Here Comes True Evil

[boimb]

OK let us do this a software vs hardware thread since you feel so bored with your life.

o dioubt the demo's we've heard from the blofeld are superb

No they are not.As most demos of Soft and Hard synths.

(even if it just a software in a box)

No it is not. it is a powerful computer with included very powerful software and a portable , compact midi controller.

and maybe most importantly: it consumes 0 cpu from you main DAW which can now still run it's own synthesis or heavy efx routings.

correct

is the synthesis in this blofeld superior to 'softsynts'? most likely not, deuuh

correct


I happened to own a MICROKORG a software in abox as you may call it. This thing had a very limited polyphony and very simplistic sound synthesis. But I can tell you right now that it was the fastest way to BASS n WARMTH street. I sold the little devil because I wanted more complexity and naturality in my sounds. But the point is that I did several compares between the softs (TERA3 , ABsynth and FM7) and MicroKORG. The sine waves were almost equal , modulation was the same bla blah and then the filters came and it Went bye bye. MicroKorg almost destroyed one of my monitors the sounds ware so evil and bassy they took me under surprise (some of them).

I am not disputing the fact here that both in the end are just softwares . This may be true or it may be not true. I am no expert on this filed. Maybe the hardware affects the sound maybe it does not. But One thing is certain .It took me alot more processing with software to come close to this kind of bass which the MicroKorg so gratiously offered me through its filters.

Now using Hardware is not a mandatory choice afterall we are talking synthesizers here and that means whether is soft or hard is a very powerful tool that should allow the creation of any kind of sound.

Still as I said for someone that like to twist knobs and hates mouse and does not care about computer graphics and big screens, hard is the way to go, period. Also i Find that presets in soft lack alot cause it use of course much less cpu than a hard synth. But of course that is changing after the appearance of Dual Core processors. Still mutitimbral presets are not so common in soft synths.

asd a matter of fact i also own a microkorg, and i like it's sound very much!! still let's not overreact, it has it's own (powerfull) character, there is nothing i hear that isn't there is softsynths... like i said i truly like workin with the microkorg and program it with my eyes closed, IMO there are softsynths that produce theirown characteristic VA sound i lie as much as the µkorg... + the modulation and routing in this synth is somewhat limited. besides that the microkorg is a fantastic synth in a compact package, i love it!

[boimb]

But this:

I think it is purely preference. For example, some people just don't want to bother with the computer when they play with their synths, and they feel that this is more natural to them (not that I'm saying this is the case here). I don't see any problem with that.

sorry, i know what you mean about how people prefer things, but i was just amused by the reference to 'natural' as a description of something so wholly abstract as an LCD screen and parameter dial, something that evolved almost entirely from budgetary constraints rather than usability decisions or ergonomic design. my apologies for being misleadingly flippant.

i'm sorry but even the µkorg works more hands on thenusing a vst controlled by Remote for example... have you actually ever tried programming a hardware synth? like a mono-evolver, a µkorg, a waldorf XT desktop?

IMO i do not feel the constraints in these synths, i work fast with them, maybe cause i know hem better, which is diffetent with softsynths... it rarely is worth it to learn them inside out, sry. that said some vst synths i doknow inside out. maybe the trouble is there are so many of them and a lot sound not so inspiring ('next...' feeling) and believe it or not the freeware VA softsynths have usually way more character then their commercial alternatives.

i do love reacor, tassman, terra and G2 software however, cause they cover IMO a totally different domain. i like working with mouse and big LCD screen writing and couling modules together to build synths. that's where software truly has a worflow advantage. if i see this arturia origin... my stumach turns.. i can't believe this thing will be a commercial succes... a korg oasys however looks like the ultimte integration of hardware interface and softsynths, i like that!

[whyterabbyt]

i'm sorry but even the µkorg works more hands on thenusing a vst controlled by Remote for example... have you actually ever tried programming a hardware synth? like a mono-evolver, a µkorg, a waldorf XT desktop?

Of course I have, you condescending twat. Are you that f**king full of yourself that you can't actually imagine that no-one could actually know what they're talking about and still disagree with you?

