|
can u really tell the difference?? hardware/software..... (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| skot_e |
| The warmth relates to the 'glow' given off. Didn't you know that in the case in Pulp Fiction there is a 303. |
|
|
| Bedlam-UK |
The poll is software biased....how about....
5. I don't know ?? |
|
|
| thesuperfunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by richg101
is there really any point to it. honestly!? i mean hardware is nice cos you have a proper piece of kit you can actually touch. and having something so powerful/looked up to is bound to increace your confidence.
|
It's worth it for the confidence boost alone. |
|
|
| Subtle |
its like using a piano or guitar in software, you can sample it, you can emulate it, you can make it sound damn good... but still it wont sound as good as a real piano or guitar.. the same applies for synths.
i think alot of software made synths sounds cold and plastic. and yes. I can tell the difference.. not always, but most of the time. |
|
|
| thecYrus |
| it's still a fact that even VAs (which are only software in a box) sound better than most softsynths. the hardware synths have this deep 3d sound which has so much more emotion and is more alive than the current VSTi synths. and yes, you can hear the difference really good. as already mentioned here, just listen to the airbase tunes and compare them to something like avb. you can hear how much more alive a hardware tune is. and that's not just the production skill. |
|
|
| Subtle |
also, if u listen to producers that has moved from Hardware to Software the change is pretty noticable.
Vincent de Moor
Airwave
although they still makes nice tracks, they sound colder and thinner. |
|
|
| Derivative |
1) All of that is subjective opinion.
2) You can bass anything up by running it through a valve amp or a valve simulator. Ive played on a Roland Juno 106 and yeah - its bassy from the word go but I genuinely think, oscillator waveforms and filter design aside, you could get a similar kind of presence with a well designed softsynth and a valve amp.
Also take note that doing that will make it a little bit harder for these instruments to 'fit' in your tunes - but thats to be expected in digital recording where there is a finite limit to the pre and post gain that can be applied to a signal or frequency range via an EQ or high Q filter.
3) It amazes me that anyone can collectivise *all* softsynths and say all of them don't sound as 'warm' or as 'fat' as hardware VAs when there is no common concensus on what these terms even mean.
4) Say all of that again when you have played G-Media impOSCar. It sounds more analogue than my Virus B and the raw oscillators absolutely shred. It saturates more realistically than my Virus B. The filter sounds more like an analogue filter than my Virus B. If I wanted to make convincing monophonic analogue noises I will use impOSCar over my Virus B any day of the week.
5) If you record via analogue ins, the signal goes through an additional A/D conversion stage. If you have ty convertors like on pretty much every soundcard below an 828mkII then I just don't get why you would want to do this with any kind of regularity. Since the result is going to be mixed digitally anyway, it makes more sense to keep everything on the digital side if you can help it. Unless you have ing spectacular convertors like, I dunno - an Apogee Rosetta 200 or something.
Same applies for people running outboard gear on convertors and Cubase - WHY?!
I can understand if its real analogue and the A/D conversion is necessary but think about it - taking a digital VA. converting it to analogue so you can send it via an analogue output into a soundcard input which converts it back to digital. Which then converts it back to analogue for real time monitoring.
At this point in time hardware VAs have a better specification than software VAs because it would take too many CPU cycles to replicate them exactly. And nobody likes adding a softsynth and it using 60% CPU load straight away. But as CPUs get faster we will start to see more softsynths in line with the specification of the average hardware VA and then I really see no point for external virtual analogue except for the user interface.
6) Software and hardware have completely different workflow. I admit I tend to prefer hardware in this respect. More hands on. The layout is individual on each synth and the layout is designed in a way which makes programming that synth fast and easy. Also, its easier to visualise the signal chain with loads of hardware as you have to rig it all up and you get a better idea of what the signal is going through. Software though requires no setup and it cannot ever fail (e.g. due to a kinked wire or a faulty module). Software is idiot proof. |
|
|
| Col |
I think there's probably not a lot of difference, especially if we're talking about digital hardware synths against software. Essentially a digital hardware synth uses software onboard anyway, the only differences are in terms of processing power etc.
But I just like having synths. The whole idea of people with no real musical talent or knowledge just downloading a piece of software and making music out of trial and error just seems ridiculous - but I guess that's the modern way, so we've gotta roll with it.
Also, I just feel more inspired by hardware because I get my hands on the keys of a real instrument and can scroll through the patches etc. and tweak sounds with my hands. Using a mouse isn't musical, it's formulaic and mathematical - and I personally believe such a difference would really show up in my productions if I was to suddenly switch to software only.
But at the end of the day, everyone has their own comfort zone so there's no better or worse option. |
|
|
| david.michael |
| quote: | Originally posted by staticblue
If he coudln't afford the best car, he would probably realise that a slightly slower car costs less, gives nearly the same results and he can even take the turns more easily ;) |
fastest <> best |
|
|
| LENG |
since there are ppl who can identify which is a hardware and which is a softsynth va... do me a favour... tell me which of these 2 clips is software & hardware and why.
http://files.to/get/191754/9816/clip_a_and_b.zip
oh yeah, they're all fx'ed... but that wouldn't mask too much |
|
|
| thecYrus |
| quote: | Originally posted by LENG
since there are ppl who can identify which is a hardware and which is a softsynth va... do me a favour... tell me which of these 2 clips is software & hardware and why.
http://files.to/get/191754/9816/clip_a_and_b.zip
oh yeah, they're all fx'ed... but that wouldn't mask too much |
B is very strange eqd. but when the filter is open it has the typical softsynth sound. (static and liveless)
A is probably a jp-80X0 but it has too much white noise on top that you can't hear the synth really well when the filter is full open. but as far as i can tell it's hardware but imho the jp-8080 is a very digital sounding synth and not really great for something else than supersaws.
btw. today you can use something like nexus or other romplers and i wouldn't call them pure softsynths. but they sound better than most "softsynths"
exemple |
|
|
|
|
