|
Why does Hardware Sound Better than VST? (pg. 3)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Vert |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancenrg69
dude get off your ass and go to a music shop and sit down in front of a virus kc and play it, then come back and tell me if your vanguard or whatever crap vst you use sounds as good. use your ears. thats the ultimate proof! |
Just what I thought... :rolleyes: You can't back up your statements.
es |
|
|
| Special_K |
Im just a brain washed Zombie? Haha thats funny. Your the only one here that cant back your up. You obviously dont know what the your talking about. Im surrounded by audio industry professionals on a daily basis, and everything I have stated has been sourced from my own experience and by people that make their ing living in the music industry. Ive got people who have produced for some of the biggest bands on this planet telling me that software is just as good as hardware in the right hands, and im supposed to take your word for it? I mean really who the do you think you are? I would really like to know.
Tell me right now that you know more about this then some of the most respected audio professionals in the industry, and then we can end on that note.
Holden is not even lange's pinky finger???? HAHAHA thats the best comment so far, im not even ganna start on lange vs Holden, i think you've lost enough respect as it is.
What a joke!
Oh and i dont know about ther rest of you but i would like to hear trancenrg89 answer Vert's question. |
|
|
| rb2k1 |
:rolleyes: Like i really need to put some examples into this debate but... ill back up NRG on this!
Sample 1
Sample 2
One of my samples is made on the "Best JP-8080 Vst" as ive heard it called.. (Superwave "TRANCE PRO" haha) and the other is made by a real Roland JP-8080. They both use only their own fx.. meaning nothing else has been added to either one. Only fx's contained within the actual synth.
Who wants to take a guess...
Nrg says it best when he says that if you could download a Virus / JP-8080 / Nord Lead / then no one would be saying that superwave rocks.
I myself use a combo between both.. hard/soft but i know i would love to go all hardware.
~Ross B |
|
|
| rb2k1 |
oh yeah Special.K .. your "boy" John '00 has a load of hardware himself.. better find out why hes got that :( Im sure its just there to collect dust.:rolleyes:
(Hardware)
Virus kb
Korg MS 2000
Nord rack
Noavation Supernova
Roland MC 202
Korg SR Wavestation
Roland MKS 50
Proteus 1
Bass station
Roland JV 1080
~Ross B |
|
|
| TranceMasterUk |
wasnt going to get involved in this, but just had to.
really what does it matter what people use, as long as it sounds good.
hardware synths are run using software built into these machines, YES SOFTWARE!!! the only reason they might sound better on the first listen is because they have so much power available to do just 1 thing.
however, get a powerful enough pc, a really good sound card, and if you know how to program a synth, then i can guarantee a VSTi will sound just as good as hardware.
hardware has its benefits, but so does software.
yes its always good to fiddle about with the knobs, and get that hands on feeling.
but its also good to have a wide range of vst's available for differnt style of sounds.
@ rb2k1
| quote: | | One of my samples is made on the "Best JP-8080 Vst" as ive heard it called.. (Superwave "TRANCE PRO" haha) |
thats peoples personal opinons, personally i think superwave is , and sounds nothing like a JP-8080,
so yes opinions, there is no need to try to be sarcastic about it.
but this hardware vs software style of topic, always turns out like this.
too many personal opinions, not ebough facts.
most producers who have used software
Guyver - fruitylooops, and lots of vst's
BK - didnt he use FM7?
anyway enough of the rant.
i will hopefully get a mature reply. |
|
|
| TranceMasterUk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Special_K
Ive got people who have produced for some of the biggest bands on this planet telling me that software is just as good as hardware in the right hands, and im |
exactly, tottaly agree with that.
unless you really know how to use thes vst's to there full potential then of course there gonna sound to you.
yes get a piece of hardware, press a key on it, now press a key on the soft synth.
hardware might sound better on that first impression, but that hardware synth was built just to do that 1 thing, and for the price you pay for them, u should be expecting it to sound hott without any special fx or anything.
