Harware VS. Software Instruments

[Squids]

I actually have a cool pedal for my Drum Kat that is at least an expression pedal that has a velocity sensitive trigger on it. It sends both info (supposed to be for hi hats). But, this is sending a trigger which would require a trigger to midi- or...actually even better idea- this proposed controller could have a trigger input! Why not? That could come in real handy for all sorts of things.

 

The bottom line on this is that it would be nice to have an expressive controller that gave you a lot of options for expressive control. This important and the one thing that will never be obsolete because even if the software instruments take over, you still need a way to control them physically. I think it would be great if you could customize your keyboard with the particular expression modules that you wanted. From this standpoint, maybe Doefer should do this. I know that Kurzweil offers the expression mate which is their K2500 ribbon (I wish they'd just make a controller that has the K2500 feel, the sliders, the two ribbons and some pedal inputs).

 

Hey, wouldn't it be cool if one company made it and then other companies could make little hardware plug-in modules? This sort of thing happens in the software world with VST and TDM. It's a shame this isn't done with hardware.

[RABid]

I will be very, very interrested in checking out this product. Cannot waite for the release and a Keyboard Mag review.

 

Midiman Surface One

[CoolColJ]

Regarding Fm7 sounding better than the original Yamah FM synths - I disagree!

 

Sure FM7 has filters, my Tx816 does not, sure it has a 24 bit soudncard to go through, but when it comes down to punch, tightness and character FM7 is a big loser! Who says 16-24bit is better than 12bit?! It maybe fi your after exact replication of the original, but when it comes to punch, 12 bit wins hands down.

Not only that the envelopes on FM7 lack the speed and snappiness of my Tx-816. Bass forget it, my Tx816 eats Fm7 alive. Aggressive sounds? Tx816 wins again.

 

Fm7 does have better features and filters, but in terms of basic sound, its just a VA, not a real FM synth. If I run my Tx816 into my Andromeda, it has better filters no worries

 

That's what it boils down to - features vs sound quality/character and punch. The orginal always wins.

[Squids]

Aha! There you go. Good point! Although I disagree that "the original" (meaning the hardware) always wins. This is not ALWAYS the case (you can reference back some of the discussion in this thread about the softsamplers and sound module plug-ins vs. the hardware equivalent for example).

 

But, in this case I have not had the chance to compare to FM7 with some of the Yamaha FM synths. I am curious if anyone has compared it to the FS1R which is a later higher quality FM synth from Yamaha. Anyway, what you are saying doesn't surprise me. This happens a lot. Even in the hardware world we've had to always trade "lots of features" for sound quality (and by sound quality I mean musical quality like punchier, fatter etc not just cleaner). Take for example the Oberheim SEM (synth expansion module) and the Oberheim Xpander! The Xpander and M12 have incredible features but sound-wise there is no comparison- the old "limited" featured SEM wins hands down. (at least in many people's opinion).

 

Still, this is definitely one thing to consider in the hardware vs. software question. Although it also depends on what you are looking for. If agressive basses (Geez, I personally hate FM bass but...) and zappy punchy tones are what you are looking for then maybe the old Yamaha FM synths are where it's at (even if some of them are a little noisy). But, maybe the higher quality specs of the FM7 offer other things like crystal pianos and bells with clarity or something (I don't know because I don't have this one). Some might be better that others for use in your music. I heard someone say that although a certain plug-in actually didn't sound that much like the hardware equivalent of that instrument, he still thought it sounded really good in a different way and would totally use it.

 

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: DaKerz ]

[CoolColJ]

If I get some free time I'll put up some Fm7 vs Tx816 patches - same patch on both, and you be the judge

 

FM7 is better for etheral pads and things, but for in yer face snappy and aggressive sounds, which is what FM is used for in any case - stuff that analog don't do as well - my Tx816 kills FM7. The hardware envelopes on the Tx816 snap faster than anything in my studio, hardware or software. And even though its digital, it has this organicness (relatively speaking)to the sound that FM7 , even with its analog drift option just can't replicate.

 

Ok with smaple based stuff, yer the software is better up to a point. One thing so far that highend hardware samplers still do better as far as I know, is sample transposistion and pitch shifting distortion. Software has to balance this with polyphony.

