|
SOFTWARE vs. HARDWARE (Strength's & Weakness - Your opinion is welcome!) (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beyer
:)
So turn off your fx on your soft synths, and let´s hear it! :p |
For some reason your demo wav isn't loading in my browser, but here's my softsynth version.
http://soundcloud.com/deepeddiezilker/msociety-dez
0 effects
0 filter-tweaks - just the naked truth. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
cheers EddieZilker you made a huge contribution to this thread |
|
|
| DigiNut |
I'm not sure I understand why this "competition" has to be done with no effects. It's like those lame Hollywood movies where the supercop and supervillain decide on the spur of the moment to throw down their guns and go at it hand-to-hand showing off their newly-discovered kung-fu skillz. As if that's even half-believable.
If you can add effects to a software-created sound and make it sound as good as or better than a "true analog" sound, then that's perfectly fine, because those same effects are not guaranteed to make the hardware also sound better and might even make it sound worse. Throw a warmer and an exciter and pantload of delay and reverb onto some wussy wah-wah chord sound and you can make a huge-sounding kick-ass melodic line. Do the same thing to a Moog and it's total mud. Yes, the Moog sounds better "raw", but music isn't actually produced that way, so who cares?
If this competition is actually supposed to prove anything, then it should be a totally blind test; people make the best possible sounds they can, tell nobody where it came from, let the judges vote on what sounds best, THEN reveal how it was made. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I'm not sure I understand why this "competition" has to be done with no effects. It's like those lame Hollywood movies where the supercop and supervillain decide on the spur of the moment to throw down their guns and go at it hand-to-hand showing off their newly-discovered kung-fu skillz. As if that's even half-believable.
If you can add effects to a software-created sound and make it sound as good as or better than a "true analog" sound, then that's perfectly fine, because those same effects are not guaranteed to make the hardware also sound better and might even make it sound worse. Throw a warmer and an exciter and pantload of delay and reverb onto some wussy wah-wah chord sound and you can make a huge-sounding kick-ass melodic line. Do the same thing to a Moog and it's total mud. Yes, the Moog sounds better "raw", but music isn't actually produced that way, so who cares?
If this competition is actually supposed to prove anything, then it should be a totally blind test; people make the best possible sounds they can, tell nobody where it came from, let the judges vote on what sounds best, THEN reveal how it was made. |
the sound has to be completely naked, no external or software adding of effects is necessary. We are only looking for a true wave form analysis between a analogue synthesizer and software synthesizer. No adding of anything. One Basic oscillator please.
edit and also using a proper ADC is also a must. Apogee, Lavry, Lynx are accepted |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
the sound has to be completely naked, no external or software adding of effects is necessary. We are only looking for a true wave form analysis between a analogue synthesizer and software synthesizer. No adding of anything. One Basic oscillator please. |
Yeah yeah, we all understood your lame "rules". My question was what exactly are they supposed to prove? |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Yeah yeah, we all understood your lame "rules". My question was what exactly are they supposed to prove? |
Which synthesizer has a wider, bigger and more accurate waveform. Which synthesizer has more depth, clarity, punch, warmth, phatness, larger soundfield. The list goes on. If you want the synthesizer that is least in these areas then thats the boat you chose to sail on. Tweaking adding effects all relies on the individual using the synthesizer. Making it sound hot or cool, or sweet or sour or entertaining, whatever you call it is up to you. There can be a huge debate on why the girl chose to dance more to the moog phatty bass then to the Novation V-station type bass. All depends on the girl right? I def agree on who cares on whether we're dancing to cubase a1 synth vs andromeda. It all counts on the end result. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
Okay. The andromeda version finally loaded. Way cool sound, BTW...
That said, my position's still the same which is, it depends on the producer and the sound they're going for. The Andromeda is an expensive instrument, and even given a level playing field, I expect it to beat out most synths, soft or otherwise.
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
cheers EddieZilker you made a huge contribution to this thread |
How?
How, exactly, has my contribution made any discernible difference in this thread? I put up a completely dry, un-referenced version with a few different synth plug-ins that didn't even make use of filter tweaks, let alone reverb. I didn't even bother to normalize to 0db, so, I've proven nothing, one way or the other.
Does that make me, or anyone else, some sort of "soft-synth newb" because we don't use hardware synths? That is, most assuredly, the most ridiculous idea that's being bandied about, currently. That because of a preference, however motivated, for soft-synths that such a person classifies as an amateur or a "newb" isn't an argument, let alone a thesis. It might be a psychologically comforting idea that keeps you from wetting the bed at night, but I'm not someone who's devoted to maintaining anyone's ability to control their enuresis.
Hearing the reference mix, are there some changes I would make to my work that would allow for a more reasonable conclusion? Permitted the use of reverb and filter tweaks which have very heavily contributed to the characteristics of the Andromeda demo, absolutely.
Better still, put up a completely dry reference of any hardware synth, sans tweaks and lets get down to brass tacks with audio forensics. I'd still redo my version, but at least there's a level playing field. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Okay. The andromeda version finally loaded. Way cool sound, BTW...
That said, my position's still the same which is, it depends on the producer and the sound they're going for. The Andromeda is an expensive instrument, and even given a level playing field, I expect it to beat out most synths, soft or otherwise.
How?
How, exactly, has my contribution made any discernible difference in this thread? I put up a completely dry, un-referenced version with a few different synth plug-ins that didn't even make use of filter tweaks, let alone reverb. I didn't even bother to normalize to 0db, so, I've proven nothing, one way or the other.
Does that make me, or anyone else, some sort of "soft-synth newb" because we don't use hardware synths? That is, most assuredly, the most ridiculous idea that's being bandied about, currently. That because of a preference, however motivated, for soft-synths that such a person classifies as an amateur or a "newb" isn't an argument, let alone a thesis. It might be a psychologically comforting idea that keeps you from wetting the bed at night, but I'm not someone who's devoted to maintaining anyone's ability to control their enuresis.
Hearing the reference mix, are there some changes I would make to my work that would allow for a more reasonable conclusion? Permitted the use of reverb and filter tweaks which have very heavily contributed to the characteristics of the Andromeda demo, absolutely.
Better still, put up a completely dry reference of any hardware synth, sans tweaks and lets get down to brass tacks with audio forensics. I'd still redo my version, but at least there's a level playing field. |
because you posted thats it, omg why did you say all that crap |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
that sound is so satisfying omg thank you , you deserve the contribution |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
because you posted thats it, omg why did you say all that crap |
Because this argument is obnoxious and your posts have been infested with a needlessly internecine, quixotic bile. |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Because this argument is obnoxious and your posts have been infested with a needlessly internecine, quixotic bile. |
we'll i'm going to add both waveforms to logic and see how obnoxious the end result is. If you were offended by me saying a newb uses softsynth than thats you and how your reacted to the post. I mean i can use a softsynth too and make a super saw and cal my self a pro, anything is possible
edit- i can't download your file its not letting me |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by orTofønChiLd
Which synthesizer has a wider, bigger and more accurate waveform. Which synthesizer has more depth, clarity, punch, warmth, phatness, larger soundfield. |
So in other words, it proves -all, because none of these things actually matter when you have multiple oscillators, LFOs, layers, and effects.
If it all depends on the girl (??) then you probably should just throw away all those synths and switch to a sampler, which is how most gangsta rap is made. |
|
|
|
|
