Harware VS. Software Instruments

[Squids]

If you have or know about these instruments, can you compare them in terms of what you get for the money, the sound quality, the ease of use and other things that are important to you?

 

DX7,TX802, SY77 or FS1R vs. NI's FM7

 

Prophet 5 rev 1,2 or 3 vs. NI's Pro52

 

PPG Wave 2.2, 2.3, Microwave vs. PPG Wave Plug-in

 

JV2080, Trinity, S80, QS8 vs. SR's Sonic Synth and IK's SampleTank

 

Sound Canvas, QS GM set, Triton GM set vs. Sonic Reality's OmniSynth and OmniSoundz PRO GM library

 

CX-3, Hammond B3, Voce V3 vs. NI's B4 plug-in

 

Akai S3000, S5000, Emu E4 vs. Emagic's EXS24 and Steinberg's HALion

 

Minimoog vs. Model E

 

TB303, TR808, TR909 vs. Propellerheads ReBirth

[RABid]

A few things to consider.

 

A true Profit 5 or Minimog will give you the best sound. The software versions cannot quite match true analog.

 

Model E or Pro52 does not suffer form dirty key contacts, unstable oscillators or dirty pots. They also do not require frequent trips to the tech or an evening spent tuning and scaling.

 

For the price of a Profit 5 in good condition you can purchase Pro 52, Model E, PPG, Reaktor, B4 and Battery.

 

NIs FM7 probably sounds better than Yamahas real keyboards and is much easier to program.

 

GigaStudio definitely will play samples that you wish your hardware sampler could play. When you play a 1.5 gig piano sample it is hard to go back to anything else but a real piano.

 

For the money there is nothing close to Reason in the hardware world. However, I use my Emu XL-7 much more than Reason.

 

Now, for all the good that software instruments do they are best left in the home or studio. In my opinion this is what works best. Keep your Triton, XP, or what ever you play with live. Do your basic compositions on your workstation, or use your Emu P2K, Triton rack, XV-5080, or what ever you prefer that gives you all the sound needed to compose your song from beginning to end and use your favorite sequencer. Once you have the song down start farming out sounds to your computer software instruments. The only thing that sounds better than NIs B4 is a true Hammond B3. The only thing that sounds better than a GigaStudio piano is a real piano. So you cannot afford a Novation Supernova II? No problem. Load up Reaktor 3 and create any sound or pad you desire. In the studio software instruments excel is allowing someone with a moderate budget to sound like a millionaire. Just dont expect to take that sound on stage.

[Squids]

Good response Rabid. Anyone else care to comment?

 

The one thing you didn't compare though is the keyboard workstations and sound modules with the software versions of these things that are popping up (some of which I have worked on).

 

I know some of these products are new so maybe you guys don't know enough about them to comment (especially about the ones from my company, Sonic Reality- although I did see some mention of it here-even a user review- but there is a lot more mention of it on forums like www.kvr-vst.com). But, let's just use SampleTank XL as an example. I was curious if anyone had any comments on a comparison between that and the hardware equivalent.

 

Since I made Sonic Synth and OmniSynth (which use the SampleTank engine)- I would be biased to comment myself on those (except at least to tell you about them if you don't know which I hope you don't mind). I can comment further on the hardware vs. software when it comes to a sound module if you were to compare something like a Triton say to SampleTank.

 

I love my Triton and Motif. They are hardware and there's nothing like the look and feel of GEAR. I also use them live and although I know many people who do this, I personally don't take my computer to gigs. I prefer the hardware for this. But, in the studio I use both and it's a tough call which is better. The one thing that unfortunately makes me want to keep and use EVERYTHING is the fact that each unit tends to have some unique features that others don't. Plus, they have their own unique sound sets which all lend a different character to your music.

 

BUT, having said that, out of all the hard vs. soft comparisons the one about the sound module/keyboard is more in question. I know this from working first hand with practically all of them. Here is one really good reason why in this case the software version of this kind of thing can BLOW AWAY the hardware version (besides the usual reason being the price):

 

In a hardware sound module the raw sample data is stored on ROM chips that are usually about 16-64 megs in size (the largest I have seen is 85 megs which the Motif has). That means that all of the pianos, oboes and hip hop sounds ALL have to fit on this one ROM. So, there is a lot of compromise that HAS to take place in order to be able to do that. This compromise can be in the way of data compression, lower samplng rates (than what you would think from reading the specs) and the biggest thing which is widdled down multisamples with shorter durations and loops- less notes across the keyboard etc. Not all sounds have to be any larger, but some sounds that people often complain about like pianos, strings, vox pads etc. can really benefit from not having this limitation.

 

So, the cool thing about software products like SampleTank is that without this limitation in size for the multisampled instruments it can actually sound a LOT better! I mean WOW. We are talking about a serious difference in the quality of real instruments and even dreamy pads and evolving textures that I've been able to do with it are sometimes better- all because the raw samples are not limited to fitting onto a small sized ROM chip!

 

I think it is interesting that while an analog synth is still better sounding than an analog synth emulating plug-in and a real B3 sounds better than a B3 emulating plug-in but a sound module plug-in (because of the nature of what your computer can do with it's large RAM and HD capacity) can actually sound a lot better than a hardware sound module or workstation keyboard.