[Squids]

Originally posted by CoolColJ:

If I get some free time I'll put up some Fm7 vs Tx816 patches - same patch on both, and you be the judge

 

Please do. I for one would be interested to hear it.

 

Ok with smaple based stuff, yer the software is better up to a point. One thing so far that highend hardware samplers still do better as far as I know, is sample transposistion and pitch shifting distortion. Software has to balance this with polyphony.

 

Yeah, I don't know about that. Polyphony is an issue for sure because it does take CPU power for that. But, the transposition quality varies amongst all samplers. I have heard them all and I haven't necessarily heard worse on software samplers. I personally like to have both hardware and software samplers. With the hardware samplers you have polyphony that is always there to depend on and that's nice. Plus, I like the specific features and sound of each sampler instrument. For instance, there is a sound to an Emu or a Kurzweil, not to mention some advanced features that others might not do. On the other hand, I have to say that working with the software samplers and even our own sample playback module that is bundled with the SampleTank engine it is something that is unbelievably powerful to have in the computer. Sample storage is soooo awesome on today's cheap HUGE gigabyte IDE and firewire drives. I finally have all of my samples together in one spot (and even in alphabetical order if I want). Plus, they can be almost any size (no compromise necessary). Umm...having worked with samples for so many years (and piles of 500 meg hard drives...the Akai S1000 and S3000s had a limit of 500 meg HD use!!!!) I can tell you this is an advancement. As far as the quality is concerned I think that it varies again from sampler to sampler but I do think that SampleTank's quality is up there with the best hardware sampler's sound quality.

 

The other issue is the latency. Obviously hardware wins because it is rarely a problem. But, the software can be used with low latency if you have a fast computer and a good sound card for that. There's going to be some compromise for the price but I think it's worth it. Serious guys will have both but if I had to pick one or the other I think I would pick a software sampler just because it is so easy and fast. Oh yeah, the loading on software samplers is EXTREMELY fast compared to a hardware sampler. That's kind of important too. This is not an issue with the synths, but with samples that is a big one!

[CoolColJ]

The only hardware sampler I have is my Roland S-550 sampler, simply becuase it sounds "Huge", punchy, characterful and has a nice filter. I dumped a sample into it and compared it to my soft-samplers, and 12bit wins for beef

 

I still can't believe the difference in audio size. Its funny because back in the days, I thought the S-550 was simply a means to an end, and that one day I would have a spiffy 16 bit sampler. Well the S-760 came out, and soon after I bought one and sold it just as quickly, it sounded way too clean and sterile for my tastes

 

And even now these software samplers I have, I use more for exact replication of my analog synth hits and fx, or field recordings. For actual musical and synthesised sampler sounds, I still turn to my S-550

[Squids]

That is a taste thing as well. Having an old 12 bit (or 8 bit for that matter) sampler can definitely have some character to it. Look at the popularity of the Emu SP1200! Or people that love their Mirage. I have an Akai S612 around for that purpose myself.

 

When it comes to hardware- the Roland has some nice filters in it that have their own sound. For that matter so does Emu and Kurzweil. The software samplers have their own filters too and the EXS24 has some nice choices. HALions are good too. I love SampleTank's filter. I think it comes down to a personal preference. I happen to like any of them if they sound musical to me. As far as the 8-12 bit lo fi sound though at some point that is potentially more in the area of a "processing" flavor thing. You can run your samples through a machine like that to get the "lo fi" sound and then play it back on a software sampler that can store thousands of them on your hard drive (instead of using floppies!!!!!!!!). Or, you can keep a machine like that around for character but for many other things that software sampler will come in handy (at least for many people's music).

 

But, I can see where you are coming from and these are valid points. I want to hear some of your FM shootouts! I actually posted an audio shootout of our hundred dollar OmniSoundz PRO GM library to the PRO GM sets of two very popular keyboards (the Triton and QS). I played the same riff on all three at the same time and you could hear the difference (the kind of difference I have been saying that a larger multisample in your ROM set can make). But, I took it down because I didn't want to be obnoxious about it (when a $100. softmodule blows away the sound of keyboards that cost well over a thousand bucks you can see how that can be seen as...well..."who do we think we are?") If anyone was really curious I suppose I might be able to post it for a day or something.

