cut-down version of commercial products and there are only a handful of freeware that offers something unique. But also I agree that a lot of these features could be replaced with freeware and that could cut down the cost.

Also using alot of diffirent soft to compensate for your DAWs limitation , makes a very fragmantated interface prone to crashes and instabilities. What I love about Motif is that I do not have to open the manual since everything follows the same logic , that also helps me while playing making me able to access features and change parameters on the fly.

Also I always consider the resale value , sorry if that is unfair to you, but if the instrument can return me back in 5 years more than 1/3 of its value it is for me a huge plus because I know that soft and pc hardware is rapidly losing value each day.

So following YOUR MATH my choice is actually alot cheaper.

I am not justifying my purchase here , as a matter of fact It took me one month to justify it before purchasing as 1700 Euros is no small price to me, it was a serious investement and I wanted to make sure that my money would be in the best place.

I am not saying in any way that a Soft Daw or soft in general is limited, I am not questioning the true value of freeware, or commercial VST plugins. As I have said already I fully suport soft and I would not advice someone to go "all-hard" . I am not questioning the the usefulness of open-architecture of soft. I have been using 9 years 100% soft for music production and I am also using computers for programming, music producion, 3d graphics almost 20 years now. I think I fully understand and appreciate the benefits of software.

I have a a question though why MOTIF is so closed ? To me it never seemed closed , "sefcontained" maybe, "independent" maybe , but never closed. As A matter of fact it fully support the big soft DAWS which means that you can directly access its interface from inside the soft DAW of your choice . It can be usb connected with your computer, it supports flash disk, It can load midi and wav files, it has a wealth of software utilities which connect by usb with the instrument and controll all its features. It also very easy to use as the "central neural system" as it can control any hardware . Really I do not see your point!!!

[whyterabbyt]

Ao you actually saying that for the average musician flexibility is more important than speed?

Are you actually saying that for the average musician speed is more important than everything else?

Now here is a big problem , because MOTIF offers many many times more effects , take a look :

Reverb x 20 types, Chorus x 49 types, Insertion (A, B) x 116 types x 8 blocks, Master Effect x 8 types, Master Equalizer (5 bands), Part EQ (3 bands, stereo), Plug-in Insertion (available when the PLG100-VH has been installed to slot 1)---> and most of them are considered top-notch.

Total : more than £1200

Yes, your total on the motif will go up when you start plugging in extra boards. So you need to pay more than £1200 after all?

And no, its not a 'big problem' that the motif has more effects. Not that you probably know how many there are between Sonar, Dimension Pro and Sampletank. In hardware, things like 'short reverb' and 'medium reverb' typially get listed as separate effects, whereas in plugins they dont. Anyways, there's a limit on how many you can use, isnt there? Two inserts or something? Sampletank lets you use 5, per channel, for example.

I mean, if we're going to take some random feature and use that as a metric of being better, then lets point out that the Motif has, what, six minutes of recording time at 44Khz?
And it can only sample at 20-bit resolution. Doesnt it only use 16-bit samples in the first place? Gee, only 16-part multitimbrailty, thats a bit low. Cant use 5 inserts per voice? Blah blah blah.

etc etc

Bare in mind that the keyborad is one of the best in the market with semi-weighted key , so a cheap replacement won't do.

The CME has a good reputation, and is semi-weighted I believe.

Also I always consider the resale value , sorry if that is unfair to you, but if the instrument can return me back in 5 years more than 1/3 of its value it is for me a huge plus because I know that soft and pc hardware is rapidly losing value each day.

right now a 2-month old Motif ES6 is being sold for £900 on ebay. New, its £1200. That means its lost £300 in two months.

But hell, if you think the resale price of something is such a compellingly good reason why its a better musical tool, then you go ahead.

So following YOUR MATH my choice is actually alot cheaper.

erm, no. saying something over and over doesnt make it any truer. and ive already told you I could lower the price of the DAW easily.