 

This is really kind of new. But, think about how many people use these kind of sound modules and keyboards. Bryce knows because he and I both had worked on some of the hottest selling keyboards of all time from another major manufacturer. That keyboard was (and still is) a great axe but it could only have a total of 32 megs of ROM samples internally and a few 8 meg expansion options. The sound module plug-ins I am talking about here are over 2 GIGABYTES of "ROM sample" and there are virtual expansion ROMS that have over 200 megs of sounds. This of course for the usual software vs. hardware difference which is the much lower price.

 

I find this especially interesting because this is something I am in the midst of getting into and as a keyboardist myself I think it is worth mentioning to other keyboardists. I am equally interested in anyone's opinions about the other hardware vs. software instruments.

 

For instance, we know a real B3 is the ultimate but how would someone compare the B4 plug-in with something like the Voce V3 or the CX-3 or any other hardware B3 clone?

 

Anyone have a reall PPG and the plug-in to compare? Do they sound the same to you? Besides key contacts and tuning drift do these things emulate the character of it well or is it just cool in it's own way?

 

On the Pro52 thing, for myself, I have had the luxury of owning a rev 1, 2, 3 Prophet 5, a T8 and a Prophet 10 (I actually owned Pink Floyd's Prophet 10 with patches from the Wall in it! Cool?) But, my favorite was the rev 2 Prophet 5 because it had the sweet sounding SSM filters in it. Unfortunately though it was not very reliable so I sold it (miss it though). Still, I have to say that as cool as the Pro52 is (very cool and happy they did it) it sometimes doesn't sounds as good as some samples I've done of my rev 2 Prophet because the samples are a recording of the real thing (so more like the real thing in that way) and also the Pro52 is modeling the Prophet 5 rev 3 which used Curtis chips (a very different sound).

 

Just some honest thoughts from Da Kerz.

www.sonicreality.com

 

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: DaKerz ]

[Squids]

Oh, please excuse the typos. I can't be bothered to go back and fix them every time I post. I type faster than I think. I think.

 

Happy New Year.

 

DaKerz

[Dave Bryce]

The gist of this topic has certainly been discussed here before, in many various incarnations.

 

I'm inclined to agree that when it comes to samplers (and recorders) that as things stand right now, hardware devices just can't hold a candle to the computer. This is not only because of the limitations of memory that DaKerz brought up, but also because of processing power. Think about it - when a manufacturer specs a product, they rarely use the best, fastest processor available. Then, the unit takes a year (or more) to get to market, and by the time it does, its processor is pretty much an antique.

 

On the other hand, if you use your computer, you're probably getting a much faster processor. Additionally, when you update your computer, your recorder/soft synths can migrate to the faster machine, and with something as simple and inexpensive as a new rev can easily take full advantage of the processing power of the new machine.

 

It is for this reason that I will never buy another hardware recorder again.

 

As far as analog synths go, I still prefer the real thing. I have used Pro E against my Mini, and I don't think it comes close. I also own a PPG Wave and I have heard the plug-in, but I have never compared the two side-by-side; however, I think I might be inclined to stick with the hardware version. Then again, I don't really care for VA synths in general...what can I say - I like VCOs...

 

However, when it comes to PCM/sample playback stuff, there's no question in my mind that every day that goes by swings things in favor of the computer-based stuff. The math is just way too clear on this point.

 

I still think that whoever comes out with a synth that is basically a mega-customizable computer which will allow us take Giga/SampleTank/B4/Reaktor, etc. under our arms to gigs will just clean up...

 

dB

[burningbusch]

Regarding sound quality, here are two experiments you can try. BTW, I find that it is best to use headphones when doing these as the results will be more apparent.

 

Try this on any hardware/software VA

1. Set Osc 1 to saw or square wave. Set frequency to as high as it will allow.

2. Turn off other Oscs.

3. Turn off any FXs or modulation. You want a simple dry one Osc sound.

4. Filter. Set resonance high (close to or at oscillation) and try to get it to match the pitch of Osc1 (keyboard tracking on). Set cutoff of the filter low so that it sounds close to a sine wave. Don't pass filter through its envelope generator.

5. Set amp envelope generator to fastest attack, full sustain.

6. This should sound close to a simple organ sound.

7. Play a chromatic scale. When you get to the highest notes you should start hearing aliasing. It will sound like ring modulation, or an LFO kicking, or the notes will sound out of tune. If you are doing this on a NI soft synth, try switching to a higher sample rate and make note of the differences.

 

Experiment #2 if you have NI Pro52.

1. Select patch #128 (Bright Synth).

2. Click on the unison button.

3. Set the sample rate to 33075 or 44100. Play around. Now set the sample rate to 88200 (or 132300). Notice that the synth now sounds less bright but also much less harsh. You should also notice that the envelopes track better when playing faster as well. Stay on the 88K sample rate for a while, then switch back. My opinion is that the lower sample rate sounds like a cheap synth. At the higher sample rate it sounds smoother, more musically pleasing, and like a more expensive instrument. The differences (again especially through headphones) are not subtle. I've owned three Pro 5s in my day and I can tell you the faster sample rate is much closer to the real thing.

