Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[zerocrossing]

I'll condense my points into little chunks:

Software VA is more capable than hardware analog... unless you have a giant modular... and even then it's probably not polyphonic... and a billion dollars.

Sofware VA brings electronic music to the masses with it's low or even free cost.

Software VA does not sound as good as analog hardware, even though it can sound like it.

Software in general is easier to use for me and makes for a very quick and fun workflow. I respect those that disagree, and like a room full of knobs and cables, but I'd rather not have that.

So this could have been on the first page, and we would have known it instantly, that in your opinion hardware sounds better than software.

But I doubt that you "respect those that disagree", otherwise this thread wouldn't consist of 15 burdensome pages...

See, here's where the wheels come off the wagon. I didn't start this thread. I didn't start posting things like

Apparently he hasn't used Diva yet.

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

and...

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 respect those (like me!) who choose to use software for what ever reasons they have, but I do not respect those who say software VA sound just as good as analog hardware and that people can't tell the difference, because it is not true. This whole thread started to become "cut down the rich old dude who's behind the times" and as a rich old dude I felt we needed a voice.

[Ingonator]

I respect those (like me!) who choose to use software for what ever reasons they have, but I do not respect those who say software VA sound just as good as analog hardware and that people can't tell the difference, because it is not true.

I played with my Moog Slim Phatty today (with my own sounds i made for it) and have to agree. Especially with the filter overload turned on and with extreme Resonance + Cutoff settings (Resonance is there over the whole frequency range) the Phatty seems to sound superior (same for e.g. fast modulations of the filter frequency).
Anyway the latest VA softsynths sound great too but there still seems to be an audible difference to the real analog synths. For sounds with less extreme settings (with extreme settings i also talk about e.g. high frequencies/octaves) the difference seems to get smaller up to very small, depending on the softsynth.

BTW i am also using the built in EQ of my small analog mixer (Behringer Eurorack UB 1002) to improve the sound of the Slim Phatty. This could lead to an even better low end than it already got but all with an full analog signal path (at least until it is recorded with a PC...).


Ingo

[Kriminal]

so you need to EQ it to make it sound good

[Ingonator]

so you need to EQ it to make it sound good

I don't need to but with the EQ it sounds better.
Tell me any professional studio musician who is not using external FXs like e.g. EQs with his recordings.

Also Diva and Saurus have an improvement in sound when adding an EQ which for Diva Urs mentioned himself in this thread today.

The EQ in my small Behringer analog mixer is a quite basic 3 band EQ but it works very nicely.


Ingo

[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.

I do not respect those who say software VA sound just as good as analog hardware and that people can't tell the difference, because it is not true.

You seem to think that what happens in real world is that a complete layman has 2 tracks to compare - 1 made with software and 2nd made with hardware.

Simply put... this is not what normally happens.

What normally happens is that a listener who has no idea what VSTi is, listens to a song on the radio and without you asking him what he thinks about the sound of the instruments in that song, he will almost never even think about nature of these instruments.

If he doesn't even know what VSTi and a virtual analog software synth is, he obviously can't catch anything abnormal when he hears a song made with software.

Sure that if you educate him about the difference and provide a song made with the other side of the software vs hadware war... he will hear the difference, but as i said that almost never happens in real life.

[zerocrossing]

I respect those (like me!) who choose to use software for what ever reasons they have, but I do not respect those who say software VA sound just as good as analog hardware and that people can't tell the difference, because it is not true.

I played with my Moog Slim Phatty today (with my own sounds i made for it) and have to agree. Especially with the filter overload turned on and with extreme Resonance + Cutoff settings (Resonance is there over the whole frequency range) the Phatty seems to sound superior (same for e.g. fast modulations of the filter frequency).
Anyway the latest VA softsynths sound great too but there still seems to be an audible difference to the real analog synths. For sounds with less extreme settings (with extreme settings i also talk about e.g. high frequencies/octaves) the difference seems to get smaller up to very small, depending on the softsynth.

BTW i am also using the built in EQ of my small analog mixer (Behringer Eurorack UB 1002) to improve the sound of the Slim Phatty. This could lead to an even better low end than it already got but all with an full analog signal path (at least until it is recorded with a PC...).


Ingo

Finally! Someone who gets me!

[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 do not respect those who say software VA sound just as good as analog hardware and that people can't tell the difference, because it is not true.

You seem to think that what happens in real world is that a complete layman has 2 tracks to compare - 1 made with software and 2nd made with hardware.

Simply put... this is not what normally happens.

What normally happens is that a listener who has no idea what VSTi is, listens to a song on the radio and without you asking him what he thinks about the sound of the instruments in that song, he will almost never even think about nature of these instruments.

If he doesn't even know what VSTi and a virtual analog software synth is, he obviously can't catch anything abnormal when he hears a song made with software.

Sure that if you educate him about the difference and provide a song made with the other side of the software vs hadware war... he will hear the difference, but as i said that almost never happens in real life.

I agree with all of that (as I've said in other posts in this thread) and it's super awesome information... but has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread because it's about what tools an artist chooses to use for themselves. In every post I've made I've tried to explain that but no one seems to care.

