TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- So... VST is the method of the amateur???
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by noicuc Wrong. Pure Refx Nexus is the way of the Amateur.

Is that an ancient Chinese proverb or something?

quote:

You've opened up a giant can of shit with a can opener made of fucked.~JBroll from the Sneap forum

Well... here's my 2 cents:

It is a lot easier to pirate VSTs than it is to be oldschool enough to heist-up some hardware gear (most devious complexes are too cowardly for that anyways). Therefore, it is easier for a nobody to generate crap with fine digital information than it is for an individual who invested personal wealth into a physical instrument. VSTs are used by amateurs and ISO-marauders... most hardware is used by people who have a little more incentive to care due to the amount of physical commitment. It is mostly psychological with a monetary ceiling that turns away the most scum.

It is the same reason why FL STudio is the worst of DAWs... because it is inexpensive enough (or pirated enough), to have the worst users of any DAW.

Hardware & software will sound equally amatuer in the hands of the uneducated - software is 'now' and 'forever' the future - how appealing would a hardware synth be without a comp these days?

Hard synths are fine! but the usage of them is like 15/20% max of the production process these days.

The bottom line > most peeps that own hardware no matter how little they use them will defend them over anything at the expense of feeling like muppets due to the cost difference.

Seriously though, if u want the best result possible you would want to have both at your disposal. There is no denying that.

Lame thread. The premis of "VST is the method of an amatuer" is childish and plain stupid, as demonstarted by the posts earlier.

For the 100000000th time, It's all about what suits your sound, what works for you and what you like to use.

We can all quote producers that use only software or only vintage hardware or even combinations. How YOU use the tools at your disposal (whatever they are) defines the quality of what you're producing.

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd_V The bottom line > most peeps that own hardware no matter how little they use them will defend them over anything at the expense of feeling like muppets due to the cost difference.

It sounds like you haven't owned many hardware synths. They do cost more, but if you want those particular sonic characters, you'll have to buy them. Same as with fantastic software synths - if you want their particular sonic character, you'll have to buy them.

It's not a question of better or worse. Each synth sounds different. If you want the sound of a particular Gladiator patch, you can try tweaking your Virus and get it somewhere in the ballpark, but it won't sound like the Gladiator patch. Likewise if you want an Andromeda sound, you can tweak Sylenth and get it somewhere in the ballpark, but it won't sound like an Andromeda.

You can try to justify your position to yourself, but to me it sounds like you haven't owned many hardware synths for a decent length of time. I'd find it difficult to have your level of certainty without the relevant experience.

quote:

Originally posted by derail It's not a question of better or worse. Each synth sounds different. If you want the sound of a particular Gladiator patch, you can try tweaking your Virus and get it somewhere in the ballpark, but it won't sound like the Gladiator patch. Likewise if you want an Andromeda sound, you can tweak Sylenth and get it somewhere in the ballpark, but it won't sound like an Andromeda. You can try to justify your position to yourself, but to me it sounds like you haven't owned many hardware synths for a decent length of time. I'd find it difficult to have your level of certainty without the relevant experience.

I have owned quite a few hardware synths over the years & I prefare to concentrate on 'making music' rather than wasting time with why does synth A not sound exactly like that synth B - each instrument has its own color on that rainbow of course - but you don't require every color ie (synth) out there to make good music tho.

quote:

Originally posted by Floyd_V each instrument has its own color on that rainbow of course - but you don't require every color ie (synth) out there to make good music tho.

No, you don't require every color. But if you really like the color of a particular synth, if it fits into your overall sound perfectly, then you get that synth. If it happens to be hardware, so be it. You don't "feel like a muppet" for spending the money, because there isn't any other way you're going to get that color for your songs.

People really need to get into the habit of asking themselves, "is this thread-worthy?" before hitting the "new thread" button.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut People really need to get into the habit of asking themselves, "is this thread-worthy?" before hitting the "new thread" button.

+1

Why fuss over this at this point, if your a few years into the game, you should know that a hybrid setup of hardware and software will net the best results. Hardware for getting the best sound possible and enjoying a fun experience of a hands on approach, music creation with more essence and feel of a creator's input. Software for its functionality, transparency, and effecient workflow (although hardware can net effecient results in many cases.)

Join the Hybrid users who are Kingin It.

i like analog hardware because its fun to experiment in a physical audio environment with objects.

i like hardware digital synthesizers because i like having the tactile feedback that a panel with knobs and buttons can provide + dedicated processing as not to use my CPU.

i like software because its versatile / easily programmable and in most cases completely re callable and archive friendly.

believe it or not, all of the above play well together.


the points are as follows:

there are good musicians, and there are bad musicians.

there are right ways to do things to make something sound good.

there are wrong ways to do things and still make something sound good.

but at the end of the day, there is a bit of science and a somewhat conformed methodology applied to the above points to making your tracks sound "full"... and that is applicable to ANYTHING you decide to lay down on a track... whether its soft / hard / sampled or otherwise. That is more or less the musicians focus when it comes to engineering a piece of electronic music that stands on its own 2 feet in a club. The music part should just come naturally for most musicians. if anything im sure i have spent over 80% of my music making experience learning that engineering / mixing and mastering is key.

quote:

[i][b]if anything im sure i have spent over 80% of my music making experience learning that engineering / mixing and mastering is key.