 

Still, it's not as direct a comparison as the same patch played on the FM7 and a Yamaha FM synth would be. Or a Pro52 and a Prophet 5. This would be fun stuff to hear (hearing says more than words often for me). Hopefully one of you can take this comparison of Hardware vs. Software to the next level and let us hear something!

[Dan South]

From my experience...

 

Model E is a waste. It sounds VERY thin. Mini's don't sound thin.

 

EXS24 is nice, if a little on the polite side.

 

Pro 52, ES1 (mono), ReBirth, and SubTraktor (one of the modules in Reason) sound great. They sound as good or better than ANY VA or ROMPLER hardware units for analog sounds.

 

Does the Pro 52 sound like a Prophet? Pretty close. There's a presence to real oscillators that I don't thing you can model, but the Pro is ever so close. And it responds to velocity, so you can make it WAY more dynamically expressive than a real Prophet. And you can run it on your laptop. Don't try that with a keyboard.

 

The piece that I submitted to Dave's compilation CD was done on a Pro 52. Listen to that and tell me what you think. I'm listening to it right now, and I think it sounds fattening and delicious, juicy and finger-lickin' good.

 

How close does an emulation need to be to be useful? The R-8 and Linndrum didn't sound "exactly" like a real drummer, yet they've been used on hundreds of hit records. A Lexicon doesn't sound exactly like a concert hall, yet they're used in every studio. As long as it sounds GOOD, it doesn't have to be an exact match IMHO.

 

My .02 USD.

 

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Dan South ]

[RABid]

Originally posted by Dan South:

From my experience...

 

How close does an emulation need to be to be useful? The R-8 and Linndrum didn't sound "exactly" like a real drummer, yet they've been used on hundreds of hit records. A Lexicon doesn't sound exactly like a concert hall, yet they're used in every studio. As long as it sounds GOOD, it doesn't have to be an exact match IMHO.

 

Well said. Also, I will take a clean, high bit rate device over a low bit rate device any day. Low bit rate samplers or synths can sound punchy on certain type of music but they can never sound clean. I can run a high bit rate device though bit reduction, alter it in sound forge or use outboard effects and get that dirty, punchy sound.

 

(Thanks for the tip on Model E. I almost bought it but picked up Battery instead.)

[CoolColJ]

Rabid its not the same SUre it sounds grungier, but its a thin grunge. And one thing that is odd, the filters on my S-550 have yet to be equaled in software for power, grunt and girth. Hell it even gets close to some of my analog synths

Funny thing is the filters in the Jp8000/8080 sound far worse.

 

 

Well if I get some time today I will get a nice FM7 vs tx816 mp3 demo happening. One thing is for sure - Fm7 can't touch the Tx816 when I stack voices! Hardware does unison stacking better than software will ever do, its all the unpredictable behaviour and phase issues that make it better on hardware, since I do have to route each voice from the TX816 into n external mixer.

[RABid]

True, and I am also not considering the envelope speed you mentioned earlier. Just remember, the Tx816 is actually a specialized computer running software that creates sound. The biggest difference could be the digital/analog converters used in the output, or it could just be the software routines.

[Dan South]

Originally posted by CoolColJ:

One thing is for sure - Fm7 can't touch the Tx816 when I stack voices! Hardware does unison stacking better than software will ever do, its all the unpredictable behaviour and phase issues that make it better on hardware, since I do have to route each voice from the TX816 into n external mixer.

 

I think I might believe this if we were talking about an analog synth with hardware oscillators. But the sounds in the TX816 are produced by a microprocessor. At the sound generation level, the FM7 is not going to work any differently. Only the output stage would be different, and that could be simulated by a preamp. Just a thought...

 

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Dan South ]

[RABid]

LOL Dan. Great minds think alike. And when they don't think alike they can have some fun arguing.

[MortenJ]

FM 7 was not meant to sound like yamahas FM synths only use the soundlibrary it has it own sound and is good I like it also SonicSynth.

[Squids]

Originally posted by SimmonsSDX:

FM 7 was not meant to sound like yamahas FM synths only use the soundlibrary it has it own sound and is good I like it also SonicSynth.

 

True, I don't remember NI saying that it was supposed to sound like a Yamaha FM synth. Good point. We only assume that because it reads the library. It's still fun to compare. I would think that both are good for different things. I can't see NI putting out a product that wasn't cool.