 

BTW, one of the reasons I like NI soft synths is that several of them (Reaktor, Pro52, FM7, and I believe Dynamo) allow you to change sample rates, essentially upgrade the sound quality of your synth if you have the processing power. On the B4 this is not really an issue as the drawbars foldback before they hit too high of frequencies. I did ask one of the NI engineers about this once got back a technical response that I didn't completely understand. My question was, essentially, why is it that digital audio shows very slight benefits from higher than 44,100, while soft synths benefit significantly. His response was that all aspects of a soft synth are enhanced and are made more accruate, i.e. waveforms, filters, envelopes. He also stated that audible enhancements can be heard up to a 500KHz sampling rate. I am betting that a properly designed soft synth with a 500KHz sample rate would sound VERY close to its analog counterpart. There are things that soft synths struggle to do that analogs do with ease. Only when you get to the highest sample rates does this go away.

 

As far as hardware VAs go, AFAIK only Nord advertises their sample rate which I believe went to 96KHz in the second generation Nord Lead line. Based on what my ears tell me, I'm betting that all other hardware VAs are 44Khz (certainly all first generation).

 

I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that computer-based synths, by and large, sound better than equivalent hardware.

 

Direct observations of synths/modules that I own.

 

FM7 sounds better than any FM synth Yamaha has produced. Remember the first generation DX had 12-bit output.

 

B4 sounds as good or better than all other clones with the possible exception of the CX-3.

 

Busch.

[Squids]

Great post. Very interesting stuff there.

 

You know what else I have noticed? Almost any B3 emulator sounds great when you run it through a REAL Leslie. I used to have a 122 and a 145 that you could plug into. Even a cheezy DX7 organ sounds great through a real Leslie! But, I used to use an old CX-3 through one live and it worked quite well. I also have the Voce and the B4 and I haven't A/Bed them yet. I think the biggest part that is the sonic variable is the Leslie Simulation part.

 

Anyone else have impressions on this stuff? It's kind of a big thing that is happening these days... software vs. hardware. Both are great but some offer things that change the way we look at our keyboard setups in the studio or live.

 

BTW- Happy New Year.

 

Peace!

DK

[Dave Bryce]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

Almost any B3 emulator sounds great when you run it through a REAL Leslie.

 

Well, yeah...

 

However, one of the things that I think sets B4 apart from the crowd (at least for me) is the way that it comes out of my monitors. It's kinda like they took the end result of micing a B3/leslie up and listening to it through speakers, and reproduced that as accurately as they could, not the live tone...sorta makes sense, if you think about it.

 

Some of those patches really sound to me like they just lifted the tone right off of a record. That's one of the things that I think is so cool about the program - from the moment I decide I want to use a Hammond on a tune until the time when it's coming out of my speakers (as if I had cranked up a real Hammond, let it warm up a bit, mic'd it, run it though a tube pre and compressor and EQ'd it) is about 30 seconds. And, it sounds ...well...right.

 

Using it live, I think I'd still prefer the real thing. But, for recording, I really think that's where this program shines.

 

dB

[Alejandro]

This is my story:

When I began studying piano (not so long ago), I bought a Thecnics digital piano to be able to practice. I would have loved to be able to afford a Steinway Grand or a Bosendorfer instead but even if I have had the money, it would have not fitted in my apartment and even if I have settled for a studio piano, I would have not been able to practice because of my neighbours.

But soon enough I could not stand the sound of my digital piano (it did not sound real), so I began my pursuit for a better sound. After trying different piano sound modules, I chose and bought a Kurzweil Micro Piano (and a second hand Roland sound module, for GM).

Then, I discovered and got fond of virtual synths (SimSynth 2.7 monophonic virtual synth was my very first). Afterwards, I discovered virtual samplers (never gave up my pursuit for realistic pianos and acoustic instruments´ sounds). I tried a lot of demos. Some would not work for me because of perceivable delay (my sound card is not ASIO oriented and I decided that instead of changing my sound card, I was going to keep searching for programs that would work properly with Directx and had faith that sooner or later, continuous progress in technology was going to solve the latency problem).

Recently, I discovered SampleTank (if you have a Directx oriented sound card you ought to go for SampleTank or Giga or both if you dont want a delay problem) and bought OmniSynth from Sonic Reality. The 16 Mb piano that comes with it sounds alike or even better than the piano of my Kurzweil. I am now going for the Piano Collection expansion-ROM also from Sonic Reality with pianos up to 90 Mb (if I like the 16 Mb piano, imagine my expectations on the 60/90 Mb pianos) and might go in the future for further sample libraries.

SimSynth, which used to play with a 15/17 ms delay, now works at 5 ms delay with my updated computer (Pentium III, 930 Mhz and newest Directx drivers). Of course, I now have plenty of virtual synths and organs and Eps virtual emulations (some of them are for free). Some, just for the sake of having them (fiddling with this toys is just a way of fun by itself). Want emulations to sound dirty? (some sound dirty from start), use some VST effect (there are plenty, even for free, that even imitate bulb amps, rotators or whatever). Want them unstable as the original? Kick your PC or drop water on it (sorry, bad joke).

 

I am not a pro, just an amateur which happens to love music. This era is paradise for people like me (for a few bucks we can have realistic acoustic instruments thanks to virtual samplers, or astonishing virtual synths and even good emulations of classic analog synths) and we amateurs are a huge crowd. The which is better, real analog versus virtual synths issue is a matter for top of the line Pros (isnt it?). And by top of the line Pros I mean those who are able to congregate crowds when they play live, that record CDs that do sell, do movie scores (A movies), etc And anyway, I think virtual synths sound great and I dont think I would be able to tell the difference (specially in a mix).

