Stop It

[mholloway]

So what the OP is saying is that current software is jut as good as Analog and should be considered pretty much the same thing. Cool, got it!

[mcnoone]

Everyone knows that physically speaking, hardware and software have that difference.
Yet the idea is not about physical parts of what makes them different.
It's about physical sound comparisons to achieve a goal of consistent similarity between in terms of sound, and not physical parts.
The benefit of such an achievement is so obvious that it goes without saying why that goal is important.
In two words, cost, and convenience.

[JerGoertz]

Boasting in this roll bread.

[Teksonik]

The benefit of such an achievement is so obvious that it goes without saying why that goal is important.

I don't see emulating inferior hardware as a "goal" I see it as a waste of time and of no benefit at all.....

And so on and so forth.........the wheels on the bus go round and round.........

So in summary the OP told people to stop arguing about hardware vs software by starting an argument about hardware vs software.........irony at it's finest.

[fluffy_little_something]

I don't like hardly any emulations. Not because they were inferior, but because I would probably not have been thrilled by the original, either.

Take TAL's U-NO-LX. It sounds pretty good, but as long as Patrick sticks to the original, it only goes so far. He should have invested all that time and energy into turning NoizeMaker - an original TAL concept - into a top-notch synth instead.

[do_androids_dream]

Their is a select group of instruments out there that are truly talented builds and should be appreciated for such.

Yes there is - agreed - but the problem arises when the developer makes some announcement pertaining to a comparison to an analog/hardware synth. This is where all the debate starts. And if the developer chooses to use comparisons to analog/hardware to market it then people have every right to express their opinions on the matter. This is all fine and dandy if people keep the discussion non-personal but, as we've seen, someone always takes it personally somewhere (even devs in some discussions) and it goes downhill.

[Dasheesh]

I had to go eat my PB&J in peace before I came back to this but some of you do have the experience to get it and it keeps me coming back. I'm just trying to kill all these endless circles from debates that are pointless and a waste of energy and space. So much noise I find myself drowning in it. It's discomforting to say the least.

What developers are doing is taking aspects of musical kit and trying to build a great software instrument. They are not trying to implement EVERY aspect of all great musical instruments. They go .. "I really like the sound or experience of X instrument. I think this is what makes it great..." then they try to build a great software musical instrument that uses such aspects. The thought that someone could imitate all the aspects of all the great hardware into a single instrument with todays personal computers is ridiculous. The thought that developers could imitate all the physical aspects, as well as, the experience of even ONE great instrument in such detail with todays common personal computer is ridiculous in itself. They are trying to build a great software instrument. That takes experience and knowhow. Not something that everyone has, because I bet there is a crap tone of great coders out there that can code you what it takes to simulate or imitate if given enough time, but it wouldn't be practical.

[elxsound]

The benefit of such an achievement is so obvious that it goes without saying why that goal is important.

I don't see emulating inferior hardware as a "goal" I see it as a waste of time and of no benefit at all.....

And so on and so forth.........the wheels on the bus go round and round.........

So in summary the OP told people to stop arguing about hardware vs software by starting an argument about hardware vs software.........irony at it's finest.

+1

But was the goal to actually stop people from arguing?

[cryophonik]

Oh, geez, is it already that time of the month again on KVR?

[fischkopf]

[...]

The better the quality of software the higher the cpu crush. [...]

Oh really?
How do you explain synths like Audjoo Helix then? That thing sounds incredibly analog and uses very little CPU.

It's all a matter of efficient coding, buddy. And no, you DON'T need a 'super computer' to make a synth that surpasses the quality of hardware synths. In fact there are more hardware synths out there that sound like utter shit, than there are good sounding VSTi's.

[Robmobius]

[...]

The better the quality of software the higher the cpu crush. [...]

Oh really?
How do you explain synths like Audjoo Helix then? That thing sounds incredibly analog and uses very little CPU.

Yeah, I'm with you there... That's a bizarre statement for him to make.

Besides Helix, there's Sylenth (which still sounds great), HIVE, etc.

[Neon Breath]

So Stop.

OK. Got it commander.

[Nielzie]

Everyone knows that physically speaking, hardware and software have that difference.
Yet the idea is not about physical parts of what makes them different.
It's about physical sound comparisons to achieve a goal of consistent similarity between in terms of sound, and not physical parts.
The benefit of such an achievement is so obvious that it goes without saying why that goal is important.
In two words, cost, and convenience.

This. And only this.

[Dasheesh]

[...]

The better the quality of software the higher the cpu crush. [...]

Oh really?
How do you explain synths like Audjoo Helix then? That thing sounds incredibly analog and uses very little CPU.

Because they (sylenth etc.) are not modeling analog.

[Deep Purple]

and here comes yet another train wreck.

Coal or electric?