Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[zerocrossing]

Is KVR the new hang out for retired Grampa's??
I taped it from the radio..

How dare you leave out those of us who are still working with no children!

[zerocrossing]

DIVA raised the bar in the VST world this year (2012!) when the same could have been achieved with hardware since 1966.

In 1966 very few of us could have afforded to cause it was quite expensive.

I never said it was cheap. I just said it was possible. People think that all this new technology is creating a better sound, yet we use Technology to reproduce the sound from yesterday.

You could say the same thing about the telephone. If memory serves, I used to make telephone calls as far back as the 60s (probably even longer, though the only proof I have is tv shows and movies) that sounded a lot better than the best cell phone and you pretty much never had a call fail. They were also really cool the way you could slam them down at the end of an angry call. Very satisfying! Why hasn't this part of the tech been replicated?

You miss the point that technology isn't necessarily about making things "better." 9 times out of 10 it's about making something cheaper, smaller or otherwise more convenient.

[zerocrossing]

DIVAs only goal is to sound like yesterday's synths.

Except for the fact that it adds a ton of modern features that can enable it to make sounds that no synth from the 70s or 80s could do. If you use it to make retro sounds that's your fault, not the faut of Diva.

[trimph1]

If one swallows the VA marketing tag hook, line and sinker then, yes, I suppose you could argue that all they are making is copies of analogue instruments.

That is the point. I do not listen to the marketing men..if it sounds good to my ears I get them.

This coming from someone who already owns a few hardware synths....

[chk071]

What about software synths and the like...

"They're on there and I have a play with them, but they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy. Sure, you can get the most incredibly complex noises coming out of them, but they don't really inspire me. I know I'm not the first person to say this, but we're getting to a point where everyone is going to have an unlimited musical palette.

What an extremely biased and unright statement. Also i wonder if he even tried a soft synth in the last 10 years tbh. Software synths all sounding the same, metallic?? Anyway, i think if you're ideologically twisted, nothing can change your mind anyway, so he should go on using his hardware which sounds oh so better, who cares really.

[zerocrossing]

http://www.arturia.com/evolution/en/products#Analog

http://www.adamszabo.com/jp6k/

http://www.gforcesoftware.com/products

http://www.xils-lab.com/pages/PRODUCTS.html

http://www.admiralquality.com/products/Poly-Ana/

http://www.applied-acoustics.com/ultraanalog/overview/

http://kunz.corrupt.ch/products/tal-u-no-62


The soft synth world has the hardware covered. Dunno why you'd want the old hardware now anyway, other than sentimental value.

I own nearly all of that software and I can tell you that none of it actually could replace any one of my hardware analog synths and I don't even own a really good one. Sure, in terms of functionality, but not in sound quality.

...and I don't even own a "vintage" analog. I'm told those sound as different to a modern analog as Diva does. I won't buy a vintage synth, though. I need things like stable oscs, MIDI control and preset memory. I also don't want to deal with having to service old synths. It's a compromise though, as everything is.

I dare you to try this: Save up $400-600. Go to your local Guitar Center or any store with a decent return policy, and buy an analog synth. MoPho, Minitaur... Minibrute when it comes out (why do they all start with "M?") Or better yet, find an ATC-1 used on Craig's List. Spend a week with it, then go back to one of the products in the links above. If you feel the software is just as good (the radio just said, "software" at the exact moment I typed "Software!" It happened when I typed the second software too! ) return your synth. If you bought it on Craig's List, ATC-1s are easy to resell. Actually they all are.

I dare you! I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU!

[LeVzi]

This is the whole point though, and what Norman Cook is on about. Software cannot replace the hardware, and just doesn't cut it.

But as far as I am concerned, i'd sooner get all of those in that list than buy the hardware, sound quality aside. Simply because

a) They'll never need servicing

b) If a fault happens to the hardware, getting it fixed isn't cheap.

c) They take up loads of room

d) One instance then bounce, opposed to as many instances as your CPU can handle of the software.

e) hardware controls can be well fiddly.

I could go on, but i'd sooner use the closest approximation of a juno2 in software form than hunt down the hardware.

But there are many people who just cannot accept anything less than the original sounds from the hardware for whatever reason, and that's cool, that's their choice, but i'm 100% software and don't expect to be marked down because of it.

And it doesn't end with synths either, of course we are talking about the software versions of effects too. Pultech's and 1176's etc. I use loads of ones like that in software form.

[Mutant]

I dare you!

And i dare you to repeat this true statement 100 times:
An average listener can't distinguish between hardware and todays best software in a mix - and this makes this whole discussion pointless.

[ghettosynth]

I could go on, but i'd sooner use the closest approximation of a juno2 in software form than hunt down the hardware.

Yep,me too, but that's mostly because the Juno 2 is natty little piece of junk with pretty much just one good trick up its sleeve. There's a reason that they're still relatively cheap.

[ghettosynth]

I dare you!

And i dare you to repeat this true statement 100 times:
An average listener can't distinguish between hardware and todays best software in a mix - and this makes this whole discussion pointless.

Ok, so, for the most part, I think that's true. Or, perhaps more correctly, the average listener will ignore certain attributes of music and weigh their judgement primarily on more typical attributes such as melody and rhythm.

My better half has expressed specific opinions and preferences regarding the sound of tracks and I think that it's going a bit too far, however, to say that average (non-musician) listeners can't tell the difference. I suspect that many could in an A/B setting, but, when presented with a track as fait accompli, that their first inclination will not be to criticize the nature of the production.

[zerocrossing]

I dare you!

And i dare you to repeat this true statement 100 times:
An average listener can't distinguish between hardware and todays best software in a mix - and this makes this whole discussion pointless.

I don't believe that's true because it's been my experience that it's the exact opposite. I know a lot of people who prefer better movie theaters because they have great sound systems. People still spend money on high end stereo gear or upgraded car stereo systems. Now, whether or not most care about the increase in quality is another story. My wife will often listen to her laptop speakers when she's cooking, but she can easily tell the difference between a decent and a high-end stereo system. I was even playing around with synths in a Guitar Center and I went from a Moog Little Phatty to a Roland Gaia and she instantly said, "Oh, that first one sounded a lot richer."

So sure, say most people do not care about the increase in sound quality. I'll buy that. But to say they can't tell... that's not true. Most people also think that Chile's is a good restaurant, but I bet if you sat them down at The French Laundry they'd be able to tell the difference. Don't sell people short just because they've, (and this includes you!) gotten used to crap.

[pdxindy]

I dare you!

And i dare you to repeat this true statement 100 times:
An average listener can't distinguish between hardware and todays best software in a mix - and this makes this whole discussion pointless.

I think it is much harder to distinguish analog from digital when recorded... But for live playing? The straight analog output to speakers is where the difference is the most. If I were playing live regularly, that is when I would likely get some analog gear.

[Mutant]

LOL @ derailing the thread to sound quality and high end stereos which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread... it is software vs hardware.

You also conveniently forgot that i said "in a mix".

[trimph1]

And what, do I ask, are mixes listened through? hhhmmmmmn?

El cheapo MP3 players?

Reasonably priced stereo systems?

[Mutant]

And what, do I ask, are mixes listened through? hhhmmmmmn?

El cheapo MP3 players?

Reasonably priced stereo systems?

Imagine 1000 music listeners.

People listening at home, in cars, while jogging, traveling to work on public transportation.

Still not relevant to the topic.

It is about how close the software can emulate the hardware and if it comes close enough for majority of non nerd listeners to not think "this song was made with virtual synths", not about what can give you a more hi fi sound (software would obviously win in that contest).