So we've established that you do agree with me. Good analog hardware synths sound better, but you think the audience won't appreciate the difference. I guess I agree with that especially in a world where a lot of music gets played in clubs with crappy systems and worse engineers. The rest gets played though crappy earbuds, or best case Apple earbuds (which sound surprisingly good for cheap headphones) Maybe that's not true. All the people around me are sporting higher end headphones like Sennheisers and AKGs. We're an art department though so maybe we care more? I know cheap on board sound card do help crappify the sound too. The output of my Toshiba laptop sounds horrible compared to even my iPhone.

The point that I don't agree with though is that just because it doesn't matter to the general public you should lower your own standards as well. Why not have the very best you can afford? I don't begrudge the Model D owners even though they're too expensive for me. It's worth it to them. That's all I'm saying. If an artist's tools are worth the extra money and hassle to them, why call them "out dated." I can paint a picture with Painter and a Wacom tablet, but that doesn't make oil paints and sable brushes obsolete.

[zerocrossing]

You seem to think that what happens in real world is that a complete layman has 2 tracks to compare - 1 made with software and 2nd made with hardware.

That's not what I think at all. I 100% do not give a sh!t about a complete layman, or actually anyone other than me. I have to like it. That's all.

[debra1rlo]

I don't trust this Fatboy Slim character.

I mean, is he fat? is he slim? is mocking both fat and slim boys with his moniker?

DAMMIT, I NEED FACTS, NOW!!!!!111111

[cryophonik]

I don't trust this Fatboy Slim character.

I mean, is he fat? is he slim? is mocking both fat and slim boys with his moniker?

DAMMIT, I NEED FACTS, NOW!!!!!111111

One thing is certain: he's a boy. Or, is he?

[ariston]

Fatboy Slim Phatty, eh?

We are currently living in an in-between age. There will surely come a time when these discussions will seem REALLY antiquated. "Just imagine, scholars, how the people of the early 21st century fretted over the differences between analogue and digital."

The really interesting thing - to me - about all of this is: a lot of musicians seem to reject sonic perfection. By that I mean: the kind of perfection achieved by digital processing. Straight lines and corners are not "natural". The natural world is a world of curves, whereas we try to impose straight lines and corners onto it. There are, however, efforts in every field of science that try to counter this movement: fuzzy logic, systemic theory, the emulation of non-linearities in music software. To some, it might seem like today's developers are trying to resurrect old tech in a digital form, but that is misleading. What they're doing is actually a synthesis of the natural (randomness, curves) and the artificial (lines and corners). The gap is rapidly closing; I really feel we're moving ahead, and that some of the current software synths are examples of the endeavour to reconcile the natural and the artificial. Which, to put it plainly, is the huge conundrum that entraps all of us in this modern age. It is a reflection of the human condition. And I find it heartening to experience these advances first-hand. I hear Neil Young rant about digitalism, and I tend to agree with most of his points, while another part of me thinks that his point of view is reactionary and wilfully recalcitrant. Clinging to the past just seems wrong to me.

Which is a hugely round-about way of saying: don't fret these little differences, just enjoy the ride. When I look back ten to fifteen years and see how far we've come in music software, I really can't wait to see what the next ten years will bring.

[ouroboros]

pfft.. a Model D

I have Model E

[Tricky-Loops]

It's a waste of my time. I already posted a clip where someone a/b'd Diva and the Phatty and the Phatty sounds clearly better. Did you listen to it?

It always depends on who makes them, and why. We'd have zero problems doing comparisons in which Diva sounds "better" than any synth featuring the circuits she's been modeled on

Gehen für sie, mein Freund.

And just YOU of all people have complained that I couldn't speak English very well??

If you could speak as well German as I can speak English than we could understand each other much better, my friend.

Okay, GEHEN SIE, MEIN FREUND!!

Actually a co-worker is in Germany all week and I've been sending out emails to our department where I create a phrase like, "Ich mag Schildkröten, aber im Moment hätte ich lieber ein Bier." and "Ich werde die Lampe einzuschalten, nachdem ich den Kaugummi aus meinem Schuh zu bekommen." which are all generated by Google translate. It's super funny to see what Outlook's translator turns it into.

That's why I don't use the Google translator usually... Except when I want to understand something from a very different language, let's say Greek or Hungarian. I've fed Google translator with Italian (because I speak it, too) - the translation sounds awfully awkward, and the translator doesn't even get the context at all.

Or simply the world "awful" - how could the Google translator know if it's meant positive or negative?

[gpham86]

Technology has made our lives better in so many ways. Get with the times bros!

[Mutant]

I agree with all of that (as I've said in other posts in this thread) and it's super awesome information... but has nothing to do with the original topic of this thread because it's about what tools an artist chooses to use for themselves. In every post I've made I've tried to explain that but no one seems to care.

The original topic of this thread:

They're on there and I have a play with them, but they all sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy.

There are few thousand VSTi plugins in KVR database, i guess at least 1000 are emulations of analog hardware, i simply don't believe that he tried them ALL like he said and even if he did i reject his opinion that all of them sound metallic and twangy.


Would be much better and way closer to the objective truth if he said:

They're on there and I have a play with few of them, but in my opinion they all sounded a bit samey - metallic and twangy.

Or at least:

They're on there and I have a play with them, but most of them sound a bit samey - metallic and twangy.