indistinguishable from hardware ??

[Lotuzia]

An interesting point, but I respectfully disagree. imo there are analog synths with sound that is so sweet as to rival acoustic instruments. The problem has always been controlling the nuances.

This really is an interesting point, which allows us to connect with the real world again. Synth aficionados aside, many of the typical (non-musician) listeners react to synths of any kind with a sort of "meh, it's an artificial sound". In their POV, we are discussing whether some artificial, robot-like, lifeless sounds are able to truly mimic other artificial, robot-like, lifeless sounds.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just getting another perspective on it. My sister, for example, couldn't care less about Minimonsta vs. Minimoog, she'd walk out and put on some "real" music (like Jack Johnson, god forbid).

Yes but there's no real world "like this", imho actually there are merely several subcultures interpenetrating themselves in this precise real world. Most classical musicians I know are very curious about synthesizers. Actually they are really very open minded ( and sometimes much more than some synthlovers debating if such track is really "dubstep" -put the genre you want here- or "not so dubstep" )

Synths can sound robotic and artificial, and this can also be a wish of the musician ( a la Kraftwerk ),

but ..... They don't have to

If someone is trying to achieve some lively and organic parts with a synth and that he fails, its just because he doesnt have the right synth, the right instrument/patch, or he does not know how to make them breathe/sound. Or a combination of the above. The limit case is when someone wants to mimic a real acoustic/electric instrument, but thats probably another debate.

Synths instruments ( aka presets ) can be very complex, some even need some unusual keyboard techniques to shine. If one don't put understanding and effort into playing synthesiszers, its very likely that they will sound unexpressive, but as some sax players usually invest several years to find their own sound with a single instrument, I guess synth players should not complain too much.

Remind me I once saw Joe Zawinul playing (mostly analog) synthesizers, it was NOT my impression that he sounded robotic, or artificial, nor inexpressive ......

Of course, there are tons of other examples of gifted musicians who used synths but I dont know why, this one immediatly came to my mind when I saw your post.

LtZ

[osiris]

Good luck Max.
About aliasing. I've read on other forums that some people think the Virus oscillators are filtered at output on the highest frequency. I wonder if that helps aliasing, (there's an opinion that the oscillators are darker than other synths.)
I used to try and put filters after the oscillator- one HP that cut everything below 40 Hz and one Peak to lower highs above 18000 kHz. I figured it would make the sound 'pop' more. You don't need the excess energy below 40Hz and I know aliasing can be a problem on digital sound.
I think basically a synth is only as strong as it's filters and it's effects.

[ariston]

Yes but there's no real world "like this", imho actually there are merely several subcultures interpenetrating themselves in this precise real world. Most classical musicians I know are very curious about synthesizers. Actually they are really very open minded ( and sometimes much more than some synthlovers debating if such track is really "dubstep" -put the genre you want here- or "not so dubstep" )

Synths can sound robotic and artificial, and this can also be a wish of the musician ( a la Kraftwerk ),

but ..... They don't have to

Hey, you don't have to convince ME, which you'd know if you'd read my post carefully. I was talking specifically about non-musicians - you know, the majority of humans that are consumers of music rather than makers. There are those that don't care what makes a sound, as long as it makes them look cool. There are those that do care, and some of them hate synths, some love them (and some are, naturally, in the middle, like lukewarm water). And even among the synth lovers, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who really cares about the hardware vs software issue. I was pointing out the obvious to put this - interesting - discussion into a larger perspective.

Zawinul is a great example of someone who knows how to make synths sing, btw.

[trimph1]

I'd like to know what the dude with the apple laptop was putting through its paces in Faun's piece.

[Chuck E. Jesus]

Having a contrary opinion isn't trolling.

yes it is...

[Lotuzia]

Yes but there's no real world "like this", imho actually there are merely several subcultures interpenetrating themselves in this precise real world. Most classical musicians I know are very curious about synthesizers. Actually they are really very open minded ( and sometimes much more than some synthlovers debating if such track is really "dubstep" -put the genre you want here- or "not so dubstep" )

Synths can sound robotic and artificial, and this can also be a wish of the musician ( a la Kraftwerk ),

but ..... They don't have to

Hey, you don't have to convince ME, which you'd know if you'd read my post carefully. I was talking specifically about non-musicians - you know, the majority of humans that are consumers of music rather than makers. There are those that don't care what makes a sound, as long as it makes them look cool. There are those that do care, and some of them hate synths, some love them (and some are, naturally, in the middle, like lukewarm water). And even among the synth lovers, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who really cares about the hardware vs software issue. I was pointing out the obvious to put this - interesting - discussion into a larger perspective.

Zawinul is a great example of someone who knows how to make synths sing, btw.

I didnt try to convince you, as I read you attributed this attitude to some acoustic/electric instruments lovers, ( wich is not at all my experience btw, with classical musicians at least ) but to put the discussion in an even possibly wider perspective than you did.

