Why will software people not admit hardware sounds better?

[IncarnateX]

Digitone is also just software in a box.

Fail.

[stratum]

Digitone is also just software in a box.

Fail.

You should open the user manual and look for claims of analog circuitry driven by software. Otherwise info in the web claims it's a set of FM algorithms in a box.

[IncarnateX]

Digiitone runs in a dedicated box. Give up that old,”but a PC is a hardware case too” argument. There are many technical reasons to think otherwise with respect to the hardware differences in constructions. But all that does not really matter. I need more than a vague theoretical common trait to convince me, like sound comparisons in a studio from a wannabee Digitone softie. Such things as “software running in a box” would equal all your softies too and they do not sound different to you? Sound is not a mantra, but an interaction of many factors among other the hardware that is supposed to realize the “program” .

[DJErmac]

I think people should read this thread before trying to answer here :
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=520956

[IncarnateX]

As if they hadn’t already

[pekbro]

Yeah, in this case the unpredictable system is the hardware itself, and it’s construction. The behavior of electrons is sufficiently predicatble already. Just sayin.

[stratum]

Here is the alternative scenario. If the same thing was released as software nobody would notice it for several months and then it would be on sale %70 off. Meaning the salaries of the software team and the preset designers are at risk, so why bother, if you truly have best expertise that is lacked by many others in the field, then you probably wouldn't risk it in that way nowadays. Make it hardware so people would think it's better because it's a physical box, not because of the expertise behind it.

[ATS]

because it doesn't?

[IncarnateX]

Here is the alternative scenario. If the same thing was released as software nobody would notice it for several months and then it would be on sale %70 off. Meaning the salaries of the software team and the preset designers are at risk, so why bother, if you truly have best expertise that is lacked by many others in the field, then you probably wouldn't risk it in that way nowadays. Make it hardware so people would think it's better because it's a physical box, not because of the expertise behind it.

Yeah, whatever assertions keeps you going, including the belief that Digitone’s sound is independent on the hardware realising it, but I need proof and netiher “software in a box” nor even high math approximation arguments are going to cut it before I can test and hear it. Provide me the emulation, so I can test it and compare. Until then, it has not happened, and I allow myself to doubt it will.

[morelia]

there are benefits using software but deep down inside you know that sound is not one of them, so why keep pretending?

There is opinion and then there is fact. They are not always the same thing. Not even often the same thing in my opinion. You may be confusing your opinion with facts. Yes, like many things, software and hardware sound different. What makes one sound better is whether the listener likes the sound. Whether the listener likes it is what makes it superior, not what it sounds like to other people.

I prefer the sound of hardware, but not because it sounds better to all other people, because obviously that is not the case. I like it because it sounds better to me. To be honest though it seems to me that everything I said is blatantly obvious, leaving me with the feeling that (a) you were perhaps just trying to get a rise out of others and (b) I've just wasted my time participating in this thread.

[Jace-BeOS]

i know it is harsh, but i kind of agree with bones.

Your two part post right there, and the priceless “not quickly enough” initial response to this thread, are my favorites so far. Both made me laugh.

I have a few digital hardware synths, one barely analog synth (whatever is analog in the Korg Poly800 is trapped under digital controls), and I’m pursuing acquiring proper analog synths... and I still think this thread was a very bad idea. But at least it’s entertaining. I’m eating corn (not popcorn) while reading it.

[pekbro]

http://corn-hub.blogspot.com

[Jace-BeOS]

From my limited experience, they don’t behave the same and therefore sound different. IMO hardware sounds better, even hardware that’s driven by software, which is largely the case nowdays. Despite all the cool math, models of the way electricity behaves can never truly be accurate because it’s impossible to account for every variable.

A reasonable facsimile is one thing, but that’s all they are. Like it or not.

End of the 7th page and we have someone making a sincere effort to justify this thread?

[JerGoertz]

I literally *hate* using software. Every time I fire up my DAW and insert my first VST plugin, I become furious.

An all-consuming anger, only matched by the fervor of top-quality KVR trolljobs.

[Jace-BeOS]

Eventually tech like quantum computing, which is particularly suited to dealing with the problem of unpredictable systems, will become prevalent. This may go along way towards leveling the playing field. It will be some time before things become practical however.

1. There is no quantum computing. There is a room-sized single qubit switcher, if I recall correctly. It may NEVER become practical because we have made most of the physically practical discoveries that there are likely to be made (the limits are now very much the limits of the physical world, not our ability to manipulate matter). Dramatic discoveries, and practical realizations of dramatic new concepts, have leveled off considerably.

2. Quantum computing isn’t about modeling unpredictable systems. It’s about changing the bit flipping so there is a third state. Base-3 math, instead of base-2. It’s an increase in speed of math functions, not some new type of math. The whole point of designing electronics is to make predictable systems that run fast, not those which do things at random. The effort invested will be in creating reliable and predictable systems.

Do correct me if I’ve missed something, but quantum computing is a bit like nuclear power plants: a huge amount of effort dealing with hugely impractical materials just to boil water, which we can do quite well already with other, more practical materials (photovoltaics don’t even require boiling water and turning a turbine to produce electrical current... but now I’m digressing... but this thread is pointless anyway, so maybe this is the best place to digress).