Hardware vs software synths take infinity : topic initial focus Andromeda A6

[samsam]

nm

You were right though.

[musikmachine]

I remember being very impressed by a patch called 'Andromeda strings' (yeah) in the Bazille demo.
So much so I kept a small clip to remind me I should buy it the day I get some cash.

here it is, with the demo crackling and all (reverb was Cubase Revelation)
https://app.box.com/s/izisdwamozhxtlrm90w0vweh186o1tu1

I've been impressed with Bazille the gui scares me though. Gonna grab the CM version and don my wizards hat.

@Mutant yeah oddity 2, quite brassy/rezzy that one but it's amazing for pads (IMO).

[zerocrossing]

These sounds is from a soft synth.
There is no fx or samples involved in any of the patches.

Pad1
Pad2
Bell

That's not too shabby. Is that one of its presets? If it is, let me know which one and I'll try to replicate it with an analog and see what happens. I love stuff like this. I tried replicating a Modulus (a synth I seriously G.A.S. for) .002 in software and I could never quite get it even though I had the patch parameters right in front of me. I came to the conclusion that there was just something about those filters that isn't easily replicated.

These are not presets from the synth, i made them.
They are from ZynAddSubFX, one of the best sounding soft synths i know of.
Sounds stupid, but it really has that sound of analog

Can you post the preset... or at least the parameters? Let's do a shoot out.

[wagtunes]

I remember being very impressed by a patch called 'Andromeda strings' (yeah) in the Bazille demo.
So much so I kept a small clip to remind me I should buy it the day I get some cash.

here it is, with the demo crackling and all (reverb was Cubase Revelation)
https://app.box.com/s/izisdwamozhxtlrm90w0vweh186o1tu1

I've been impressed with Bazille the gui scares me though. Gonna grab the CM version and don my wizards hat.

@Mutant yeah oddity 2, quite brassy/rezzy that one but it's amazing for pads (IMO).

Take the GUI in pieces and it's really not that hard. The synth is very flexible. Actually, that's an understatement.

Here's something I did with Bazille.

https://soundcloud.com/steven-wagenheim/bazille-demo

[zerocrossing]

At points like this, it's very valuable to get a sense of exactly what your end goal with all of this great technology actually is.

Obsessing over subtleties of sound quality is totally cool. It's not the same thing as actually creating a finished piece of music that someone else can experience, however. These are not mutually exclusive things, of course, but neither does one necessarily lead to the other.

There is TOTALLY nothing wrong with playing a musical instrument strictly on one's own personal time, for enjoyment at that time, and without the end goal of creating something that someone else will experience.

What can be a problem, though, is wanting to create a finished work that other people can hear, but getting so caught up in the comparisons of minute details that we don't allow ourselves to actually leave those details alone at a certain point.

Again: not mutually exclusive pursuits, and not any better or worse than the other. But sometimes it's valuable to do a reality check as to what it is we really want to do, and the extent to which our endeavors may or may not be facilitating that goal.

Not a dis to anyone, and this is all stuff I remind myself of very frequently.

Says the man who uses real tube guitar amps and high quality guitars instead of virtual emulations of such. PROOF!



(I hope you don't mind me plugging your music. I'm a big fan. That Sign O' The Times jam is "the bomb, as the kids say... they still say that, don't they? )

Why not sure Amplitube? Or even an AxeFX or Kemper. I'm just busting your chops a bit because I know that you have a very keen appreciation for quality instruments (still have your GM4T? I still love mine). My pal Andrew just got what I think might be that same Reverend guitar. High quality, for sure. In the neighborhood of $900? Maybe another $900 for the amp? (You could get a Prophet 6 module for that. ) I'm sure it's worth every penny. I'm a Kemper user but I'm totally aware of the difference between it and using a real amp. I make that concession because I get something else in the compromise.

I have no issue with compromise when it makes sense. I'm never going to buy a vintage Minimoog, so Monark. I'm never going to buy a vintage Prophet 5, so Prophet 6. I'm never going to have a giant room full of all my favorite tube guitar amps, so Kemper. My issue is with the people who say "it's the same" or "it's just as good." Please say, "It's the same to me" or "It's good enough for me."

[zerocrossing]

I find these debates somewhat tedious. I don't really feel the need to justify my choice of tools other than to say that I use what I like. I have an Andromeda and I love it. I also love Diva and countless other softsynths. And just for Theo's benefit, I have a Wavestation SR which I hate to program and pretty much only ever use as a preset ROMpler.

Actually, the Wavestation plug in is one of the examples of the software sounding significantly better as well as being much easier to program. Check it out.