One of our best well known pianists for Tango music, used to play live with an Emu´s Proformance digital piano module. I remember a pianist (an average pro pianist) playing live in a Pub with a Thechnics digital piano (the very same I mentioned at the beginning, which sound I dislike). I have seen a fine jazz trio which bassist was using an Alesis´ bass module. I have even seen music bands playing with for example a Roland E-xx (whatever model) but Id better not comment on how they sounded (and most were not good as musicians anyway).

 

Therefore, I believe (amateurs thought) that computers and notebooks used as sound modules (profiting from virtual samplers and synths) are the future even for pros (average pros at least) playing live. I have seen a few already playing with a PC, live. PCs give more versatility than hardware modules and you can have plenty of different instruments in a single box (just need a couple of keyboard controllers).

For what I recon (maybe I am wrong), at the beginning, some instruments that are now classics started out not because people thought they sounded great then, but because they were portable. Time (we got used to them) and nostalgia (some of those instruments we associate with great music themes and with eras to which we belonged) were sometimes the main reasons that made us love them (they grew up on us). In the future, we might end loving the sound of even new virtual synths that do not imitate any dinosaur (being said in the good sense).

[BP3]

I've been using B4, EVP88 & EXS24 live for a little while now. I'm quite happy with all of them. If I could figure a good mapping of my Voce V5's drawbars as a controller for the B4 I'd be really happy. (I'm sure I can do it, I just haven't taken the time as of yet)

 

The Model E is not very good as a MiniMoog. The Pulsar Miniscope is a much better attempt. But I'm not likely to worry to much about that, as I have a NordLead and I plan to get the MiniMoog Voyager as soon as they are out.

 

The Pro52 is pretty good, but not good enough yet.

 

I'd like to see someone do a software version of the old Oberheim SEMs. That would kill!

[Squids]

Yeah TinderArts! Now we're talkin! An SEM plug-in would be sweet! Also, while we are at it, an Arp 2600 plug-in would be ace as well. Of course the list can go on. The key on those would be to emulate the character of the amps and filters.

 

I still have an SEM (can't sell it). Actually, you want to hear a funny story about SEMS? (no, but you'll hear it anyway - how's that?) I used to do sessions as a keyboardist and sometimes just as a synth programmer in L.A. I was asked by a producer friend of mine who was doing an R&B record to bring a few vintage synths down to the studio to get some lead sounds up for Greg Phillinganes (oh I can't even spell it, sorry.) to play. So, to be hip I brought an Oberheim 8 voice (with 8 SEMS in a wood cabinet- nice) and I also brought my Minimoog just in case (the old stand by). I sat there for half an hour before the session and programmed up a wicked sound on the 8 voice. 10 minutes into the session the producer tells me he doesn't like the sound and can I flip through some other ones??? For those of you who are not familiar with the 4 and 8 voice, you have to program each voice (which is an SEM) separately to get the sound! Since it was a unison sound with all 8 SEMS going (and no patch memory- really) it would have taken forever to get another sound up. So, we looked at the minimoog and said, whew. That did the trick and we were able to get a lot of sounds in seconds on it. I ended up selling the 8 voice but I did keep my one SEM which happens to have a nice mod in it- there is an SSM Prophet 5 filter in it that you can mix between both filters!

 

Sorry if I lost anyone on that barely relevant story! It is one for the pros- sorry about that. Speaking of the pro and amateur thing, I happen to agree with Alejandro in that the software instruments allow more people to have these instruments available to them for their music. With the hardware, just the cost makes it something that only the serious (ie. the keyboardists or composers making enough money to afford it...but also the hobbyist lawyers too...) would get. But, with the software instruments like the ones mentioned in this thread it is now more feasable for almost any musician with a computer to get. I am not just talking about amatuer and pro keyboardists either. I am talking about singers who would like to just have a keyboard like a Triton (but they'd never spend $2,000+) or a guitarist, bassist, drummer, sax player etc etc. With sequencers even if you can play just a little bit of keyboards (one note at a time even) you can benefit from having these software instruments. So, the price issue is definitely a big one when it comes to software vs. hardware music equipment, especially in terms of who now has access to this stuff. It's still good for the pro's to have both (and the software saves them a little money for a change- you don't even want to know what I've spent over the years on hardware...but I also have problems...I am better now, thanks)

[BP3]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

I still have an SEM (can't sell it).

 

Can't sell it, or won't sell it?

 

'Cause I'll certainly buy it!

[Squids]

TinderArts,

 

Won't sell it or can't allow myself to sell it. I have my SEM and my Minimoog and I promised myself not to get rid of them because they are two of my favorite synths. The Arp 2600 and EMS Synthi are my two next favorites. I don't have a 2600 and an EMS anymore though which kind of bugs me. I've had quite a few in the past and I should have had the same policy about not getting rid of them. Oh well. Maybe some day I'll get the chance to get them again.

 

But, getting back to your request for an SEM plug-in (and this will tie a bunch of my gear rambling stories together I hope ) the thing I was saying about the 8 voice being a bitch to program because you have to tweak each SEM separately... well if a virtual SEM- 8Voice (hey, how about 32 voice- it's virtual??) really emulated the sound of those discrete filters then having them finally be programmable as a polyphonic synth would be really nice to have. (But, I'd still keep my SEM because it's still nice to have for me.)

