Fatboy Slim thoughts about software synths

[zerocrossing]

would actually prefer to hear sounds closer to what i like even without all these sweet analog characteristics.

Some would call me a psychic, but I don't think I am one, hence I don't know what you like. Besides your comment makes no sense to me as I'm simply replying to zerocrossing who has thrown the challenge of matching the original Slim Phatty file Ingo posted a while ago with a soft synth. That's what I've done.

Wait, that wasn't my challenge. The post had both hard and software in it, I was just saying I heard a difference and I liked one more. I was just wondering if anyone but me had listened to that file and came to the same conclusion I did.

[himalaya]

Still, no one will listen to that example I posted and swear they feel that Diva sounds as good as the Slim Phatty. Not one.

Here's one.

OK.

here's that Slim Phaty pitted against a soft synth. Go my young padawan, dissect it. The real question is, will you dissect it using your HP computer headphones!

Moogus Foongus

Large font size so you don't miss it.
(and download it as it is a WAV file, which I find does not play for me on the KVR player)

I'll say first software second hardware, but I'll also freely admit that this was pretty hard to hear a difference at all on my work headphones. The other example I found was a lot easier to spot. Maybe because it went lower in pitch which is where I feel hardware shines? Both examples actually sounded a bit harsh in the resonance range. Also, these examples, for good or for bad, don't usethe overloaded filter sound the Phatty's known for. Would Diva fare as well? I don't think Diva even has that feature so it's not a fair comparison.

Again, I own Diva and it's great. There is a lot of overlap between hardware and software which is awesome, and it's getting better all the time. It's why I've spent a lot more money on software than I have on hardware synths. I'm not like Mr. Slim, I was just defending his position. I'm still not convinced that once you leave software's "sweet spot" it would do as well against hardware. Usually that would be high resonance sounds, but Diva's one of the first synths that really has a sweet sounding resonance.

A lot of back tracking there zerocrossing... You are still not convinced? And yet you have named the real Slim Phatty sound as that coming from software and my Cypher emulation as Slim Phatty...its SlimPhatty first then Cypher. Now it's worth making a note of this as Cypher is NOT an emulation of a Moog, and yet it gets into the same area as Slim Phatty, it's almost indistinguishable.


So yeah a lot of back tracking. Previously you name that SlimPhatty clip as sweet sounding, quote from page 10:

You can hear what I'm talking about in the highs and mid tones as well. The high frequency is more muddy. Not as sweet sounding. The richness and solidness of the Moog is really super clear to me

So that Moog clip originally described by yourself as sweet sounding is now a bit harsh? Come on dude! I emulate the very saturated SlimPhatty sound and all of a sudden the resonance is harsh?? Another point, that Slim Phatty clip is overdriven, can't you hear it? It's all there. My Cypher patch also had to be driven hard to match that of the Slim Phatty.

I'm still not convinced that once you leave software's "sweet spot" it would do as well against hardware. Usually that would be high resonance sounds, but Diva's one of the first synths that really has a sweet sounding resonance.

Yes, you are not convinced even when guessing the files wrong. There is no hope is there? The resonance you mention, the same sweet resonance of SlimPhatty which Cypher with its non Zero Delay Feedback Filters is also able to provide.

How many preconceptions have we busted here? And will this be recognised? Or will the forever back-tracking attitude prevail?

[xamido]

Lol, even i who never tried a hardware analog synth can tell that the first clip is moog. It have something that i haven't heard from softsynth. Those resonance. And claiming that the moog one is harsh? I wonder what headphone you're using.

[himalaya]

Wait, that wasn't my challenge. The post had both hard and software in it, I was just saying I heard a difference and I liked one more. I was just wondering if anyone but me had listened to that file and came to the same conclusion I did.

Of course there was a challenge. Here read this, these are your words which definitely challenge those who know better (from page 10):

What I'm talking about can't be dialed out or fixed with programming. You may say it's too subtle to care about, but you can't deny it's there. Or I should say, you can deny it's there, but I will then think your hearing is not very good.

Fighting talk, eh?





It's all good, zero...

[himalaya]

Lol, even i who never tried a hardware analog synth can tell that the first clip is moog. It have something that i haven't heard from softsynth. Those resonance.

This is what you say now after it has been made known what is what. Zero points for you sir!

There absolutely isn't such a big difference in the resonance. The Cypher patch is a bit more bright, but that is only to do with the balance of cutoff vs filter envelope amount vs resonance. I can't be fussed to get it 100% spot on. It's close enough for me. Remember Cypher isn't an emulation of the Slim Phatty and yet how close it is able to sound like one (at least on this patch)?

[xamido]

Lol, even i who never tried a hardware analog synth can tell that the first clip is moog. It have something that i haven't heard from softsynth. Those resonance.