I am not justifying my purchase here , as a matter of fact It took me one month to justify it before purchasing as 1700 Euros is no small price to me, it was a serious investement and I wanted to make sure that my money would be in the best place.

im sure it was. for you.

I am not saying in any way that a Soft Daw or soft in general is limited, I am not questioning the true value of freeware, or commercial VST plugins. As I have said already I fully suport soft and I would not advice someone to go "all-hard" . I am not questioning the the usefulness of open-architecture of soft. I have been using 9 years 100% soft for music production and I am also using computers for programming, music producion, 3d graphics almost 20 years now. I think I fully understand and appreciate the benefits of software.

funny, though, that your own comments seem to contradict that.

I have a a question though why MOTIF is so closed ? To me it never seemed closed , "sefcontained" maybe, "independent" maybe , but never closed.

bcause you cant do anything more with it than already exists.

As A matter of fact it fully support the big soft DAWS which means that you can directly access its interface from inside the soft DAW of your choice . It can be usb connected with your computer, it supports flash disk, It can load midi and wav files, it has a wealth of software utilities which connect by usb with the instrument and controll all its features. It also very easy to use as the "central neural system" as it can control any hardware . Really I do not see your point!!!

how do you give it a 119th effect type? cant? its closed, then. how do you get it to do vocal alignment, or pitch-shifting? cant add that? its closed then. how do you get it to record 8 tracks of audio at once? cant make it do that? its closed. stuck with the onboard reverbs and want something better? cant? its closed.

[kilon]

Are you actually saying that for the average musician speed is more important than everything else?

No I am not

Yes, your total on the motif will go up when you start plugging in extra boards. So you need to pay more than £1200 after all?

No I do not need extra boards. As I said MOTIF is "self -contained".

And no, its not a 'big problem' that the motif has more effects. Not that you probably know how many there are between Sonar, Dimension Pro and Sampletank. In hardware, things like 'short reverb' and 'medium reverb' typially get listed as separate effects, whereas in plugins they dont. Anyways, there's a limit on how many you can use, isnt there? Two inserts or something? Sampletank lets you use 5, per channel, for example.

Actually the limit in Motif is only thereotical .Motif limits use of 2 effects for the first 8 tracks, plus a 1 global chorus, 1 global reverd and 1 global EQ. Also each layer in a track (4 layers per track ) has an eq and one eq for the whole track. Those limitations can be easily compensated with resample, which will let use midi contrary to freeze or bounce fuction in soft DAWs. So you can use as many effects as you want. So in practice there is no limitation you can have as many effects as you want and continue work with midi editing.

I mean, if we're going to take some random feature and use that as a metric of being better, then lets point out that the Motif has, what, six minutes of recording time at 44Khz?
And it can only sample at 20-bit resolution. Doesnt it only use 16-bit samples in the first place? Gee, only 16-part multitimbrailty, thats a bit low. Cant use 5 inserts per voice? Blah blah blah.

etc etc

Those limitation mean nothing. It is only 2 ins per voice +plus global effects+eq etc. . All these can be fixed quite easily if you have read the manual and know your instrument. It is not difficult to overcome those so called "limitations". Agian I do not see your point!

The CME has a good reputation, and is semi-weighted I believe.

good . Then it is ok.

right now a 2-month old Motif ES6 is being sold for £900 on ebay. New, its £1200. That means its lost £300 in two months.

Ok I agree , care to compare a 5 year old use pc+soft to a 5 year old used Motif. Which one is easier to sell?

But hell, if you think the resale price of something is such a compellingly good reason why its a better musical tool, then you go ahead.

Sorry if I am not as rich as you are .


Your next arguments did not make any sense to me .

