The Gadget Fiend challenge

[el-bo (formerly ebow)]

hasn't it already been shown that most fail blind tests for this kind of thing ??

[Gadget Fiend]

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?

Clearly too lazy to even read my post:

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.

http://www.youtube.com

Enlighten yourself.

[izonin]

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.

Just search on Gearslutz. Dozens of comparisons there.

[mutantdog]

http://www.youtube.com

Enlighten yourself.

Dude. You've come to a software forum and proclaimed hardware to be superior, specifically in terms of sound. The onus is on you here to demonstrate your claim.

Provide links to specific videos at least, lest we all assume you are talking shit.

[Gadget Fiend]

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.

It's simple, KVRtards get butt hurt whenever anyone suggests that:

1) Softsynths currently sound inferior to their hardware equivalents
2) It might be a good idea to know something about music and, heaven forbid, actually learn to play an instrument if you are going to call yourself a musician
3) EDM is "music" by and for idiots

This time it was #1.

[Gadget Fiend]

http://www.youtube.com

Enlighten yourself.

Dude. You've come to a software forum and proclaimed hardware to be superior, specifically in terms of sound. The onus is on you here to demonstrate your claim.

Provide links to specific videos at least, lest we all assume you are talking shit.

I didn't start this thread. Bassdouche did. He has stated for the record that Dune 2 sounds better than all hardware synths. He is a moron.

[izonin]

Gadget Fiend, does the Minimoog count as a top subtractive analog?

https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstrument ... comparison

[trimph1]

He has a system folks. And he knows the truth.

Better go back to those recording studios with the 2" tape and such.

[basslinemaster]

http://www.youtube.com

Enlighten yourself.

Could you be a little more specific? LOL.

[mutantdog]

Gadget Fiend, does the Minimoog count as a top subtractive analog?

https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstrument ... comparison

I did that blind and decided i generally preferred the second one, although could barely notice a difference in most cases. I then found out which was which (i won't spoil it).

Admittedly, i'm currently listening on less-than-decent speakers.

[trimph1]

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.

It's simple, KVRtards get butt hurt whenever anyone suggests that:

1) Softsynths currently sound inferior to their hardware equivalents
2) It might be a good idea to know something about music and, heaven forbid, actually learn to play an instrument if you are going to call yourself a musician
3) EDM is "music" by and for idiots

This time it was #1.

OK...we broke three of the lord's commandments.

How dare we assume that softsynths can be as good as the real thing

And we are not REAL musicians...where have we heard this before?

And EDM is of the devil...

Wow.

[penfever]

They're just different. End of story.

Hardware devotees often ignore how much software is now doing that hardware never even tried to do. Software and iPads provide control paradigms, like Lemur and the Linnstrument, that hardware can't match, allowing for more expressiveness in performance. Kaivo and other physical modeling synths are producing insanely cool new 'impossible' instruments.

I think the much more interesting question is when software is going to successfully emulate acoustic instruments -- things like violins and the human voice are still very hard to produce in software, although they've made huge strides over the past few years.

[penguinfromdeep]

I wonder what Gadget Fiend thinks about Drop by Cytomic, I mean it's not a synth but just a filter. Still the most analog sounding thing in software so far (in my opinion)

[Fritze]

Admittedly, i'm currently listening on less-than-decent speakers.

Which is obviously one of your basic faults. How dare you to listen on sub-par speakers? Or even worse: HEADPHONES???
OK, if someone comes along and says he's listening to the stuff on super-duper highest end speakers in (at least) Abbey Road studios and STILL prefers the sound of software then the golden ear myth is the last straw.
The Alamo of audio: YOU DON'T HAVE GOLDEN EARS LIKE I DO!!!

Ah, it's 2014 and still these silly fights are fought. Must be the normal thing in humanity.

But basically: IBTL!

[Compyfox]

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.

I can agree with Ingonator here.

I do have a Yamaha MU-15, it's predecessor the DB50XG and the software equivalents of these modules. They all sound completely different in comparison with each other. The MU-15 is an outboard module (therefore, it has it's own DAC), The DB50XG's sound was declared by the DAC you used, and the software is also heavily reliant on the used DAC. So things are bound to sound different. But in the mix, I don't care.

Or what about the E-MU Proteus racks (hardware) vs the Emulator X/Proteus X (software) or even the samples for Kontakt, SF2 and what have you. Again, the output couldn't be any different, but the basic sound is still there. It's just that the hardware is a POS to programm (I have two racks myself!), while the Software was a breeze. But the software is reliant on the used ADC - and on the developers to be further developed (didn't happen).


I also remember the Chris Hülsbeck A/B of the Siegfried Kullmann SQ8L vs his own hardware SQ80. The software sounded brighter (read: more clear higher frequencies) due to the fact that it used a different DAC.

Now the same can be said for official software ports of the Novation V-Station and Bass Station, or Korg's own synths and ports. Or what do you say about Waldorf with the Attack (which actually came BEFORE the hardware RackAttack) or the PPG Wave and it's successor releases by Wolfgang Palm (IIRC, he's also on KVR).


Granted, things have changed over the years. Emulations can be even more spot on. But else, all I see in this particular "call out" or "challenge" thread, is just another hardware vs. software debate.

I'm a user of both, I grew up with hardware synths myself.
Whatever works for the job and needs less maintenance. Plain and simple.



What does sound and work more "close" to the hardware, is actually down to personal preference. But I thought we stopped the "boxed thinking" years ago at this point. Guess not.