[wagtunes]

At points like this, it's very valuable to get a sense of exactly what your end goal with all of this great technology actually is.

Obsessing over subtleties of sound quality is totally cool. It's not the same thing as actually creating a finished piece of music that someone else can experience, however. These are not mutually exclusive things, of course, but neither does one necessarily lead to the other.

There is TOTALLY nothing wrong with playing a musical instrument strictly on one's own personal time, for enjoyment at that time, and without the end goal of creating something that someone else will experience.

What can be a problem, though, is wanting to create a finished work that other people can hear, but getting so caught up in the comparisons of minute details that we don't allow ourselves to actually leave those details alone at a certain point.

Again: not mutually exclusive pursuits, and not any better or worse than the other. But sometimes it's valuable to do a reality check as to what it is we really want to do, and the extent to which our endeavors may or may not be facilitating that goal.

Not a dis to anyone, and this is all stuff I remind myself of very frequently.

Says the man who uses real tube guitar amps and high quality guitars instead of virtual emulations of such. PROOF!



(I hope you don't mind me plugging your music. I'm a big fan. That Sign O' The Times jam is "the bomb, as the kids say... they still say that, don't they? )

Why not sure Amplitube? Or even an AxeFX or Kemper. I'm just busting your chops a bit because I know that you have a very keen appreciation for quality instruments (still have your GM4T? I still love mine). My pal Andrew just got what I think might be that same Reverend guitar. High quality, for sure. In the neighborhood of $900? Maybe another $900 for the amp? (You could get a Prophet 6 module for that. ) I'm sure it's worth every penny. I'm a Kemper user but I'm totally aware of the difference between it and using a real amp. I make that concession because I get something else in the compromise.

I have no issue with compromise when it makes sense. I'm never going to buy a vintage Minimoog, so Monark. I'm never going to buy a vintage Prophet 5, so Prophet 6. I'm never going to have a giant room full of all my favorite tube guitar amps, so Kemper. My issue is with the people who say "it's the same" or "it's just as good." Please say, "It's the same to me" or "It's good enough for me."

Actually, to be technically accurate, it's not the same to me.

It's better.

And here's why in my top 3 reasons that have nothing to do with sound whatsoever

1) VSTs are simply cheaper. If each of my 86 VSTs cost what the average hardware synth cost, my expenditure would be somewhere around $150,000. I think I've spent about 10 grand on my entire studio.

2) If I had 86 synths laying around the house, I'd have to buy a bigger house.

3) I don't have to worry about repairs except to my PC. And then it's just a simple reinstall of the software. Time consuming, yes. But virtually cost free. Imagine having to maintain 86 hardware synths.

I would never go back to the days of hardware. And this is coming from somebody who started back in the late 70s with Moog and worked my way up to Korg Triton rack before I finally couldn't afford to keep up with my obsession anymore.

Hardware has advantages, especially for a gigging musician. No way do I take a PC on a gig with me. If it crashes, I'm sunk. Two keyboards can cover your ass on the road if one happens to fail. In fact, two hardware synths are probably all you need to play out.

But I don't play out anymore so I'm done with hardware. There is no reason for me to have any laying around.

And it has nothing to do with sound.

[AnX]

I find these debates somewhat tedious. I don't really feel the need to justify my choice of tools other than to say that I use what I like. I have an Andromeda and I love it. I also love Diva and countless other softsynths. And just for Theo's benefit, I have a Wavestation SR which I hate to program and pretty much only ever use as a preset ROMpler.

Actually, the Wavestation plug in is one of the examples of the software sounding significantly better for me as well as being much easier to program. Check it out.

FTFY

[chk071]

One day i will make a thread to discuss the meaning of "better sound", or "sound quality".

[exmatproton]

At points like this, it's very valuable to get a sense of exactly what your end goal with all of this great technology actually is.

Obsessing over subtleties of sound quality is totally cool. It's not the same thing as actually creating a finished piece of music that someone else can experience, however. These are not mutually exclusive things, of course, but neither does one necessarily lead to the other.

There is TOTALLY nothing wrong with playing a musical instrument strictly on one's own personal time, for enjoyment at that time, and without the end goal of creating something that someone else will experience.

What can be a problem, though, is wanting to create a finished work that other people can hear, but getting so caught up in the comparisons of minute details that we don't allow ourselves to actually leave those details alone at a certain point.

Again: not mutually exclusive pursuits, and not any better or worse than the other. But sometimes it's valuable to do a reality check as to what it is we really want to do, and the extent to which our endeavors may or may not be facilitating that goal.

Not a dis to anyone, and this is all stuff I remind myself of very frequently.

