Hardware instrument appreciation thread

[kilon]

It doesnt disagree with him, nor does it agree with you. Perhaps you dont understand what a 'clone' of something is; its not 'has some features in common'.

Ok let me rephrase myself one more time , I have heard presets made using only the FM section of the SY 77 wich is a clone ( or is very , very similar to DX7 architecture, whatever suits you , i call it cloning) of DX7 hence a clone of FM7 which a lot warmer than FM7.

Should I rephrase myself again and again? Is it diificult to understand following your theory that if there is no diffirence between soft and hard that a hard synth wich clones DX7 and adds some sampling should not be difficult at all to clone with FM7 and a sof sampler?

[mkdr]

I believe FM7 can load SY sysex too?

from the original PR blurb.
"The FM7 can read all programs from the original DX7, DX7-II, DX11, TX81Z, DX21, DX27, DX100, TX802 "

So, no, no SY sysex.

Ah, my memory fooled me there. I can load DX sysex to my SY tho..

[mkdr]

I wasn't having a go at you mkdr ... just sharing my thoughts. I really don't see how you can say hardware sounds better than software, as it's all a question of taste, and what gets the job done for each individual ... not which is/sounds better.

Heh no prob mate. I don't take things that personal on forums anyway..

Yes i can say, because that is my opinion. You can disagree ofcourse



I think the whole FM7/8 vs DX7/SY77 is a bit wrong. FM7/8 is a great synth and tool even tho it does lack some bite from it's sound. If it doesn't emulate any of the DX7 type synths, the name is a bit misleading. Stupid marketing trick i guess... That's something software developers should avoid if they don't want to get measured by the hw units they nick the fame from.

[Sam@Megablastic]

I never liked the Virus much. The Nordlead series is OK. But they're both nothing like a real analog synth.

It's not about hardware in general (in my case). I don't care for a Motif or any workstation. I don't want to work on a big SSL desk either. I like using Logic for producing and mixing. I'd rather have a fast computer, top converters and a rack full of synths and outboard.

It's the analog synths, the Yamaha FM synths, the high end outboard compressors, EQs and FX that make the difference. That's where software - at the moment - is lacking.

I'd go with what was said here. I never used to like the Virus, but I bought one for my dance releases to be used as a huge preset box to help with the speed of my workflow. It does have it's own sound and it's probably down to the fact that it aliases all over the place and the reverbs are cheap sounding....but that's what makes it sit so well in a mix. And I love it for it

[tconrardy]

I like my hardware, AND I like my software. There is nothing like sitting in front of a real dx7, or a ensoniq mirage, or taking up some patch cords on my EML 200 and having a go.

Having said that, I love the versatility of software. You can have as many LFO's Oscillators, or complete instruments all layered up as your CPU can handle for some out of his world one finger oscillations into the next galaxy!

Sometimes I go to Guitar center to see what the latest hardware tech is, and to try it out firsthand. I have to say that the sounds are cool, but I can go home, and get the same kind of sounds from the stuff I have( although maybe in a roundabout way) Sometimes I do slobber over hardware like Hootch :-)Sometime I would LOVE a big huge modular or an Alesis Andromeda! I even had my eye on a Korg ms200R. But..its amazing what you can do with what you have.

Tim

[whyterabbyt]

Am I now? What features are we talking about exactly

presumably not the half-dozen you've decided are fundamental because you like them.

but hey, what about use with a proper control surface with volume sliders, pan pots, mute buttons and a jog button.
what about

, resampling ( that is almost nonexistent in DAWS and you have to use external soft to do that properly )

well, the fact you had to explain what it was shows how much I miss it. but there are half a dozen ways I could do it. and far more flexibly and powerfully than it sounds like it is on the motif. that's the beaty of an open-ended system.

effects( do not get me started how inadaquate Ableton Live effects are)

Well thats a pretty bogus argument. You dont like the plugins in Live, so all hosts have worse effects than a motif?

, layering ( which appeared only recently in DAWs)

well thats just nonsense.

... what exactly ?

Hmm, lets see. Usability with a proper control surface? Use of dualscreen for editing? A decent interface for multiple-stage envelopes and automation data? Use of standardised loop file formats like Acid, and REX? Open plugin formats? Unlimited track, bus and effect counts? real-time pitch correction? audio timing quantization and groove extraction? surround mixing? sidechaining? sample management?

The whole history of soft has been nothing more than copying hard synths and hardware features.

thats more nonsense. want to quote some hardware doing scanned or granular synthesis? phase vocoders? what hardware synth has an independent multi-stage envelope and LFO for every parameter? which hardware drum machine approaches the realism and detail of BFD?

and why do you keep ignoring the fact that computer-based software systems running on general-purpose computers actually predate dedicated digital hardware? by a couple of decades. a significant part of the history of digital hardware has been based on reimplementing ideas which ran on computer systems first.

You say it yourself DAW+VSTs+a thousand more things+ the time it takes to find the thing that get the job done properly+ money + get used to 100 diffirent interfaces + choosing a proper midi controler + tuning your sythem to behave properly+ ... + ... + ...

Noone needs to get anything more than their DAW software. But at least they have the choice if they want to.

With hard you purchase the damn thing and that is it , the end of story.

and if it doesnt do everything you need, you're stuck, and that is the end of the story. so, thats not really a good thing, in my book.

[vurt]

i suppose if id spent that kind of money on something i could do better for half the price id be justifying it religously too...

[whyterabbyt]

Ok let me rephrase myself one more time , I have heard presets made using only the FM section of the SY 77 wich is a clone ( or is very , very similar to DX7 architecture, whatever suits you , i call it cloning) of DX7 hence a clone of FM7 which a lot warmer than FM7.

