|
Anybody knows WHY so many softsynths sound THIN compared to hardware?! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Derivative |
| quote: | Originally posted by Eldritch
Oh, please. :haha:
I don't mean to laugh at you or your opinion, but I just find that extremely funny. :D
They're basically the same.
You can do alot more with DSP, because you have dedicated CPU power.
You can use almost 100% of the DSP's power while on a softsynth, you really don't want to use more than 20% CPU, because there wouldn't be enough to use for other plugins, and the sequencer itself.
This was actually explained earlier in the post. :p |
Actually, analogue synths have a number of very unique and individual characeristics that contribute to this kind of 'soul.' That isnt to say that digital synths do not have a soul or defining characteristcs - My Access Virus B is extremely expressive, has its own characteristic sound and you can simulate a number of analogue quirks on it.
But yes. Analogue. Analogue synths have instable tuning and are subject to pitch drift. LFOs on analogue synths tend to be non exact and because phase init isnt exact either and is variable on analog synths - they are inadequate for Frequency and Phase modulation synthesis. But these are part of what gives analog synths their character.
Analogue filters and oscillators *never* alias. They are perfectly continuous and analog circuitry does not have perfectly stable current flowing through it at all times. This will in turn impact on the behaviour of potentiometers, oscillator tuning etc and so forth.
All of this contributes to a kind of randomness which is difficult to replicate in digital synthesis. At this point in time, it is impossible to replicate analogue behaviour perfectly. Not ruling out future developments of course but...
It is quite possible to replicate a recording of an analogue synth however, by cloning the quirks in that specific recording. But an analogue synth rarely sounds precisely the same every time it is switched on so it is much much harder to clone the behaviour of the synth itself in a live environment because they sound subtly different in every performance. Other quirks require a warm up period to achieve somewhat stable tuning. This is partly what many musicians and tech-heads refer to when they talk about the 'soul' of the machine.
As Diginerd points out, coding on DSP is very different to coding in a x86 computer in a windows environment. I find DSP programming to be quite complicated and I dont really understand it. My maths is definitely inadequate to even put together crude digital filters on DSP.
But the manner in which the DSP processes sound is similar to how a CPU would do it. Ultimately they both crunch numbers. In both cases it will come down to binary 1s and 0s. Thats what digital is - it is discrete. Not continuous.
I know what you are thinking - if analogue got it right first time, why are now building digital synthesize to replace them? Doesn't this technology seem retrograde? Yes and no.
1) Digital synths are cheaper and can be mass produced more easily and quickly.
2) An analogue synth to the specification of a current generation Virtual analogue synth would cost a fortune in parts and labour. They would individually take ages to build. And because analogue synths are comprised of discrete circuits, the whole thing would be massive and weigh a tonne. In short, building analogue synths that resemble current VAs is impractical and too expensive to be profitable.
3) There currently isnt an analogue synth that even comes close to the specification of a modern VA because of point 1 and 2. VAs are more practical, compact and easier to replace parts. They are more reliable and you therefore have arguably more control over the sound you are creating. This is a good and bad thing.
4) Frequency Modulation (FM) synthesis and Phase Modulation (PM) synthesis is impossible on analogue oscillators because of pitch drift and non uniform phase init. In order to utilize the spectra of sounds in FM and PM synthesis you have to use digital oscillators. |
|
|
| fr0st |
| Modular synths and other analog synths "can" do FM synthesis in some cases very limited. My xpander can do some 2op fm synthesis. |
|
|
| Derivative |
| I wasnt very clear. Analogue oscillators are not suitable for FM. They dont have precise phase init. |
|
|
| trancemo6 |
| No, just no and no again. I just bought myselve a Korg Legacy bundle. I didn't expect anything. But these vsts are blowing my mind off and a fraction of the cost of the real stuff. Not only is it software, but it has a hardware controller over usb thrown in for free. what else You'd wish from software. also look at the Virus Ti: is this really hardware, and will the next step still be? But what is true is that a lot of software doesn't do right what it should be doing. and a lot of hardware still does the trick way better than the cheap software. there's always some sort of minimum price for something to completely blow You away and I guess with software it'll be the same. Also bear in mind that in a very short time Surround mixing will become more and more what You need. What will happen then? |
|
|
| Synchronicity |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dance123
Hi,
It has been said many times before that most softsynths (with a few exceptions) sound rather thin compared to hardware synths, but WHY exactly is that?
