Dubstepforum.com

+1 for main spending on monitors. The one piece of gear in your chain that you REALLY can't skimp on, doesn't matter what's going on before it. Aside from your ears, thats the last place the signal hits and they're meant to show you what that signal is gonna do to other peoples ears. Really need to be transparent, flat, and faithful. doesn't really matter if you're on a mackie desk or a shiny SSL.. having faithful monitors is the only way to succeed at building a mix.... which, fair play, is a bit OT from synthing, or whatever the OP was about....or was it getting good enough to get a DJ gig, or sell tracks..... err, yes. Monitors.

daft tnuc wrote:
So hardware sure has its place in some people's studios, the only question is: are you one of them? And the only way to find out is to buy some used hardware that you'd be able to sell without losing a quid in the process. I recommend anyone who can afford to try it.

This is what I'm doing - buying cheap hardware and seeing if it works for me. If it doesn't, sell it and I don't think I've lost money yet?

been fucking with my JV 1080 after digging it out. not the nicest hardware around but eh at least its hard. Its interesting switching to outboard and bringing in to i/o, theres instantly more noise, but more character ( i definitely need new cables, too). and i can't quantize anything, so it changes the way i play and write. Definitely gonna keep the guy around for awhile

^ Agreed. Problem is any real engineer will tell u that the best monitors in the world in the worse room in the world is counterproductive... yet, so few of us treat our rooms...

would u be ready to say that room treatment should be the second biggest investment? cause that comes along in the same category as the speaker themselves (a category i would call "monitoring/playback")

i could even add the sight of a good audio interface for quality output of these...

im really just playing devil's advocate here... but my point is that, a true concern for monitoring is a lot of money.

-[2]DAY_- wrote:been fucking with my JV 1080 after digging it out. not the nicest hardware around but eh at least its hard. Its interesting switching to outboard and bringing in to i/o, theres instantly more noise, but more character ( i definitely need new cables, too). and i can't quantize anything, so it changes the way i play and write. Definitely gonna keep the guy around for awhile

i almost bought one 3 days ago, should i!?!?!

hows the brass section on it is there anything on it ud use categorically instead of a vst?! tell me more plz

daft tnuc wrote:With all due respect noways, the blind test you made is irrelevant,

It may be for you, but it is not for me, and it is directly relevant to some things being said in this thread, ie you can't tell the difference between hardware va and software va, that is clearly not the case. People with ears can tell that the virus sounded better, simple as that.

daft tnuc wrote:you're not going to make a tune out of a mere square wave, are you?

Well maybe, but I am going to make a tune out of a variety of elements, my goal is usually to make each of those elements sound as good as they can in the mix. One great way to do that is by using... good sounding sounds from the start

And don't get it twisted, I have a mix of stuff, a few hardware synths a few hardware samplers, and a stereo signal path through a preamp, comp, and eq, a bleeting vcr, and another secret tape recording device (shhhh), but a lot, even a majority of what I do starts in the comp, and a lot stays in the comp. I like working quickly, I hate the hassles of hardware, and I often completely destroy sounds before putting them back together, hehe. Also kind of like hashy digital sound. So I'm no hardware advocate, so don't make me out to be one... ok, well I am, but not in the context of this thread

Toxic_Acidity wrote: So is it worth saving up for these hardware devices when you can just get a vst which is twice as powerful and all fits onto my laptop? Is there really a benefit to hardware anyone can think of?

Something I see as a benefit to working on a less powerful hardware device is that it will force you to work within a limited set of variables. This can be a great advantage when learning the basics of synthesis and how to exploit a simple device to get good sounds out of it. There is a ton of stuff you can learn playing around with a limited interface and limited functionality that you simple won't experience using the current generation of softsynths.

Choosing to limit/constrain workflow is not generally a popular concept... why drive a yugo when you can drive a ferrari? But, there are quite a few different ways to look at advantages/disadvantages in various approaches. It is as much about learning to control the sound as much as it is about the sound produced.

That being said, If I were to build a software setup I highly doubt I would be shopping for synths that emulate the equipment that I learned on. There would just be no point in it. Then again I learned the hard way (out of neccessity) so it is apples and oranges I guess.

On the cheap hardware tip though... if you start shopping around keep your eye out for a Novation A Station... fairly robust 1RU synth that often gets slept on (ie. under priced.)

Cheers

Heartless wrote:Digital is digital. It's all ones and zeros whether it is a VST or some high-priced rack piece. Lower latency is of course a plus for hardware.

actually many hardware modular synths have analog sections for the actual sound creation (the control is digital though)...

nowaysj wrote: It may be for you, but it is not for me, and it is directly relevant to some things being said in this thread, ie you can't tell the difference between hardware va and software va, that is clearly not the case. People with ears can tell that the virus sounded better, simple as that.

