TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- Why do we not have a true Ti synth yet?

Why do we not have a true Ti synth yet?

You know, like a Virus really could be?

Even if it was limited to say 16 instances or something.

Surely USB2/3 (let alone FW and thunderbolt) has that bandwidth capability.

Why hasn't another manufacturer jumped on this solo bandwagon yet I wonder?

I know that there's an argument that plugins already cover that with the aid of a good controller keyboard but I find that setup fiddly at the best of times.

I like the idea of having a 'core' synth in the studio that's my goto workhorse for a lot of the electronic stuff I do, that has a nice big quality keyboard, with a clean usable UI that'll open up inside my DAW like any other plugin.

Plus, flashing lights and knobs are just cool.

no kidding

any modern synth, this should be standard along with ipad control. I mean there are synths that don't even have an editor. But this complaint is just like my other complaints which makes you just as complicit in pointing how people are stupid. We are in this together now.

The most frustrating part is that all those synths could have a native version, I mean the virus had one a decade ago and it sounded like a virus B. I mean 95% there. Good enough to not care. Especially older synths. Like the supernova, korgs ms2000, jp8000.

syncrosoft is good enough. I don't see what they are afraid of other than the truth about how hardware synths are really just software. I guess i answered my own question. The thing is that alot of people just don't want stuff merely because of the space it takes. I don't need 7 synths with all their own knobs. 1 controller, done.

I suppose software is surpassing VA synths anyways so it doesn't really matter.

Re: Why do we not have a true Ti synth yet?

quote:

Originally posted by tehlord Why hasn't another manufacturer jumped on this solo bandwagon yet I wonder?

I've wondered this myself for a long time. Actually, I think it would probably make most sense for some of the "big 4" (Roland, Yamaha, Korg, Kurzweil) companies to integrate their flagship workstations in a TI fashion, rather than the small VA companies.

why don't they use the UAD system. I mean powercore could do it. sigh,

Re: Re: Why do we not have a true Ti synth yet?

quote:

Originally posted by tehlord You know, like a Virus really could be? Even if it was limited to say 16 instances or something. Surely USB2/3 (let alone FW and thunderbolt) has that bandwidth capability. Why hasn't another manufacturer jumped on this solo bandwagon yet I wonder? I know that there's an argument that plugins already cover that with the aid of a good controller keyboard but I find that setup fiddly at the best of times. I like the idea of having a 'core' synth in the studio that's my goto workhorse for a lot of the electronic stuff I do, that has a nice big quality keyboard, with a clean usable UI that'll open up inside my DAW like any other plugin. Plus, flashing lights and knobs are just cool.

check out
Roland sh-201
KORG MICRO X
Korg X50

i think he was thinking about synths that don't suck

Re: Re: Re: Why do we not have a true Ti synth yet?

quote:

Originally posted by atxbigballer1 check out Roland sh-201 KORG MICRO X Korg X50

None of those qualify as a TI synth, let alone a "true TI synth" that tehlord is talking about.

Yeah none of those are remotely what I'm on about.

I would have thought that the majority of people with over a thousand bucks to spend on a hardware synth would already be aware that inside it's pretty much a VST anyway, or at least those that weren't buying it because DJ Starscream used one in a Youtube video.

I would have thought an ideal candidate would be something like z3ta+2. Cakewalk (aka Roland) are already delving into hardware controllers and it's parent company has got a little bit of history with synth making too

Also, using the Cakewalk brand would maybe stop the slutz getting sniffy about it not being a 'real' synth (but based on my comment above they should know better already).

Perhaps the fact that Access gives the updates away for free puts other devs off, as they'd already be losing the extended cash cow.

Who knows.

I still like the idea of having one main hands on synth that I use for the majority!

If Roland/Cakewalk ever decide to make Z3ta2 hardware, I am there in a heartbeat. Both for saving CPU and for the full-on knobs and switches. Hell, for everything about it. Z1 was my 2nd ever VST purchase and I upgraded the first week 2 was out. The rapid bug fix solved all it's issues and the sound is just brutally beautiful. Having the hardware with TI capacity would just be pure win on all levels.