 

Oh...and since you mentioned my baby, Sonic Synth. Do you have one? Is that what you are saying? Or have you heard about it or the demo? Just curious.

[MortenJ]

I has orded FM7 and also going to get SonicSynth to.

I head demos and Songs from KVR VST forum and it is good.

Rigth now I only have Simmons SDX and Waldorf Q and want a Andromeda to.

[MortenJ]

I like more VSTI's like ARP 2600 or 2500 and Moog 55.

Also A DSP plugin or hardware with Synclavier.

[Squids]

Originally posted by SimmonsSDX:

I like more VSTI's like ARP 2600 or 2500 and Moog 55.

Also A DSP plugin or hardware with Synclavier.

 

Yeah, me too. I'd like to see a plug-in Arp 2600 for sure. A plug-in 2500 would be AWESOME. I don't see it happening as most people don't even know what it is. This is the keyboard that was used at the end of Close Encounters. A big modular Arp- one of the first ones. I used to have one. It's wicked sounding. The Who used one as well. I think Baba O Reiley is an Arp 2500 (or an EMS). I supposed that some day there will be plug-in versions of all of these vintage synths. They're fun. But, I am curious to see just how well these synths can really be modeled. They have a lot of character.

[Squids]

Originally posted by SimmonsSDX:

I has orded FM7 and also going to get SonicSynth to.

I head demos and Songs from KVR VST forum and it is good.

Rigth now I only have Simmons SDX and Waldorf Q and want a Andromeda to.

 

A Simmons SDX? Those were cool. Bruford. I've played them (and sampled it too just for the heck of it). I like the way it looks.

 

So, you're gonna get Sonic Synth and an Andromeda? Sounds like a good set up to me. I guess you've seen our little company forum for esoundz-Sonic Reality users on www.kvr-vst.com It's kind of cool because you can read about our products from "those in the know", coming from the user's perspective. Since it's new and a lot of those guys have picked it up so quickly you can get an idea of what it's like by listening to music they've done with it or by talking to them about it. I think it's only fair in this hardware vs. software thread to consider these software sound modules that use the SampleTank engine. It's a big part of the keyboardist's modern question: What do I use for my set up in the studio and for live? Or, sometimes the question: "What is the best sounding stuff I can afford?"

 

So, anyway, let's compare some more. I am still waiting to hear some FM7/TX816 comparisons.

 

By the way, sometimes the "hardware is punchier" is a bit of voodoo. I don't think it is as cut and dry as some have mentioned. But, I do agree that each piece has it's character. The S550 probably does have a fat sound that is unlike other things. You aren't going to emulate it exactly by bit converting or grunging up your clean sounds either. But, that doesn't mean that doing those things to a clean sound is bad or "thin". It all depends. The "clean" 16 and 24 bit sample playback is open to whatever you put in it. It can be grungy if you have a grungy sample (just like your CD's can have music you like that is this way). I agree with both of you but tend to lean more toward the flexible and more functional use of memory and storage that the latest software and hardware samplers can provide. If I want something grunged up I will process it or resample it through an amp or use my S612 like a "processing tool".

[MortenJ]

Simmons SDX I bought last year is my favourit drums and I also have Keyboardsounds like Strings,piano,synth and choir and they sound like Emulator 2 mayby because it has Analog filter.I have 7 ZI pads with each can have 9 zones on the pad.

Coolcojl I have also S 550 drums and TR 808 on my SDX.

 

FM 7 is one the best VSTI I have head and I will get nest week and then I will orded Sonicsynth and Andromeda.

I like SonnicSynth for it's synthesizersounds that I play SynthesizerMusic like Jean Michel Jarre.

I like to see Yamaha CS 80 as VSTI.

[Squids]

The Yamaha CS80 as a VSTi, eh? Good suggestions. I'd like to have one too. I used to have a real one. It's "memory" section is quite humorous. But, it had a lot of cool things on it. I liked the low pass and high pass each with their own resonance.

 

It was a cool synth for sure. Anyone ever see or play a GX-1?

[CoolColJ]

OK! Here it Tx816 vs FM7 mp3 shootout!

 

These are all my own patches, which I originally programmed on Sounddiver for the TX816, I just basicly exported the sysex bank to FM7. Was a bit of work recording the midi part and then get each to play in turn recording them at the same volume.

