Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[musikmachine]

It has to be real butter though, none of that artificial shit.

With zero delay fermentation, virtual butter is getting very close to real butter these days.

Coming soon, I can't believe it's not analog! Digital analog emulation so convincing noone can tell the difference (kvr members not included).

[musikmachine]

Wish we could start a "make that sound" thread, where members can post some of their favorite hardware synth sounds, and others could try to get as close as possible to it, with whatever softsynth they can.
Of course they would have to post the patch as proof, and no one partaking can be the one to post the hardware example. That would keep things honest.
I'd start the thread, but everything I do is just fail.
Maybe something like that could have sponsored prizes or something.
Not those boring flat, saw examples, but some finger noodling and sequenced wav/mp3 audio examples.
I think there's more than a few people here, that find the challenge of it somewhat interesting.
Could make a nice diversion.

I wanted to +1 this. Let's do it!

[zerocrossing]

How do you mean. I "didn't show the part where it didn't work, just the part where it worked" ? I showed that the Slim Phatty sound can be made available in software, something you claimed is not possible. I was able to make it work, so why not show it? There was no "part" where it didn't work in this example. As I said earlier, software can match the sound of hardware analog, and it can't. This was the occasion when it was possible to match it.

So the reason i did that was to balance your fighting stance that it is not possible.

and you state why it effected your post

I did no such thing. Seriously, what are you on about?

I just meant you showed the frequency range of the software instrument where the sound difference was negligible instead of doing a very wide range of sounds (like in the example that I quoted) that showed more clearly showed the differences at the bottom and top end of the frequency range.

It's like as if we were talking about bowls and you said, "I can make a plastic bowl that you couldn't tell from your ceramic bowl." Then you do it and put in room temperature water. You don't put in boiling water because you know your plastic version will go all wobbly (dubstep pottery?) on you.

Won't you post the same two patches again but start at C0 (or -2 depending on how you measure) and going up to C8 or so?

[Aiynzahev]

I like that he got off the drugs. I can totally understand why he prefers his way of doing things, he's been doing it so long and it's a very different way of working. There is a big difference between a machine like a laptop and something like an Akai sampler.

Shame he is being bludgeoned into modernizing but I expect he hopes to benefit from it in the end.

I tried the MPC2000xl. I liked it but couldn't be bothered to really use it. It seemed a little silly to me in the end when I thought about how fast I could do things in my DAW and how much more power I had.

But it's like I (almost) understand why someone would prefer to sit down and write a letter when I would just shoot off an email. It's what you're comfortable with I guess.

[mcnoone]

Will The Real Synth Please Stand Up

[Tricky-Loops]

Will The Real Synth Please Stand Up

I'm the Moog Phatty, well, I'm the real Phatty
All you other Cyphers are just imitating
So won't the real Phatty please stand up?
Please stand up, please stand up!!

[calande]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who is disappointed with virtual analog synths and VSTis. The sound is metallic and twangy, and when you turn the cutoff knob, you hear each downstep. I have a Roland Gaia and I also have a Massive VSTi. Very far away from a SH-101 or Juno 106 sounds for instance, and not as easy to use.

[Mutant]

Trollollollo.

[ghettosynth]

I also want to point out that there are a lot of hardware instruments I've rejected because I didn't think they sounded all that special or even very good. DSI Tempest (Tremor better)

This was such a missed opportunity IMNSHO. I think the biggest problem here is that Dave Smith is more a product designer than an analog engineer. He has seemed so attached to throwing the PA-397 at everything that I think that he didn't realize that it's not always (in my opinion, never) the right tool for the job.

The Tempest is like a super casio drum machine with some neat real time controllers, but it still lacks cohesion as a product as well as depth in sound. There were/are valuable lessons to be learned from Roland, Tamma, Simmons, Akai, Jomox, and Elektron here that were completely missed.

On Edit, as much as I dislike DSI products for their same-ness and the lackluster 80s synth embedded in their core, this guy uses some DSI synths to great effect. Not my style at all, i.e., I'm not buying his records anytime soon, but, jittery and interesting, at least until almost the end.