As A matter of fact it fully support the big soft DAWS which means that you can directly access its interface from inside the soft DAW of your choice . It can be usb connected with your computer, it supports flash disk, It can load midi and wav files, it has a wealth of software utilities which connect by usb with the instrument and controll all its features. It also very easy to use as the "central neural system" as it can control any hardware . Really I do not see your point!!!

how do you give it a 119th effect type? cant? its closed, then. how do you get it to do vocal alignment, or pitch-shifting? cant add that? its closed then. how do you get it to record 8 tracks of audio at once? cant make it do that? its closed. stuck with the onboard reverbs and want something better? cant? its closed.[/quote]

Oh Ok!!! why I think that you are so desperate to prove your point? Maybe there is no point

So you actually saying that a DAW is not a closed sytem? You can add effects to add effect to a soft DAW? how?

The only way I know is through VST plugins which are seperate soft (external applications) , that is what you propably mean by open architecture. But that is not anything fancy , I can do the same with MOTIF, I repeat myself once again

I can "plug" my motif to a soft DAW as you would plug to VST , I can connect external gear bla blah blah

I cannot change its internal the same way you can't change the internals of a DAW or a VST except if you use a modular VST like reaktor but that is something diffirent. I experience none of your so called "limitations" , I experience none of your so called "closed architecture"

Could you stop basing yourself on theories and bring me some practical examples?

[whyterabbyt]

No I am not

Glad to hear it.

No I do not need extra boards. As I said MOTIF is "self -contained".

then why mention what could you could achieve something if only you had the extra board?

Actually the limit in Motif is only thereotical .Motif limits use of 2 effects for the first 8 tracks, plus a 1 global chorus, 1 global reverd and 1 global EQ. Also each layer in a track (4 layers per track ) has an eq and one eq for the whole track. Those limitations can be easily compensated with resample, which will let use midi contrary to freeze or bounce fuction in soft DAWs. So you can use as many effects as you want. So in practice there is no limitation you can have as many effects as you want and continue work with midi editing.

Not theoretical in realtime, then. Well if we're talking about what can be done outside realtime, then DAWS have even less limitations.
But really, you're moving the goalposts there. Again.

Those limitation mean nothing.

Neither do the ones you keep quoting. Are you getting the point yet?

It is not difficult to overcome those so called "limitations". Agian I do not see your point!

My point is that you keep claiming DAWs have specific limitations, but want to ignore the fact that they can be overcome. But when provided with similar kinds of limitations in your Motif, you conveniently ignore them with sweeping dismissals.
In other words, you treat the different sides of the argument differently; you do not apply the same standards. Thats dishonest, basically.

Ok I agree , care to compare a 5 year old use pc+soft to a 5 year old used Motif. Which one is easier to sell?

which one is cheaper to upgrade? In five years a £500 PC will probably be at least 4-6 times more powerful than the Core2 Duo I could buy today for the same money. And a £200 PC will easily be twice as fast.
So its not really 'which will be easier to sell', its 'which will be cheaper to buy'.

Sorry if I am not as rich as you are .

Funny. Having no money and not being able to afford hardware at all is why I started with software. I wasnt 'rich' enough to afford a Motif. But I had a cheap self-built PC, and that and £200 on a DAW and a boatload of freeware was enough to allow me to create music.
Where's the £200 workstation?
In fact, thanks to my mortgage, I couldnt afford a £1200 workstation now, either. Would only cost me about £300 to double to horsepower of my DAW though. Not that I need to, it doesnt have any limitations when you conveniently discount all its limitations.
But hey, Im not bitching about the money, or resale value; you are.

So you actually saying that a DAW is not a closed sytem? You can add effects to add effect to a soft DAW? how?

we call them 'plugins'

The only way I know is through VST plugins which are seperate soft (external applications) , that is what you propably mean by open architecture. But that is not anything fancy , I can do the same with MOTIF, I repeat myself once again

as a self-containd system? nope. Remember; you started this comparison of your mitif versus a DAW; its not a comparison of Motif+DAW with DAW. Your £1200 worth of 'Maths' didnt include a DAW.

I can "plug" my motif to a soft DAW as you would plug to VST , I can connect external gear bla blah blah

Oh, in that case, a DAW is better than a Motif because you can plug a Motif into it.


but okay, tell me how you plug in an 8-in, 8-out soundcard to your Motif. And get it to play video.

