KVR Audio

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:16 pm

nuffink wrote:
However if your music calls for the sound of a Behringer piano, then that is the better sound...

Yea, that's going to happen... anytime soon...

waveriderarts · Post by **waveriderarts** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:17 pm

pdxindy wrote: FM8 is an amazing synth. It is easy to use, low cpu, good gui, and the morph pad is fantastic.

When I listen to the basic sound, it lacks a certain coherence, bite, character that I would like.

I am amazed as how different my tx802 sounds compared to plugins. There is stuff happening with the converters and electronics that makes it sound different; harsher....

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:21 pm

living sounds wrote:
nuffink wrote:
However if your music calls for the sound of a Behringer piano, then that is the better sound...
Yea, that's going to happen... anytime soon...

From Argumentum ad numerum to nyah,nyah,nyah,nyah nyah in one easy move.

waveriderarts · Post by **waveriderarts** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:22 pm

living sounds wrote:

Look, we had these discussions time after time here. The point is, there's not a single sound coming out of any plugin FM synth that has the qualities of most sounds coming out of the hardware. It's obvious when playing, and it's obvious listening to recorded stuff. It gets very obvious when mixing. It's very much like the quality difference between a plugin compressor or EQ and good outboard. The mind boggling thing with FM is that it SHOULDn't be different. But it is.

+1

waveriderarts · Post by **waveriderarts** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:26 pm

emdot_ambient wrote: A better choice may be something a bit newer like the DX200.

I have one and it sounds crap compared to my TX, the output sounds a lot less sharp. The digital filter sounds bad anyway.

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:28 pm

Wow, is this thread still going?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:30 pm

TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?

Sort of. The men who listen to D/A converters are in though, so anything of value is out.

whyterabbyt · Post by **whyterabbyt** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:51 pm

nuffink wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sort of. The men who listen to D/A converters are in though, so anything of value is out.

careful. pdxindy or some other self-appointed prefect will be along to tell you whether or not you can contribute.

Aroused by JarJar · Post by **Aroused by JarJar** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:57 pm

TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?

Sure, there are some of us who are really interested in making excellent software synthesizers.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:00 pm

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sure, there are some of us who are really interested in making excellent software synthesizers.

You should probably get together and decide what DAC's to emulate.

Aroused by JarJar · Post by **Aroused by JarJar** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:07 pm

nuffink wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sure, there are some of us who are really interested in making excellent software synthesizers.
You should probably get together and decide what DAC's to emulate.

Why? I didn't say "emulating hardware", I said excellent software synthesizers. There's no Yamaha hardware that even comes close to having the meat and color, in conjunction with cleaness and smoothness, of the software example I posted; that's mono, no FX EQ or whatever, and elementary algorithm.

The religious on either side of the silly arguments don't even want to know about these kinds of things of course but whatever.

waveriderarts · Post by **waveriderarts** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:17 pm

nuffink wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sort of. The men who listen to D/A converters are in though, so anything of value is out.

don't count me in those, I have no golden hears. I am just telling it as I am experiencing it, I mean 2 years ago I would have said that is silly to use a digital -hardware- FM synth -cause if there is one thing that would be better done by a computer that's got to be FM for sure.. but my ears tell me that the DX/TX does sound different. There are also memories coming from hearing those patches a million times since the 80's... I mean even a typical DX piano patch will get you going "that's the sound"... cause the thing alias like crazy and that cuts thru the mix

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:22 pm

Aroused by JarJar wrote:
nuffink wrote:
Aroused by JarJar wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sure, there are some of us who are really interested in making excellent software synthesizers.
You should probably get together and decide what DAC's to emulate.
Why? I didn't say "emulating hardware", I said excellent software synthesizers. There's no Yamaha hardware that even comes close to having the meat and color, in conjunction with cleaness and smoothness, of the software example I posted; that's mono, no FX EQ or whatever, and elementary algorithm.

The religious on either side of the silly arguments don't even want to know about these kinds of things of course but whatever.

If you really were interested in making excellent soft synthesizers you could do the whole dev community a massive favour.

All those words like "meat", "color", "cleanness" and "smoothness"; which in your head have some concrete meaning. They don't. Or rather they mean something specific and definite to you, but to anyone else reading they mean something different and specific to them.

Gather 'em up. Do some proper, hard research on what these terms actually mean (in the context of hearing) and whether a substantial percentage of people can agree on them. Get the statistics and post 'em up because that's exactly the kind of hard evidence devs need to understand what people want.

I'll listen but at the moment we haven't even got a common language.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:29 pm

waveriderarts wrote:
nuffink wrote:
TristezaOrange wrote:Wow, is this thread still going?
Sort of. The men who listen to D/A converters are in though, so anything of value is out.
don't count me in those, I have no golden hears. I am just telling it as I am experiencing it, I mean 2 years ago I would have said that is silly to use a digital -hardware- FM synth -cause if there is one thing that would be better done by a computer that's got to be FM for sure.. but my ears tell me that the DX/TX does sound different. There are also memories coming from hearing those patches a million times since the 80's... I mean even a typical DX piano patch will get you going "that's the sound"... cause the thing alias like crazy and that cuts thru the mix

I've got Kawai K5000s and I love it. It's much better than any software only additive. Not because of the algorithms or the DAC or some innate quality of sound but because it smells better. And it feels better. And it looks better. And it inspires me more. And because it's mine. And for all of those intangible reasons that musicians love, and need to love their instruments.

It can't be measured. It can't be reproduced. It's a feeling and it's personal.

waveriderarts · Post by **waveriderarts** » Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:46 pm

nuffink wrote: Not because of the algorithms or the DAC or some innate quality of sound but because it smells better. And it feels better. And it looks better. And it inspires me more. And because it's mine. And for all of those intangible reasons that musicians love, and need to love their instruments.

It can't be measured. It can't be reproduced. It's a feeling and it's personal.

that is not how I view that at all. In my view, it comes from something technical about the way it was made. Witch also has to do with the culture of its makers. For one, it wasn't all made by computer geeks

The Fight for FM