|
SOFTWARE vs. HARDWARE (Strength's & Weakness - Your opinion is welcome!) (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| cronodevir |
| Synth programming is entertainment for me. :toothless |
|
|
| Low Profile |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Except electronic music is a niche compared to generas that use those intruments. |
Just wanted to comment on that sentence:
turn on the radio to a pop station, what do you hear? 50 Cent? Britney Spears? Kanye West? MGMT? Katy Perry? All that MTV is 100% electronic music. Today's pop is ALL electronic music! |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Low Profile
Just wanted to comment on that sentence:
turn on the radio to a pop station, what do you hear? 50 Cent? Britney Spears? Kanye West? MGMT? Katy Perry? All that MTV is 100% electronic music. Today's pop is ALL electronic music! |
Well perhaps, but do you know a rap song that uses the Virus?
Interesting note. I wonder of all these hardware fanbois, how many actually have hardware and make solid tunes. :P |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Well perhaps, but do you know a rap song that uses the Virus?
Interesting note. I wonder of all these hardware fanbois, how many actually have hardware and make solid tunes. :P |
Virus is the best all around synth you can have, get over it!
You can make awesome tunes using both hardware and software it doesnt ing matter. But if someone likes to work with hardware better than software that is obviously the best choice for them.
I work with both, and hardware definitely sounds better with the same sounds without doubt, and i really trust my ears with that.
Using both hardware and software in a setup is the best way to go, doesnt matter what u say.. because you cant say software sounds BETTER ??? can you? or just different and more versatile ? |
|
|
| cronodevir |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subtle
Virus is the best all around synth you can have, get over it!
You can make awesome tunes using both hardware and software it doesnt ing matter. But if someone likes to work with hardware better than software that is obviously the best choice for them.
I work with both, and hardware definitely sounds better with the same sounds without doubt, and i really trust my ears with that.
Using both hardware and software in a setup is the best way to go, doesnt matter what u say.. because you cant say software sounds BETTER ??? can you? or just different and more versatile ? |
Software does sound better. Its not about different and versatile. Its BETTER sounding in most cases.
But I'm not dicussing what sounds better, because that is retarded. You can't argue about which personal preference is better. I enjoy software sounds more than hardware, and you enjoy hardware sounds more than software. Only you are stateing its a fact that hardware sounds better and I am stateing its your opinion.
But you can argue wether or not hardware will survive the test of time. And with the rate at which software develops, I just do not see that happening. |
|
|
| Subtle |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
But you can argue wether or not hardware will survive the test of time. And with the rate at which software develops, I just do not see that happening. |
There will ALWAYS be a marked for it, because artists and bands use them live. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Software does sound better. Its not about different and versatile. Its BETTER sounding in most cases.
But I'm not dicussing what sounds better, because that is retarded. You can't argue about which personal preference is better. I enjoy software sounds more than hardware, and you enjoy hardware sounds more than software. Only you are stateing its a fact that hardware sounds better and i am stateing its your opinion.
But you can argue wether or not hardware will survive the test of time. And with the rate at which software develops, I just do not see that happening. |
I don't think that's necessarily true. What I see coming is a more heavily integrated modular movement, where external instruments are more closely enmeshed with a computer used as a control source.
The trend is already starting with a number of 'real' synths containing USB ports and software drivers for integration into the DAW. Controller keyboards have USB and control surfaces that assist the user with controlling the computer's function. The computer's advantage will probably always be portability. Unfortunately, the bread and butter interface is only nominally user friendly.
The hardware synth market is currently reliant on specialization in order to remain competitive with the soft-synth side of things. In that way, I think you might be right - the days of the hardware DAW/Work-station are numbered, but it's not as though makers like Yamaha don't realize that. Their synths/workstations are often sold with lite versions of popular DAW's.
Music producers are also not the only market for hardware synth makers. Keyboardists, who play on stage, love their beasties. They like to be able to dial up sounds and control things as they play, and as I stated earlier, the current bread and butter (mouse, keyboard, and screen) interface, just isn't that user friendly when it comes to live performances.
In that regard, both Live and Logic have features that allow of MIDI/USB controller messages to be sent to gear on stage. What I am describing is, in essence, the genetic algorithm. I believe you touched on the 'pressures' that exist in the market for manufacturers of both hardware and software synths that will ultimately propel such an evolution. The fact of the matter is that hardware is going to have to become much more open and more flexible in order, ultimately, to be able to remain competitive.