 

There is a hardware vs. software angle. Anyone have any hardware vs. software instrument experience or feelings? Tell us how you were able to hook up your midi drawbars to your B4 on your laptop and blow people away at the coffee shop! Tell me that you loaded up your old patches from your Prophet 5 onto the Pro52 and what? Liked it? Hated it? And what about the workstation type plug-ins? Are you guys up on the things coming out in the virtual world these days?

 

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: DaKerz ]

[coyote]

This of course is the problem w/ modern synths in general. They are designed to be heard through headphones and nearfield monitors. They are NOT designed to be heard in a 'live' context.

 

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

However, one of the things that I think sets B4 apart from the crowd (at least for me) is the way that it comes out of my monitors. It's kinda like they took the end result of micing a B3/leslie up and listening to it through speakers, and reproduced that as accurately as they could, not the live tone...sorta makes sense, if you think about it.

 

Using it live, I think I'd still prefer the real thing. But, for recording, I really think that's where this program shines.dB

[RABid]

I spent the past few evenings going through the sounds on my virtual synthesizers. I initial intent was to see how much the sound varied between the different programs. What really surprised me was the difference in sound within some of the programs. While Pro52 and PPGv2 were pretty consistent, Tassman, Reaktor and other modular types varied greatly. At times Tassman sounded like a cheap piece of junk that I would not want for producing any sound. After exploring the presets and modules I found sounds that were as smooth as anything I have heard since my analogs burned to ashes. Surprisingly the difference between a thin horrible sound and a full sound only meant changing a patch instead of a synth design. Now I think I need to spend a full day with each one just to figure out how to get the best sounds.

 

It has taken me years to get a handle on hardware synths, what I like best, characteristics of their sound, and which synths are best in which situations. I dont know if I will ever be able to keep up with software synths. (Brand X has best resonance sound while Brand Y has the smoother filter while Brand A blends better in a mix with a piano while Brand B has the best selection of modules while Brand M has the best preset patches while brand N has the lowest CPU overhead while.)

[Squids]

Well, the ultimate comparison is when you have the same patch up on both things. Like for instance if you were to emulate (or load) a Prophet 5 patch into the Pro52 and play both side by side and listen to the difference.

 

Or, with an organ- do the same drawbar setting on the B4 and your hardware organ.

 

You can spend hours and hours comparing but sometimes just an A/B test (when possible- I realize that not everyone has this luxury) can give you a good idea. I was just talking to a programmer I work with. He was telling me how much he loved the Nord Lead. But, he really wished that his Jupiter 6 could have midi with velocity and everything. He just recently installed a kit (not sure which one) that gives the JP6 full midi including the sliders I believe!!!! But, it receives velocity and he says that it BLOWS AWAY the Nord Lead! I assume he is talking about a certain character of sound it can get that the virtual analog synths do not.

 

I can say though that when it comes to the sample based synths it is a little different. Obviously you are comparing different things as each keyboard or VSTi sound module has different recorded instruments that make up it's samples. It's highly subjective but you could compare say a Korg Triton or a Roland Fantom to something like SampleTank or Sonic Synth. You can listen to the piano in one and then the other and decide which gives you the best one for your money and the same for other instruments as well. I think this is a little easier than listening to the particular resonance of one filter in a synth and comparing it to another (although that can be interesting to do, just perhaps even more time-consuming!).

 

Anyway, I work with samples all the time so that's where I come from. I think both hardware and software instruments are great to have, it just depends on your budget. Just like many things like recording devices, mixers and effects...instrument plug-ins also provide low cost solutions to the home, pro, semipro and portable music studio. You can use them live too but I tend to stick with the hardware for live.

 

Someone mentioned that if whoever came out with a computer built into a keyboard they would clean up. I'd like to see that too. I did see one from Creamware that looked awesome but it was real pricey which is a bummer.

[Postman]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

I still think that whoever comes out with a synth that is basically a mega-customizable computer which will allow us take Giga/SampleTank/B4/Reaktor, etc. under our arms to gigs will just clean up...

 

dB

What's your definition of a mega-customizable computer? They're pretty darn customizable now. Really, I'm curious, what would you want?

 

p.s. Is it too late to give you a raft of [bleep] about the Raiders embarrassing loss to the Broncos?

[Dave Bryce]

What's your definition of a mega-customizable computer? They're pretty darn customizable now. Really, I'm curious, what would you want?

 

I want it built into a controller. I want programmable sliders and knobs. I want a touch screen. I want some sort of non-volatile memory that keeps the programs in memory so the thing doesn't have to have an elaborate boot macro. I want to be able to have B4 with drawbars, and Reaktor with hardware knobs, and an EVP-88 with hardware controls, and gigasampler - all in one box, ready to go with the flick of a switch...multi-timbral, of course...

 

Basically, what I want is a keyboard with a customizeable engine. Is that asking so much? Who here wouldn't be interested in something like that?

 

p.s. Is it too late to give you a raft of [bleep] about the Raiders embarrassing loss to the Broncos?

 

Yes. It's too late. Sorry - you have to ...errr...do that right after the game....ummmm...or it doesn't count...

 

Y'know, if I were steadyb, I'd probably be making some sort of comment right about now wondering how the Broncos are gonna be enjoying the post-season from their couches...

 

dB

[Alejandro]

Dave,

If you had that controller and computer in one single machine, wouldnt it be more difficult to update this machine?. I mean, with a PC, a keyboard and external controllers you can change peripherals and parts inside the PC at will.

Your idea sounds good. But doesnt a standard PC allow more versatility?.

[RABid]

Originally posted by Dave Bryce:

I want it built into a controller. I want programmable sliders and knobs. I want a touch screen. I want some sort of non-volatile memory that keeps the programs in memory so the thing doesn't have to have an elaborate boot macro. I want to be able to have B4 with drawbars, and Reaktor with hardware knobs, and an EVP-88 with hardware controls, and gigasampler - all in one box, ready to go with the flick of a switch...multi-timbral, of course...

 

Basically, what I want is a keyboard with a customizeable engine. Is that asking so much? Who here wouldn't be interested in something like that?

 

 

You forgot a few things. 80 GIG hard drive that can handle sample steaming, reliability of a good laptop, and operating system that will not crash, and a fail safe professional modle that actually has two computers networked so that one takes over if the other crashes during the middle of a song at a big concert. Otherwise, no Dave, you are not asking too much.

 

Excuse me now. I have cola coming out of my nose from laughing too hard. (Sorry. I just spent all day fighting computer problems. I needed to let off steam.)

[Squids]

At one point in time we were considering making some hardware midi controllers to go with our sound products (and others in general). We looked into it and it was very expensive to do something like this and the bad part is that the computer industry changes so fast. Once you actually have a computer running Windows or Mac OS, then people expect the processors to be always on the cutting edge.

 

The funny thing is that many keyboards today are proprietary computers and their processing specs are invisible to us. If we only knew what their computer equivalent would be we'd probably laugh at their price tag! How would you like to spend $2,000. on a 350 mhz PC? I know it's different when you have Dedicated processors but still... you open a can of worms when you commit that much hardware to an open CPU running the latest popular OS.

 

However, from a convenience standpoint it sure would be nice to have that sort of thing in a more usuable for live kind of set up. Here's an idea I thought of a while ago but never did pursue... Take a G4 laptop and clean it out so it is optimized for something like Cubase and SampleTank (or your favorite soft toys) and then slot it into a Keyboard Host that has a D/A with individual outs and a USB 88 key keyboard (or 61 and 76 too). That keyboard can have assignable knobs and sliders (for your Reaktor) and if you really want to you can even upgrade your laptop to have a touch sensitive screen (this is actually already possible).

 

It's basically a midi controller with a USB output and an ergonomic place to put your laptop in there and harness outputs from it. The best part about this is you can take the laptop out and use it without the keyboard. Fatar should make something like this or Midiman. The Laptop Station. In fact, geez, come to think of it even just a keyboard with a flat top would be nice like companies used to make!!! Remember the days when you could put another keyboard on top of your electric piano?

[RABid]

Oh, one more point, and a question DK.

 

Because software synths now work well on my computer I now have different requirement for any hardware purchase. Any keyboard or controller I buy must do a good job controlling my software synths. Example: I chose to buy an E-mu XL-7 because it can double as a controller with 16+ assignable knobs. I would not consider an organ module unless the drawbars would easily control NI's B4. The next time I buy a keyboard I will worry less about sound and more about a bunch of knobs to assing to the cc's that I choose. None of this was a concern until my computer finally started running Sonare and software instruments well enought to sequence and play with some enjoyement and real time control.

 

Now my question, have you tested your Sonic Reality VST instruments (Sonic Synth and Omni Synth) with Sonar using wrap around programs like DirectiXer

[BP3]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

TinderArts,

 

But, getting back to your request for an SEM plug-in (and this will tie a bunch of my gear rambling stories together I hope ) the thing I was saying about the 8 voice being a bitch to program because you have to tweak each SEM separately... well if a virtual SEM- 8Voice (hey, how about 32 voice- it's virtual??) really emulated the sound of those discrete filters then having them finally be programmable as a polyphonic synth would be really nice to have. (But, I'd still keep my SEM because it's still nice to have for me.)

 

The thing that would really make a softSEM work is a randomize function between the virtual modules. Something that would function on a percentage basis and be filterable so that you can just randomize filter or oscillators, etc...

 

The random workings of a real analog synth coould be dialed in to taste. Please build it.

[Squids]

Originally posted by TinderArts:

 

The thing that would really make a softSEM work is a randomize function between the virtual modules. Something that would function on a percentage basis and be filterable so that you can just randomize filter or oscillators, etc...

 

The random workings of a real analog synth coould be dialed in to taste. Please build it.

 

Yes, I agree the random factor would be good. If your request is directed to me- I am all for that. But, our approach would be more from a sampling end than a modeling end. I think NI should do it- as long as they really work hard to model the sound and features as closely as possible...especially those filters (some of the best sounding out there).

 

A friend of mine has a Two Voice put into a rack with each point of input and output into the filters, amps, lfo, env etc wired to a patch bay! It's easy to do actually. This makes the SEM like a modular in a way. I think this proposed softSEM might as well have this or matrix modulation as well. Perhaps Oberheim should make this (since they aren't doing anything else). Oh, here's a funny one. I saw that someone had put an ad out in the classifieds (LA's Recycler- this is like 7-8 years ago now) for Oberheim "the company" $50. obo ...obviously as a joke. Does anyone have that new blue Oberheim thing? A friend of mine has the OberMoog (OBMX) and it "looks" like a big SEM but it doesn't sound like one.

