KVR Audio

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Sat May 10, 2008 12:26 pm

Shy wrote:To get "infinite" tracks you'd need "infinite" hardware inputs.

No, you just need to overdub.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:09 pm

Then that's "infinite" overdubs, not tracks.

shamann · Post by **shamann** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:12 pm

Yeah, because that's a useful distinction. Thanks for clearing that up.

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat May 10, 2008 2:52 pm

In fact it is. You're welcome.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:06 pm

Shy wrote:In fact it is. You're welcome.

no actually you're very wrong....to record infinite tracks at the same time you need infinite inputs. Recording a new track is not an overdub, recording over a part of an existing track is an overdub. If you go back to the days of tape besides the obvious reason of being able not having to bounce the advantage of more tracks was being able to save several takes. Today you can indeed have as many tracks as your computer can handle, not overdubs, not takes but tracks. I can record right now with ease 8 tracks of analog at one time, if I do three takes like that but each take going to 8 different tracks the end result would be 24 tracks of audio with no overdubs

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:14 pm

Shy wrote:To get "infinite" tracks you'd need "infinite" hardware inputs.

Since when was the existence of an audio track dependent on an input?

Shy · Post by **Shy** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:30 pm

Hink: that's true, you can have as many tracks as the computer can handle, but he was talking about recorders. And then he said you can overdub. And obviously being able to overdub as many times as you want doesn't mean you have as many tracks as you want.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:35 pm

Shy wrote:Hink: that's true, you can have as many tracks as the computer can handle, but he was talking about recorders. And then he said you can overdub. And obviously being able to overdub as many times as you want doesn't mean you have as many tracks as you want.

oh okay, sorry I missed the context

herodotus · Post by **herodotus** » Sat May 10, 2008 3:48 pm

Patch2006 · Post by **Patch2006** » Sat May 10, 2008 7:02 pm

Every kind of amplifier has their flaws. Just like a real amplifier. I really prefer the actual hardware amp versus a computerized plug in. An amp is hardwired and made by people. I hope in the future that the computer plug ins will be more realistic. I have tried different guitar amp plug ins, the free ones. they are fun. But i need to save my money up for something like the Amplitude metal plug in software. I just read on another thread in the effects section that it is out. Well kudos to all the hardworking programmers out there.
-James from the U.S

tranel · Post by **tranel** » Thu May 15, 2008 2:47 am

DevonB wrote:I'm still not hearing software sound design that's rivalling hardware yet.

Devon

I have to agree with this. There is a lot of very cool software on the market for sure, but the sound quality of much of it is just not there yet. To my ears, software (not all) tends to sound lifeless and uninspiring. The FM7 or FM8, despite all the sound design capabilities, doesn't have anywhere near the punch and grit of the TX81z. And don't get me started on the JD-990: one of Roland's finest sound engines ever, and you can buy it for like 200 dollars on Ebay. That's 8 LFOs, 4 (good!) multi-mode filters, 12 envelopes, EQ built into the synthesis model, key splits, velocity switching, tons of portamento and release triggering options, ring modulation and cross modulation and decent effects—per patch.

For creamy, evolving pads, Atmosphere comes close—but not quite. The JD990s synth engine just never ceases to surprise me. Apparently, the Fantom uses the same engine, but I am not sure.

Another favourite is the Kawai K4. The day a software developer comes up with an accurate model of its filter, I'll be a very, very happy man indeed.

And let's not forget the Z1 (which I once owned, and then sold

I now use the MOSS card for the Triton). I don't think there is anything in the software world that can rival that just yet for flexibility and pure bad ass-ness.

Anyway, just my two yen.

james0tucson · Post by **james0tucson** » Thu May 15, 2008 4:12 am

MitchK1989 wrote:I have yet to see a good convolution reverb in hardware.

The hardware equivalent of a convolution reverb is a medieval cathedral or a canyon or whatever

Sickle · Post by **Sickle** » Thu May 15, 2008 6:01 am

m-ac wrote:Software seems to be leading the way as far as delay also.

You're right. This is exactly why I shelled out close to $800 including shipping fees for one of these last weekend:

Software might be making leaps and bounds with under the hood gimmicks, but after prolonged, extensive use of some of the best kit digital audio has to offer, I don't think digital is anywhere closer to analog as it was ten years ago or even further back when it was crammed into clumsy rack units instead of splashing onto your PC's 22" LCD screen.

You have nicer GUI's and modulation options. I see no improvements otherwise over analog devices decades old. That must be why I'm heading back down that road again.

Nothing stands in the way of progress.

Download SOphist · Post by **Download SOphist** » Thu May 15, 2008 7:41 pm

m-ac wrote:Where has software actually improved on hardware?

Random button!!!!!!

:hyper::hyper::hyper::hyper: