|
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
This argument is becoming absurdly fetishistic. It's beginning to remind me of the arbitrary position adopted by guitar players who believe that the only reason anyone wants to own a synth is so they can play sounds that emulate a guitar.
If I could afford them, I would own NI Komplete 5 and a few of the instruments on your list, alanzo.
What I'm not going to be involved with is a pissing contest to see who can come up with the best argument, for or against ANY position, including that of BOTH (Hard and software). It's pointless.
This is, quite literally, a 'virtual' debate. There simply aren't enough reasons for or against any position to affirm one as more valid than any other. It's a matter of preference, and that's it.
On Erasure's Circus album, Vince Clark used analogue, entirely, from a controlled voltage sequencer to his synths - the entire path was analogue. Then, he was right when he maintained that Dave Smith's MIDI had peculiar timing deficiencies.
Now, there are a number of features throughout various DAW's that allow for timing correction, should a producer find that necessary. Resolution, so far as bit-depth and frequency range is proving itself very subject to Moore's law. There are a number of tricks a producer can use to "fatten" up a sound that might not be up to snuff, left on its own.
Yes. If I could afford them, I would buy them. For all practical purposes, having owned physical gear (the best of which was a Kurzweil K2000 back in 1992), I can only assure you that I'm satisfied with the results I've been able to achieve on a very, very modest ( < $1000.00 + a Pentium 3) system.
Programs like Massive and Zeta aren't trying to sound like an Alesis Andromeda let alone an Alesis Ion. They're not trying to replace it, either. They provide a completely different and, in certain aspects, for more adjustable interface. In a lot of ways, they're just more versatile as well as portable.
That versatility and the utilities provided for in the software GUI still can't replace virtually ANY hardware synth's ability with specialization. Hardware synths (virtual analogue or otherwise) are designed to do one thing (albeit with a variety of applications), do it well, and do it with rock-solid reliability in addition to maintaining a readily predictable physical user interface that allows for control of specific parameters.
In as much as Mr. Clark put on aires about the issues of timing related to MIDI, his sound, for that album, was utterly defined by his choice in equipment. If your sound is defined by the equipment you use, outstanding. If you're trying to out match another producer because their preference or financial wherewithal doesn't correlate with your own, what is the point?
What, precisely, does it prove, that is so relevant that it must be proven? |
Why argue?
That is why....
Think about all those kittens man!
The Horror...
OH THE HUMANITY!@!!!
___________________
i'm the alchemist without the cyst without a doubt out of the mist
dig out the grout expose the pest to take it out without the rest
they will attest my patients restorations from the best
i'm from the west i'm not an acmeist only the alchemist
Last edited by cronodevir on Mar-06-2009 at 17:59
|