[Squids]

Originally posted by Rabid:

Oh, one more point, and a question DK

 

Now my question, have you tested your Sonic Reality VST instruments (Sonic Synth and Omni Synth) with Sonar using wrap around programs like DirectiXer

 

We don't use Sonar here but since Sonic Synth and OmniSynth from a technogical stanpoint is using IK Multimedia's SampleTank engine as it's method of playback, SampleTank has been tested and does work with Sonar and a VST converter. This is information coming to us from IK Multimedia. But, perhaps even more inviting is the fact that we have quite a few Sonic Synth customers who have told us that they've been able to use it successfully with their Sonar and VST converter software.

 

All of these tools we've been talking about in this thread are great. Each one of these products specializes in a certain thing. What we all haven't seen much of is instrument plug-ins that emulate the style of synthesis that is used in some of the most popular keyboard workstations and sound modules. This would be the combination of playable multi-samples, synth and effects processing- ALL being an integrated part of the sound. With sample libraries alone, this is not being done. For one thing samplers like the EXS and HALion don't even have built-in effects to program along with the sound because they assume you'll be using effect plug-ins. That's fine for sample libraries as we know them. But, a product like Sonic Synth is more than just samples, just like a JV module is as well.

 

Hey, some of the most popular keyboards of all time are this way and yet there are not too many plug-ins that do this! Plus, as this can be the case with many softsynths, there are things that can be done in the computer that just weren't realistic to be able to be done in hardware. Take Reaktor for instance. That's not something that would be a realistic hardware product (unless it's an intergrated computer keyboard of course). Or, even the sound module plug-ins which have larger sized sound sets because they are not limited to what you can fit on an expensive ROM chip inside a hardware keyboard.

 

What I would like to see is more emphasis on the hardware keyboards in the expression and controller dept. For instance, I have the Yamaha EX5 and the Motif8. I LOVE the feel of this Motif, but I have to say I am a little disappointed that they left off some of the things they had on the EX5 like the third wheel (the 3rd wheel by nature always gets left out....ha) and of course the ribbon! What happened to the ribbon??? I love the ribbon! So, if someone would just come out with a keyboard controller that had a bunch of knobs and sliders, a ribbon or two, USB out, great feel and other controllers like foot pedals, breath control etc. then we'd be set. Hook that up to your softsynths and you've got something great. It doesn't mean you won't still want other hardware sound modules (especially for more polyphony). But, this seems to me a logical direction. You'd think a controller would have all of this stuff but I don't see companies offering us a K2***X with just the keys, sliders and ribbons as a controller. Instead you have to get the whole thing which includes a limited proprietary computer inside for like $5,000.

 

Sometimes I think to myself- FINE, then WE'LL do it! But, soundware and software is a lot different than making the hardware. I do think companies like midiman are pretty creative and good about taking chances in this sort of area. Maybe they'll do this. I'd really like to see Yamaha or Kurzweil do it though because I love the feel of their 88 keys!

 

Sorry for going off on a tangent, Rabid. Let me know guys if you have any other questions about Sonic Synth or OmniSynth. They're new so you may not know about them yet. If it interests you then visit us anytime on the web or talk to me right here on this forum. Out of respect to the forum I will only talk about my own products when it's relevant or asked about.

 

DK.

 

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaKerz ]

[RABid]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

 

What I would like to see is more emphasis on the hardware keyboards in the expression and controller dept.

...

Sorry for going off on a tangent...

 

DK.

 

This is a good tangent and close to my heart. When I bought my first MiniMoog in 1979(?) I realized that things should be better. The pitch wheel had not dead area and I had to fight it to get it back in tune after bending a note. I also thought there had to be something better than having one hand on the keys, one hand on the wheels, and a third hand turning the knobs. After reading a Keyboard Magazine review of the Rhodes Chroma I decided to spend my car money on that $3600 keyboard sight unseen. I was not disappointed and I have trusted Keyboard Mag reviews ever since. Bi-directional levers that were programmable for both positive and negative axis. Multiple voltage pedal inputs. Multiple contact pedal inputs. One of the first synthesizers with velocity sensitivity and optional after touch. The thing was a bear to program but a joy to play.

 

So while you are looking for a controller with a ribbon, see if you can find me one with a multitude of pedal inputs and levers instead of wheels. I totally agree that we need controllers with more expressive capabilities. Four zones and 4 midi outputs that will play a rack of synthesizers and samplers may be a controller, but I do not consider it a good musical instrument.

 

Robert

[Postman]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

It's basically a midi controller with a USB output and an ergonomic place to put your laptop in there and harness outputs from it. The best part about this is you can take the laptop out and use it without the keyboard. Fatar should make something like this or Midiman. The Laptop Station. In fact, geez, come to think of it even just a keyboard with a flat top would be nice like companies used to make!!! Remember the days when you could put another keyboard on top of your electric piano?

 

The problem with laptops is that they're by nature not terribly expandable and typically far more expensive than an equivalent desktop machine. Both of those drawbacks are directly related to the portability requirement that laptops have.