Else : Not connected to Ariston ( I take precautions now .... )

I also read this part of the man/machine thing saying that the man is more important than the machine. Yes he is. But this should not lead to think that all synths are the same and that only the man counts : You wont make the same kind of music with a strat 57 and a Ukulele, or with a Farfisa or a Bosendorfer

Its the same with synths, the secret weapon is the combo man/machine, where a musician learns to know wich instruments fits one's needs, and spends time investigating and searching for his own style. Its really a duality thing with a definitive feedback loop imho between a musician and his instruments.

[ariston]

Else : Not connected to Ariston ( I take precautions now .... )

No need for that. You were just taking what I said into a different area, and I wanted to clarify my point.

It's the thing I love about synths - the ability to sculpt the sound you want. A guitar played by Keef will sound different than a guitar played by Django, but only to a point. A guitar remains a guitar.

[himalaya]

A guitar remains a guitar.

Until you give it to my 11 month daughter, it then becomes a drum, err, I mean a heap of scrap: bang, bang, bang...crash! She is a great musician, no Berklee training and all...but such ferocity!

[UltraJv]

Having a contrary opinion isn't trolling.

yes it is...

Oh no it isnt

[PAK]

As far as I know (frequently in the past a limitation!) Zebra is the only VA that can do anything like this.

?? Lots of VST's can do clicking envelopes if that's the behaviour you want. Here's OP-X Pro II. I did a rough copy of the sound you played and set it to snap. As the title suggests, your sound first, OP-X is second.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37542806/OPXis2nd_SNAP.mp3

[trimph1]

Having a contrary opinion isn't trolling.

yes it is...

Oh no it isnt

Is so...

[ariston]

As far as I know (frequently in the past a limitation!) Zebra is the only VA that can do anything like this.

?? Lots of VST's can do clicking envelopes if that's the behaviour you want. Here's OP-X Pro II. I did a rough copy of the sound you played and set it to snap.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37542806/OPXis2nd_SNAP.mp3

Amen to that. All this talk about "fast envelopes" when all you're doing is using zilch attack/short decay to get that "snap" sound. Almost any synth can do that.

[Meffy]

Having a contrary opinion isn't trolling.

yes it is...

Oh no it isnt

Is so...

You want getting hit on the head lessons, just down the hall.

[wwjd]

Here is my quick test using Tal-uno-62 vs a real juno 60 Filter decay sample:

Tal-uno:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno- ... lter-decay

Juno 60:
http://soundcloud.com/sergiofrias/juno-filter-decay

I'ved perfectly matched the frequency sweep using a frequency spectrum analyser,by controlling the cutoff and envelope mod in tal uno (start freq:9.69 khz and end freq: 454 Hz)

Somehow,i couldnt match the resonance of the real juno,also theres a little bit of noise in the original sample,i've could add a little bit of white noise,but its ok.

see... now, this is everything. Those two sounds are oh so close enough to each other, that the differnece is non-importance in any mix. Even as a SOLO song, it's close enough to depend on so many other things for it to be good, NOT the tone of the sound. If you are playing notes, and writing music, it is the NOTES and MUSIC that would suck, NOT the sound. If the free software doesn't "fit in the mix", I suggest someone better needs to be sitting at the mixing board. I can make anything fit anywhere.... a 5% (or even 25%) sound difference isn't going to change much when *I* am mixing anyway.

[Peter999]

@izonin

It's not inconsistent. I pointed out, that it's the poor filters that cripple the sound of this emulation (OP-X Pro).

So you please tell me which is the original and which OP-X?

File 1 ...
File 2

Yes, they are not identical, but is one of both poor?

I clearly admit that OB-X and OP-X PRO-II don't sound 100% identical, as probably most emulation don't compared to their godfathers, but this also wasn't the primary goal. The main goal was to capture the general character and feel as well as to be able to reproduce the typical sounds. But this only was the very early base. OP-X PRO-II isn't an emulation of anything existing anymore. It rather tries to be able to cover a wide area of typical beloved analog sounds.

The question is - as already said somewhere in the thread - if hardware really always sounds better than software. I don't think so. And what is "better"? If "better" is closer to the original then of course the original wins everytime. If I however had to choose between OP-X PRO-II and the real OB-X (I own one), then I would choose OP-X PRO-II in a heartbeat, since it simply offers me much much more without all the hassles, and it gives me the typical sounds, even if not 100% identical in the extreme details. But who cares about that.

If you however want 100% original sound in every detail, then there's no way around buying the original hardware, and spend a lot of time and money again to keep it up and running.

Some more examples:
Which is a real synth, which a VSTi?

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

File 1 ...
File 2

Again, they are not identical, sure, and probably can be told apart by someone who knows real analog synths and their behaviour very well.

But is one soo much much worse than the other?



--