Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[jancivil]

the burden of evidence lies on the person making the claim

in your last example, neither party can prove anything.....

In my example, only one part made a claim and thus has to prove something. It is not the other part's job to provide counter-proof, so I am not sure where you want to go with this.

Typical 'both sides' gesture, gaslighting. Here we have a failure to grasp the meaning of 'burden of proof' in argument.
the look is compounded by six dots for an ellipsis <-THAT you may call assholish

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

you said "god exists, prove me wrong"

it's up to you to prove god exists, you made the claim....

But existence cannot be proven, nor can non existence..... its all belief

anyway, my point is, if you make a claim, you have to back it up, you cant just say "prove me wrong" (Well, you can, but that's not really how it works)

Eh? "God, exists prove me wrong" was an analogy to Pdx's "this vid proves hardware superiority, prove me wrong by counter example". It is all about who has the burden of evidence, not what actually can be proven.

Are you stoned? If so, where do you get your weed from? I want some

[jancivil]

We never got past the burden of proof provided by the one making the extraordinary assertion. The argument is the amazing stuff in a video, not actually articulated why that is so. Ball remained in their court, and they finally punted.

Even if my reponse to that were post a video and prove it wrong, it would do more than that to make my point, I'd hope.
The first thing I would indicate to counter "a similar level of hands on immediacy and performance capability" is 'here's a drummer' doing actual improvisation in performance, having real contact with their hands on. At the level we were at, I guess it would ok to post some other drummer than myself, not that I'd need it.
But it would be lost on the guy who has evidently zero interest in any of that; and I don't have anything to prove to anyfuckingbody

[vurt]

real musics are made analogfull with electronics.
not digital.

[vurt]

except studio one

[ghettosynth]

I don’t personally get inspired by a physical UI vs. a software UI.

Yeah, that isn't intrinsically where it comes from. There are some things that I fundamentally prefer with hardware synths, but they include tradeoffs.

First, being able to use it live with both hands easily. The single touch nature of mouse driven software is a limitation here. That said, the advantages of the computer in so many other ways is why this is a tradeoff. The least of which includes that it's often actually faster to program a software synth just because of the reduced movement. How often do you really use two hands? Ok, live, I did, and that's where I still feel hardware has some advantage.

Related, multitouch isn't really a solution because the physical nature of knobs has some advantage in some cases. Again, I'm talking about live performance, not programming.

Finally, muscle memory can have some advantage, but again with the tradeoffs, this only works when you have fewer synths.

All in all, I'm over most live hardware. I like the maschine hardware and I combine it with a simple mixer controller that gives me level+ control over eight channels. I use that effectively for live stuff.

I’m with you 100%. When I’m programming a patch, having a hardware synth is irrelevant to me, but when I’m playing, I want control. Do I need every single parameter at my fingertips? Nope. The 8 that Maschine shows me is plenty as long as I set up which ones make sense in my context. A good MPE controller, Touché and expression pedals… well that’s a lot to keep me busy with my software and frankly better than most hardware instruments on their own.

Indeed, and there is variability here in what machines bring to the table and why software alone often has some limitation. Hardware also has limitations, but because they are often purpose built devices, they are different limitations.

Whether one likes the possibilities imposed by a device is a matter of taste, however, they often reflect, and then can even help define, the evolution of stylistic clichés. For example, many people have played live sets with just a 909, I have, I'm familiar with the process and the limitations of the device. The variation that one can impose on the timbre of the sounds in real time is fixed by the front panel controls and, consequently, in the desire to create variation over time you will hear performers use them in similar ways. So, for example, you get this, now classic, cymbal pitch sweep. The advantage of the hardware here is that you can do that instantly, every time you turn the device on and it's always right there in the same place with respect to the front panel, muscle memory takes you there. Ok, this is a simple example and you can certainly do that with any software as the 909 has been copied quite well in software.

