The Gadget Fiend challenge

[crimsonwarlock]

I have a hardware Ragnarök (the only one in existence ), and a software Ragnarök: the hardware one is broken so it doesn't make any sound anymore, the software version is virtually unbreakable and can do some things the hardware never did. Verdict: software is better


Sorry, couldn't resist that


But seriously, as software is very capable for making great music and the average listener (you know, the ones you make your music for) is totally unaware of what was used to make the music, the cost of hardware including the cost of maintenance has lost the battle against the cost effectiveness, multi-instance use, workflow efficiency (total recall) and space efficiency of software. It doesn't matter if software doesn't sound exactly like hardware, it matters if it can sound like something my tracks need. And it does.

On the other hand, if you need the tactile interaction, hardware is still king (but I can get pretty close with mapping MIDI-controllers to software). So it might fit your way of working better, or inspire you on a level that software doesn't. Which is still a very subjective point and has little to do with the sounds that hardware or software can make.

You can't debate if either hardware or software is better, only if it suits YOU better, which is a non-issue as that in itself is a personal perception point and therefore not open to debate. Apart from that it is just mental masturbation (on both sides of the argument).

[Gadget Fiend]

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

I will grant you, that in the ROMpler category, Omnisphere wins for synth sounds. Of course, it doesn't do analog-sounding patches that convincingly because it relies on digital filters. And it doesn't do wavetable sweeps at all, etc. But yes, for what it does, Omnisphere is really good.

It just goes to show you that sampling real hardware synths and using those samples as the basis of the sound engine is usually a better approach than modeling, at least when relying on the relatively limited CPU available on today's computers.

[Gadget Fiend]

But seriously, as software is very capable for making great music and the average listener (you know, the ones you make your music for) is totally unaware of what was used to make the music, the cost of hardware including the cost of maintenance has lost the battle against the cost effectiveness, multi-instance use, workflow efficiency (total recall) and space efficiency of software. It doesn't matter if software doesn't sound exactly like hardware, it matters if it can sound like something my tracks need. And it does.

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window. One "solution" is to run multiple PCs via Vienna Ensemble (which I have done in the past). But that's a pain in the ass except when using a relatively static orchestral palette.

With my hardware synths, I can have 20 synth parts going without using my CPU at all. AND the synths sound great! Sure, they cost more than plugins. But you get what you pay for.

[pdxindy]

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

Good catch, he admitted in his own post that he was wrong! hehehe

Seriously, when it comes to digital hardware, software passed it a while ago. Analogue still has something however.

[Gadget Fiend]

Good catch, he admitted in his own post that he was wrong! hehehe

Seriously, when it comes to digital hardware, software passed it a while ago. Analogue still has something however.

I admitted no such thing you dumbass. As I clearly stated in my original post, the synth sounds in Omnisphere typically sound better than the equivalent sounds in hardware ROMplers like the Roland Integra. But the whole point of a "ROMpler" is having loads of acoustic sounds and synth/acoustic hybrid patches. And aside from its guitar and vocal patches, Omnisphere is mostly lacking those types of sounds.

[pdxindy]

But seriously, as software is very capable for making great music and the average listener (you know, the ones you make your music for) is totally unaware of what was used to make the music, the cost of hardware including the cost of maintenance has lost the battle against the cost effectiveness, multi-instance use, workflow efficiency (total recall) and space efficiency of software. It doesn't matter if software doesn't sound exactly like hardware, it matters if it can sound like something my tracks need. And it does.

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window. One "solution" is to run multiple PCs via Vienna Ensemble (which I have done in the past). But that's a pain in the ass except when using a relatively static orchestral palette.

With my hardware synths, I can have 20 synth parts going without using my CPU at all. AND the synths sound great! Sure, they cost more than plugins. But you get what you pay for.

That is why you are so angry, cause you got ripped off... you already lost the sound argument and now you are falling back on hardware is more convenient

[Gadget Fiend]

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

Are you really that lazy? Do I need to do everything for you? I know that "copy and paste" was a challenge for you earlier, so it's probably asking a lot for you to go to YouTube and listen to a few demos of the synths I mentioned in each of the categories in my original post. If you pull your head out of your ass just the tiniest bit, you might be able to educate yourself as to what actually sounds good.

[crimsonwarlock]

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window.

Where your argument fails is where you assume I need Diva and/or Spire to make good music. This is the problem with your point of view: you think that making (good) music needs the hardware that you own. You can run a lot more then 20 instances of Ragnarök on a very mediocre quad-core machine in real time. And rendering a mix-channel to audio is painless in Reaper so no problems there as well. Hardware-wise you need a lot of money to beat my track count on a very cheap computer.