Not that I need to back myself up with 'credentials' but my first synth was a modular, twenty years ago, and in my studio, I have an Evolver, a Darkstar, two Nord G2 engines, a Nord Micromodular, and 18U of Doepfer modular synth. And you want to know why I picked each of those things? Because none of them rely on a stupid menu-driven 2-line LCD and a couple of dials, not even the Evolver, which is supported by two good PC-based editors for a reason. And for the record I do find it just as easy to use a ReMote to program a softsynth as I find it to work directly on the Evolver or the Darkstar, because I don't have some stupid f**king belief that hardware is mystically better at absolutely everything, even if all its got is a single knob and a two-digit LED readout.

I mean, this may have completely passed you by, what with your all-encompassing belief in the worth of the parameter slider, but for fifteen years before the development of the softsynth, people all over the world spent money on computer-based patch editors for their hardware synths, and audio editors for their samplers for a reason. And that reason is that most hardware UI's are products of economy; they're designed to keep the product cheap, not make it easy to use. Why d'ya think so many pro musicians hired sound designers; people that would do all that tedious stuff for them?

You ever programmed a DX7? Bet you can't tell me with a straight face that FM8 is less immediate. Tried sample editing on an Akai S1000? How much faster and more immediate is it than Wavelab or Soundforge, then? Ive got access to both a DX and the Akai, and I wouldn't touch them with a bargepole; I'd like to get music made the same bloody week as I start. Christ, I'd find it faster to build an FM synth in Reaktor than f**k about with the abhorrent excuse for a user interface you find on a real one.

[kritikon]

Hmmm...just saw this thread. Went to the Waldorf site. Listened listened to the MP3s and was unimpressed by some, had my interest piqued by others. Mind you - the demos were slathered with too much delay to hear if it actually sounded OK, but nevertheless I could use sounds of that type. It still has the obvious Waldorf tendencies and character. Not sure if that puts me off - I like Waldorfs in some areas, but the overall metallic character never really blew me away. I do like the way they included all the wavetables from the past though.

A huge thing though - gotta agree with Whyterabbit. The one thing that would immediately and for ever put me off is the silly screen. I could live with the small GUI and limited knobs etc (and here, I have to say that it actually looks like a decent build quality - I like the metal knobs etc - although you can be fooled by looks). Why oh why would anyone who's ever used all those godawful 80s S&S black box synths with ludicrous editing menus and 2 line screens, then got used to using a full PC screen to edit all his s/w ever want to go back to using one of those derisible LCD screens.

A) the size is laughable
B) The number of screens you must need to go through would make it a huge no-no.
C) It kills creativity.

Many of us here lived through the 80s and owned all the gear that as standard came with 2-line LCD screens. It was a hateful period. I will never own anything with those screens ever again. I put up with my Wavestation simply because I bought it 17 years ago and I like the sound - I wouldn't buy anything new with one of those screens though - and the Wavestation was bigger than most in screen space.

AND - the overdrive/distortion. Waldorf seem to be making a big deal over the distortion - it featured in several of the demos. Not impressed, sorry. It's bog standard harsh digital distortion. Done very mildly it's OK, overdone...it's excruciating to me.

I could happily use some of those type sounds. I think it has potential. I think the format - i.e. decent-ish s/w but in a diddy h/w box is mostly a put-off. I can see why the portability is nice. I can see how the size could be handy. But I hate, hate, hate those screens. Most people exposed to those for any lenngth of time do too.

The h/w market has swung round full circle again to given customers a full GUI with knobs and sliders etc precisely because we had 10-15 years of crap GUI with LCD screens and 2 buttons to edit them with, and we all loudly gave 2 fingers to the manufacturers and demanded something we could use instead.

I would imagine Blofeld has 2 targets:

1 - on stage for those with few funds. It's always good to have something hands-on on stage. But can you imagine trying to edit that little toy on stage in poor light on the fly? Ridiculous. "Excuse me, just stop the music and turn up the lights so I can sort through 15 different menus, tap all these little buttons in the right order without knocking adjacent ones...).

2 - for a travelling musician as a toy to write with. Could be a big seller here - however, is there a sequencer etc on board? I didn't see one, but might have just skipped over it. If you can't store sequences on it, then it loses out to almost every other similar tool. But - yeah - I could see myself sat on a beach or whatever using this toy amuse myself. Would I pay 400 Euro ($800). Maybe. A bit pricey though.

As a serious musical tool. No. Sound-wise I'm sure it has good uses. GUI and screen are from the 80s and I hope it flops big time. I don't want any other manufacturer to get the idea they can make that sort of shite again and sell it. I took one look at that screen and I will never buy this thing, even if it was a Wave in a box.

Whyterabbit hit the nail on the head.

