The Gadget Fiend challenge

[Orbit-50]

Both hardware and software are good in there own ways, but according to what's his face, Lord Condescendor, he was sent here by the powers that be, to spread the prophecy that "those who shalt wallow in thine wicked and unjust beliefs that software synthesizers can sound good and make good music that people actually like in the year 2014, shall be cursed for all eternity and shall be smitten by the sword of God, and that those who have a couple of old synths lying around their house and hold on to the past as if that's all there ever will be, shall be blessed and have everlasting life. Amen." This isn't the place for that type of "wisdom". It's sort of like going to a lesbians convention and telling all the women there how big your duck is. Know what I'm saying? You're basically here to start trouble my man. You did it over at the Steinberg forums. I'm calling a spade a spade. The ignorant man, who calls everyone else ignorant. You're a dime a dozen. You need to find a forum with tons of stuffy elitists like yourself. Then you can all perpetually hammer each other all day with your stale outdated rigid points of view. This is our home. Go take a piss somewhere else!


.-.

[rod_zero]

Some people lack attention in their real world lives, they like to troll forums. The hard vs soft discussion only interest kids which are way too dumb to understand that: 1.- people doesn't care about their opinion, 2.- music, or what ever output, is more important than the tools.

I really don't get why people is so insecure that feel the need to either look down on others or feel butthurt and feel the need to argue for 10 pages.

I wonder how much music they would get done with all that energy.

[trimph1]

basslinemaster, if you don't want to come across like a complete douche and a tool, at least try to accurately represent what I have said. Or is "copy and paste" beyond your limited skill set?

This all started when someone got all butt hurt over the seemingly innocuous comment that one solution to plugin-induced CPU overload is to use hardware synths which, aside from leaving your computer processing available for CPU-intensive FX and processing plugins have the added benefit of sounding better than their softsynth equivalents.

Of course, them's fighting words on KVR where the "experts" (who have often never even heard a hardware synth firsthand) get all bent out of shape because maybe, just maybe, their gear is not the be all and end all of studio setups. There is apparently a progression from ignorance, to denial, to envy and then on to argumentativeness, belligerence and stupidity (all of which have been on full display in the Spire thread).

And yet despite the vindictive idiocy and personal attacks, not one person has been able to provide a single example of a softsynth sounding as good as its hardware equivalent.

Here is what I wrote in the Spire thread:

As is clearly obvious to anyone who has actually heard any of the hardware synths mentioned below, there is not a single synth plugin that sounds as good as its hardware equivalent.

Analog-Style Subtractive Synths
This goes without saying. Diva, etc. are wannabe imitators compared to something like my MKS-80. Even my Prophet '08 rack blows every analog modeled synth plugin out of the water. The only synth plugin that sounds even remotely analog is the TAL U-NO-LX (and that's because it's modeling a really simple synth).

Wavetable Synths
The Microwave and Microwave XT crush every wavetable plugin including everyone's new fanboy favorite Serum (which is way too clean, sterile, and uninteresting sounding despite its excellent interface).

Hybrid Synths
The Prophet VS, DSI Evolver Series, Shruthi/Ambika, and even the Korg DW-8000 destroy the few synth plugins in this vein. (The Arturia Prophet-V is a complete joke in comparison.)

FM Synths
The DX7 series sounds noticeably fuller and warmer than FM8. Even the Nord Lead 3 (which is not strictly an FM synth but which has very capable FM synthesis features,) is a better option than FM8 and its ilk.

ROMplers
Although the synth patches in Omnisphere sound arguably better than the synth patches in something like the Roland Integra or Korg Kronos, the Integra and Kronos offer a much broader range of sounds including loads of acoustic instruments and cool hybrid synth/acoustic patches.

"Dance Synths"
This is the only category where it's even close. Sylenth and Spire do a decent job of covering the same terrain as a Virus. But the TI is still a better sounding synth AND doesn't chew through your CPU using a single patch.

Done and done.

I should have also added "Modular Synths" as an additional category. Although the plethora of software modular synths (including u-he's new "Bazille" modular softsynth) are great educational tools and can provide a really creative environment for experimentation, these "softies" don't sound anywhere near as good as a hardware modular. How that is even debatable is beyond me.

So, put up or shut up. Either name one softsynth that sounds as good as its hardware equivalent, or go back to your troll cave. And just so we are clear, no one is saying that softsynths don't have their uses or benefits (especially in terms of cost and convenience). They just don't sound as good as their category-leading hardware synth. Again, how is that controversial? It's just stating an obvious fact to anyone who has working ears.

In all this stuff you still have not provided an objective standard by which to judge which sounds better than the other.

Until you come up with this objective standard your opinion is still an opinion.

BTW...has Hans Zimmer become an apostate by using softsynths?

[beeny]

Don't get the point of this thread. 'My subjective view is correct!' 'No, my subjective view is even correcter!'

