What's the appeal of a ROMpler workstation?

[keyman_sam]

Same reason why Reason is a top-seller in the software world. Its a one-piece-does-it-all concept that makes you focus more on your music than fidgeting with inserting VSTs, waiting for them to load, need more tracks, setting up effects, etc.

You can come up with some neat stuff in hardware workstations, without much hassle or fidgeting around. Make note that a lot of people find software WAY complicated. Just the idea of operating cubase makes their head spin. For such people, hardware workstations are the best.

[danbroad]

in the end, for me it's about the fun I have writing and playing music. The curse of the 'unfinished music track' haunts me every time I turn on the computer. Sometimes I play my best stuff when there's no impetus to record it for posterity.

I spent 4 hours today, 2 each with the Korg M3 and the Yamaha Motif XS. Both are superb instruments, both are crammed full of arps and other helping hands. The M3 can take a radias board, and appeals to the synthesist in me, but the Motif, in my hands, plays better and sounds better. That's for me, not for everyone, mind. It took me 4 hours to figure that out, though..

Sometimes we do more when we have less, I guess.

[Spin Boyz]

I like the Yamaha Motif XS too. I'm hoping the price will drop another $300 to $400 bucks by the summer. It probably won't...

[a]

Karma in an interesting concept and would be ideal for somebody who's looking to make some decent sounds without actually having to PLAY all that well.

I just have to bite on this. Herbie Hancock has toured with a couple of Karma's. He can play OK.....

[divsaster]

I just have to bite on this. Herbie Hancock has toured with a couple of Karma's. He can play OK.....

Let me clarify that statement. I didn't say that being a good player and using Karma are mutually exclusive. It just seems to me that Karma could be marketed successfully as a tool for people who don't play particularly well. And I think it's an groundbreaking bit of technology but I can't see it fitting my needs or workflow.

[moosethree]

Karma Universal is coming soon: on the list if goals for 2008. Karmalab.com

[neverfall]

As a preface, I've always been a hardware guy. Over the years, I've demo'd/used many software synths including Wusikstation, Zebra, Sonik Synth, others not worth remembering. I was trying to get a feel for their sonic quality vs. the hardware that I use. I toyed with them...and then uninstalled those synths while thoroughly unimpressed. I didn't hear a single sound that that couldn't be topped by something in my hardware library. Sonik Synth was especially disappointing. Everything sounded so incredibly thin.

So what is it about software that justifies the constant comparison to hardware other than a cheaper price tag?

Yup...that looks just about right.


I'm a hardware and software guy who just happens to prefer the immediacy of great workflow and the FANSTASTIC sounds of workstations and hardware synths. Other than the Alesis Andromeda I haven't come across too many hardware synths that were terribly hard to learn. Granted it's not a workstation, but I'd prefer an Andromeda...V-Synth GT(which I own)...a Triton or M3(own both as well)..or a Fantom(yup...bought it) over most software synth any day of the week.


Too many reasons to justify my concern...but then again I'm expecting Omnisphere to blow my hardware synths out of the water. Actually now that I think about it, I actually use NEXUS more than all of synths except for the V-Synth GT

For the record...KVR really needs to STOP FOCUSING SO MUCH ON MONEY. You have to understand that just because a $2000 synth offers less features than a software synth it's not inferior due to everyone experiencing a different technical and playability level of a synth. I don't particularly like fumbling through page after page in a software synth to program sounds. Honestly, I'd rather twist and turn knobs on a Y Synth while using the touch screen to manuever through its capabilitites. SO it costs $3000? Yeah...and?


But who's to say I'd be any more comfortable using a $300 synth that offered more features? Some of us are just more hardware oriented...and we pay for it. Usually we pay without complaining. If you feel that your software synth can get you further than an M3 then fine...there's no reason to even question why the next guy would purchase one. Different strokes for different folks. What more can be said?

[Mikelo]

I own a Korg Triton Extreme and a Yamaha MO6 and I would'nt sell them for any software rompler.
To me, the sounds are very phat, not thin. Working within the workstation is great and inspiring, you are more focused on the music. It does'nt mean though you cannot hook it up to a computer and sequencer. I do. Best of both worlds.
A Workstation, like any hardware synthesizers, are made for one purpose, music creation unlike a computer which is multi tasking.
I have a very old pc (Advent 3214) which is about 7-8 years old now. I have no need to change or upgrade every 6 months because there is little strain due to using outboard, be it workstations/synths or otherwise.
I must admit, I know little of software romplers and I'm not sure what features they carry. What I do know is that something like the Korg Triton Extreme has dual arpegiators for example. Is there software romplers that have this feature or anything simialar? Correct me if I am wrong. As I said, my knowelege of software romplers like sampletank is limited.