What were Waldorf thinking? No wonder they went bust 1st time around. That was with half way decent h/w keyboards and rack units. Now they just lost the plot completely. I can't see how a serious music manufacturer can think they'll stay in the market with something that amounts to a toy, no matter how good it sounds. Its GUI and silly screen make it a toy whatever else it does.

[kritikon]

In fact...my vote of 5 - not bad might get amended. The screen demotes it to less than acceptable. It only receives a not bad because the sounds seem plausible.

Audio demos are fabulous. The guy who voted 3-4 needs to have his ears cut. They are of no use to him anyway.

First off, demos are down to personal taste. They weren't that amazing. Could be intersting, sure.
I think you'll find most who voted 3-4 voted that way because the interface make it absolutely unusable for them, so yes you're right - they are of no use. If Waldorf had considered making it another Microwave with a proper GUI and some knobs - I'd consider it - but then it'd be just another Microwave wouldn't it. Which really, is what this is, isn't it. It's not a MicroQ, it's a NanoQ. At least it would have been more honest to have released it as a NanoQ.

The more I see of Waldorf, the more I understand why they didn't survive in the market. They had one synth and they keep on rereleasing it in different forms. That will only ever go so far. If you look at the h/w companies that last - they all release very different models at some stage or other. Yes, they too rerelease several versions of the same product, but they only flog that to death so far. Then they realise they need a completely new product. Waldorf need a new product to survive - the Nanotonewheel organ thing is more likely to save them IMO.

[kritikon]

I looked at the upcoming Stromberg on their site too. Looks more interesting. But it's another Q in different clothes. I suppose Waldorf see their point of difference being Wavetables, but it didn't save them before, so why stick with it so rigidly? At least with Stromberg they have made some effort and put in a decent set of filters - it's nice to see a full selection of 24/18/12/6 dB/Oct filters - still not common enough - and the filter bank and vocoders are a very good addition. I'd consider a Stromberg.

Funny that - a customer would consider spending an awful lot more on a product that gives him what he wants, rather than saving maybe a thousand or two on something so small. Small isn't always good. I'm obviously not the type of customer they're aiming at though...

[cub005]

Much more than an "updated microQ".

yeah, a quick look at the feature set and anyone'll see there's much more than a rehashed MQ here. The price they've got it down at also appeals. Its great to see waldorf back in the game.

[adventurepants]

I must be missing something.

The reason that I have a hardware synth with lots of knobs (NOvation KS4), is precisely because I dont want to look at a screen!

It has a 2 line LCD which is perfect for what it does. I dont need to look at a screen because the knobs tell the story of the patch.

I only buy synths with one knob per function and very little menu digging because i want a stand alone instrument, not something that only makes sense once you plug it into a computer.

[kilon]

Suddenly I lost my interest for KVRAUDIO, bye bye KVR. Rust in Pieces.

[kritikon]

Bye bye.


Actually - it's your tastes that are off kilter - not ours. We've had unusable GUIs in too many synths to pay through the nose for a new one.

And if you like Waldorf sounds - fair enough. Don't expect everyone else to though. I also don't like most Moogs. I know I'm in a minority there though, but it doesn't give me the hump. Rather than think everyone else is wrong, I just acknowledge my own tastes are different and not of the norm. No biggie.


If us not liking Waldorf makes you leave KvR - fine, then go away and join a kindergarten somewhere else. No skin off my nose. You like toys, I like different toys.

[whyterabbyt]

Suddenly I lost my interest for KVRAUDIO, bye bye KVR. Rust in Pieces.

oh god, no. come back. we'll all promise to love what you like, if only you'd return... we just need more people to tell us how much better their favourite hardware is on our plugin-oriented forum, we just dont get enough of that for us to see the error of our ways...

[kritikon]

Aaaaah, you're such a cuddly wee bunny sometimes.

[vurt]

I also don't like most Moogs.

ffs know1 att kvr no's enyfing.
im outta hear!

[Radek]

Blofeld sounds good, looks good and has great specs at very attractive price. For 400 Euro I couldn't find comparably combination of a PC and software in a such small tabletop package (with 6 knobs). And it's not a plastic like in a typical notebooks but in a metal enclosure and passively cooled.

It isn't everyone have to praise it but it's very hard to understand why to be negative about it.

[kritikon]

It isn't everyone have to praise it but it's very hard to understand why to be negative about it.

As already said - almost unusable GUI. Simple as that. 3 words.