With numerous advances in micro-processors, memory, and hardware bound software, I don't see any reason why that can't happen, unless society just collapses in on itself in a post-apocalyptic nightmare where the living envy the dead and are more concerned with the preparation of roach stew than music. |
|
|
| cronodevir |
But think about this.
Touch screen technology.
With a relativly simple system of hand movements and pokes you could operate using both hands. you could play a virtual keyboard on your screen [screen would be flat obviously, not infront of your face] Sensors in the screen could detect preasure. So you could get the effect you get from a real piano when you hit the key harder or softer. for knobs the software could simply detect a "point and drag" your finger motion in a circle to turn knobs and such, and you could do the same for sliders. And of course buttons and such would be no contest to code. the only downside currently is software cannot truely emulate the interaction of electricity and transistors and such, and produce the sound there-of. They use algorithms to take massive shortcuts. But in a couple years? Who knows. As for the touch screen technology, it was here 10 years ago.
Think of a massive screen, amby a table top. With all your synths and controls mixer and everything laided out. All useable in live play. The only hardware would be the PC, the interface, and the speakers. All this can be done yesterday.
Edit: Hey, someone posted a reasonable post in the thread :D |
|
|
| Sonic_c |
I recently began using hardware in the studio at college they have the lot one digital studio with all the bells and whistles and the same for an analogue with a radar 24 track. One thing I can say is that the analogue ones sounds like way nicer even though the digital one has protools hd soundcards. I also think the protools software is clicky buggy and looks rubbish but i suppose you buy it for the hardware well the converters inside anyway. Against softare there is a certain magic about actually being around the real deal hardware I mean a real TB303 sounds way better than reasons subtractor trying to emulate it. I also like valves valve compressors valve distortions etc they have a certain warmth I havent seen in software yet. I think there is a place for both I have seen some beautiful songs made on software alone, but some of my fav producers were around in the 90's on akai samplers and roland junos.
I think both are good |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
But think about this.
Touch screen technology.
With a relativly simple system of hand movements and pokes you could operate using both hands. you could play a virtual keyboard on your screen [screen would be flat obviously, not infront of your face] Sensors in the screen could detect preasure. So you could get the effect you get from a real piano when you hit the key harder or softer. for knobs the software could simply detect a "point and drag" your finger motion in a circle to turn knobs and such, and you could do the same for sliders. And of course buttons and such would be no contest to code. the only downside currently is software cannot truely emulate the interaction of electricity and transistors and such, and produce the sound there-of. They use algorithms to take massive shortcuts. But in a couple years? Who knows. As for the touch screen technology, it was here 10 years ago.
Think of a massive screen, amby a table top. With all your synths and controls mixer and everything laided out. All useable in live play. The only hardware would be the PC, the interface, and the speakers. All this can be done yesterday.
Edit: Hey, someone posted a reasonable post in the thread :D |
I remember watching a TED featurette about the multi-finger touch-screen. I fully believe that's a direction music technology is going to take. I think it will also be very customizeable. One would be able to, for instance, choose between using a keyboard on the screen, attaching an external controller, or both.
| quote: | Originally posted by Sonic_c
I recently began using hardware in the studio at college they have the lot one digital studio with all the bells and whistles and the same for an analogue with a radar 24 track. One thing I can say is that the analogue ones sounds like way nicer even though the digital one has protools hd soundcards. I also think the protools software is clicky buggy and looks rubbish but i suppose you buy it for the hardware well the converters inside anyway. Against softare there is a certain magic about actually being around the real deal hardware I mean a real TB303 sounds way better than reasons subtractor trying to emulate it. I also like valves valve compressors valve distortions etc they have a certain warmth I havent seen in software yet. I think there is a place for both I have seen some beautiful songs made on software alone, but some of my fav producers were around in the 90's on akai samplers and roland junos.
I think both are good |
Korg's most recent offerings in the electribe series also came with tubes a user could use to run the sound out of, if they wanted. I got to play with one in a store, a while back, and it definitely warmed up the sound with the tube on. |
|
|
| Beatflux |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Software does sound better. Its BETTER sounding in most cases.
|
How many professionals can you count that have said this? |
|
|
| Existo22 |
| quote: | Originally posted by cronodevir
Yes, The USA tends to be this way. Our local music store has one tiny shelf called "other" and it has a bunch of CDs with sunsets and other cheezy late 90's -to- Now fascades... Trance isn't what it used to be..long reptetive evolving arpeggios. Lol. /rem·i·nisce |
I thought this way until I moved to San Francisco.
I think their cd section is far more then any edm fan could ask for. |
|
|
|
|