 

When you think about it, though, an 88 key controller by definition isn't small or terribly easy to port. Indeed, you could probably fit the contents of a couple ATX form factor cases in them (OK, maybe not, but almost).

 

So, I say scrap the expensive miniaturized components of a laptop in favor of ATX sized components so that the user can install (and upgrade) standard motherboards, video cards, audio cards, IDE drives, power supplies, fans, etc.

 

Screen placement would be an issue for sure. Maybe it doesn't need to be built in. A flatscreen display could be attached by a detachable arm of some sort to one end or the other. That would allow it to be replaced. It would also be nice if the top of the controller had a series of controller bays built into it. That way you could plug in the type of sliders, knobs, wheels, etc. that you wanted. The interace between the keyboard (and the controllers) and the motherboard would be USB. The software folks would have to decide on a VST-like buss protocol that they could write their plug-ins to.

 

It would be a heck of a machine. You could make it as expensive as you'd like.

 

Just a thought.

[Tusker]

Wow, interesting thread with lots of great information.

 

For me, the specs on software appear to blow hardware out of the water where samples are concerned. I do wish the software sampler makers would make an mpc2000 style sequencer/sampler/audio recorder so you can jam on it to create the tracks and break beats.

 

Coming back to RA versus VA, I think you can make a VA sound like a RA in a mix, but a musician who has tasted the real thing is likely going to unfulfilled with the other. You might be interested to know that there was a blindfold comparison of real analog and virtual analog synths playing the same patches on Analog Heaven. They were short snippets of wavefiles so it was a rather clinical listening exercise. If you want to you can still find the thread (and links to the wavefiles I hope) at the archives:

 

http://www.midiwall.com/archives/search.cgi

 

You would want to search for the thread entitled:

 

"Real and Virtual Analog - you be the judge"

 

Interestingly, the results were mixed, many guessed incorrectly. I think this was due in part to the passive nature of the exercise (listening as opposed to playing and listening). Perhaps the length of the samples was a factor as well. In any case it gave pause to many of us who have played analog synths and find them to be more musical than VA's.

 

I too would love more controllers. It would be great have stuff like:

 

- Three way pads (X,Y,pressure)

- Ribbons over and UNDER the keyboard (you could reach the lower ribbon with your thumb)

- Knee controller as in the Yammy GX1

- I think a midified Alesis airfx controller, would have huge expressive potential if they grafted it onto some spawn of the Andromeda.

 

It seems a number of new controllers get tried out on various synths from time to time but (sadly) no-one really is willing to go beyond wheels and joysticks as standards.

 

Regards,

 

Jerry

[Squids]

Postman - We've thought of almost exactly what you are suggesting. I like both ideas but the laptop concept is more expensive and less flexible for upgrading...although you can get a new laptop too if price is not an issue. They key would be to make a product where it is still affordable for most. But, that's not easy. Someone should do it though. I did see that Creamware had something along these lines (I even played a prototype at last years NAMM- it was really cool). But, they said it was like $10,000. or something which puts it out of most people's budget (including mine). Plus, I don't think they made any prodution models.

 

Oh, by the way, as far as good musical controllers go...did you know that the Yamaha GX1 is one of the only keyboards that has side to side vibrato??? The keyboard actually moves left and right (like motion aftertouch- similar to what you'd do on a stringed instrument). They might own a patent on that but it would be nice if at least THEY used that cool feature again!

 

Now that we are on a hardware wish list- I am right there with you coming from our perspective being a manufacturer of sounds/software instruments. I think things like the Oxygen and that Reason Keyboard are a little hint of what can be done. I agree with Rabid though about controllers that just consentrate on zones and midi channels...woopie! How about a controller that is an expressive musical instument???

 

By the way, on the Chroma... I agree it was very cool. I had the Chroma too and even a Chroma Expander on top. I also had an RMI Keyboard Computer and it had a whole ROW of pedals that came with it. I think that pedals are perhaps the most forgotten tools for expression. Hey, listen to this idea... What if you had a sustain pedal that could have a velocity sensitive midi trigger at the bottom when it hits? That way you can use it as a kick drum or other things... like you could use it to modulate stuff such as harp noise on a piano... you could even have it trigger a sample of the REAL sound of a piano's sustain pedal being struck on it's own. I have samples of that effect (from when we recorded our Concert Grand Pianos CD ROM). But, unless something like this existed there is no way to incorporate this into your performance. It's sublte but when you hit the sustain pedal on a real piano it does make an ambient THUD noise.

 

Just some crazy thoughts from DaKoiz.

 

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: DaKerz ]

[RABid]

Originally posted by DaKerz:

Hey, listen to this idea... What if you had a sustain pedal that could have a velocity sensitive midi trigger at the bottom when it hits?

 

Remember the Chroma's ability to use one of the sustain pedals to trigger a note or chord? With the setting you could play a chord and the keyboard was silent. Then, when ever you pushed the pedal the chord would play. Very handy for the multitude of songs back then that started with a long sustained note or chord. It enabled you to use your other two hands to play other parts on other keyboards. Velocity sensitive pedals would be a nice advancement to that concept, and much simpler in a rig than having a regular 13 note bass pedal board hooked through midi to your rig. You could almost adapt a bass drum pedal system form electronic drums but you need sustain.