Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[herodotus]

He probably hasn't used some of the better plug ins, but I'll tell you that there are many highly rated plug ins that sound horrible. Aliasing all over the place. I demoed Saurus and I couldn't believe anyone would call it "vintage" as to me it just sounded harsh. I'm currently listening to the new demo tracks of Cyclop by Sugar Bytes and I'm shocked that someone thought those demo tracks sounded good enough to post... yet there's a thread where a lot of people think it's the cat's pajamas.

I'm just wondering, are you saying that people who like the sounds that you are calling 'horrible' are wrong? That they shouldn't like those sounds?

(I should mention that I agree with you about Fatboy Slim, and for that matter, anyone, having the right to his own preferences. I'm just a tangential bomb thrower by nature.)

[Tricky-Loops]

Use whatever inspires you!

That's the best claim I've ever read...

Norman Cook just has described his approach in making music. If I like the music coming out from this approach, then I care less whether he is using a MAC, a PC, an ATARI, an AMIGA 500 or even a C 64. And his opinion about soft synths is just his opinion - why should I be bothered?

There are millions of possibilities (analog or digital or digilog or anatal or anadigitalog) in making music!

[dalor]

To summarise this thread in a peaceful, mindful manner: No digital tools have been used or harmed or used during this recording.

[ghettosynth]

There's not really much going on in the S950 other than a non-resonant lowpass filter and 12 bit sampling. I find it really difficult to believe that it's sound can't be replicated in software. After all, it's mostly a digital piece of hardware, it's not really all that analog and non-resonant filters aren't quite as challenging as resonant filters.

I'll be perfectly honest, I haven't heard anything quite like what the S950 and it's derpy nonresonant digital filter can do to a sampled beat in software.

I've heard that elsewhere, of course, but I'm not convinced that there's any magic that couldn't be solved fairly easily.

In my opinion, some of the best filters can sound amazing with no resonance (either because it doesn't have it, or because you can turn it down and still get a nice sound - think subtlety).

Sure, wasn't my point; what I meant is that the resonant aspect of synth filters is what provides a lot of the challenges to emulation, particularly at high levels.

I'd have tried Morgana by now, but I find the price a little prohibitive.

They have a demo.

[ouroboros]

...He's not saying he doesn't care about his audience. He's only saying he finds inspiration in hardware instruments. As his audience, wouldn't you want to hear music that's done by someone inspired? Or would you rather listen to music done halfheartedly by someone forced to use tools he doesn't like?

Wait. So you don't like Diva either?

[vurt]

To summarise this thread in a peaceful, mindful manner: No digital tools have been used or harmed or used during this recording.

napalm death dont get mentioned enough around kvr, so im quoting this post.

[vurt]

and yup, i saw the tiny blue writing.

[Tricky-Loops]

Greatest discussion ever!

[scoobz]

I've scanned through a few pages but to all these people to saying fatboy who? is he even relevant? etc he had a top10 a short while ago....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mama_Do_the_Hump

And regarding the topic, does it really matter? That's the great thing about making music, there's a million different ways to do it.
How you get the sound you like REALLY doesn't matter, just do ya do and hopefully other people feel it. If a lot of people feel it then you become commercially sucessful which doesn't make your position any more or less valid, we all have our preffered way of doing things.

Don't sweat semantics, make good music, be better.

[musikmachine]

Use whatever inspires you!

That's the best claim I've ever read...

Norman Cook just has described his approach in making music. If I like the music coming out from this approach, then I care less whether he is using a MAC, a PC, an ATARI, an AMIGA 500 or even a C 64. And his opinion about soft synths is just his opinion - why should I be bothered?

There are millions of possibilities (analog or digital or digilog or anatal or anadigitalog) in making music!

Yep! We may not agree with it but he's entitled to his opinion. Are we gonna stop making music the way we do! No! Do my softsynths sound metallic and twangy? The banjo emus do but they're meant to sound that way!

[zerocrossing]

He probably hasn't used some of the better plug ins, but I'll tell you that there are many highly rated plug ins that sound horrible. Aliasing all over the place. I demoed Saurus and I couldn't believe anyone would call it "vintage" as to me it just sounded harsh. I'm currently listening to the new demo tracks of Cyclop by Sugar Bytes and I'm shocked that someone thought those demo tracks sounded good enough to post... yet there's a thread where a lot of people think it's the cat's pajamas.