I cannot change its internal the same way you can't change the internals of a DAW or a VST except if you use a modular VST like reaktor but that is something diffirent.

Nor can you add new effects etc. But in a DAW, you can, because its 'open'.

I experience none of your so called "limitations" , I experience none of your so called "closed architecture"

Thats nice.

Could you stop basing yourself on theories and bring me some practical examples?

What, exactly, have I said that is 'based on theories' ? I mean, you're actually the one making claim after claim, all Im doing is providing refutations or counterexamples. And an awful lot of your claims have been based on pretty blinkered assertions. I think, to be honest, its you who's basing stuff 'on theories'.

And what, exactly, do you want a practical example of?

[kilon]

Look I do not want to overgeneralise this whole debate and argue one thing after another. My point is that sure MOTIF as well as a DAW has its limitations. My only argument is that for the price I have not seen any equivelant in the soft market, if I had and the whole package was of the same quality I would have bought that instead a MOTIF. Afterall I have used soft alot longer than I used hardware. Actually I am using hardware for a mere four months.

As I said a VST plugin is nothing more than an external application with direct access to DAWs internal fuctions , of course you can add instruments and effects to both Soft DAW and Motif but you cannot change the features of a soft DAW as you cannot change MOTIF.

So let us talk practical now , what if I want to add 8-1n 8-out audio interface? Well a quick solution would be the mLan plugin board which expands motif to 6-in 6-out. Of course it would cost extra as it would an external pc audio card. I can also add a mixer instead . Or maybe there are other workarounds that could work here. So you can add thing to a hardware the same way as you would add VST instruments/effects in a soft DAW, that is why synths have MIDI/AUDIO in and outs. Where is this close architecture you are talking about?

And I have told you many times that all Workstations integrate perfectly with soft DAWs. Where are these limitations you are talking about ? Is it ilegal in worst case senario to connect my motif to a PC with 8-in 8-out audio card. Afterall I never say do not buy a computer , I said look at the motif as well because it offers more for its money. Afterall all homes today have a pc nowdays. If you buy a MOTIF your pc wont have to be new to work since MOTIF could take away easily 80% of the work freeing up CPU and RAM demand.

My point is that you keep claiming DAWs have specific limitations

If you were paying more attention to what I am saying , you would have see that I was talking about interface problems. The reason why even today with QUAD CORE power computer are not used that often in live situations, is that still the pc has not managed to become a real instrument. Largely because of the mouse and pc keyboard dependency which is not ,anyway you cut it, the quickest way or more spotenious way of working. If it was I am sure that the workstation market would have been really in big trouble. Eventough pure synthesis synthesizers have declined and replaced to an extend with VST equivelants . The Workstation market has remained very strong while the pc market the only true workstation that they offer is REASON and ORION. I am sure you could argue that we can assemble a suit of soft tolls which could resamble the features of a workstation. And to an extend I would agree with you and promote this solution especially to someone with does not own a pc and like to work step by step and does not mind menus, mouse and pc keyboard.

But for someone like me who
1) like to work the fastest way possible , with no menus, mouse and pc keyboard
2 ) With no dependecy on monitors and screen so you can work blindly allongside with a brilliant interface.
3 ) Get very annoyed with viruses and spyware and crashes
4 ) a real instrument which make you feel like a real player, tried and loved by many real pro players
5 ) That unites all its features under one unified interface
6 ) Already own a pc and wants to expand it
7 ) Invest into something which can return back its value as a second hand sale. And the fact that second hand workstation are easy to seel , as there is alot of demand, especially one with so many wealthy features.
8 )An open architecture which makes it suitble to cooperate in a very flexible way with both software and hardware.
9 ) wnats an instrument accompanied with the library of 1700 appregios to help you build beautiful melody and rythms in a very small timeframe. I am an appregio lover , what can I say
10 ) and many other small things


MOTIF (or other workstations) is the best option anyway you see it.