Software vs Hardware

[crimsonwarlock]

And how do you think your brain works? It's called a "neural" network for a reason. It works in the same way our brains do.

This is where you go wrong. You obviously believe the hype (like so many people). Artificial Neural Networks represent the way we thought our brain works, somewhere in the sixties of last century (read up on perceptrons if you would like to know more about that). The problem is that ANNs have not changed in any significant way since back then, while many scientific breakthroughs in neuroscience have since proven that the ANN model is absolutely nothing like what's powering our brain. To give you a hint, stacked Artificial Neural Networks (i.e. Deep Learning systems) are based on a technique called 'back propagation', and it has been proven that the human brain does absolutely nothing like that.

So no, it doesn't work the same way as our brains do. The absolute crazy amounts of data needed to train LLMs should make that clear from the start.

[whyterabbyt]

It's called a "neural" network for a reason.

Yes. The reason is its an analogy. There's no modelling of actual neurons; they're implemented with simplified algorithms analogous to the operation of neurons.
Try not to be so literal.

[El°HYM]

Nice example of what software can do with a nice programmed MIDI controller

It has digital oscillators, and everything past that is analog (filter, wavefolder, distortion, etc.)

No it's not, that Demo is all digital as is indicated in the description of the video itself. The entire sound engine in the demo is all digital


Maybe you missed that part? Here is the screen shot

Screenshot_20250513-215425.jpg

Every sound you hear in that video is software, and the physical controls are just controllers for that software.

That would be pretty stupid, if the analog version sounds worse, wouldnt it?

[whassup]

That softsynth has a nice hardware controller.
And the sound proves the pudding.
If I would be into hardware I would concider this one.

[pdxindy]

It has digital oscillators, and everything past that is analog (filter, wavefolder, distortion, etc.)

No it's not, that Demo is all digital as is indicated in the description of the video itself. The entire sound engine in the demo is all digital


Maybe you missed that part? Here is the screen shot

That's weird to demo a synth and not even have it be the synth that is being promoted.

I never looked at the video. I went to the company website and looked at the synth page and it is described as an analog signal path after the digital osc's... including analog filters, wavefolder, mixer, distortion.

[El°HYM]

If its an accurate digital emulation, it should be 99% indistinguishable from the analog version. This has been scientifically proven over and over again on kvr. Furthermore no living being will be able to tell the difference in a busy mix.

[BONES]

This is where you go wrong. You obviously believe the hype (like so many people).

I don't give a about the hype, I believe what I experience directly. AI does what it says on the tin. It works. It knows and it can do what you ask it to do and it can do it better and faster than any human, most of the time.

Artificial Neural Networks represent the way we thought our brain works, somewhere in the sixties of last century (read up on perceptrons if you would like to know more about that).

You're splitting hairs. I honestly don't care how it works, it might make you feel better about being dumber than they are but it's not relevant. What matters is what it can do and it can score well enough on an off-line (never published on line) Mensa test to evaluate its IQ at about 120, which is well above the human average.

So no, it doesn't work the same way as our brains do. The absolute crazy amounts of data needed to train LLMs should make that clear from the start.

That just means it knows more than any of us possibly could, it's not an indication of how much effort is required. If it only had to be as smart as a person, it would require hardly any training at all.

The reason is its an analogy. There's no modelling of actual neurons; they're implemented with simplified algorithms analogous to the operation of neurons.

So it's not modelled on actual neurons but it's analogous to the operation of neurons? You don't see the contradiciton here?

[zerocrossing]

If its an accurate digital emulation, it should be 99% indistinguishable from the analog version. This has been scientifically proven over and over again on kvr. Furthermore no living being will be able to tell the difference in a busy mix.

The problem with this statement is that a lot of analog synths aren't even 1% similar to another instance of the same model. I know my analogs drift over time and need calibration every now and then, so what sounded identical in July might not sound identical in November.

So what's a developer to do? U-He gives you options to change the emulation to make it closer to one of their hardware Prophet 5s, but is that going to be the same as your Prophet 5? Maybe, maybe not.

I think people should chill out and spend their precious time on this planet enjoying what a synth is, instead of what it isn't. I'm not taking about obvious flaws, like aliasing or whatnot, but things like the envelopes not matching precisely or a somewhat different response to the filter. Can you get a good sound out of it? Then move on. The only exception would be in the case where you're trying to replace a classic synth with software. Then I can imagine wanting something extremely close.

[BONES]

I don't see a problem with embracing aliasing. Synth 1 is notorious for it, for example, yet it's one of the most enduring VSTi of all time. You just use instruments like that within their limitations. It's a slight restriction, not a deal-breaker.