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

On the other hand, if you need the tactile interaction, hardware is still king (but I can get pretty close with mapping MIDI-controllers to software).

i've had my hands on a few hardware synths. had a dw8000 for some years, and an alesis ion also. i did always enjoy the direct interaction with the hardware, but it's not like most hardware synths have a one-control-per-parameter workflow. subsequently, the whole process of programming on tiny lcd screens (or less) is a real inspiration-killer. there are many midi controllers that allow mapping of controls to give back some of that immediate control, but now with tablets we have synths with 10" touch-screens. this scenario satisfies my need for that interaction perfectly

[Gadget Fiend]

But seriously, as software is very capable for making great music and the average listener (you know, the ones you make your music for) is totally unaware of what was used to make the music, the cost of hardware including the cost of maintenance has lost the battle against the cost effectiveness, multi-instance use, workflow efficiency (total recall) and space efficiency of software. It doesn't matter if software doesn't sound exactly like hardware, it matters if it can sound like something my tracks need. And it does.

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window. One "solution" is to run multiple PCs via Vienna Ensemble (which I have done in the past). But that's a pain in the ass except when using a relatively static orchestral palette.

With my hardware synths, I can have 20 synth parts going without using my CPU at all. AND the synths sound great! Sure, they cost more than plugins. But you get what you pay for.

That is why you are so angry, cause you got ripped off... you already lost the sound argument and now you are falling back on hardware is more convenient

I often wonder what has gone wrong with society to create a generation of people who have no critical reasoning skills whatsoever. It's really sad when people can't grasp the simplest arguments, understand even the most basic concepts, or even follow a discussion. It's like trying to explain relativity to baboons. So I will stop trying.

Cheers.

[pdxindy]

But seriously, as software is very capable for making great music and the average listener (you know, the ones you make your music for) is totally unaware of what was used to make the music, the cost of hardware including the cost of maintenance has lost the battle against the cost effectiveness, multi-instance use, workflow efficiency (total recall) and space efficiency of software. It doesn't matter if software doesn't sound exactly like hardware, it matters if it can sound like something my tracks need. And it does.

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window. One "solution" is to run multiple PCs via Vienna Ensemble (which I have done in the past). But that's a pain in the ass except when using a relatively static orchestral palette.

With my hardware synths, I can have 20 synth parts going without using my CPU at all. AND the synths sound great! Sure, they cost more than plugins. But you get what you pay for.

That is why you are so angry, cause you got ripped off... you already lost the sound argument and now you are falling back on hardware is more convenient

I often wonder what has gone wrong with society to create a generation of people who have no critical reasoning skills whatsoever. It's really sad when people can't even follow the simplest arguments or understand even the most basic concepts. It's like trying to explain relativity to baboons. So I will stop trying.

Cheers.

You lose the argument and then resort to name calling...

[basslinemaster]

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...

"that was easy". You didn't actually prove anything. When are you going to post up some sound examples of hardware?

[basslinemaster]

It just goes to show you that sampling real hardware synths and using those samples as the basis of the sound engine is usually a better approach than modeling, at least when relying on the relatively limited CPU available on today's computers.

"relatively limited CPU" compared to what? 30 year old hardware synths? LOL.

Dune 2, Serum, Codex, Spire, etc. all sound fantastic. Nobody else is complaining about their sound.

[basslinemaster]

Where your argument falls apart (and what started this whole tiresome "debate") is the fact that it's usually necessary to render-to-disk softsynths like Diva and Spire when playing more than a few notes (and this is on my relatively recent 6-core custom built PC). And thus the so-called efficiencies and streamlined workflow go out the window. One "solution" is to run multiple PCs via Vienna Ensemble (which I have done in the past). But that's a pain in the ass except when using a relatively static orchestral palette.

With my hardware synths, I can have 20 synth parts going without using my CPU at all. AND the synths sound great! Sure, they cost more than plugins. But you get what you pay for.

LOL. I don't have to render anything to disc on my PC (it's "disc", not "disk", by the way - "disk" is short for "diskette", as in "floppy disk"...). You said "it's USUALLY necessary" "softsynths LIKE Diva and Spire". This is untrue. Sometimes, some patches, on SOME PCs, need to be rendered. Do you know anything about CPUs?

Where are your audio demoes, to prove your point? I've shown you where to download the Dune 2 demo, so you can hear for yourself, where are your demoes?

[andy4trance]

Too much passion, too few facts. Please, one of either sides do us (the viewers) a favor and post a riddle type recording with sounds of the two seemingly collided worlds so that we can understand the reason for this debate.

Many thanks.