Software Synths VS. Digital Hardware Synths.

[whyterabbyt]

i bet there's photographic evidence, with POG as the pilot.

once I get photoshop installed on this thing

[vurt]

i bet there's photographic evidence, with POG as the pilot.

once I get photoshop installed on this thing

ive just seen me on sting in his pants.
anything else is an improvement.

[whyterabbyt]

i bet there's photographic evidence, with POG as the pilot.

once I get photoshop installed on this thing

ive just seen me on sting in his pants.
anything else is an improvement.

you'd think so, right?

[vurt]

[pdxindy]

You don't have to bounce every sound with hardware. You can record and play back midi to hardware just like you can with software.

You can't have different instances of a hardware synth like you have with software synths. So, yes, you have to record the different parts, unless you only want to use one sound from the hardware synth.

My Elektron Digitone is 4 part multi-timbral. That is 4 'instances' in one synth... so no, I do not need to record to audio to have more than one part on a hardware synth.

My Waldorf M also has 4 parts. The Elektron Rytm is 8. I've got some sweet bass and pad sounds on individual tracks on the Rytm.

The Quantum and Polybrute can have keyboard splits... so that is 2 sounds each.

So that is 20 simultaneous parts (instances) without needing to bounce to audio. There are plenty more if I include the rest of my hardware synths. Those plus Bitwig tracks with software instruments is more than I need to keep everything in midi should I choose.

[chk071]

You don't have to bounce every sound with hardware. You can record and play back midi to hardware just like you can with software.

You can't have different instances of a hardware synth like you have with software synths. So, yes, you have to record the different parts, unless you only want to use one sound from the hardware synth.

My Elektron Digitone is 4 part multi-timbral. That is 4 'instances' in one synth... so no, I do not need to record to audio to have more than one part on a hardware synth.

Didn't you forget something? Yes, that splits up the polyphony.

You're one of those "Let's just not state the disadvantages" kind of guy, aren't ya?

Also, nice job picking one of the few of your hardware synths which are actually multi timbral. We're talking about the generality here, not single devices. Especially when it comes with such a downside like limiting the overall polyphony. 8 voices in total, and 4 parts multi timbral, nice! That's a blazing 2 voices per part. Vs. as many instances of soft synths, of which many can play 256 voices per instance. Hilarious.

[vurt]

You don't have to bounce every sound with hardware. You can record and play back midi to hardware just like you can with software.

You can't have different instances of a hardware synth like you have with software synths. So, yes, you have to record the different parts, unless you only want to use one sound from the hardware synth.

My Elektron Digitone is 4 part multi-timbral. That is 4 'instances' in one synth... so no, I do not need to record to audio to have more than one part on a hardware synth.

Didn't you forget something? Yes, that splits up the polyphony.

You're one of those "Let's just not state the disadvantages" kind of guy, aren't ya?

Also, nice job picking one of the few of your hardware synths which are actually multi timbral. We're talking about the generality here, not single devices.

polyphony is a fad.

[chk071]

Life is a fad.

[vurt]

one we soon grow out of...

[vurt]

btw, it is possible to build chords in a mono synth, even with a single oscillator
clever use of delay is all you need

[foosnark]

Yes, software can be instanced... that's part of why I prefer it for things like EQ, compressors, etc. that I might need multiples of.

I don't need multiple instances of flagship synths or modules though. I've never once bemoaned not having four Microfreaks, or 8 Manis Iteritas for full polyphony, or two Shapeshifters, etc. My total voice count in recordings is relatively light because the individual sounds themselves tend to be complex and spectrum-filling, no need to bulk it up with multiple instances.

If I was more of a keyboard player or cared about more mainstream composition I might be concerned with polyphony. But that's two nopes from me.

[vurt]

If I was more of a keyboard player or cared about more mainstream composition I might be concerned with polyphony. But that's two nopes from me.

that's the thing, some genres do have more pad and chords going on.
but others as you say, each sound is complex, rather than simple sounds in a complex arrangement.

im similar to you in idea if not outcome, i prefer layers of mono sounds that weave in and out, pads and chords are rare for me to reach for. even on the guitar, i have for a long time treated it as a monophonic instrument, using delays and modulation fx to "pad out" the space.

i think some people just think of music as "what i do" and maybe don't realise there are many styles which are built differently. not on purpose, just a human trait to imagine others will work the same as you do to achieve similar goals.

id still love for chk to experience a wall of modular and the freedom and inspiration it can give. even if it's not for him, i think it might give him (or anyone) an insight in to the why!

[justin3am]

Sure, folks who are accustomed to software find software more convenient. Seems logical. But since there are so many people here who mostly work with software, there could be some confirmation bias going on. Right?

I've worked with some people who have no problem laying down multiple takes with a physical instrument but would have no idea what to do if I put them in front of a DAW. Even if I just sit them in front of a MIDI controller, they start to get frustrated because it's just not what they are used to.

I know some other people who can work really fast with their hardware sequencer or workstantion of choice but if you put a mouse in their hand, they slow way down.

I have also worked with lots of people who are more familiar with software but love the idea of working with hardware because they have some idea in their head... like the grass is greener, y'know? But they quickly find that, since they don't have as much experience with that gear, getting it to do something useful takes more time than if they just stuck with the tools they usually use. I try to tell them, either stick to what you know or commit to the process of learning to walk before you try to run with an unfamiliar tool.

It's all different strokes for different folks. Any limitation of a tool is only really a limitation if it prevents you from working the way you are used to, as far as I can tell.

[dellboy]

i often turn up at airports, offering to fly planes.
i prefer jet fighters mind, as this is where most of my in atmosphere flight experience is. obviously i have far more hours flight time in my xwing

some of the pilots there, mock me

I'm guessing you specialise in "vurtical" take off jets ?

[vurt]

i often turn up at airports, offering to fly planes.
i prefer jet fighters mind, as this is where most of my in atmosphere flight experience is. obviously i have far more hours flight time in my xwing

some of the pilots there, mock me

I'm guessing you specialise in "vurtical" take off jets ?