I'm using it as an example because it's the limitation of the hardware that I'm trying to point out. All of the live variation with a 909 is limited by the pre-defined controls and sequencer limitations of the device. It's immediate, and entire genres have been largely defined by it, but by itself, live performance with it is either going to be somewhat static with respect to timbre, or, it's going to have familiar timbre variations.

So of course the drum machine as the center of live sequencer driven performance gives way to the groovebox and that's where the quest for the right tradeoffs between complexity and control have been pursued.

The Elecktron stuff has a strong following, I've never made the switch, although I've thought about it. I moved to the RS7000s in the early 2000s and I can speak some as to how Yamaha tackled the tradeoffs.

So, again just as an example, one of the nice control tricks that you can do with the RS7K is that the front panel controls can apply to just the current synth, one of two banks of eight instruments, or all 16 instruments. Of course the classic use here is the filter cutoff and you can sweep down half of your tracks or all of your tracks all at once. This is controlled in real time via holding down alt key combinations on the controller to change what the knobs do. This applies to most of the controls however and so there is a lot more variation than with the 909. Or, for that matter, with the 909 combined with other hardware.

Simple key controls save the entire state of the instrument to one of five performance slots, so, you can save the state, manipulate all of the filters, or whatever, and then at just that right moment you recall the state and you were back to where you were.

So, how do you do this in software? Well, it's certainly not impossible, but to get that level of integration you need a dedicated control panel. You also need all of the instruments to respond to controls in the same way. At the very least they need to respond to similar parameters, or you need an abstraction layer to map parameters. This, however, goes against the grain of software plugins and so it's a lot harder to setup than you want it to be. Even if you succeed, you still face the limitations of mapping your controller or controllers. The tradeoff here between generic controllers or more purpose built controllers with a greater number of controls is stark. You can argue that the hardware limitation is that all of the instruments have to be created from the same, or a limited set of engines, and I'd agree. That's what I meant at the start of this. That is where the tradeoff lies. You are trading off integration and control for variety. In fact, whenever this is done well in software, it's all done within one plugin.

As soon as you think "I can just put an external filter on the 909" then you are in the realm of integration issues. None of these problems are new, we were trying to work them out in the 90s, and I see all of the same issues today in DAWless jams.

[vurt]

dawless jams is a weird phrase.

where else do we define what we do, by that which we don't use?

[vurt]

someone had to say it

[AnX]

you said "god exists, prove me wrong"

it's up to you to prove god exists, you made the claim....

But existence cannot be proven, nor can non existence..... its all belief

anyway, my point is, if you make a claim, you have to back it up, you cant just say "prove me wrong" (Well, you can, but that's not really how it works)

Eh? "God, exists prove me wrong" was an analogy to Pdx's "this vid proves hardware superiority, prove me wrong by counter example". It is all about who has the burden of evidence, not what actually can be proven.

ok, I'll leave it there.... I've nothing to prove (and I don't smoke weed)

[jancivil]

I feel pretty sure I could define what I do by affirmation, not needing opposition to something else.
I'm opposed here to talking points based in a false awareness as though strong enough to bely reality, and the attendant wildly hyped-up rhetoric.
I would have the interest and habits I have if that never existed. I enjoyed being able to do the drum part *live* and not be burdened with dealing with a drummer and explaining shit, but I could have done other things in the gig if it never happened. somebody gimme a pair o' BONGOS

I didn't click on dude's video pessimistically, but I may as well have done. I guess it's here are more buttons pushed more frequently so wow, check out these chops and this amazing feat.

[ghettosynth]

dawless jams is a weird phrase.

where else do we define what we do, by that which we don't use?

flameless candles
wireless communication
seamless construction
homeless living

[AnX]

someone had to say it

prove it!

[AnX]

dawless jams is a weird phrase.

where else do we define what we do, by that which we don't use?

flameless candles
wireless communication
seamless construction
homeless living

tantric sex!

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

and I don't smoke weed

Ahaaa! That could be the problem. Maybe you should give it a go, then

[vurt]

dawless jams is a weird phrase.

where else do we define what we do, by that which we don't use?

flameless candles
wireless communication
seamless construction
homeless living

talkless bears