[MauroR]

As a preface, I've always been a software guy. Yesterday, I walked into a music store and played with a few romplers. The Korg M3, Yamaha Motif XS, and the Fantom X. I was trying to get a feel for their sonic quality vs. the software that I use. I walked away thoroughly unimpressed. I didn't hear a single sound that that couldn't be topped by something in my software library. The M3 was especially disappointing. Everything sounded so incredibly thin.

So what is it about these workstations that justify the price tags? Is it just the convenience of having everything integrated without having to work at setting it up? Is it about stability? It can't be the sound quality, IMO. None of the sequencers hold a candle to software. The sample rom on any workstation is absolutely dwarfed by what can be stored on a computer.

If you have a stable high end PC, what place does one of these workstations have in your setup? I have to be missing something if so many people spend so much money on these pieces of hardware.

Edit: I forgot about one thing. Live performance. So let me rephrase my question. What's the appeal of one of these for a hobbyist musician who does not play live?

What the hell you're telling?Those are workstation for pro musician, but what the hell you're telling? hobbyist musician? Don't tell Bullshit!!!!

[kritikon]

Price is irrelevant in another way too...

On a high end DAW, you'll rarely see these problems. I have to go far out of my way to stress my machine to the point of maxing out the CPU.

So how much did your PC and soundcard and host cost?

I know my latest PC at the time cost me NZ $1500 (I think it might have been quite a bit more actually) and I transferred some drives etc from the old one into the new one. My soundcard cost me $1500 a while back. My host is only $250 or so per upgrade, but new is (I think) $1100. So that's NZ$4100. Then you've pretty well got to have some kind of controller keyboard. I'm up to $4500 just to get a sound out of my decent DAW...and it's now 2-3 years old. Way behind the times in terms of what's available in the shops right now. I also have to upgrade my PC far more regularly than I'd like to. I'm on my 4th OS since I started making music, and that doesn't include the times I used h/w recorders instead of a s/w host. And my OS is already one behind (some time in the next 2-3 years there will be plugins that will not work on XP, so if I ever want anything new, I have no choic but to buy Vista...and it won't stop at Vista)

Now how is a h/w workstation so silly in its price. Because if you really wanted to, you could make a whole track out of one workstation. Personally I wouldn't want to, but I never liked using only one h/w synth in a whole song - same way I don't like only using one VSTi in a whole track.

H/w workstations still make every bit as much sense to a user if it suits that particular user. DAWs are not cheap. An individual VSTi may be, but why do the s/w evangelists always conveniently forget the rest of the cost that comes with a DAW? I'll use both and appreciate both, but I don't fool myself how much both s/w and h/w cost me.

[hseiken]

For some people, like myself, it's not necessarily how good the workstation sounds...it's how far you can push it. I'm into working under a ceiling, whether it be polyphony, timbre limits, or even cpu limits on my computer with a sequencer. I have the most fun when it's me vs. a box of computer chips that people say can't sound like xxx program or xxx computer set up...then I make it my goal to get as close as I can to breaking expectations. It helps me be creative as problem solving and thinking of workarounds actually gets me more results in writing music. I don't know why. Having complete freedom to do whatever I want to do makes me feel uninspired...however, stick a TS-12 in front of me and tell me that it doesn't have the polyphony or effects to match up to a modern DAW, you can bet your ass I'll write dozens of tracks, using that as my inspiration.

And yes, my workstation was an Ensoniq TS-12 and after several years of exclusively using it before switching to computers, I can't say I like workstations or computers better. They both have their faults:

computers: limited to cpu and soundcard ceilings, aren't one complete package..you must buy midi controllers and software after you buy the computer, most decent software is expensive.

workstations: generally have a limit to the sounds you can use in them without buying a ROM upgrade, polyphony is strict, older workstations don't have as good of visual feedback of the sequencer.

At any rate, this post got a lot longer than I thought I would type. But short version:




It's not the tool, it's how you use it. Don't try to drive a screw with a hammer.