You were comparing completely different synths. Arturia MiniMoog is emulating a Moog. It's in no way trying to compete with any of the other synths in the test so whether it sounds better or worse is irrelevant.

Comparing Arturia's MiniMoog with a hardware MiniMoog VA synth would be a better test of software vs hardware.

Heartless wrote:

nowaysj wrote: It may be for you, but it is not for me, and it is directly relevant to some things being said in this thread, ie you can't tell the difference between hardware va and software va, that is clearly not the case. People with ears can tell that the virus sounded better, simple as that.

You were comparing completely different synths. Arturia MiniMoog is emulating a Moog. It's in no way trying to compete with any of the other synths in the test so whether it sounds better or worse is irrelevant.

Comparing Arturia's MiniMoog with a hardware MiniMoog VA synth would be a better test of software vs hardware.

I agree it's more useful to compare synths that are trying to emulate one another, but just to add some info, the Virus does do very worthy Moog emulation as well, even has a Moog section. I don't think that was available in the B model though.

using hardware is integral to my workflow these days, but entertainingly enough-- kudos to logic, again, for making things really easy.

It takes a bit of murking about in the environment, but you can emerge from it with all your patch names and controls for your synths embedded in your autoload project, standard routings, etc. play midi in from your controller, put it on a track that's ported to whatever synth you want, and BOOM! an instrument across the room is playing. patch it thru whatever signal chain you want, hit record, tweak away, move on.

now granted, i do this w/ plugins all the time too-- route a plugin thru some sort of pre/compressor chain, or send it thru a guitar amp and mic it... hit record, tweak, and move along. maybe eq and limit later.

none of this is skies opening/water parting stuff, but when using things that only exist in real time, you're creating and documenting a musical moment. it can be quantized to all hell and have 47 lanes of automation on it before it goes out through processing, but the instant you run something out and record it, you've documented a performance. To me, this is important-- it keeps me working fast, keeps me thinking bigger picture stuff, and has ultimately resulted in much better music coming from my end, and more of it.

as far as the moog plugs go, the minimoog plugin is a BEAST that sounds incredibly thick and fat. An actual Voyager synth is more fun. it also costs $4500...

IMO, if you're going to go the route of using hardware as an EDM producer, get things that can help give you character to the elements you've got. guitar pedals, funky iconoclastic reverbs, weird filter and phaser boxes, etc; shit like basic reverbs and delays, unless you're looking for something really identifiable like Conakt and his quest for a midiverb, are better done in the box.

Really you could just spend $1000 on gear from electro-harmonix and have a serious toolkit for shaping tones.

though none of this matters if you don't have an audio path that can record and playback well...

You can make good sounds with software.
You can make good sounds with hardware.

I will say that my hardware synth (Novation KS4) does give me a huge boost in workflow. It's so much more fun (imo obviously) to tweak the sound with all the knobs and sliders (and limited menu diving) and then record straight in as audio.

My KS4 doesn't sound better or worse than Z3ta+ (my go-to softsynth), it's just a different way of working (it's all been said previously).

I will say though, that at this point if I were to get another hardware synth it would definitely have to be true analog (vco's and vcf's) just to see if it really is all that.

Heartless wrote:You were comparing completely different synths. Arturia MiniMoog is emulating a Moog. It's in no way trying to compete with any of the other synths in the test so whether it sounds better or worse is irrelevant.

Comparing Arturia's MiniMoog with a hardware MiniMoog VA synth would be a better test of software vs hardware.

Think you are missing the point. The point is that a hard va subjectively but consistently sounded better than a variety of soft va's. That is it.

Getting to the next level first will get you the hardware if you know what I mean..
Check Tes La Rok's set up out: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set= ... .761233310
Great innit?
Deadmau5 uses a bit of hardware too: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater

nowaysj wrote:

Heartless wrote:You were comparing completely different synths. Arturia MiniMoog is emulating a Moog. It's in no way trying to compete with any of the other synths in the test so whether it sounds better or worse is irrelevant.

Comparing Arturia's MiniMoog with a hardware MiniMoog VA synth would be a better test of software vs hardware.

Think you are missing the point. The point is that a hard va subjectively but consistently sounded better than a variety of soft va's. That is it.

No, I get the point you are trying to make. It's just that your test was an apples and oranges comparison and it's questionable that you drew any sort of conclusions from it.

I wouldn't even consider Massive VA. It has a couple oscillators labeled VA but they were added in an update. It was never marketed as VA.

Come on bro, nothing esoteric, two detuned squares into a lowpass with a filter envelope, basic functionality that they all have, just one of them sounded better. It is not about marketing or competition, just sound.