Hardware or Warez?

wallace · Post by **wallace** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:51 pm

Wondering how many producers use hardware to make Dubstep?

Is the use of only Warez (software) creating a rinsed sound for Dubstep?

Does it even make a differnce??

Bru scored a Virus TI a few weaks ago, made a pretty sikk choon.
Now trying to replace the TI sounds with software on the same choon.
So far software has seemed to make the choon more stale, less interesting.
Still working on it tho.

spencertron · Post by **spencertron** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 5:59 pm

makes no difference to me, software is getting better and better...i've since got rid of my hardware synths.

BTW; Warez refers to pirated software.

wallace · Post by **wallace** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:15 pm

So your just runnin software synths now?

Trying to determine if the Virus TI is snake oil or not.
Specially with the newsoft synths comin out, not really sure if its worth it or not.

It does create this sikk plastic kinda effect among other things, that havent been able to reproduce using software.

jade_monkey · Post by **jade_monkey** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:20 pm

Well, the main problem is that most of the people know music software only as Warez.

But anyhow, I do not think that the decision is software vs. hardware, its more the decision about how you like to work and how you arrange your workflow.
I for my part think that software is in many ways far superior to hardware. There are a lot of things that wouldn't be possible (or affordable) with hardware (i.e. granular synthesis, max/msp, reaktor) and furthermore i do not think that there is a sound difference between hardware synths/software emulations/software synths anymore.
The only limitation software has, is the missing physical representation, but this can be easily resolved with the right MIDI-Controller (like the BCR2000, the LEMUR, MONOME or even the TENORI-ON). That some people prefer to own a box full of wires and knobs instead of some code on their computer is something else.
I, for my part, am the software guy and there is not much hardware out there that attracts me (with exception of the MACHINEDRUM, the VIRUS TI and the V-SYNTH XT and MIDI controllers like the LEMUR). Are hardware synths sexy? Yes, indeed! But are there worth spending 2000 bucks for? Not really, in my eyes as i do not see any benefit soundwise.

spencertron · Post by **spencertron** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:23 pm

i can't comment on the Virus, but i will say don't expect to a single synth to produce the right and exact sound on it's own all the time, something might sound weak without EQ'ing/fx etc...there are many variables to sound design.

depends what you use, how you use it, what you use it with etc etc...

but yes i am completely soft synths.

wallace · Post by **wallace** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:54 pm

Not looking or excepting a single peice of hardware or software to make the exact right sound all the time.
More wondering if the unique sound and feel the Virus TI or other peices of hardware are worth the bank price tag that comes with them.
In relation to making Dubstep.

So far the TI is very impressive, have not been able to recreate the same sound/feel using soft synths.
Not to say soft synths can't make just as good of Dubstep.

parameter · Post by **parameter** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 6:58 pm

...the endless discussion...

I don't think it's a discussion about better/worse, I think the flow is just completely different. In either way both options have benefits which are superior to the other. Not to say that a man/woman makes the music, not a machine...But, here's my 2 cent:

software benefits are -for me- total recall, fast branching of ideas, no cable spaghetti, unnatural and endless sonic possibilities etc etc

Hardware benefits -personal opinion- are a more pure sound, a lower deep end, added warmth/noise (!) and a to-the-point interface etc etc

You can translate almost any hardware concept to software, but the other way around is somewhat more complex. You'll learn more from 1 hardware or software synth than from 20 installed softsynths. Dedication.

Me, I use Ableton Live 7 for quick ideas but still use selected hardware for the sound.

Please don't use warez. Beside the fact that you are just a thief, you'll discourage the developers from inventing even more powerful stuff. Buying your own well-decided DAW and softsynths is much more rewarding and gives you focus. There's also a wealth of freeware around the internet...

Just go for it (whatever it is), be positive!

