indistinguishable from hardware ??

[wwjd]

I'll bet 99% of all of you LISTEN to fat, warm, beefy analog synths VIA DIGITAL PLAYBACK sources: CD, Wav, Mp3.... it's all just bits to numbers. Soft synths are digital bits to numbers. There is no reason to suspect fat, warm, beefy analog can not be done on a computer, digitally. Most of us listen digitally anymore.
I've heard enough great sounding softs that I am selling my Andromeda.

[PAK]

I'm trolling a bit, actually. I'm just curious to find how many people can't hear the difference.

But you already know the answer - A lot. For some it just doesn't bloody matter. For others they haven't trained their ears to know what to look for. I think it took several years, after digital emulations came out (The Nord Lead being a psuedo Prophet 5 attempt), for a more broad realization to emerge that some aspects of analogue behaviour were going to be "problematic" to replace in digital code.

If people can't hear a difference then what does it matter? Or does everyone have to agree with you about what's good musically before you'll be happy?

[olepro]

I'm trolling a bit, actually. I'm just curious to find how many people can't hear the difference.

You can't either in a blind test...

[Meffy]

I'm trolling a bit, actually.

Disqualified. Bits can never, and will never, provide professional-level emulation of trolling.

[trimph1]

They are just different sets of sounds for a wider pallet...simples.

Think difference..not hierarchical, people.

[izonin]

As in 'its okay if I do the opposite of what I say as long as I call it anecdotal'

Exactly, that's the whole point.

great. just for orthogonality, as long as you call it by my preferred special-use adjective (ie 'shite') you're welcome to keep making all the banal jazz/classical crap you want

Orthogonality has no place in jazz, it's all curved. And "shite" is a good word for it. Miles Davis referred to his music as "my shit".

[PAK]

You can't either in a blind test...

Blind tests are often badly done. Take someone to a different environment than they're used to. Use different speakers than they're used to and then expect them to hear small differences. Whichever genius thinks this is a good way to determine things hasn't thought things through much.

I think a minimum starting point, for a really good blind test, would be to insist the person bring their own headphones (to remove room factors) and allow the listener to listen via something they're at least somewhat familiar with.

[Urs]

How about a unique emulation then? Unique, as in, it sounds better than the originals it was modelled after?

I know that the algorithms are there. But I doubt it could run on current CPUs.

We've spent the better part of the last year on delayless feedback algorithms for filters for a new synth. At low resonance you can play 4-8 voices per 3GHz CPU core, at high resonance and high drive you're stuck with simple chords. A multicore cpu should handle this well, and still be cheaper than any of the synths being modeled. And, more stable, less noise, more snappy.

[hakey]

You can't either in a blind test...

Blind tests are often badly done. Take someone to a different environment than they're used to. Use different speakers than they're used to and then expect them to hear small differences.

If the differences are that small, then they're not important (certainly not to the extent that izonin is suggesting).

[projectdan]

"Any sufficiently advanced VST is indistinguishable from hardware."
-- Unknown

(sorry, just HAD to do that)

But surely not the bass?! Digital cant do bass properly, we all know that on KVR.

Quote in full.

Any sufficiently advanced VST is indistinguishable from hardware (except for the bass end)"
-- Arthur C. Clarke

[trimph1]

....oh...and let us not start talkin' 'bout those aliasing softsynths....

[b7uzer]

This discussion reminds me digital photography forums where people are adding grain and scratches to digital images so that they look "just like in the good old days". New generation who've never used film actually does not give a shyte. Software is more convenient, cheaper and flexible - where are typewriters, arythmometers etc?

P.S. I'm not talking real acoustic instruments here - that is a completely different story

[buttrock]

fellows , it only matters for berklee-educated classical and jazz anyway!

[debra1rlo]

This discussion reminds me digital photography forums where people are adding grain and scratches to digital images so that they look "just like in the good old days". New generation who've never used film actually does not give a shyte. Software is more convenient, cheaper and flexible - where are typewriters, arythmometers etc?

HA! I've connected my typewriter to the internet using a muff pedal, a couple of warm tubes, duct tape and CV so my posts have teh ultimate in analog warmth!!!!!1111

[izonin]

How about a unique emulation then? Unique, as in, it sounds better than the originals it was modelled after?

I know that the algorithms are there. But I doubt it could run on current CPUs.

We've spent the better part of the last year on delayless feedback algorithms for filters for a new synth. At low resonance you can play 4-8 voices per 3GHz CPU core, at high resonance and high drive you're stuck with simple chords. A multicore cpu should handle this well, and still be cheaper than any of the synths being modeled. And, more stable, less noise, more snappy.

That's great news. I was estimating that it could only do one voice per core, once the nonlinearities were introduced.