get a pc or mac tottaly dedicated to music production, and then you will hear soft synths to there full potential. |
|
|
| ZeD/N-Zone |
| quote: | | Explain me this: why would code processed by a dsp chip sound any better than one processed by an x86 chip? |
i think it would sound the same, but the thing is, it's not the same code :
- because the code would be too heavy for a x86 chip
- because access, clavia or roland work on their code for more than 10 years (not just 1 or 2 years like reFX)
- hardware synths usually have analog filters (and not just emulation of filters, and that makes a lot on the sound)
- because there would be no interest for people to buy a virus at 1500€ if the plugin sounded _exactly_ the same (and for only 400€)
that's why the same patch doesn't sound the same on the v-station and the k-station for example... |
|
|
| Stuart Silver |
| quote: | Originally posted by TranceMasterUk
so much power available to do just 1 thing.
|
An interesting point TM. I wonder how many VSTi developers have to compromise on power & quality due to the fact they're working on a
platform that has to do loads of other things other than DSP.
It's such a vague argument aswell - software vs hardware. I mean, surely if you sample loads of hardware, put them in Halion/Kontact (VSTis!) then you'll get 'hardware' quality sounds out? I know thats just being pedantic, but there you go.
Maybe software doesn't sound like hardware, but it doesn't mean it sounds . I think guys like Haak have the best idea - create your own sound with what you've got. So software can't create 'the' supersaw! So what? Why not create a new sound?
I agree there is a lot of e softsynths out there (not particularly impressed with the Superwave series) but there are also some crackers.
Perhaps we should all stop these arguments and just get on with writing tunes with what we've got? |
|
|
| TranceMasterUk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stuart Silver
An interesting point TM. I wonder how many VSTi developers have to compromise on power & quality due to the fact they're working on a
platform that has to do loads of other things other than DSP.
It's such a vague argument aswell - software vs hardware. I mean, surely if you sample loads of hardware, put them in Halion/Kontact (VSTis!) then you'll get 'hardware' quality sounds out? I know thats just being pedantic, but there you go.
Maybe software doesn't sound like hardware, but it doesn't mean it sounds . I think guys like Haak have the best idea - create your own sound with what you've got. So software can't create 'the' supersaw! So what? Why not create a new sound?
I agree there is a lot of e softsynths out there (not particularly impressed with the Superwave series) but there are also some crackers.
Perhaps we should all stop these arguments and just get on with writing tunes with what we've got? |
good points
1. ReFx could make vanguard sound alot lot better, but at the expense of it using like 3ghz of the cpu at least, and really not everyone has the best computers on the market, so soft synths are built to try and use the least amount of power as possible.
but like i said, listen to soft synths on a machine built just for muscic production, with a top quality sound card, and you will see the quality between software and hardware is just the same. |
|
|
| Stuart Silver |
I was bored so I had a dig around on the web to work out 'like for like' processing power. There are a LOT of assumptions here, so don't give me a load of grief!
The Access Virus uses the Motorola 56311 DSP chip(s). I can't find out how mant (anyone with a virus fancy taking it apart? :D ) But for this rough calculation I'll assume 3 chips. The chips are 150Mhz, and assuming they work in parallel that give 450MIPS (million instructions per second)
REFXs Vanguard has a minimum spec of a P3 800GHZ. This give 800MIPS - less than twice the assumed power of the Virus
Now, the Virus uses each of those 450MIPS for DSP & nothing else (okay, maybe a bit of midi in/out), whilst using Vanguard you're likely to have any amount of these running-
* Windows (obviously!) (to give you some idea how much of a CPU hog windows can be, hit Ctrl+Alt+Del, goto Task Manager then Performance. Move the window to the top left of the screen, then drag & drop it to the bottom left. You'll see a CPU spike (mine was about 20%!!) just for moving that little old window!)
* Cubase/Fruity (very CPU intensive especially if using additional fx)
* Audio Editor
* Other background processes (I dread to think how many MIPS are used to keep all the crap in your system try running!)
