|
How good is the z3ta+ ?! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Thy |
I always find funny that you guys are complaining it eats cpu power.
If you look at VA synths, they are roughly nothing but a softsynth, but running on it's dedicated hardware (DSP and converters). They have all the power for them.
Softsynths on the other hand, are not the only thing that runs on the computer (it has to take care of the OS, the peripherals, the sequencer program, etc...). So with the actual computers, a softsynth can't fully compete with hardware VA's yet. They are limited in horsepower.
Now, you can have two cases. Either the synth is light on the cpu. They usually say something like "it's optimized to the max for this or that kind of processor". I prefer to read : some compromises have been made to save cpu power. You will still have usable sound, but we just can't run the synth at it's full potential.
Then you have those that make a little less compromises. The result will be better, but the power cost is higher, which is pretty obvious.
If you think about it, a hardware VA... Most classic models have the same features than their software counterparts (generate sound, filter and modulate it). But they run on dedicated DSP's, that are optimized for doing just that. That's like giving 100% CPU power to the synth alone. So, what do you expect from softsynths? That they will sound as good, but with 20% of the power that the hardware version uses?
It's like complaining your typical family car flats out at 150 km/h, while a Ferrari can reach double of that easily.
If they are programmed right and once the power is there, I see no reason that software synths should sound worse than the complete hardware version.
Eventually, when cpu's get more powerful (and with good audio interfaces and software audio engines of course), the gap between soft and hardware synths will get smaller. (Have you heard of the Hartman Neuron? It was hyped as the hardware counterpart of Absynth. Very expensive, very interesting sounds. But open up the case, and you'll see it's just a computer (Athlon XP I believe) with it's harddrive, running a specialised OS. The gap is getting small huh).
For analog synths that might be another matter. Digital can only approach analog so much, and it's all to the listener to decide if this "immitation" is good enough.
And alanzo, yes it's sad that you can only run 2 instances anymore. But people are pretty spoiled today don't you think? Be happy that multiple instances are even possible. With hardware you would have to bounce each time, or buy several of the same devices to get the same result. What will it be in ten years? Damn, I can only run 120 instances of z4ta+ v12. Will that amount of instances improve your music? It's HOW you use them, not HOW MANY you use.
As I see it, software and hardware synths can complement each other. Lot's of people seek different synths, eventually only to recreate an existing sound (supersaw anyone?). The interesting fact is there are software synths that can do stuff that would be very hard to do with hardware units, and vice versa. Variation, that's the key. |
|
|
| The Designer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Thy
I always find funny that you guys are complaining it eats cpu power.
If you look at VA synths, they are roughly nothing but a softsynth, but running on it's dedicated hardware (DSP and converters). They have all the power for them.
Softsynths on the other hand, are not the only thing that runs on the computer (it has to take care of the OS, the peripherals, the sequencer program, etc...). So with the actual computers, a softsynth can't fully compete with hardware VA's yet. They are limited in horsepower.
Now, you can have two cases. Either the synth is light on the cpu. They usually say something like "it's optimized to the max for this or that kind of processor". I prefer to read : some compromises have been made to save cpu power. You will still have usable sound, but we just can't run the synth at it's full potential.
Then you have those that make a little less compromises. The result will be better, but the power cost is higher, which is pretty obvious.
If you think about it, a hardware VA... Most classic models have the same features than their software counterparts (generate sound, filter and modulate it). But they run on dedicated DSP's, that are optimized for doing just that. That's like giving 100% CPU power to the synth alone. So, what do you expect from softsynths? That they will sound as good, but with 20% of the power that the hardware version uses?
It's like complaining your typical family car flats out at 150 km/h, while a Ferrari can reach double of that easily.
If they are programmed right and once the power is there, I see no reason that software synths should sound worse than the complete hardware version.
Eventually, when cpu's get more powerful (and with good audio interfaces and software audio engines of course), the gap between soft and hardware synths will get smaller. (Have you heard of the Hartman Neuron? It was hyped as the hardware counterpart of Absynth. Very expensive, very interesting sounds. But open up the case, and you'll see it's just a computer (Athlon XP I believe) with it's harddrive, running a specialised OS. The gap is getting small huh).
For analog synths that might be another matter. Digital can only approach analog so much, and it's all to the listener to decide if this "immitation" is good enough.
And alanzo, yes it's sad that you can only run 2 instances anymore. But people are pretty spoiled today don't you think? Be happy that multiple instances are even possible. With hardware you would have to bounce each time, or buy several of the same devices to get the same result. What will it be in ten years? Damn, I can only run 120 instances of z4ta+ v12. Will that amount of instances improve your music? It's HOW you use them, not HOW MANY you use.
