|
Difference Between Hardware/Software Synth? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Nacht |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
That only applies to analog hardware, which isn't what most people are using these days... |
True but never thought about that... what the hells the purpose of buying hardware if its not analog?! VST are sooo much cheaper and they dont take up physical space |
|
|
| DJDIRTY |
| Software cheaper? well it's pretty expensive if you tell me, especially when you don't ever own the software, can't really borrow it like a real synth without breaching the eula.. , and resale value is next to nothing.. Plus paying for updates sucks. And the worst nightmare - new operating system, or not being compatible with other stuff, You're software becomes useless. Seen that happened more than few times.. But most people love software since it's convenient to steal. It would be harder to steal a virus ti, and after all most get away with stealing soft. Anyways now the good stuff :) Some software is great, but not all, it's easy to buy something that's crap in the software world, and than it's hard to return it .. Same thing in the hardware world, except you can pretty much return it within 15-30 days depending where you are living. If you buy second hand, you can always sell it again for same money.. Use both software and hardware for most fun in making music. Both have their own pluses and minuses. But please don't say software is cheaper, when you throw everything in it adds up...And especially when you buy it. Software or hardware will not make you a superstar.. If your music sucks it most likely will suck either way... Now go spend your money ;)and have fun. I like both... |
|
|
| derail |
In terms of the sound "quality", there's no difference. Both hardware and software synths are used to add fantastic sounds to modern trance tracks.
I have quite a few hardware synths/ samplers and other gear but it's always a case of using the best tool for the job. I'll quite often turn to Reason's Thor synthesizer, or Cubase's Halion sampler because they sound fantastic and fit the song perfectly. The majority of my synth sounds come out of my hardware synths though, since I've gotten to know the character of each synth pretty well, so I can quickly extract the sound I'm after from it.
Whether you're using hardware or software, it's important to get to know your tools. Some of the advantages of software are that it doesn't take up any space, so it's ultra portable, the settings can be saved with the song (as mentioned above), so it's instantly recallable, it's generally cheaper. Some advantages of hardware are that it's instant (I guess I'm thinking more of samplers here - some software samplers have loading times), plus a big advantage is that it can't be pirated - there are far, far fewer producers using a given hardware synth, compared to the number using the most popular software synths. Each synth has a distinctive sonic character, and to get some sonic characters, you need to actually lay down some decent money to get them.
Yes, absolutely, most synths have a very wide range of expression and producers can tweak them and come up with original sounds, much like a guitarist can take a Les Paul and run it through a massive effects chain to change the nature of the sound before it hits the amp. But the underlying Les Paul character will still be there. The sound would be different if they used an Ibanez guitar, or a Fender Stratocaster. I'm not sure if that's the best analogy, but when tweaking a synthesizer, you can't tweak outside it's algorithms, the way it puts it's sound together. To get certain sounds, you need the software synth that makes them. To get other sounds, you need the hardware synth that makes them. |
|
|
| palm |
| i think hardware is cheaper caus u can sell it again. ive had a few synths now and sold them again and i havent lost any money yet. |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| I started using synths back in the early 80s (yeah, I know I'm old -thanks for not pointing that out) when hardware was the only option and I've pretty much owned hardware synths ever since. One of the primary reasons that I still use hardware is that it gets me away from the computer. I find that being tethered to a mouse and monitor really slows down the creative process, whereas sitting at my weighted 88-key synth (Alesis QS.2) connected to all my hardware synths really stimulates my creativity. I usually just start my compositions with a piano melody and chord progression, then I start playing with general sound ideas. Once I have a semi-mature idea, I move the idea into Sonar, where I use a combination of soft and hardware synths and, especially, my Virus TI. That's the great thing about the TI - it's the best of both worlds. I wish more synth companies would offer similar technology. |
|
|
| Ray_Chappell |
| Can't remember who said it, but whoever it was it resonated with me: Using hardware often allows you to hear music instead of watching it. I only own one hardware synth, but I can certainly tell a difference between hearing the music when I'm playing on that and getting caught in the trap of "watching" the music on a computer. It's different for everyone I'm sure, but now I'm conscious of when I'm "watching" music on the screen. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
You may be thinking of this interview with Autechre:
| quote: | | Yet, despite Booth's enthusiastic defence of computers, Autechre also know when not to use them. "There's nothing better than turning the screen off and just going analogue," stresses Booth. "You're not looking at data representation and so you can drift off and just listen. We do this a lot. When we're putting things down and mixing things and are trying to make things sound right, the screen has to go off. It's an illusion that totally pollutes what you're thinking and what you're listening to. Yes, you can be in the zone when sitting with a laptop. You absolutely can. But you just want to listen and not interact with the device. The worst things are the timeline sequencers where you can see on the screen what's coming up. That really f**ks with your head when you're listening." |
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/apr...es/autechre.htm
I've fallen into the trap of "watching" rather than listening as well at times. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| When I'm writing a track, I'll occasionally turn the monitor off or at least minimize my sequencer and just *listen* to how it sounds rather than watching the little line moving forward through the arrangement. I find that it helps a lot to do that. |
|
|
| echosystm |
| quote: | Originally posted by cryophonik
That's the great thing about the TI - it's the best of both worlds. I wish more synth companies would offer similar technology. |
see, if you had a dedicated midi controller (made specifically for a certain VST), it would be "effectively" the same as having a hardware synth... you know other than having the processing done in an extra box etc.
i don't know why more companies don't do it. novation automap controllers are pretty good, but they can't be compared to a dedicated interface.
i think there is a market for this, to be honest. if you had a choice between buying a virus ti or massive with a specialised midi controller for 1/4 the price, what would you choose? i'd go massive! |
|
|
| cryophonik |
| quote: | Originally posted by echosystm
i think there is a market for this, to be honest. if you had a choice between buying a virus ti or massive with a specialised midi controller for 1/4 the price, what would you choose? i'd go massive! |
Good points, but I'd still take my Virus over Massive with a dedicated controller. Not that I dislike Massive - it's actually one of my favorite soft synths, but my Polar rules! |
|
|
| derail |
Hadn't really thought of it in terms of "looking at the music" before. That's an interesting observation.
When I compose I don't have the computer on - I just go to one of my synths, plug in some headphones, find an inspiring sound and play. Plenty of time for production/ sound design later on, once I have a song that's worth carrying through to completion. (edit - hmm, I should be a bit clearer about this - if I come up with a nice progression/melodic idea, then I'll power up the computer and record it. Then I'll add a rough bassline, maybe a pad, etc. So technically that's still part of the composition process. But there's no sound design/ mixing of any quality taking place, it's quickly getting sounds together that work for this purpose. It's pretty rare that the sounds actually end up in the final track. When I decide to get a track done, I build it from the ground up.)
I'm sure someone has raised it in this thread already - hardware uses no CPU. I have an 8 input sound interface, so I can have a number of synths coming in simultaneously. All these great sounds and the CPU isn't troubled one bit. My computer's reasonably old - it doesn't matter at all. |
|
|
| Rinster |
| how does it work with hardware synths? how can you see the patterns of your pianoroll when you create melodies with hardware and how do you edit them? to me it seems a bit strange at first.. or does it work the same like a midi keyboard that it will just place the the keys in the pianoroll when your recording? |
|
|
|
|