[Vectorman]

I also want to point out that there are a lot of hardware instruments I've rejected because I didn't think they sounded all that special or even very good. DSI Tempest (Tremor better)

This was such a missed opportunity IMNSHO. I think the biggest problem here is that Dave Smith is more a product designer than an analog engineer. He has seemed so attached to throwing the PA-397 at everything that I think that he didn't realize that it's not always (in my opinion, never) the right tool for the job.

The Tempest is like a super casio drum machine with some neat real time controllers, but it still lacks cohesion as a product as well as depth in sound. There were/are valuable lessons to be learned from Roland, Tamma, Simmons, Akai, Jomox, and Elektron here that were completely missed.

On Edit, as much as I dislike DSI products for their same-ness and the lackluster 80s synth embedded in their core, this guy uses some DSI synths to great effect. Not my style at all, i.e., I'm not buying his records anytime soon, but, jittery and interesting, at least until almost the end.

This is one of those times I just can't resist trotting out that old line from Ghost: "Baby...what you do to yo hair???"

[jancivil]

so much concern about digital emulating analog, or even just something encased in hardware... when there are things in software that are so fvcking powerful.

I love analog, if I could have a minimoog I'd use it. I was recording with that and the ARP 2600 in the early 70's. something of the character can be, some maybe not so much, captured in emulation. If one really knows synthesis - ie., more from the standpoint of the state of the art today - one can get a lot of it with even Absynth.

but the notion that software is inferior to hardware because it isn't exactly the same as some 80's, 90's technology, some Roland or Korg job, is just a giant fail. you can say you can't quite get the sound of the DX7 but this is fetishism.

as far as say cherished objects like the Buchla II and its modular concept. It was an ENORMOUS amt. of work to get an effect by actual patching and actual patching is kind of a nightmare. I for one do not find that more fun than software and the sound is not such a thing I get a fetish regarding.

for instance Reaktor Skanner gets a huge rich warm sound and very easily you can take it into insanely unpredictable territory due to its deep architecture [its feedback routing particularly]. If someone thinks 'it's all the same sound' all they showed was they haven't really explored what's available and kind of a stick-in-the-mud attitude.

[calande]

the notion that software is inferior to hardware because it isn't exactly the same as some 80's, 90's tachonology, some Roland or Korg job, is just a giant fail.

Not because it isn't exactly the same but because of the sound of it (metallic & twangy). The filter envelope isn't as nice to hear as that of a vintage and you hear ticks in sound very often on a virtual analog synth.

[jancivil]

I don't need to get into any argument on particulars. But that notion, direct comparison, has cropped up here and been insisted on repeatedly weighing in favor of the broad 'hardware' or the only slightly less broad 'analog'.

'software is inferior to hardware' is a general notion in the OP per this Norman Cook's opinion. What you refer to is specific. I'm sure it's true as far as certain specifics. There are physical reasons for certain phenomena in analog that are absent digitally.

I never worried that particular issue I guess because I don't look to software that is supposed to 'do' subtractive synths like that. The wide world of soft synths is narrowed down there in order to suit a point, and I'm just saying it's a dull point for me. Digital Synthesis has in fact dramatically expanded the possibilities in sound.

[ariston]

I never worried that particular issue I guess because I don't look to software that is supposed to 'do' subtractive synths like that. The wide world of soft synths is narrowed down there in order to suit a point, and I'm just saying it's a dull point for me. Digital Synthesis has in fact dramatically expanded the possibilities in sound.

Amen to that.

Thread closed. Anyone posting after this is a rotten egg, and Bob's your uncle.

[ghettosynth]

I never worried that particular issue I guess because I don't look to software that is supposed to 'do' subtractive synths like that.

So then why are you entering a discussion that's about softsynths emulating analog? Clearly, many people do look to software to emulate subtractive synths and the degree to which the emulations are successful is important to them.

Digital Synthesis has in fact dramatically expanded the possibilities in sound.

In other news, black has been shown to be darker than white.