KVR Audio

projectdan · Post by **projectdan** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:32 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:
supersaws?
There's no arguing, the sect of Analogology is already too big to fight against.
Let's just kill the sect of Frequencymodulogy before it grows.

So you do realize what your up against. I did wonder, as you keep on responding. Your not just up against what they believe, but what they want to believe.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:37 pm

Your not just up against what they believe, but what they want to believe.

I don't think they would stop believing, it's more about others who are still undecided & are reading this thread. If there are only freaks in this thread, they will go for their version.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:41 pm

Luckily I don't have to believe anything because I'm able to compare and listen and try the tools out in their designated environments. That's what everybody else should do whenever possible. Make up your own mind. Get a good monitoring chain and check the stuff out for yourself. Cause it's got nothing to do with voodoo.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:48 pm

But you didn't compare them, that's the point, you compared their presets.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:52 pm

Yes, I played hundreds of presets. You get an idea about the basic sound by this. You find out if the sound works in a mix. Yes, I can judge the basic sound without lining them up 1:1. I've been a musician all my live and I've got the ability to judge complex sounds quite well. Most people have, due to the role speech has played in human evolution. So don't feed me this bullshit, it's mightily annoying.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:03 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:But you didn't compare them, that's the point, you compared their presets.

Is it possible 1 synth does, for example, some subtle keyscaling built-in as it were so that the difference is not just envelopes?

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:08 pm

living sounds wrote:Yes, I played hundreds of presets. You get an idea about the basic sound by this. You find out if the sound works in a mix. Yes, I can judge the basic sound without lining them up 1:1. I've been a musician all my live and I've got the ability to judge complex sounds quite well. Most people have, due to the role speech has played in human evolution. So don't feed me this bullshit, it's mightily annoying.

Tragically you're not a famous producer. If you were a famous producer you'd have the credentials to go with the ears and you could buy up a dev and have them implement your vision. It couldn't possibly go wrong.

Ask Roger Nichols.

tony tony chopper · Post by **tony tony chopper** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:10 pm

Is it possible 1 synth does, for example, some subtle keyscaling built-in

I'm only talking about the synths that offer full freedom (envelopes) for their key-scaling, otherwise yes if the choice is limited then you can't do everything.

I've been a musician all my live and I've got the ability to judge complex sounds quite well.

Ok then you're judging presets. No problem with that, preset-making is an art too. There have been lots of presets for my own synths that I wouldn't have been able to achieve myself, so I do know about the importance of presets (& even demo songs).
..let's just be clear about what you're judging - it's not today's FM synths nor their ability to fully replicate old stuff, it's presets, or what the synth's GUI makes easy to achieve/pushes you towards.

pdxindy · Post by **pdxindy** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:27 pm

tony tony chopper wrote:
I've been a musician all my live and I've got the ability to judge complex sounds quite well.
Ok then you're judging presets. No problem with that, preset-making is an art too. There have been lots of presets for my own synths that I wouldn't have been able to achieve myself, so I do know about the importance of presets (& even demo songs).
..let's just be clear about what you're judging - it's not today's FM synths nor their ability to fully replicate old stuff, it's presets, or what the synth's GUI makes easy to achieve/pushes you towards.

I would listen to a broad range of presets for a synth and if I would hear certain characteristics across the range of presets, I would consider that to be something rather intrinsic to the synth.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:31 pm

pdxindy wrote:
I would listen to a broad range of presets for a synth and if I would hear certain characteristics across the range of presets, I would consider that to be something rather intrinsic to the synth.

Of course you would. They're cathing at straws. There is not a single patch in FM7 (including everyone you can import from the DX-series) that has the nice definition/clarity of most of the VOPM ones, or the TX7. You can argue about a few sounds, but when you've tried a huge sample and it stays that way probability swings over to the explanation that it's down to the engine, not the presets.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:31 pm

I can only marvel of the close-mindedness of some people that claim to be 'scientific'. Let alone the usual trolls like Nuffink and company.

nuffink · Post by **nuffink** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:42 pm

living sounds wrote:I can only marvel of the close-mindedness of some people that claim to be 'scientific'. Let alone the usual trolls like Nuffink and company.

Do you know what? For somebody who's every post on this forum denigrates the tools that this place exists to promote, you really have some front in calling me a troll.

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:43 pm

living sounds wrote:
pdxindy wrote:
I would listen to a broad range of presets for a synth and if I would hear certain characteristics across the range of presets, I would consider that to be something rather intrinsic to the synth.
Of course you would. They're cathing at straws. There is not a single patch in FM7 (including everyone you can import from the DX-series) that has the nice definition/clarity of most of the VOPM ones, or the TX7. You can argue about a few sounds, but when you've tried a huge sample and it stays that way probability swings over to the explanation that it's down to the engine, not the presets.

But the problem with this is that this is according to you . That's why this conversation cannot go any further and got stuck in an endless loop. The scientific method asks for objective, measurable proof of what someone is claiming to be true. Can you say the same about your case without resorting to generalities like 'nice definition'?

TristezaOrange · Post by **TristezaOrange** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:44 pm

Also, nuffink is not a troll. He's a paladin. Or a witch doctor. A paladin witch-doctor!

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:52 pm

TristezaOrange wrote:
But the problem with this is that this is according to you . That's why this conversation cannot go any further and got stuck in an endless loop. The scientific method asks for objective, measurable proof of what someone is claiming to be true. Can you say the same about your case without resorting to generalities like 'nice definition'?

I've tried to use as objective terminology as possible. But it's very hard to get intersubjective parameters because of the complexity and the reliance on psychoacoustics. I'm at the point now where I've got to say that when the software guy doesn't hear the difference despite all the examples and also shows complete unwillingness to accept the possibility of an actual phenomenom, it's time to change the developer. So I'm not going any further in this thread, because it doesn't lead anywhere.
If someone has the abilites he/she might look into the VOPM source code and analyse how the sound is produced, I don't have time for this.

The Fight for FM