Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[dellboy]

The definitions of opinion and fact, subjective and objective as stated in the dictionary and accepted by the world are not my opinion but indeed fact.

Again, how hard is that to understand?

So the quality of anything is just subjective opinion ?

May as well buy the cheapest thing available then.

No need to waste money on a Rolls Royce when a Hyundai will do.

[chk071]

Guess some people just don't hear subtlety. That doesn't make their subjective opinions objective, just ill-informed.

First of all, subjective opinions are never objective. By definition, as opinions, they're subjective.

Person X saying "Hardware analog synths sound BETTER than" whatever, is never fact. It is opinion by definition.

If 99% of people don't like constant noise, and 1% say they love noise all day long, is it a subjective opinion for you that people generally don't like constant noise?

I mean, I admit that it's a bit difficult to say in this case, because there actually ARE reasons where someone could prefer "proudly" digital devices, but, in general, for me, I always prefer the ones which give you the best from both worlds, and are as close to good analog hardware as possible. And the gazillions of analog modelled devices or softwares, and the marketing which almost always hints on proper emulation of analog hardware kind of proves that most people out there think the same.

[wagtunes]

The definitions of opinion and fact, subjective and objective as stated in the dictionary and accepted by the world are not my opinion but indeed fact.

Again, how hard is that to understand?

So the quality of anything is just subjective opinion ?

May as well buy the cheapest thing available then.

No need to waste money on a Rolls Royce when a Hyundai will do.

That is not what I said and you know it. I am simply separating declarative statements into those that are factual and those that are opinion.

"This metal X, whose tensile strength has been measured to withstand more stress than metal Y has more tensile strength."

That is an objective fact as measured by machine, making metal X of better quality than metal Y. Now, how important that is, is further determined by what that metal is going to be used for. Perhaps in some cases, metal Y will be good enough. But the fact still remains that metal X has more tensile strength.

This is objective fact and not opinion.

The statement "Analog synths sound better than soft synths" is not based on any measurable fact other than how our ears interpret the sound, which varies from person to person.

Therefor, because this will vary from person to person because all our ears perceive sound differently (for a variety of medical reasons) this statement is opinion.

I fully expect you to continue to argue this with me because that's what this world has come to. People can say the sun is purple and insist they're right.

I should know better than to try to argue facts and logic with this place. It's futile.

[wagtunes]

Guess some people just don't hear subtlety. That doesn't make their subjective opinions objective, just ill-informed.

First of all, subjective opinions are never objective. By definition, as opinions, they're subjective.

Person X saying "Hardware analog synths sound BETTER than" whatever, is never fact. It is opinion by definition.

If 99% of people don't like constant noise, and 1% say they love noise all day long, is it a subjective opinion for you that people generally don't like constant noise?

I mean, I admit that it's a bit difficult to say in this case, because there actually ARE reasons where someone could prefer "proudly" digital devices, but, in general, for me, I always prefer the ones which give you the best from both worlds, and are as close to good analog hardware as possible. And the gazillions of analog modelled devices or softwares, and the marketing which almost always hints on proper emulation of analog hardware kind of proves that most people out there think the same.

You're not understanding what I'm saying.

If you were to say to me "97% of the people in the world, based on a poll, think analog synths sound better than digital synths" the poll results themselves would be a fact and could not be disputed.

Fact: "97% of the people in the world prefer analog"

This is not disputable.

The statement "Analog synths are demonstratively better than digital synths" is the opinion of those 97% and not based on any measurable fact.

What exactly is "better" sound? Can you even define better sound? Before you do, better listen to the folks who do lo-fi hip hop.

The problem is, the word "better" is subjective.

If people would just damn say "analog synths produce a more accurate representation of sawtooth, square and sin waves, and therefor I prefer them over other synths" we'd be done with this whole argument. But no, they have to state as fact that analog synths sound "better"

To them? Yes. Which makes it THEIR opinion.

Is this really that hard to understand? My wife who knows nothing about synths, when I gave her the statement and asked her if it's a factual or opinionated statement, said it was opinion without hesitation.

So please explain to me how 2 + 2 = 5

[.jon]

Wagtunes, you got a little bit confused there. I was talking about the people who think softsynths sound as good as real synths, and fail to realize that it's just their subjective opinion.

[chk071]

What exactly is "better" sound?

