Hardware DSP vs pure software plugins?

[Mr Arkadin]

Or a said elsewhere - it's obsolete with todays multicores
cpu's?

If you find a use and sound that you can't find elsewhere, how is anything obsolete? For example there is no equivalent of the flexibility of Scope in native land that I have seen, and for my money not the equivalent sound (it has always run at 32-bit since 1999) and Minimax has yet to be surpassed by a native Minimoog emulation.

Quoting Ghz and multicores only tells part of the story. Personally I trust my ears when it comes to sound, not someone's claim that multicores makes everything (including hardware synths apparently) obsolete. Even if native could do everything claimed of it, is it necessarily the way you want to work? Perhaps for you it is. For me I like to mix it up a bit with native, DSP, analogue hardware and digital hardware.

[lfm]

Or a said elsewhere - it's obsolete with todays multicores
cpu's?

If you find a use and sound that you can't find elsewhere, how is anything obsolete? For example there is no equivalent of the flexibility of Scope in native land that I have seen, and for my money not the equivalent sound (it has always run at 32-bit since 1999) and Minimax has yet to be surpassed by a native Minimoog emulation.

Quoting Ghz and multicores only tells part of the story. Personally I trust my ears when it comes to sound, not someone's claim that multicores makes everything (including hardware synths apparently) obsolete. Even if native could do everything claimed of it, is it necessarily the way you want to work? Perhaps for you it is. For me I like to mix it up a bit with native, DSP, analogue hardware and digital hardware.

Thanks.

But it's such a large investment after all with hardware based DSP, so it's good to check out how people feel about it.

And there is plenty more to check out, with vendors and what principles apply for each, if any 3rd party stuff or how limited you are with that particular product.

And doing more communications over the buses in computer might introduce new problems like had in general trying firewire soundcards etc.

It's very much a trend now emulating vintage hardware and many vendors claim to have one, or several.

And some praise UAD versions and pretty much bash anything else and some are happy with software based VST's.

So this thread came about. Should I go with a larger bundle with Waves(already got a couple smaller) or invest in hardware based plugs?

[EvilDragon]

Diva easily trumps Minimax IMHO.

[Mr Arkadin]

But it's such a large investment after all with hardware based DSP, so it's good to check out how people feel about it.

Well, as you can tell, I'm passionate about my system. And Syncretia thinks everyone should VST and no hardware should exist. Personally I think you should always choose what you want - I am not about to force my view on you. Since I discovered Scope in 1999 (Pulsar as it was then) and I have not seen a comparable system in DSP or native. It's funny to me that UAD are making such a big thing about Apollo having 2ms latency. I've had 3ms latency since 1999.

So for me it's less about whether it's hardware, software, DSP or CPU - it's about Scope. I like the way it works and sounds. What format it comes in is irrelevant to me (except in as much as I also get really noce I/O options, great if you like to integrate hardware.

Unfortunately the only way to know if any of these systems would add anything to your sound or workflow is to try them - perhaps you could try a smaller second-hand card or something. I can't say whether you'd like UAD, Scope or any other DSP system or not. You might just find them irritating. Scope for example is definitely not for everyone.

I would always take claims of "this sounds as good as that" or "this trumps that" with a pinch of salt. I find the Arturia Minimoog emulation frankly awful, yet others claim it sounds exactly like one. Who you gonna believe?

For me Scope is the best system, for others UAD, for others native or a mix of these (some people run Scope and UAD cards together for instance).

Unfortunately none of this really helps you decide. Ask yourself this: all those people that claim that the software emulations of hardware are exact, have they really owned all that hardware? Has EvilDragon really done a side-by-side comparison of Minimax to Diva for instance, or is it all hot air? People need to back these claims up.

[EvilDragon]

I had a play with Minimax ASB, and after that Minimax in Plugiator, and Diva. While I don't own a real vintage Mini, I had several chances to play one so I do know how it behaves. Diva just clicked right there. I'm not saying that Minimax is bad, but to me, Diva has nailed that filter, bar none. I'm not saying 100% exact, but for sure it's the most faithful native solution there is.

[sounddesigner]

I had a play with Minimax ASB, and after that Minimax in Plugiator, and Diva. While I don't own a real vintage Mini, I had several chances to play one so I do know how it behaves. Diva just clicked right there. I'm not saying that Minimax is bad, but to me, Diva has nailed that filter, bar none. I'm not saying 100% exact, but for sure it's the most faithful native solution there is.

A 5 minute play with a plugiator and ASB may not be all that revealing as i stated to you before. I've played with and used SCOPE and Native synths side by side for years and own both and usually Native has a harshness/hardness to them or some other flaw, even the newer ones. For me its never been about accuracy of emulations just higher quality vs lower. But minimax is regarded by some authorities as being the most accurate minimoog emulation.