With all the Z3Ta users out there and it's 10 year track record, I don't think I'd be alone in buying one. Hell a purpose built 'midi controller' with a UAD type card in it would be great. Same for the Jupiter 8.

quote:

[i][b] I would have thought an ideal candidate would be something like z3ta+2. Cakewalk (aka Roland) are already delving into hardware controllers and it's parent company has got a little bit of history with synth making too I still like the idea of having one main hands on synth that I use for the majority!

quote:

Originally posted by Normie Same for the Jupiter 8.

I think they did make a hardware one.

quote:

Originally posted by Normie Same for the Jupiter 8.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney no kidding any modern synth, this should be standard along with ipad control. I mean there are synths that don't even have an editor. But this complaint is just like my other complaints which makes you just as complicit in pointing how people are stupid. We are in this together now. The most frustrating part is that all those synths could have a native version, I mean the virus had one a decade ago and it sounded like a virus B. I mean 95% there. Good enough to not care. Especially older synths. Like the supernova, korgs ms2000, jp8000. syncrosoft is good enough. I don't see what they are afraid of other than the truth about how hardware synths are really just software. I guess i answered my own question. The thing is that alot of people just don't want stuff merely because of the space it takes. I don't need 7 synths with all their own knobs. 1 controller, done. I suppose software is surpassing VA synths anyways so it doesn't really matter.

There has never been a native version. The Pro Tools version runs of dsp chips, quite the same as UAD.

it runs natively on the DAW. the daw happens to use a protocol that incorporates dsp. Similar i guess to UAD except UAD is not part of the daw. The point is that it is code. Remember sony's plugins ? When they were ported to native format, it actually used less CPU than the powercore versions.

They can do it and it would probably take less CPU than most modern VI. Somebody should just break in and steal the blueprints. I bet clavia leaves their doors unlocked.

quote:

Originally posted by Looney4Clooney it runs natively on the DAW. the daw happens to use a protocol that incorporates dsp. Similar i guess to UAD except UAD is not part of the daw. The point is that it is code. Remember sony's plugins ? When they were ported to native format, it actually used less CPU than the powercore versions. They can do it and it would probably take less CPU than most modern VI. Somebody should just break in and steal the blueprints. I bet clavia leaves their doors unlocked.

Good luck trying to run without the DSP hardware, you won't get it working because it's not a Native plugin.

quote:

Originally posted by Timothy Good luck trying to run without the DSP hardware, you won't get it working because it's not a Native plugin.

The DSP chips are a red herring. My phone is probably more powerful than the DSP chips in a Virus or the identical Powercore chips. The Virus as a VST plugin would use no more CPU power as any other basic VA.

I've had both a Powercore and a UAD card and there's just no reason for DSP anymore, there's just no benefit to be had.

a GT 560 , <300$ is about 52 625 times more powerful than a UAD 2 solo.
ANyone that talks about UAD and dsp power should be given a swirley.

The problem with technology is that the money and brains go where there is more money to be made. The audio industry has the dumbest people on the planet designing your stuff. In relation to the other industries say visual. But so is life. There are maybe 5 guys that are exceptions. I mean the fact they can't make 64 bit plugins is funny.

Coding audio believe or not is a matter of using an algorithm that has been already made decades ago, tweaking that algorithm so it sounds a bit different then making a GUI. Any MIT master student in amy field related to programming and dsp could do that for you in about 1 week. 1 guy. Why it is taking them so long is just funny. On a scale form 1 to 10 on say how hard or difficult say waves plugin compared to say a 3d rendering engine is say 0.5 on 10. That is why you have 1 man teams making the best plugins. It really is that simple. SOme of the math especially for EQs dates from like the turn of the 19th century. A bessel curve is like from 1890

They need to outsource anything relating to computers to india. Let the smart people do it. But what about the MIT grad ? indian.

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