It's definitely measurable. I gave the example of a static sound vs. a sound with modulated pitch. It's how our hearing works. It's not subjective. Analog simply has certain charactertistics which make the sound more interesting for the listener. The listener. That means everyone.

[excuse me please]

MOst synths sounds are relatively known by now ???
We're talking synths and synthesis methods here, not a simple recorder
I can patch a sound you probably never heard in your life

Well, if you are able to create an original, popular sound without any known nominators, then I'd be surprized.

[wagtunes]

What exactly is "better" sound?

It's definitely measurable. I gave the example of a static sound vs. a sound with modulated pitch. It's how our hearing works. It's not subjective. Analog simply has certain charactertistics which make the sound more interesting for the listener. The listener. That means everyone.

That is only because you "prefer" a sound with modulated pitch or variances over a static sound. Preferences are not facts. They are opinions. Please read a dictionary.

But, that aside, soft synths are more than capable of producing variable sounds and yet they are not analog. They are, by science, digital as they exist in the computer domain of 0s and 1s. Again, this negates the statement of "analog synths sound better than soft synths" as being factual. Again, just opinion.

And finally, a majority of the people believing something is true makes it fact is also not true.

Up until 1543, when Nicolaus Copernicus proved that the Earth and the other planets revolved around the sun, everyone (and I mean EVERYONE) believed that the sun revolved around the Earth. And even after proving this, it took 100 years for people to finally accept it.

So majority opinion doesn't make something fact.

[chk071]

But, that aside, soft synths are more than capable of producing variable sounds and yet they are not analog.

Yes, because they mimic analog behavior.

[wagtunes]

Wagtunes, you got a little bit confused there. I was talking about the people who think softsynths sound as good as real synths, and fail to realize that it's just their subjective opinion.

Well of course it's just their subjective opinion. This is all subjective opinion.

Fact: Analog hardware more accurately reproduces a sawtooth wave.

Opinion: Analog hardware sounds "better" than soft synths.

People simply don't understand the definition of the word better in this context.

If I said to you "Song A is a better song than Song B" that would absolutely be my subjective opinion.

So why is "Synth A sounds better than Synth B" or "Synth A is a better synth than Synth B" not subjective opinion?

The problem is, some people just decide to make up the rules as they go along, completely ignoring the dictionary and definition of terms.

There is simply no arguing with that mentality.

Which makes me wonder why I'm wasting my time here.

Anyway, I have to continue preparing to do my Broadway Musical CD and I've wasted enough time on this already.

Have a nice day.

[wagtunes]

But, that aside, soft synths are more than capable of producing variable sounds and yet they are not analog.

Yes, because they mimic analog behavior.

Doesn't make them analog though. You can dress a pig in a tux. It's still a pig.

[wagtunes]

Guys. Enjoy the rest of your discussion. You can't possibly prove to people they're wrong when they're convinced they're right.

And I'm done trying.

(Mic drop....and outa here)

[vurt]

But, that aside, soft synths are more than capable of producing variable sounds and yet they are not analog.

Yes, because they mimic analog behavior.

Doesn't make them analog though. You can dress a pig in a tux. It's still a pig.

but its a pig with style

[chk071]

But, that aside, soft synths are more than capable of producing variable sounds and yet they are not analog.

Yes, because they mimic analog behavior.

Doesn't make them analog though. You can dress a pig in a tux. It's still a pig.

I think part of the reason why we're arguing the whole time here is that you think I, or someone else who is not convinced by the whole "opinion" thing, would want to talk digital or software down, which is not the case. I'm happy that software is on such a high level now. All I'm saying is that it's mostly due to more authentic analog modelling. Because... again... our ears work analog. Your speakers do too.

BTW, I have no problem with your opinion, and I have no problem discussing with you here. No harm done AFAIC, and no offense taken or given (hopefully). It's a difficult topic, and I also understand why you argue that it has to do with opinion. It has, partly. I just think there's a more general thing about analog sound than you say.

And, yes, a pig is a pig. It better wear a lot of analog make up though, to make it a good pig.

[dellboy]

The statement "Analog synths sound better than soft synths" is not based on any measurable fact other than how our ears interpret the sound, which varies from person to person.

The human ear converts analogue signals for the brain to interpret and classify into various categories.

The human brain made all the machines and programmed them to work on its behalf.

The human brain is by far the most complex machine in the known universe.

So whats wrong with trusting the human ear and brain to decide whats good or bad quality ?