When Native synths do improve they become less of a instrument and more of a computer you program due to more latency and extremely high cpu use. I would not want my main instrument tied to a variable buffer-size. Getting Native plugins to do things in a 'timely manner' often requires far more power usage and in some cases is impossible.

Often people even say Native is just as good as dsp and never truly heard what's available for dsp just wishfull thinking, meanwhile those of us who use dsp use both platforms and base our judgement off that. People who are interested in dsp really do need to try it out for themselves cause you never know who your getting advice from on a forum, often it's just fanboy warfare for the purpose of attacking dsp platforms. Usually its Native fanboys who jump into dsp threads attacking, i myself never go in Native synth threads attacking and promoting dsp cause its negative, childish and a desparate way of advertising dsp. If one is truly secure about their platform's quality and its future there is no need to jump in thread after thread hateing but yet many do it (and this shows me their platform must not be as good as they make it out to be cause obviously they fear dsp; why the need to try to force feed Native to people if its so good is my question?). My belief is let the curiouse people demo both and let both platforms speak for themselves, that is the main testimony. Opinions are fine and great but hateing is not (not speaking about anyone in specific just giving my thoughts and observations on the subject).

Sometimes i forget the subtleties the dsp synths have that i prefer and i think a Native synth may be just as good then i do another side by side for awhile and the dsp is definitely prefered. You do need quality tools for reference because the ear does get forgetful is what i have learned, and sometime it takes time to see flaws or strenghths. That's why many Native synths are only hyped up flavour of the week cause after time has passed people start to see the synths flaws (especially when better comes along and then the endless cycle continues). Meanwhile many of us who use dsp use synths that have stood the test of time and still prefer them to this day simply cause they where built to a truly high standard from the start and are arguably timeless. I do alot less spending money on gear since i got Sonic Core SCOPE dsp system. Just my thoughts and opinions.

[sounddesigner]

And DSP systems are more than just about synths, they can be whole environments including mixung desks and effects and routing. And no, they're not just computers in a box - DSPs are dedicated to one task - your CPU is trying to be a word processor, games machine and porn viewer as well as an audio machine.

if i was given a penny every time i heard this...

funny thing is this argument is false on so many levels. Our CPU is a general purpose processing unit. "General purpose" doesn't mean "nothing in particular", it means "everything and the kitchen sink". It can literally do everything. All software is math. It doesn't matter if this math produces a word processor or an audio plugin. It's still math.

I don't see why the arguement is false when there are many benchmarks that show the affects of Windows/Mac O/S on computers in terms of core scaling with plugins (some O/S's and different versions of them perform better then others), also the various DAW hosts that run on those O/S's. The performance hit of the O/S can be seen in terms of number of plugins and it worsens as buffer-size decrease. And everytime the UAD-2 quad was compared to the fastest computer using plugins that run on both platforms the computer won but not to the degree it should have due to the O/S. In one test the computer was 3 1/2-5 times more powerful but the gflops it has stated it should've been 10x (keep in mind this was only one uad quad; 4 quads can be stacked since dsp's are usually a stackable system thus the complete system is all cards combined that are allowed). When looking at the small 9.6 gflops a UAD-2 Quad has and the load it handles the load states it is powerful for its size and efficient (and expandable).

The biggest tell-tale is the ever incresing buffer-size; the more tasks done the larger the latency becomes with the cumulative-latency-enviroment computers have (and people try to do everything with Native, e.g. synths, DAW, effects, internet, automation, samplers, audio streaming, Video, etc plus backgroung Windows maintanance). Computers have to run a general purpose O/S dsp's don't and thus can remain true REALtime platforms aka zero-latency. My dpc latency increases when internet and other programs are running, once dpc latency increases then running your DAW at ultra-low-latency becomes impossible. My SCOPE XITE-1 keeps me in REALtime threw-out all stages of music production and allows for all to be done simultaneously (mixing, tracking, composing, etc). DSP's are still needed for ultra-low-latency and this may forever be the case, even my super duper i7 don't help much in this regard.