 

You'll notice that the Tx816 is brighter for the most part, and seems a bit more lively. The bass patch has more bottom end roundness in the TX816. But on the whole the sounds are fairly similar, but if you look at the waveforms they look nothing alike

FM7 does sound better with higher samplerates like 96khtz, you get more top end. Funny thing is the Tx816 only has a samplerate of 32khtz or so

 

I like doubling them up for nice chorused patches, since they are similar but different

 

Take a listen to the soundfiles here

 

http://www.members.optushome.com.au/coolcolj/SoundBites/TX816_vs_FM7/

 

For basic FM patches and bass sounds the Tx816 still sounds better to me, but for ethereal filter madness sounds, FM7 sounds good, but if I run the TX816 into my Andromeda's filter input then there is no contest

 

Hardware is gonna be around for some time yet for those that appreciate the finer points of sound quality and character

 

 

Colin

 

[ 01-08-2002: Message edited by: CoolColJ ]

[cg1155]

I'm hardly an FM expert, but I couldn't tell the difference.

 

-Casey

[Dan South]

The comparison is a neat idea, and I want to thank you for undertaking it, but one should also acknowledge that the FM7 does MUCH more than a DX7-style voice.

 

- The DX operators are limited to sine waves; the FM lets you use several waveforms, even sampled waveforms.

 

- DX operators were available in numerous "algorithms", but modulation on the FM is wide open. Any operator can modulate any other operator.

 

- The FM includes a filter (none on the DX) with a reportedly juicy distortion parameter. Plus effects. Plus you can run several FM's on your computer or laptop.

 

I'm also concerned that the side by side comparison may have been influenced by the PC's sound card. I wonder what it would sound like through an Apogee D/A. That said, thanks for investing the time to undertake this most enlightening project and for sharing the results so generously.

[burningbusch]

Exactly Dan,

 

Additionally:

- Panning at the operator level

- EGs can have up to 32 breakpoints, tempo synced like Absynth.

- A breeze to program; easy page is great for people who only know traditional synthesis; randomize function.

 

When I first played the presets on the FM7 I was amazed at how spacious, exciting, and non-FM sounding they were. When I loaded in the original DX-7 patches the rather lifeless cliched FM patches I'd known from my past were all there. For me, the new sounds are why I bought it. Personally, I wouldn't have been interested if all it could do is reproduce the DX7. IMHO, NI has brought FM synthesis up-to-date and made it a viable tool for creating a lot of new sounds moving forward.

 

I do appreciate you doing the shootout as well. Thanks.

 

Busch.

[CoolColJ]

Well FM7 does need an Apogee, hell the D/A convertor on the TX816 doesn't win any awards, there is a constant hiss there somewhere

[MortenJ]

I just read today a Danish test of NI FM 7 and the tester made a A/B between DX 7 and FM 7 and there was only 2 out of 64 sounds that sound a little more bright on FM 7.

[burningbusch]

Originally posted by CoolColJ:

Well FM7 does need an Apogee, hell the D/A convertor on the TX816 doesn't win any awards, there is a constant hiss there somewhere

 

A 12-bit output has a theoretical dynnamic range of 72 DB. Many PC sound cards exceed 110 DB dynamic range making that hiss is 40 DB lower.

 

Busch.

[CoolColJ]

Well that hiss on the TX816 does some nice dithering for that DAC

 

FS1R does just about everything FM7 does, except the filter setup is more complex and sweeter on FM7, and the envelopes are way more flexible on FM7, like my Andromeda multiplied by 10! No formant stuff like the FS1R.

I wonder if Yamah will ever do a FS1R v2

 

The filters on FM7 sound a lot like a refined version of the Pro 52 filter....PPG filter...SSM filter chips...

But you get 2 of em which you can arrange in any continously variable combination of 12db LPF/BPF/HPF and continously variable between serial and parallel! WIth a nice realtime graphic display of the filter slope. Actually its technically not 2 separate filters, just 2 virtual filters - so in essense its a configurable 4 pole filter, rather than 2 discrete 2 pole filters. KInda like a Jomox Sunsyn

 

STill when you play the Tx816 in person just for relaxtion, it just feels more staisfying, FM7 still has this "distant" software-synth syndrome. Oh well.

 

 

Colin