And that's what I like most about your music. Your tunes themselves are often quite simple in construction, don't get me wrong, they're not bad but also not SO special. It's more that superb sound quality that makes the difference.

What is it that you do to give your sound such a tight yet open feel... I mean, what do you suggest to people that are still learning. I'm sure you have one or two rules that help to get your sound so good. Will you let us know?

Discussing SW vs HW is a great waste of time you could've actually spent producing music.

quote:

Originally posted by Airbase Discussing SW vs HW is a great waste of time you could've actually spent producing music.

+1

quote:

Originally posted by Airbase Discussing SW vs HW is a great waste of time you could've actually spent producing music.

Yes but so is making tutorials

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Yes but so is making tutorials

They are way quicker

This discussion has been going on since forever.

Besides, tutorials can actually help people.

quote:

Originally posted by deadmau5 The music part should just come naturally for most musicians. if anything im sure i have spent over 80% of my music making experience learning that engineering / mixing and mastering is key.

Good point, but I would stress that the music portion won't come naturally for most musicians until they've spent a great deal of time developing their musical skills. It gets back to that old "are you born with it?" debate, which I think is a crock. Becoming an accomplished musician takes time and experience - some people excel at it, others need to really work at it. Unfortunately, I think there's a good possibility that a lot of amateur producers with poorly developed musical skills will read your quote and misinterpret it to mean that the production is more important than the music. In other words, they'll see it as, "oh, you CAN polish a turd - I don't need to waste my time improving my musical skills because sidechaining and mastering is more important. Deadmau5 said so!"

Back on topic - I don't agree with the OP's assertion that software is viewed as tools for "amateurs." Everybody knows that there are benefits to each, so why would a "pro" limit him/herself to a tool that doesn't fit the job for them (assuming cost is not a precluding factor)? I'll just reiterate for the record that, while I've been using hardware synths for about 30 years and currently have 9 HW synths, I still use software for at least 50% of my work. Also, I don't see the hardware snobbery that people talk about here, because as far as I can see, most hardware users today also use software, even though they may prefer the sound of some hardware.

quote:

Originally posted by Storyteller Yes but so is making tutorials

But what he is doing is helping out the community and showing you tips and tricks....

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik "oh, you CAN polish a turd - I don't need to waste my time improving my musical skills because sidechaining and mastering is more important. Deadmau5 said so!"

From my fun experiences so far, certainly a great example of "not what i meant"

lol.

quote:

Originally posted by raku I'm sure you have one or two rules that help to get your sound so good. Will you let us know?

You'll find there are hundreds, or thousands, of "rules". All developed through a dedicated learning process, through spending time in the studio working on sounds, putting sounds together.

The rules you're after you can find on this forum, in books, and most importantly through direct experience. Reading can teach you a bit, but in the end you need to experience how it relates to your personal way of putting sounds together. The "rules" you end up using will be your rules. They may work for someone else, they may not.

Actually, working with composers on a daily basis, and as someone with a very rudimentary musical skill level myself, I find the musical part in most people who do it often DOES come naturally. By definition a musician is someone that has developed their musical skills. Someone who "dabbles a bit" or a "plays a bit of guitar" isn't a really musician.

Earlier I stated the engineers I work with just "know" what they want to achieve in their head and through practice know how to fluidly translate that in to results.

Being musically creative is a slightly different thing but a similar thought process comes in to play. What you hear in head needs to translate to results and with practice you learn the boundaries of your abilities, what works and what doesn't, what sounds good to you and or others and how to make your desired sounds. Musician, composers and even producers all have to do this to become even decent - being born with it is incredibly rare - i've only met a couple of people that just have it, and truly they are on a different level in terms of ability.

In fact I find that muscians if anything have a harder time with the technical than the creative as the musical part is learnt and applied creatively - the technical part as joel said is key in our music type as it is integral to the music nearly more so than any other artform involving technology.

This is all just different ways (HW vs SW) to the same thing so it has nothing to with whats better or or what's right, just what people prefer and works best for them.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Actually, working with composers on a daily basis, and as someone with a very rudimentary musical skill level myself, I find the musical part in most people who do it often DOES come naturally. By definition a musician is someone that has developed their musical skills. Someone who "dabbles a bit" or a "plays a bit of guitar" isn't a really musician. Earlier I stated the engineers I work with just "know" what they want to achieve in their head and through practice know how to fluidly translate that in to results. Being musically creative is a slightly different thing but a similar thought process comes in to play. What you hear in head needs to translate to results and with practice you learn the boundaries of your abilities, what works and what doesn't, what sounds good to you and or others and how to make your desired sounds. Musician, composers and even producers all have to do this to become even decent - being born with it is incredibly rare - i've only met a couple of people that just have it, and truly they are on a different level in terms of ability. In fact I find that muscians if anything have a harder time with the technical than the creative as the musical part is learnt and applied creatively - the technical part as joel said is key in our music type as it is integral to the music nearly more so than any other artform involving technology. This is all just different ways (HW vs SW) to the same thing so it has nothing to with whats better or or what's right, just what people prefer and works best for them.

Nice post!

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.