True power aka High-end power is about how much of a load that's done at the lowest latency. The lower the latency a processor is running at the higher-end it is. When computer buffer-sizes get lower the load becomes heavier AND IT IS SEEN THAT REAL MUSCLE IS NEEDED FOR LOWER LATENCY PERFORMANCE. Some plugins have to be given latency intentionally by the developers to avoide extreme hunger like Ozone's reverb at 96khz. Computers don't run at latencies as low as dsp's thus comparisons are'nt fair when people do tout how much of a larger load their computer can handle; as the buffer-size decrease the load must become smaller and to run as low as dsp's is to not run at all cause they can't get that low. If you want a fair comparison then run them both at the same latency with real-world projects. In my view the dsp's are the higher end processor cause they get lower latency and cause they stay fixed at that latency. Even maintaining the smallest buffer-size computers can get wich is 32 samples usually, with a complete set of tools (quality instruments, effects, processors, etc) is near impossible unless you start doing compromises (turning off oversampling, avoiding certain plugins, etc). DSP systems offers more no-compromise thus is more high-end. And the fact that a dsp system is a hybrid system that includes a computer is what makes it even more no-compromise.

With a dsp + Native hybrid in many ways i do much much less compromising then using Native alone. So for REALtime operation (mixing, routing, plugins, etc) dsp's are still needed. This is why UA released Apollo recently cause they knew dsp's are still needed for REALtime, this is why Sonic Core had no fear of releasing XITE-1, this is why Avid released Protools HDX recently despite watching many NON-REALtime-dsp platforms perish. Even the makers of Native interfaces such as RME have gotten into REALtime dsp effects cause they know the importance of dsp's (even as computers get faster more use of REALtime dsp is growing).

Some will argue that computers can run at as low-latency as dsp's and stay there if you design a O/S to do so, but like always the problem here is that this is theorhetical but in practice all we have is dsp. Fantasy technology is no good for real world use and needs. Even Merging Technologies Pyramix Masscore is not a fully REALtime system and it bypasses the Windows O/S, plus its extremely niche, limited and isolated from interoperability with standards.

[Uncle E]

I had a play with Minimax ASB, and after that Minimax in Plugiator, and Diva. While I don't own a real vintage Mini, I had several chances to play one so I do know how it behaves. Diva just clicked right there. I'm not saying that Minimax is bad, but to me, Diva has nailed that filter, bar none. I'm not saying 100% exact, but for sure it's the most faithful native solution there is.

I've owned two Minimoog's and the Minimax is more accurate to both of them than DIVA is. DIVA is absolutely my favorite native softsynth and I think its MS-20 bits are unsurpassed (its MS-20 oscillators through its Minimoog filter is incredible! ), and I feel very fortunate to get to use it beside my Scope Minimax and Pro-12.

[mkdr]

One thing to add.. the performance of DSP systems grows linearly when you add more processing power. That doesn't happen with computers. For example, i can do alot more with my Core2Duo, which measures at 8 GFlops than i can with half of my AMD Phenom2 that's doing 38 GFlops. There's just too many bottlenecks in computer systems.

And btw my pci-e GPU does 480 GFlops with 30 GB/s memory bandwidth
My laptop 0.45 GFlops, and it has a 30 GB HD... LOL

(btw, even that laptop can do hundreds of voices of SampleTank.. that really doesn't scale up with my desktop AMD)

[EvilDragon]

It was definitely not a 5-minute play. But ok.


Besides, Minimax is not modeling some stuff (something related to the VCA?) that Diva is, as Urs has discovered.

[mkdr]

It was definitely not a 5-minute play. But ok.


Besides, Minimax is not modeling some stuff (something related to the VCA?) that Diva is, as Urs has discovered.

Modeling which, by looking at peoples comments, isn't doing anything.


But i really don't care which one is the closest.. id just wish Diva would stop being the new Omnisphere around here.

[EvilDragon]

That isn't gonna happen

[sounddesigner]

When i stated 5 minutes regarding testing Minimax, i was using a figure of speech. Did'nt mean literally 5 minutes just meant a short time.

[Syncretia]

not everyone wants to run everything on a computer

Totally fair enough. If you just prefer an outboard synth, that's totally cool. I'm really only saying this because a lot of people get confused and think outboard synths are naturally better. I've worked with computers all my life - I understand them, you understand them, but not everybody does. So, when someone comes to them and says "Buy, this big box of stuff, it's better than your computer - it's got knobs and 57 GPUS! GPU make your music sound better!", I want them to understand that what they are being told is complete rubbish.

If you're going to have a big keyboard on stage it might as well make a sound in its own right rather than just be a controller attached to a computer

.

Why?

[Uncle E]

Besides, Minimax is not modeling some stuff (something related to the VCA?) that Diva is, as Urs has discovered.

Personally, I'm a total Minimax fanboi AND a total DIVA fanboi, that's why I'm so perplexed by your statement that "Diva easily trumps Minimax". To me, this is like comparing a Jupiter 8 to a Prophet-5, there are certain areas where one may excel over the other but one does not trump the other. They're both incredible instruments!