I'm just wondering, are you saying that people who like the sounds that you are calling 'horrible' are wrong? That they shouldn't like those sounds?

(I should mention that I agree with you about Fatboy Slim, and for that matter, anyone, having the right to his own preferences. I'm just a tangential bomb thrower by nature.)

Throw away. It's my opinion that if you can't dance around tangentially thrown bombs on a forum you probably don't belong on it.

To answer your question though, I think "wrong" is the incorrect word to describe what I think. It's not wrong to like them, it's wrong to say they are of as high, or higher quality as the hardware they emulate. Here's exactly what I think: Make the music you want to make with the best tools you can get your hands on. The quality of the sound always takes a back seat to the quality of the music. I'll always appreciate a poorly recorded Jimi Hendricks song over the slickestly produced Katy Perry song. I think far too much noise is made here (and I'm sure part of it!) about the quality of sound in instruments.

However, most of my life I've been a bottom feeder in the world of musical instruments in everything but my guitars. I started out with a no-name guitar, Mattel Synsonics drum machine and a dream. My brother stole money from me (true story) to buy a Yamaha MT44 4 track cassette recorder which we thought was a living dream. I scraped up money to buy little fuzzboxes and what not from a local pawn shop. All the time yearning for better tools. Buying, trading. Waiting for the deluxe to become debris.

Now, all of that time I was playing music and trying to squeeze the best sound out of the tools I could get. I didn't own any synths that people pay thousands for today. My best was a Juno 106 that was shared with my brother. Oh, I guess I had a Vox Continental for a while too.

As time went on, I started doing better. College over, career started... I started picking up some stuff that was no longer unwanted discards, but more thoughtfully planned bit of kit. Again, I don't have anything super high end. There's no Model D in my studio either. I lost the Vox Continental to bad caps and I'm not into dealing with that again for a while. Before software instruments my best synth was a Virus C. Mostly I had a bunch of mediocre digital VA.

But I played the hell out of that too. I turned to software first because I was losing my studio space, but it became really clear that that the flexibility and cheap cost let me make a very tiny studio that could make a lot of noise. I played the hell out of that as well. I can't even tell you how much software I've collected over the years. It's embarrassing! "Oh look! Someone's selling x in the marketplace for $60! Why not?"

Anyway, someone here who is a hardcore hardware analog fanatic posted a clip that made me pay attention. There was a warmth and clarity in his cut that I guarantee you won't get out of a bunch of VSTs. Yes, even Diva. I don't know how to really describe the sound... but it had a certain solid cohesiveness... Once I recognized that quality it kind of ruined me. Luckily, it's available to everyone for $200 and up! Doesn't have to be a Model D. A Matrix 1000 or used MoPho or Evolver will get you there.

So, I'm not saying you all should drop your software and buy a CS-80 for $15,000. The most I've paid for an analog is $800. (a Prophet 08 and a ATC-x, both used) As far as I'm concerned that's as good as I need to get it. Now, if I won the lottery, or got discovered and started making Fatboy Slim money with my music? Hell yes, I'd buy a CS-80 or Minimoog Model D or what ever, and if you say you wouldn't I know you'd be lying.

So, it's not wrong to make music with software, but it is wrong to say it sounds as good as good hardware, because that's just not true. So why should I, or Fatboy or anyone else use a tool that's worse than what they have? I'm flexible though. If I want a good solid analog bass there's no way I'm going to software. If I want something that sounds like a hoard of alien bugs transporting to their starship, there's no replacing software. I'd also never buy an MPC or some relic Atari system. I don't care that much for what ever those things bring to the table. Maschine or µTonic will do the trick for me.

[Teksonik]

So, it's not wrong to make music with software, but it is wrong to say it sounds as good as good hardware, because that's just not true.

Bullshit.....and I've owned both....I no longer use dedicated hardware because it's crap. End of Story......you may lock this bitch now.....

[Meffy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Do_Yo ... e_Think%3F

[thecontrolcentre]

I'd also never buy an MPC or some relic Atari system.

What about one of these?



I hear Fatboy's got one

[ouroboros]

I hate puppies, rainbows and ice cream