I now have no idea what you;re saying.

Should I rephrase myself again and again?

erm, in that case, once more at least.

Is it diificult to understand following your theory that if there is no diffirence between soft and hard that a hard synth wich clones DX7 and adds some sampling should not be difficult at all to clone with FM7 and a sof sampler?

I never said there was 'no difference between soft and hard'. So please dont claim that I did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

As for the latter part, are you trying to say that Im saying an integrated hardware synth with FM that can process samples can be replicated easily by a separate sampler and an FM synth, even although they're entirely discrete.

If so, thats another straw man argument. I didnt say anything like that either. Do yourself a favour, stop making up things to attribute to me, it doesnt make your argument any better.

I'll repeat what I actually said, since it seems to be an issue for you.

"The quote from vintagesynth does not state anything which says that FM7 is a clone of the DX7 or SY77 so does not contradict jupiter8 at all, despite your assertion that it does".

How the hell you got from their to this post defies explanation.

But if you're desparate for a softsynth that can use samples, go play with Rhino. Or build something in Reaktor.

[mkdr]

and why do you keep ignoring the fact that computer-based software systems running on general-purpose computers actually predate dedicated digital hardware? by a couple of decades. a significant part of the history of digital hardware has been based on reimplementing ideas which ran on computer systems first.

This caught my eye. What implementations are you talking about? 20 years ago we had C64, Amiga and maybe 286?... What software synthesis did they run?


Btw. good points about the multiusage of DAW's. They are alot more versatile and modifiable than hardware units(that's why i prefer one).. but still you kinda missed the "super workflow" kilon was talking about.

[whyterabbyt]

i suppose if id spent that kind of money on something i could do better for half the price id be justifying it religously too...

I suspect that's a large part of it. I think there's also an odd hangover from the early days of digital polysynths when a certain mystique started to grow over analogue. As time went on, I actually think that early fetishisation of analogue came to be noticed, and adopted by the generation that had grown up with 19" digital units, and by extension, 'hardware' became better than software. I suspect an awful lot of it is a cross between luddism and nostalgia.

[jupiter8]

and why do you keep ignoring the fact that computer-based software systems running on general-purpose computers actually predate dedicated digital hardware? by a couple of decades. a significant part of the history of digital hardware has been based on reimplementing ideas which ran on computer systems first.

This caught my eye. What implementations are you talking about? 20 years ago we had C64, Amiga and maybe 286?... What software synthesis did they run?

http://www.music.psu.edu/Faculty%20Page ... _labs.html

[WilliamK]

I only use SW, and for me, it sounds the same. But again, I'm talking about samplers, not VA. But again, after testing Poly-Ana, I can say that SW can sound the same if not better than HW. Specially since old HW VA tend to drift too much, and I don't like that. But that's me.

Wk

[whyterabbyt]

This caught my eye. What implementations are you talking about? 20 years ago we had C64, Amiga and maybe 286?... What software synthesis did they run?

I wasnt talking about home computers. But do you think the DX7 was committed straight to VLSI before anyone tried out digital frequency modulation?

A few references : Max Mathews. Music-V languages. IRCAM. GRM.

Btw. good points about the multiusage of DAW's. They are alot more versatile and modifiable than hardware units(that's why i prefer one).. but still you kinda missed the "super workflow" kilon was talking about.

well you say 'super' and I say 'cut down'. again it comes down to preference. like his resampling thing. if I want to do what he described I have several choices of way to do it. For example, I have a plugin which will automatically 'resample' any bank of other synths, with effects, and build them into a proper sample set which can be used in one of many samplers. And two sampler plugin which will do much the same, except they can also play back the samples.

[mkdr]

I wasnt talking about home computers. But do you think the DX7 was committed straight to VLSI before anyone tried out digital frequency modulation?

A few references : Max Mathews. Music-V languages. IRCAM. GRM.

Oh yes... supercomputers are very fun to play with. They'r so cheap an all and readily available to every musician.

You don't have to treat everyone like idiots. Nothing can be made out of nothing. They have to be tested on something.. like math on a piece of paper. Does this mean that the piece of paper is the platform it best works on? Have you ever heard of "developing" something? You can't just poof stuff out your ass now can you?(well, im assuming you cant)


So how about the oldest HW synths then? Ever heard of Organs? Those big ass things that stand in almost every old church. They are additive synths with hundreds of sine oscillators forming waveforms like Saws, Triangles and Sines ofcourse.. With your definition of synthesizers they are the oldest ones and the original ones and everything is modelled after them...
And btw.. they sound a lot better than software implementations of such.. really awesome reverbs on those things.. there's like real space there..


But c'mon, this is not the purpose of this thread. It's not about history, or the future, but the present time!

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I have to say that the sounds are cool, but I can go home, and get the same kind of sounds from the stuff I have( although maybe in a roundabout way)

I agree with the first part of your post AND A LOT.
But about: "the same kind of sounds":

I have a tg77 (yes, the rack version of sy77), when my mate showed me fm7 (some year ago) we agreed, it was producing "the same kind of sounds" (and was able to load sysx too, like tg77 was doing). But I didn't like it at all, we disinstalled it.


Don't get me wrong, I loaded really hundreds of ugly dx7 presets in tg77 , but that fm7 was too much. Today I love NI products, especially new ones, and especially when they are not trying to emulate something existent.

Now: if you don't know anything about fm synthesis and you play a bit with fm7, probably you'll like it. My mate liked it for example. But if you worked with a real yamaha for, I say, at least 1 year, you can't love that plug, you simply can't. I'm honest, I haven't tried fm8, so probably the new release is good. I'll try it as soon as possible.



ps
about the moog:

sicuro sicuro sicuro!!