I mean, aren't softsynths and VA hardware synths the same in a way that they both emulate real analog synths with CPU power, so why is it still so that hardware synths sound fatter then software synths which sound rather thin alot of the time?! You can almost always here when a track is made with softsynths, right, but WHY is that??
Anybody has an explanation for this cause it doesn't seem to make sense if you think about it logically or am I missing something..
Thanks! |
Same reason Digital Video doesn't look as good as Film. It's too perfect. |
|
|
| -mk- |
| quote: | Originally posted by Synchronicity
Same reason Digital Video doesn't look as good as Film. It's too perfect. |
I have to disagree with you on this. Digital Video looks marvelous when it's correctly filmed and treated. I'm not sure how this works on low-level digital video products like camcorders you can buy from an electronics store, they might be crap. The big-ass systems used for filming HD material really look brilliant. I'm still waiting eagerly for theaters to move from old jumpy and grainy film-projectors to digital systems. That will really enhance the movie experience.
Heh, intresting off-topic here :) |
|
|
| Synchronicity |
| quote: | Originally posted by -mk-
I have to disagree with you on this. Digital Video looks marvelous when it's correctly filmed and treated. I'm not sure how this works on low-level digital video products like camcorders you can buy from an electronics store, they might be crap. The big-ass systems used for filming HD material really look brilliant. I'm still waiting eagerly for theaters to move from old jumpy and grainy film-projectors to digital systems. That will really enhance the movie experience.
Heh, intresting off-topic here :) |
Well, I guess this is a subjective thing. Personally, I like digital video sometimes (Sin City HD for instance), but I love the grainy film effect much more. I find that because it's not as realistic, it adds to the effect of the film drawing me into a different place (sounds a bit deep, but you know what I mean!).
Digital video and Digital Synths are relatively new and are definately here to stay so I guess we should be positive and hope that they keep getting better and better, which they will.
At the same time, I hope there will always be new and improved hardware analog and VA synths coming out. |
|
|
| KilldaDJ |
i think digital synths are too clean
analog synths have that noise within them i guess
or something |
|
|
| LENG |
i couldn't resist uploading this clip for u guys to judge if it's coming from a hardware or a software...
http://files.to/get/76642/2279/untitled3.mp3
i'll post the answer in a short while.
EDIT: the answer is softsynth. so, that's it, my point is to show that softsynth can be programmed to sound like hardware (those inconsistencies)... btw, if u think the clip don't cut it, don't flame me, i'm just a noob :P |
|
|
| Four_On_Four-er |
Sounds pretty good. I'll guess software.
A more productive clip, however, would include a softsynth vs. a hardsynth.
Someone a futureproducers did this with a JArre-riff... a VA-VST, vs. an analogue hardware synthesizer. The difference was quite noticeable IMO. |
|
|
| Pjotr G |
an even better one would be two synths that are actually supposed to sound the same.
Like V-station vs K-station |
|
|
| Diginerd |
Both are VA so that's not fair.. ;-)
You need to try something like Pro-53 Vs a Prophet 5, or some similar comparison.
There are a couple of cases where the software version sounds better than the hardware it is emulating though.. Korg Legacy Digital edition (and Legacy WS). This is because the Synths had crappy DA converters compared to modern day ones. Also the user interface is generally much better.
I still haen't forgiven Korg for not allowing you to put your own samples intot the virtual waestation though. I could burn a card on my PC and do that with the real thing. |
|
|
|
|