This is what you say now after it has been made known what is what. Zero points for you sir!

Nope, i only avoid posting for the sake of posting. When i heard your example i'm already 100% sure the first one is moog. Even before you post the answer. Unlike others here, i don't care about technical stuff much, but what i know is i like the first sound.

[mcnoone]

Wish we could start a "make that sound" thread, where members can post some of their favorite hardware synth sounds, and others could try to get as close as possible to it, with whatever softsynth they can.
Of course they would have to post the patch as proof, and no one partaking can be the one to post the hardware example. That would keep things honest.
I'd start the thread, but everything I do is just fail.
Maybe something like that could have sponsored prizes or something.
Not those boring flat, saw examples, but some finger noodling and sequenced wav/mp3 audio examples.
I think there's more than a few people here, that find the challenge of it somewhat interesting.
Could make a nice diversion.

[Frantz]

Of course there was a challenge. Here read this, these are your words which definitely challenge those who know better (from page 10):

What I'm talking about can't be dialed out or fixed with programming. You may say it's too subtle to care about, but you can't deny it's there. Or I should say, you can deny it's there, but I will then think your hearing is not very good.

Fighting talk, eh?

It's popcorn time:

[musikmachine]

Of course there was a challenge. Here read this, these are your words which definitely challenge those who know better (from page 10):

What I'm talking about can't be dialed out or fixed with programming. You may say it's too subtle to care about, but you can't deny it's there. Or I should say, you can deny it's there, but I will then think your hearing is not very good.

Fighting talk, eh?

It's popcorn time:

It has to be real butter though, none of that artificial shit.

[Sendy]

[zerocrossing]

Still, no one will listen to that example I posted and swear they feel that Diva sounds as good as the Slim Phatty. Not one.

Here's one.

OK.

here's that Slim Phaty pitted against a soft synth. Go my young padawan, dissect it. The real question is, will you dissect it using your HP computer headphones!

Moogus Foongus

Large font size so you don't miss it.
(and download it as it is a WAV file, which I find does not play for me on the KVR player)

I'll say first software second hardware, but I'll also freely admit that this was pretty hard to hear a difference at all on my work headphones. The other example I found was a lot easier to spot. Maybe because it went lower in pitch which is where I feel hardware shines? Both examples actually sounded a bit harsh in the resonance range. Also, these examples, for good or for bad, don't usethe overloaded filter sound the Phatty's known for. Would Diva fare as well? I don't think Diva even has that feature so it's not a fair comparison.

Again, I own Diva and it's great. There is a lot of overlap between hardware and software which is awesome, and it's getting better all the time. It's why I've spent a lot more money on software than I have on hardware synths. I'm not like Mr. Slim, I was just defending his position. I'm still not convinced that once you leave software's "sweet spot" it would do as well against hardware. Usually that would be high resonance sounds, but Diva's one of the first synths that really has a sweet sounding resonance.

A lot of back tracking there zerocrossing... You are still not convinced? And yet you have named the real Slim Phatty sound as that coming from software and my Cypher emulation as Slim Phatty...its SlimPhatty first then Cypher. Now it's worth making a note of this as Cypher is NOT an emulation of a Moog, and yet it gets into the same area as Slim Phatty, it's almost indistinguishable.


So yeah a lot of back tracking. Previously you name that SlimPhatty clip as sweet sounding, quote from page 10:

You can hear what I'm talking about in the highs and mid tones as well. The high frequency is more muddy. Not as sweet sounding. The richness and solidness of the Moog is really super clear to me

So that Moog clip originally described by yourself as sweet sounding is now a bit harsh? Come on dude! I emulate the very saturated SlimPhatty sound and all of a sudden the resonance is harsh?? Another point, that Slim Phatty clip is overdriven, can't you hear it? It's all there. My Cypher patch also had to be driven hard to match that of the Slim Phatty.

I'm still not convinced that once you leave software's "sweet spot" it would do as well against hardware. Usually that would be high resonance sounds, but Diva's one of the first synths that really has a sweet sounding resonance.

Yes, you are not convinced even when guessing the files wrong. There is no hope is there? The resonance you mention, the same sweet resonance of SlimPhatty which Cypher with its non Zero Delay Feedback Filters is also able to provide.

How many preconceptions have we busted here? And will this be recognised? Or will the forever back-tracking attitude prevail?

Well all righty then! I'll eat my words. Can someone pass the salt...? Don't bother, my own tears are enough!

But I'm also going to do my own test. I've done it for myself in the past but never recorded or posted anything. When I got Diva (or any VA software) the first thing I did was try and emulate a patch I love that I did on my ATC-1. A bass patch. Could have been my programming... could have been my imagination, but I couldn't get it to sound as solid. I didn't try an EQ. I felt that would be getting to convoluted.