As I see it, software and hardware synths can complement each other. Lot's of people seek different synths, eventually only to recreate an existing sound (supersaw anyone?). The interesting fact is there are software synths that can do stuff that would be very hard to do with hardware units, and vice versa. Variation, that's the key. |
This VSTi does almost nothing to my AMD 3200+ 64 bit processor. I wrote songs with almost 10 zt3a+ that resulted in a maximum of 40 percent of Cpu. |
|
|
| mef |
| I have considered getting the z3ta+. this thread could not of come at a more appropriate time for me. thanks a lot ppl;) this makes for very interesting reading.:) |
|
|
| FuzzyGreen |
| I find the sound quality of the z3ta+ to be excellent, but it's interface is hard to understand and use. I wish it could be more organic and synth like (knobs and switches) rather then being drop down menu based (digital blah). |
|
|
| mef |
| hmm. how does it compare to something like vanguard??? (which i DO have) |
|
|
| Vert |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Designer
This VSTi does almost nothing to my AMD 3200+ 64 bit processor. I wrote songs with almost 10 zt3a+ that resulted in a maximum of 40 percent of Cpu. |
It depends on how far you are pushing it. You probably aren't using alot of cpu intensive features or the 2x oversampling.
And yeah, until the 64 bit version of windows XP comes out, that doesn't matter. Someday I hope to buy dual opterons (when the dual core cpu's come out within 12-18 months) giving you effectively 4 cpus. Now that would be nice.
es |
|
|
| Massive84 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mef
hmm. how does it compare to something like vanguard??? (which i DO have) |
the zeta interface is really weird, back when i was using FL..ya i got it warezed to check it out, i didn't really like the sound nor the interface and deleted it the same day..
tbh i found the sounds you could create worse than the albino and absynth i had.
imo pro53 beats zeta, unless you know zeta very well.. |
|
|
| SynDrone |
the z3ta is a stunning synth IMO. Sure it takes a while to really understand the inner workings of the thing, but the new presets for ver 1.4 are amazing and finally starting to really show off its colours. There are quite a few presets available for free at patcharena.com...
If you take some time and learn how the OSC relate to the LFO's, relate to the EG's within the Mod Matrix, you can create complex atmophere's, great supersaws, gentle or harsh leads, and it even does a heck of a mean 303 impression.
Granted, it is a bit of a beast on CPU (obviously for some this is not an issue), but I'd put it up against anything both hardware and software.
Again, this is not a simple toy. But the sheer amount of available presets (well over 3000 by now) allows for a beginner to learn the synth while having an overwhelming amount of real-world examples. |
|
|
| shockwavedj |
Z3ta is with no doubt on of the phattest VST softsynths. No vanguard, no pro-53, no Absynth, no SuperWavesP8,... Z3ta gives you a hi-q sound (achieving it by a massive CPU usage, especially with the new x2 Oversampling feature). But the new presets have revealed at last the power of this synth. I dont like it for making pads but I've found it the best one for leads, chords, basses and any kind of sharp and dense sounds.
waiting anxiously for another rgc release :) |
|
|
| paranoik0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by FuzzyGreen
I find the sound quality of the z3ta+ to be excellent, but it's interface is hard to understand and use. I wish it could be more organic and synth like (knobs and switches) rather then being drop down menu based (digital blah). |
i find it to be one of the easiest to use. just look at absynth :nervous:
amazing synth, i've pretty much giving up using all the other ones, nowadays only use this one.. but seeing that i hate hate to use multiple fruity files and export it, the fact that one can't run many instances of it at the same time pisses me off. |
|
|
| MrCowski |
| The Z3ta+ is the best $150 (or download time, you stupid wares people) an intermediate producer could spend. I can't remember the last time i didn't use one in a song. And kire has made 3 different great trance banks (one comes with the synth) that let beginners use it to. Plus, it comes with effects built in, including a great chorus for making those huge leads. |
|
|
| ZxZDeViLZxZ |
| Somones mentioned vanguard vanguard is probly the best vsti out there compared to z3ta you see tho z3ta has quite alot of differnt tools that hardware synths DO NOT HAVE one being the fact that you cna manually go in and shape the wave form on every osc to how you want it to be. litterly twist bend enlage rotate annyting you want and you can automate all of the tweaking of the wav now yeah hardware is bettter but face it the hardware Vs Soft battle is over theres more big name producers using more software over hardware then ever before and in all honesty if you really wanna make your sound fatter and warmer get pspVintage warmer and run that effect over your synths. now about vanguard well vanguard is the ing 3 osc 2 5stage env trancegate + an arp and a fatten knob just to name a few neat things on it seriously tho making soft sound as good as hardware comes down to how well you know your vsti and how well youve worked it yes tho some vstis are complete and utter horse but there are some that make you seriously wonder why your going out every few months and spending 2k on hardware.... but as ive told many people vstis are gods gift to poor people. or the amature that doesnt wanna spend his cash on till hes making a turnaround on what hes doing eitherway tho you see what im getting at. but yes in z3ta play with your wave shaper tool youll see what im talking about and in all honesty just detuned saws are lame 3 saws + 1 detuned saw + detuned square + voice in z3ta will make some awesome en leads but eh who am i to listen to just my opion deuce |
|
|
|
|