EDIT: I have a Virus B, and it's very capable for dubstep, amongst others.

wallace · Post by **wallace** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:03 pm

Wasnt advocating the use of warez, sorry if i came off like that.
Ive heard software reffered to warez so much, i guess it kinda stuck.

slothrop · Post by **slothrop** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:09 pm

The T1 has a pretty unique sound, it'd probably be hard to recreate a lot of its sounds in software. OTOH, lots of software makes pretty unique sounds too. I mean, just because two things don't sound the same doesn't mean that one of them sounds good and one of them sounds bad.

IMO it's boring derivative tunes that are producing a rinsed out sound for dubstep, not what equipment people use - if you gave Kode 9, Mala, Benga etc etc etc a Yamaha Portasound and a triangle they'd probably still produce something fresh and different sounding.

wallace · Post by **wallace** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 7:26 pm

Not trying to say hardware or software is better for making Dubstep.
Trying to determine if the TI is worth it considering all the software avalaible now.

Yes Kode 9, Mala, Benga would create somthing fresh and differnt sounding in retrospect to other Dub choons, but seems like those peeps sound would be noticabilly similar if they all made a choon on a Yamaha Portasound IMO
even tho there styles vary.

Sharmaji · Post by **Sharmaji** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:00 pm

FFS, tools are tools.

jade_monkey · Post by **jade_monkey** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:07 pm

parameter wrote:are a more pure sound, a lower deep end, added warmth/noise (!)

I'd like to have an empirical proof for that. I doubt there is one.

chimp_and_zee · Post by **chimp_and_zee** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:05 pm

Nothing beats the fatness of a big modular synth rack

djake · Post by **djake** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:07 pm

i use software all the way

but i would like a hardware synth to play about with

chimp_and_zee · Post by **chimp_and_zee** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:07 pm

jade_monkey wrote:
parameter wrote:are a more pure sound, a lower deep end, added warmth/noise (!)
I'd like to have an empirical proof for that. I doubt there is one.

Empirical proof? How about an analouge hardware synth makes pure sine/square/saw/triangle waves and software can only render them at a certain resolution, building them out of "steps" rather than smooth, uninterupted lines.

slothrop · Post by **slothrop** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:29 pm

chimp_and_zee wrote:
jade_monkey wrote:
parameter wrote:are a more pure sound, a lower deep end, added warmth/noise (!)
I'd like to have an empirical proof for that. I doubt there is one.
Empirical proof? How about an analouge hardware synth makes pure sine/square/saw/triangle waves and software can only render them at a certain resolution, building them out of "steps" rather than smooth, uninterupted lines.

Just for a sense of scale: working in 24 bit, if your waveform stretched from the earth to the moon one of those steps would be 2cm high, and the entire waveform would be converted to steps anyway if you recorded it to a computer.

I think there is a difference in sound with analogue hardware for a whole lot of reasons, but a) it's not as clear cut as a lot of people like to claim b) it's definitely not a shit / not shit difference like some people like to claim, more a really good / really really good one, if you're using a decent digital synth and c) your argument applies to analogue h/w versus digital s/w and h/w, not hardware vs software. Since the Virus is digital it's kind of academic in this thread.

deadly_habit · Post by **deadly_habit** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:11 am

ikeaboy · Post by **ikeaboy** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:18 pm

Slothrop wrote: Just for a sense of scale: working in 24 bit, if your waveform stretched from the earth to the moon one of those steps would be 2cm high.

Is this analogy accurate? got to check before I pass it off as my own.

I started with hardware 7 years ago. Computers lead to less backache and skinned knuckles when playing live.

slothrop · Post by **slothrop** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 1:45 pm

No, my bad, I was a factor of 1000 out, I read km for m.

Better analogy: if your waveform was as tall as mount everest (8848m), one step would be 8849m / (2^24) = 0.52mm high.

If you use 16 bit, you'd get a rather more impressive 13cm.

sully_shanks · Post by **sully_shanks** » Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:12 pm

digitalising something doesnt make it sound shit
if you hear a track thats been created by analog sources from a cd its still gonna sound fat, characterful n analog
pure digital all the way does sound sterile to me though

Hardware or Warez?

Hardware or Warez?

Who is online