Realistically there are pros and cons to both. A plugin which is emulating an analog synth by definition cannot be as accurate as the real thing but may be more flexible.
Whether or not it sounds 'better' is subjective.

There is also the gadget fetishism to take into account. Physically manipulating a knob instead of tweaking a few pixels with a mouse may impact your perception of the sound created.

Point is- let's all handle our knobs in the way that makes us the happiest and stop bickering.

[OutCider]

I downloaded the demo of true piano once and was blown away by how much better it sounded than my ancient old 5th hand upright.
I don't know if that proves all software is better than hardware, but it's a true enough story.

[Gadget Fiend]

Kind of quiet. I thought so.

Put up or shut up.

I already did... you are ignoring it cause you got no answer...

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Diva, better than any of the synths it tries to emulate? Hahahahaha.... Good one.

[Gadget Fiend]

You're basically here to start trouble my man. You did it over at the Steinberg forums.

Not sure what you are talking about. If you are referring to my post on the Steinberg forum about the objectively bad implementation of the new screwball global menu in Cubase 8, then by all means I am a "troublemaker." I believe I was thanked 5 times for that post.

Glad to know that some creepy troll is keeping track of my posts across the Internet. What a fulfilling life you must live.

[pdxindy]

Kind of quiet. I thought so.

Put up or shut up.

I already did... you are ignoring it cause you got no answer...

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Diva, better than any of the synths it tries to emulate? Hahahahaha.... Good one.

One, you are misrepresenting what I said... but most importantly, I was not referring to the Diva comment.

I answered your question specifically but you seem to have selective eyes that only see what you want. I am suspecting that your ears are the same.

[trimph1]

He may be something of a gear fetishist. If someone can be so impressed by the looks of a GUI that they hear the sound as better than I guess it can work the other way round as well.

He did state something to the effect that his "system" stemmed from his having an extensive collection of hardware synths...

[basslinemaster]

Here you are, Gadget Fiend:

http://www.synapse-audio.com/download.html

Download the Dune 2 demo and listen to the presets. Then post up some wav files of your 'superior' hardware.

I see that you tried to bring in the idea that 'hardware doesn't take up PC CPU cycles' as an advantage... For the cost of a hardware synth, you can upgrade your CPU and motherboard...

I would have thought that you would at least have posted up some audio examples of hardware being better than software.

[Ingonator]

Wavestation plug-in is better than the hardware... it is exactly the same except it has a resonant filter and it is easier to edit. Software wins

I have both a Wavestation EX (since 2004) and the plugin and while in terms of features and interface maybe the plugin is superior sound wise i still prefer the hardware.
I also had a Wavesataion SR rack in 2004 and the sound was slightly different too to the EX. This seemed to be due to differenrt converters.

[Gadget Fiend]

Here you are, Gadget Fiend:

http://www.synapse-audio.com/download.html

Download the Dune 2 demo and listen to the presets. Then post up some wav files of your 'superior' hardware.

I see that you tried to bring in the idea that 'hardware doesn't take up PC CPU cycles' as an advantage... For the cost of a hardware synth, you can upgrade your CPU and motherboard...

I would have thought that you would at least have posted up some audio examples of hardware being better than software.

Dune 2. That's what you are going with as an example of the superior sound of softsynths? I am debating a complete moron.

Just so we are clear, the "challenge" was for you to name one synth in any of the categories I listed as having superior sound to the category leading/representative hardware synth. And you are saying it's Dune 2 in all categories?

Well that was easy. Only a know-nothing, low-rent "KVRtard" could make such a laughably preposterous claim.

Next...

[izonin]

First let me say that I play guitar, so I deal with the analog almost exclusively. When it comes to synths, I got my first monophonic analog (discrete circuitry) at the tender age of 6.

Personally, I find that there's only a handful of softsynths that sound almost exactly like the analogs they model. To be safe, I'll only include the TAL ones and Monark in this list.

Diva usually needs some post EQ/saturation, but can give satisfactory results, too.

And of course there's a sea of products, that only vaguely resemble the hardware. Arturia's...

[penguinfromdeep]

Sorry, I thought you were joking. Diva, better than any of the synths it tries to emulate? Hahahahaha.... Good one.

I think URS was confident that Diva even sometimes sounded better than the hardware equivalents they had in their studio. Who knows, maybe Urs will chime in

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

Kind of quiet. I thought so.

Put up or shut up.

ok, i'll put up. from your own list, you conceded that omnisphere patches sounded "arguably" better than it's nearest hardware equivalents. having a less varied sample set might be an argument against (for some), but has nothing to do with the thrust of your argument

i have not heard the hardware equivalents, nor am i particularly interested in losing certain conveniences of software for some hardware mojo that many will never be able to hear, but i think you have kinda crowned omnisphere the winner