I'd also like to point out that I do not have a dog in this race. You do. You profit from selling presets to Cypher. Do you not? I know you do because I've enjoyed your factory presets and almost bought your commercial DCAM set. So tell me what I'm hearing in the other track where one is clearly better than the other? Does this mean that Cypher is better than Diva?

I think, and I may be wrong, that there's a "sweet spot" where software and hardware overlap a lot. Again, I'm not back peddling because I've said this many times during this thread. There are also places where software can sound kind of crappy. DCAM and Diva have great resonance for software but I've got a folder full VSTs that suck. I know Disco DSP has been on here plugging Corona, and I've never tried it, but 5 seconds comparing the sound of my 2x with Discovery Pro show you where it totally fails. It fails hard. Now, you'll never know if you just use the presets and I will use it because when it's good, it's really good.

So, I guess what I'm asking is, why, when I'm on my own and comparing hardware and software VA do I favor the hardware most of the time? Trust me, it's not because I like knobs like other gear sluts. I use the software editors for all my DSI stuff and the Slim Phatty too. I don't like the space they take up... and frankly the Slim Phatty and MoPho don't look that cool. I don't need a room of blinky lights and knobs. I'd rather have my Maschine and my Novations. I hate the wires... the mess. I hate the way I feel almost claustrophobic in my studio. I hate the fact I have to run 2 MOTU 828s to have enough analog inputs for everything... my preference is to have a mostly software based system with a few cool controllers. That's what I had until I dragged that little MoPho into my world. I wanted to believe exactly what you're stating. That analog was over. I WANT TO BELIEVE!

So why don't I? Why did I just drop a bunch of money on a hardware amp modeling system? Am I afraid that if I like my computer get too powerful it'll take over the ship until I find a way to confuse it?

[zerocrossing]

I also want to point out that there are a lot of hardware instruments I've rejected because I didn't think they sounded all that special or even very good. DSI Tempest (Tremor better), Any Akai sampler (Battery/Maschine better), Voyager (good but too generic), Kurzweil PC3, Kawai K5000, (Poseidon, Alchemy and Harmor better) Blofeld, (Largo, Synthmaster better) etc. I've rejected the most expensive hardware amp modeler available, the Axe FX because I didn't feel it to be significantly better than Amplitube or S-Gear. I just want to point out that I'm not a "hardware is always the best answer" guy.

[Tricky-Loops]

I also want to point out that there are a lot of hardware instruments I've rejected because I didn't think they sounded all that special or even very good. DSI Tempest (Tremor better), Any Akai sampler (Battery/Maschine better), Voyager (good but too generic), Kurzweil PC3, Kawai K5000, (Poseidon, Alchemy and Harmor better) Blofeld, (Largo, Synthmaster better) etc. I've rejected the most expensive hardware amp modeler available, the Axe FX because I didn't feel it to be significantly better than Amplitube or S-Gear. I just want to point out that I'm not a "hardware is always the best answer" guy.

I can't stop crying. I thought you had won against the worse-sounding softsynthie guys. And now - a complete u-turn, from the way to the Pacific beach backwards straight on to Texas...

[Tricky-Loops]

I'd better switch on my popcorn machine to become the next Fatboy Slim...

[himalaya]

my preference is to have a mostly software based system with a few cool controllers. That's what I had until I dragged that little MoPho into my world. I wanted to believe exactly what you're stating. That analog was over. I WANT TO BELIEVE!

Analog is not over.

I may play the devil's advocate in these type of threads, but I know very well that there is a difference between software VA and hardware analog.

There is and there isn't.

It all depends. It depends on what is being emulated by what synth. I have used Cypher as I know it has the right collection of features to get that thick, driven bass sound. I know that i can emulate a thick Oberheim OBXa pad with Cypher which will sound superb in the low to mid registers, but it will not sound as good in the higher registers...I'd need to re-tweak it to sound great in the higher octaves, but then I'd loose the authentic sound in the lover octaves...so it all depends. And sometimes, it's just impossible to get the same sound, and there is nothing that can be done about it but buy the actual hardware synth.

I'd also like to point out that I do not have a dog in this race. You do. You profit from selling presets to Cypher. Do you not?

I do not have a dog in this race either. I do not see the race to begin with. True, I have several Cypher banks available, but I use Cypher in these type of comparisons because I know it very well and feel very comfortable in its (complex) environment, NOT because of some underhand attempt at spamming.

I would hope that you'd be big enough to see that.

Can I not participate as just a *user*, since I'm also a user, musician, and a total synth nut? For the record, I own and use vintage analog synths and would not be without them. I love the sound, the knobs/sliders, the smell (You should ditch your Tetra 'cause it smells new! Instead get a vintage string machine and stimulate your nose as much as your ear ) and I love the whole vintage 'aura', whatever it means. If analog was over I would not be getting three new analog synths this year!