|
SOFTWARE vs. HARDWARE (Strength's & Weakness - Your opinion is welcome!) (pg. 21)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| You can get the results of an analog synth by having skill. The simpler the synth you use to make an awesome sound is directly related to the amount of skill you have at programming a synth. Since you use omnisphear you will never have skill :D |
|
|
| orTofønChiLd |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
You can get the results of an analog synth by having skill. The simpler the synth you use to make an awesome sound is directly related to the amount of skill you have at programming a synth. Since you use omnisphear you will never have skill :D |
fuk this thread the results are there in your face |
|
|
| cronodevir |
Don't be mad, that is what it boils down to. Anyone can open a humungo synth with stellar presets and go "wow that sounds good" but only someone with real skill can take an ole 3osc or vanguard or something and make it sound like absynth or omni or FM8
Now are people of that skill level, on TranceAddict? No.
So what ever tests you run here to see if hardware vs software sounds better will be futile, because this forum isn't the place where all the good softsynth programmers hang out. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Don't be mad, that is what it boils down to. Anyone can open a humungo synth with stellar presets and go "wow that sounds good" but only someone with real skill can take an ole 3osc or vanguard or something and make it sound like absynth or omni or FM8
Now are people of that skill level, on TranceAddict? No.
So what ever tests you run here to see if hardware vs software sounds better will be futile, because this forum isn't the place where all the good softsynth programmers hang out. |
How are you suppose to program an analog(3xOsc) or wavetable synth(Vanguard), to sound like a frequency modulation synth(FM8)?
If you think I'm being too literally, tell me how to make 3xOsc sound like a virus.:whip:
So where are these people? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
How are you suppose to program an analog(3xOsc) or wavetable synth(Vanguard), to sound like a frequency modulation synth(FM8)? |
Now you're talking about different types of synthesis, though. The same rationale stands for a software FM synth like the FM7 vs. a hardware FM synth like a DX-7.
| quote: | | If you think I'm being too literally, tell me how to make 3xOsc sound like a virus.:whip: |
So that's why I said, do the test totally blind, have people just make the best sounds they can, put them up, and tell us afterward how they made it.
Subtle said no, that's not a fair test either because a good producer with pansy tools might be able to make better sounds than a lousy producer with expensive tools. You seem to disagree. So which is it?
Either way, screw this nonsense about comparing unprocessed waveforms with one oscillator. That's pointless. There are only two possibilities here. Either:
a) Better producers can make better sounds regardless of equipment, in which case the whole debate is utterly pointless; or
b) You need the most expensive toys in order to produce the best sounds, in which case the "competition" should have no rules at all, people should be free to use whatever patches and effects and post-processing they want.
I believe (a), but for the sake of this argument I'm not taking either side; I'm just saying, pick one, don't waste time comparing the most vanilla sounds possible from software and hardware synths because that proves nothing at all about the real world.
Honestly I think this whole thread is plumb stupid, but if people are going to go head-to-head, then at least make it interesting. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
3 sounds
Analog / Wavetable / FM [in that order] |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
So that's why I said, do the test totally blind, have people just make the best sounds they can, put them up, and tell us afterward how they made it. |
Sounds like a good idea.
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Either:
a) Better producers can make better sounds regardless of equipment, in which case the whole debate is utterly pointless; or
b) You need the most expensive toys in order to produce the best sounds, in which case the "competition" should have no rules at all, people should be free to use whatever patches and effects and post-processing they want. |
Not either-or, it's somewhere in the middle. Who knows what the limits of what a producer can do to influence a soft synth sound. On one side of the spectrum you have a producer with a rock and a stick, and neither the pro or the novice can do much with it. But give the professional a great studio and you have him making excellent music, while the novice is only getting "a rock and a stick" kind of sound. |
|
|
| wrzonance |
Mac vs PC?
Oh wait. Wrong thread. |
|
|
| wrzonance |
Mac vs PC?
Oh wait. Wrong thread. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
Sounds like a good idea.
Not either-or, it's somewhere in the middle. Who knows what the limits of what a producer can do to influence a soft synth sound. On one side of the spectrum you have a producer with a rock and a stick, and neither the pro or the novice can do much with it. But give the professional a great studio and you have him making excellent music, while the novice is only getting "a rock and a stick" kind of sound. |
But the gap between the simplest and the most complex synths [hard or soft] is no where near a "rock and a stick" vs "a full studio" And the basic method of synthesis has not changed much in the past 20 years. There have been a few new methods of it, but over all not much.
The gap is more like comparing an 1989 Ferrari to a 2009 Ferrari, the 2009 has a bit more features, but with the right tuning that 1989 could still utterly destroy a 2009 in a race. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
But the gap between the simplest and the most complex synths [hard or soft] is no where near a "rock and a stick" vs "a full studio" And the basic method of synthesis has not changed much in the past 20 years. There have been a few new methods of it, but over all not much.
The gap is more like comparing an 1989 Ferrari to a 2009 Ferrari, the 2009 has a bit more features, but with the right tuning that 1989 could still utterly destroy a 2009 in a race. |
You could take a 1999 Honda Civic, and trick the ****** out to beat a 2009 Honda Civic. The mods that go on after the car gets out of the dealership(signal processing after the synthesizer) matters if you want to get a good time at the strip.:stongue: |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Beatflux
You could take a 1999 Honda Civic, and trick the ****** out to beat a 2009 Honda Civic. The mods that go on after the car gets out of the dealership(signal processing after the synthesizer) matters if you want to get a good time at the strip.:stongue: |
Pft Toyota Corolla ftw. |
|
|
|
|