I think the best software vs hardware comparision will be between a (by then vintage!) Virus and a 10GHz 'Future' PC running a VST with a min spec of a 5GHz processor. :D |
|
|
| trancenrg69 |
Thank you to all the comments above. Its nice to see some people on here are aware of the facts.
| quote: | | Your the only one here that cant back your up. You obviously dont know what the your talking about. Im surrounded by audio industry professionals on a daily basis, and everything I have stated has been sourced from my own experience and by people that make their ing living in the music industry. Ive got people who have produced for some of the biggest bands on this planet telling me that software is just as good as hardware in the right hands, and im supposed to take your word for it? I mean really who the do you think you are? I would really like to know. |
Special KKK, I don't care what audio pros you know. I'm no engineer and I don't know how dsp chips are built. I'm a musician. And I was listening to trance when you were still playing with gi joe's. understand dummy. I have ears and I use them. And I will not sit here and listen to a couple kids saying they prefer vaz over a virus c. Enough is enough. just read the comments below you and take a look at rb2k1's samples. its right there , the proof, but how many times i hear kids saying superwave sounds as good as a jp 8080. gimme a break! just listen! I don't see sampled cds for the superwave pro, or the vaz on sale.think about it!
and im not the only one who agrees
| quote: | | I think the best software vs hardware comparision will be between a (by then vintage!) Virus and a 10GHz 'Future' PC running a VST with a min spec of a 5GHz processor |
great point, i mentioned this before:)
| quote: | | ReFx could make vanguard sound alot lot better, but at the expense of it using like 3ghz of the cpu at least, and really not everyone has the best computers on the market, so soft synths are built to try and use the least amount of power as possible |
one of the most valid points
| quote: | | wonder how many VSTi developers have to compromise on power & quality due to the fact they're working on a |
| quote: | [/i think it would sound the same, but the thing is, it's not the same code :
- because the code would be too heavy for a x86 chip
- because access, clavia or roland work on their code for more than 10 years (not just 1 or 2 years like reFX)
- hardware synths usually have analog filters (and not just emulation of filters, and that makes a lot on the sound)
- because there would be no interest for people to buy a virus at 1500€ if the plugin sounded _exactly_ the same (and for only 400€)
that's why the same patch doesn't sound the same on the v-station and the k-station for example...QUOTE]
yes go listen to the vstation besides the k station. i heard both running through 824's and it wasnt even close!
[QUOTE]oh yeah Special.K .. your "boy" John '00 has a load of hardware himself.. better find out why hes got that Im sure its just there to collect dust. |
rb2k1 , thanks for pointing that out. some people want to believe that artists just use software that they inprint it in there brains like special kkk. Flutlicht uses hardware as does John as u can see above! Even BT endorses software, ever seen the size of his studio?
final note to vert
DSP units have greater accuracy and representation of number space than others, and slower processors have to have this reduced.
The processing power of the newer DSPs and supporting hardware in a dedicated unit will allow for a more computationally expensive algorithm and a better result than software. again go freakin hear it for yourself! or just listen to rb2k1's samples.
i'm done with this thread. im gonna go jam on my nord3.
:haha: |
|
|
| Vert |
| quote: | Originally posted by Stuart Silver
I was bored so I had a dig around on the web to work out 'like for like' processing power. There are a LOT of assumptions here, so don't give me a load of grief!
The Access Virus uses the Motorola 56311 DSP chip(s). I can't find out how mant (anyone with a virus fancy taking it apart? :D ) But for this rough calculation I'll assume 3 chips. The chips are 150Mhz, and assuming they work in parallel that give 450MIPS (million instructions per second)
REFXs Vanguard has a minimum spec of a P3 800GHZ. This give 800MIPS - less than twice the assumed power of the Virus
Now, the Virus uses each of those 450MIPS for DSP & nothing else (okay, maybe a bit of midi in/out), whilst using Vanguard you're likely to have any amount of these running-
* Windows (obviously!) (to give you some idea how much of a CPU hog windows can be, hit Ctrl+Alt+Del, goto Task Manager then Performance. Move the window to the top left of the screen, then drag & drop it to the bottom left. You'll see a CPU spike (mine was about 20%!!) just for moving that little old window!)
* Cubase/Fruity (very CPU intensive especially if using additional fx)
* Audio Editor
* Other background processes (I dread to think how many MIPS are used to keep all the crap in your system try running!)
I think the best software vs hardware comparision will be between a (by then vintage!) Virus and a 10GHz 'Future' PC running a VST with a min spec of a 5GHz processor. :D |
Yes I agree with you for the most part, there are alot of assumptions, but when te69 is thowing around his opinions I had to ask him what his technical reasons for such were, and he hasn't yet still given any real answer. It's funny, people always say "I'm done with this thread" when they are backed into a wall.. :rolleyes: He haves/had no case.
es |
|
|
|
|