[markello]

If it only had to be as smart as a person, it would require hardly any training at all.

You missed out a winking emoji, right?

[whyterabbyt]

So it's not modelled on actual neurons but it's analogous to the operation of neurons? You don't see the contradiciton here?

No, I dont see the contradiction, because I understand the difference.

So, a digital 'plate reverb' has that description for a reason, but that reason isnt because its a model of a physical metal plate reverberating. If you thought so just because it has the words 'plate reverb' in the description, you'd be being similarly over-literal.
And probably also forgetting how the use of language works in real life.

[crimsonwarlock]

I believe what I experience directly.

Yet, you fail to entertain the notion that your perception is wrong. Funny how you constantly hammer on how dumb we are as people, but determine your own perception to be flawless.

You probably think the earth is flat as well

AI does what it says on the tin. It works.

Actually, that's not true either. Overall, LLMs score barely above 50% correct answers on mediocre questions, which is statistically speaking close to pure chance.

That just means it knows more than any of us possibly could, it's not an indication of how much effort is required.

Again wrong. It definitely IS an indication of the effort required. The crazy amounts of data are required because neural networks are trained on occurrence frequency. Example: You need around 30000 pictures of anything to let an Artificial Neural Network recognize that thing with any level of usefulness.

You are pretty much wrong on every assumption you are making in this regard.

[El°HYM]

If its an accurate digital emulation, it should be 99% indistinguishable from the analog version. This has been scientifically proven over and over again on kvr. Furthermore no living being will be able to tell the difference in a busy mix.

The problem with this statement is that a lot of analog synths aren't even 1% similar to another instance of the same model. I know my analogs drift over time and need calibration every now and then, so what sounded identical in July might not sound identical in November.

So what's a developer to do? U-He gives you options to change the emulation to make it closer to one of their hardware Prophet 5s, but is that going to be the same as your Prophet 5? Maybe, maybe not.

I think people should chill out and spend their precious time on this planet enjoying what a synth is, instead of what it isn't. I'm not taking about obvious flaws, like aliasing or whatnot, but things like the envelopes not matching precisely or a somewhat different response to the filter. Can you get a good sound out of it? Then move on. The only exception would be in the case where you're trying to replace a classic synth with software. Then I can imagine wanting something extremely close.

While all of this is certainly true, yet also kind of old news. We are still talking about this, or not?

Note this is a digital version ot the sound engine. It is now being ported to analog signal-path that will ship in final version.

[whassup]

I think people should chill out and spend their precious time on this planet enjoying what a synth is, instead of what it isn't. I'm not taking about obvious flaws, like aliasing or whatnot, but things like the envelopes not matching precisely or a somewhat different response to the filter. Can you get a good sound out of it? Then move on.

I agree.
And yet we are here and thinking about this stuff. As if it matters. Well, obviously in some way it does. Sure not for making good sounding music.

[zerocrossing]

I think people should chill out and spend their precious time on this planet enjoying what a synth is, instead of what it isn't. I'm not taking about obvious flaws, like aliasing or whatnot, but things like the envelopes not matching precisely or a somewhat different response to the filter. Can you get a good sound out of it? Then move on.

I agree.
And yet we are here and thinking about this stuff. As if it matters. Well, obviously in some way it does. Sure not for making good sounding music.

I think we still talk about it for a few reasons. From a historical perspective, electronic music is new, and it’s still being developed and maturing. It’s interesting to people who are into electronic music.

Plugins aren’t the same. Even tossing out the obvious physical elements, one only needs to watch a Starsky Carr video to clearly hear the differences and similarities. Do those differences matter? Depends. My parents think Maxwell House instant coffee is great. I own a $1,500 espresso machine and buy freshly roasted beans that are burr grinded for each shot.

It’s not always a value judgement. I love the software vs. hardware talk because it informs me of what’s best for the job at hand. If one wants to do the kind of music where you start with a synth sound that’s being played by a sequencer, and make the composition about how that sound evolves over time via physical manipulation of controls, there’s no doubt that a hardware synth, with its dedicated, bespoke interface is the perfect solution for that job. That’s not to say that it can’t be done with software and a controller, but it’s definitely not as elegant a solution. Alternatively, if you want the sound of a polyphonic Model D in a live performance, it would be basically impossible, but you could get very close to it using a plugin.

Not all things matter to all people, and even how much something matters can vary by individual. The only thing that bothers me are the people who confuse their opinions with universal facts.