Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[ghettosynth]

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).

His point was that average listeners can perceive differences and still choose to ignore them at their convenience. He, additionally, cited the example of his wife being able to hear the quality of an analog over digital, granted, in isolation.

I've experienced similar response with people I know with synths both in isolation and also in the mix. They don't, of course, express it in the same terms that we would, but they are able to appreciate sound differences.

That said, I do somewhat agree that most users don't care most of the time and, in fact, will almost always value other music attributes over sound quality. For example, someone who likes dubstep will much prefer to listen to dubstep made with VA synths than to listen to Switched on Bach.

[Arglebargle]

I'd take a single soft synth over a studio full of analog synthesizers.

[fmr]

I'd take a single soft synth over a studio full of analog synthesizers.

I am a software addict, but nevertheless, I will trade one of my sofsynths for you studio full of gear (specially because I can easily replace my softsynth, anyway)
Seriously guys, don't you get tired of threads like this?
I have several hardware synths, almost half of them analogue, and I would buy more, if I had the space and conditions to take care of them. I have lots of softsynths. And I care as much of my softsynths as I car of my hardware synths. Which one sounds better? Well, I don't know. It depends what I want them to do.

[penguinfromdeep]

It's not about softsynths or hardware for me, it's more about this modern aesthetic with those glitchy overhyped sounds and drops and breakdowns in modern EDM like complextro (or whateverf*ck they call it nowadays). Artists like Wolfgang Gartner don't even use any hihat anymore, just kick and snare/clap (on every beat). It's just so boring and gets old really fast. It's like mcdonalds food, gives instant gratification but you feel bad and empty afterwards. Bring back the groove! Chicago house ftw!

[VariKusBrainZ]

Groovey music will come back, its just not in right now.
20 year cycles

[AdmiralQuality]

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.

And it's about time KVRers got around to discussing software vs. hardware!

[darsho]

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

because we love to touch our hands-on synths and don't want to use computers when playing live.
Soundquality has nothing to do with it for me.

It's just the hands-on experience and standalone function.

One of my favourite hardware synths is the Gaia.
I have VSTs that sound better, but boy that thing is just more fun than anything else.

[zerocrossing]

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

El cheapo MP3 players?

Reasonably priced stereo systems?

Right, that's my point. "In a mix" implies some sort of listening device, right? So sure you can't tell the difference on your cheapo phone's earbuds, but if you dropped some decent money on a home stereo system I'd argue that most anyone without hearing damage could point it out. I'd say even more clearly because differences add up.

Recently I wondered if I'd do better than software for my guitar amp modelling so I went on a research quest. Most of it, sadly, was on Youtube, but I could still pick out software from hardware even though Youtube's crappy compression and my $99 headphones. I'm no spring chicken but it was still clear. Sure, I know what to listen for, but do you think other people aren't hearing what I'm hearing?

So, in a mix I'd say that soft synths are actually more apparent than a good hardware equivalent. Lots of people think Saurus sounds good to though, so perhaps I do have golden ears. Or maybe I'm just awake.

[Tricky-Loops]

It's not about softsynths or hardware for me, it's more about this modern aesthetic with those glitchy overhyped sounds and drops and breakdowns in modern EDM like complextro (or whateverf*ck they call it nowadays). Artists like Wolfgang Gartner don't even use any hihat anymore, just kick and snare/clap (on every beat). It's just so boring and gets old really fast. It's like mcdonalds food, gives instant gratification but you feel bad and empty afterwards. Bring back the groove! Chicago house ftw!

+1:tu:

Nowadays there's more experimental electronic crap and less good music...

It seems that there are more sound designers than real musicians - they create some effects, put them together and call it music. It's all about the best new effect, not about groove and feeling.

When I listen to music, if there's nothing that lights my feeling -- if there are just some random effects, then I switch it off...

There are some great musicians who can combine music with sound design - to name William Orbit for example -, but they're very rare.