Says the man who uses real tube guitar amps and high quality guitars instead of virtual emulations of such. PROOF!



(I hope you don't mind me plugging your music. I'm a big fan. That Sign O' The Times jam is "the bomb, as the kids say... they still say that, don't they? )

Why not sure Amplitube? Or even an AxeFX or Kemper. I'm just busting your chops a bit because I know that you have a very keen appreciation for quality instruments (still have your GM4T? I still love mine). My pal Andrew just got what I think might be that same Reverend guitar. High quality, for sure. In the neighborhood of $900? Maybe another $900 for the amp? (You could get a Prophet 6 module for that. ) I'm sure it's worth every penny. I'm a Kemper user but I'm totally aware of the difference between it and using a real amp. I make that concession because I get something else in the compromise.

I have no issue with compromise when it makes sense. I'm never going to buy a vintage Minimoog, so Monark. I'm never going to buy a vintage Prophet 5, so Prophet 6. I'm never going to have a giant room full of all my favorite tube guitar amps, so Kemper. My issue is with the people who say "it's the same" or "it's just as good." Please say, "It's the same to me" or "It's good enough for me."

Actually, to be technically accurate, it's not the same to me.

It's better.

And here's why in my top 3 reasons that have nothing to do with sound whatsoever

1) VSTs are simply cheaper. If each of my 86 VSTs cost what the average hardware synth cost, my expenditure would be somewhere around $150,000. I think I've spent about 10 grand on my entire studio.

2) If I had 86 synths laying around the house, I'd have to buy a bigger house.

3) I don't have to worry about repairs except to my PC. And then it's just a simple reinstall of the software. Time consuming, yes. But virtually cost free. Imagine having to maintain 86 hardware synths.

I would never go back to the days of hardware. And this is coming from somebody who started back in the late 70s with Moog and worked my way up to Korg Triton rack before I finally couldn't afford to keep up with my obsession anymore.

Hardware has advantages, especially for a gigging musician. No way do I take a PC on a gig with me. If it crashes, I'm sunk. Two keyboards can cover your ass on the road if one happens to fail. In fact, two hardware synths are probably all you need to play out.

But I don't play out anymore so I'm done with hardware. There is no reason for me to have any laying around.

And it has nothing to do with sound.

+500. Exactly my thoughts. The OP should buy that synth and just enjoy it. Or take software he can enjoy and love.

[olepro]

These sounds is from a soft synth.
There is no fx or samples involved in any of the patches.

Pad1
Pad2
Bell

That's not too shabby. Is that one of its presets? If it is, let me know which one and I'll try to replicate it with an analog and see what happens. I love stuff like this. I tried replicating a Modulus (a synth I seriously G.A.S. for) .002 in software and I could never quite get it even though I had the patch parameters right in front of me. I came to the conclusion that there was just something about those filters that isn't easily replicated.

These are not presets from the synth, i made them.
They are from ZynAddSubFX, one of the best sounding soft synths i know of.
Sounds stupid, but it really has that sound of analog

Can you post the preset... or at least the parameters? Let's do a shoot out.

Do you know SynAdd from programming it? its not easy to read anything from the Pad Synth parameters that can be translated to any other synth !
When i find time i can post the presets

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[goldenanalog]

[HunterKiller]

from my experience knowing you over the years..

"Over the years"??
This is the first time we've spoken my man.

I have zero desire to take the burden you suggest on, but others are welcome to do it and I will definitely listen to the results. Cheers

That's a shame. To give back is the greatest reward.

[zerocrossing]

Analog has something digital doesn't... but it is also limited in ways digital isn't.

The one thing I think is generally better about older digital hardware is the presets... The sounds that were desirable then are generally more musically pleasing (to me) than the sought after sounds today. Stuff today often sounds hard and aggressive. Older stuff sounds rounder, more emotive and musical which I like.

I don't think that has to do with technology or skill, but is just a sign of the aesthetic of the times.

As for music... I find older music more human. It is not just that analog recording equipment had some good qualities, but that you could not tweak every little thing. Today everything can and is edited and often to death... or at least less life. Stuff is too perfect and to my ear, something is lost.

A hardware synth had/has some important limitations... especially back then. People did not automate every little thing. Music was played more and constructed less. Today it is constructed more and played less. I'd say that this has significantly more influence on the perceived character of the music than the 'sound quality' of the instrument.

To my ear, software sounds at least as good as digital hardware and it is these other (rarely mentioned factors) that more influence perceptions.

I agree with all of the above. I think one of the reasons I love working with audio loopers instead of sequencers (though usually some of both) is that with an audio loop I'm going to get my same crap performance played back to me. It may be crap, but I know it's me.