So, to (try to) come back to the interview with Norman Cook (why he doesn't need all these soft synths): With soft synths you can have a myriad of possible sounds and effects -- but don't forget that music is more about. It's about feeling and groove.

[zerocrossing]

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).

Nope, it is you who don't understand the topic. Did you even read the article? Read it and then get back to me. Here's some help:

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.

He's saying the sound does not inspire him because of the sound quality, not because of how close they sound to the real deal. Not once in that article does he even talk about the closeness of an emulation to a hardware synth. So just because you've decided to change the topic to something you want to chat about, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with the article we're talking about. So you're saying an artist should use tools he doesn't like the sound of because they're easier? Is that your point?

[Tricky-Loops]

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

El cheapo MP3 players?

Reasonably priced stereo systems?

Right, that's my point. "In a mix" implies some sort of listening device, right? So sure you can't tell the difference on your cheapo phone's earbuds, but if you dropped some decent money on a home stereo system I'd argue that most anyone without hearing damage could point it out. I'd say even more clearly because differences add up.

Recently I wondered if I'd do better than software for my guitar amp modelling so I went on a research quest. Most of it, sadly, was on Youtube, but I could still pick out software from hardware even though Youtube's crappy compression and my $99 headphones. I'm no spring chicken but it was still clear. Sure, I know what to listen for, but do you think other people aren't hearing what I'm hearing?

So, in a mix I'd say that soft synths are actually more apparent than a good hardware equivalent. Lots of people think Saurus sounds good to though, so perhaps I do have golden ears. Or maybe I'm just awake.

As a listener, I've never reasoned if this sounds like analog hardware or digital software. Either I liked it or not. I decided in the first 30 seconds if a song was worth listening to or not -- if it wasn't good, I switched it off.

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

[dalor]

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

DIVA has no goal, DIVA is just code, the users are the ones with goals.
many of yesterdays tools are used to make sounds that are considered up to date, in the past for example those synths where used to make space music, rather than their intended use's of creating for example orchestral sounds. in turn these recordings where often sampled by hip hop artists to create a new sound...
and so on it goes.
the users are the ones in control, DIVAs patches may well emulate the old hardware but that doesnt mean someone wont create their own sounds and move on from its creators intended goal.

we are not bound by the tools unless we give in to them, be creative and who knows what you will find under the hood

I think you talk about Music and style, I was talking about sound (the waveform, the single instrument). Of course please do something new with it, that's the fun part. Sample that instrument, play sequences, slice and dice, pitch filter LFO spectral destruct it, create patches thought impossible, whatever. Thats when I love this digital era. If this sound (instrument) has changed through manipulation or patch programming, impossible to identify its original source, that's (in my books) clever soundesign. However, it often starts with a waveform, which many praise if it comes from old hardware in its origin. Sampling of course can be a start too, if youre sampling your own shit to create something new then you're my hero because then you create your own unique style. Agreed on all your points.

[zerocrossing]

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

Again, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why people didn't read the article. It's about an artists take on the tool he uses, not about what the audience feels about them.

[fmr]

http://www.musicradar.com/news/tech/int ... cer-546858

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.

If you want a certain bass sound, you can just pull it from the internet. If you want a sound that goes wow-woooh-widdly-widdly, you can find it onMassive. I don't need all that. I don't need all the fireworks of digital music. All the clever-clever glitchy-ness. I get a bit bored by it. I was cutting up samples 20 years ago. I want to go somewhere else.

Once upon a time when dinosaurs walked the Earth and man was no more than a little piece of slime swimming along in the vastness of the great ocean deep

I don't remember there being dinosaurs walking the earth 20 years ago (apart from prog rock dinosaurs of course).

I miss those, BTW

[Tricky-Loops]

As a musician, you may hear the differences. But most of the audience won't be musicians...

Again, I'm having trouble wrapping my head around why people didn't read the article. It's about an artists take on the tool he uses, not about what the audience feels about them.

I'm troubled about artists that don't care about their audience, but only about their take on the tools...

And BTW, I do have read the whole interview!