Dubstepforum.com

Slothrop wrote: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.

Thats still impressive. Nice visualising tool although the moon one did sound cooler.

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.

The virus is a digital synth, just in case anyone here is confused. It does use custom chips to emulate actual analogue hardware that combined with its specific digital to analogue convertors may give it a particular sound but 99.9% of its sound is due to the free-running waveforms in its (digitally modelled) oscillators and its architecture (osc-mixer-filter-amp..etc). Its already been modelled in software but only for TDM systems. Give it 5 years and it'll be VST.

Acoustic guitars are good, soon to be dominating the seen

I tend to run alot of sources through my valve guitar amp head (it's a Sovtek). It seriously fattens everything along all frequencies and has a direct-to-desk output. It pretty much "de-digitalizes" anything. It could possibly make a chip-tunes sound analouge.

sully_shanks wrote: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

It's pretty easy for all digital stuff to sound pretty flat and sterile and unnatural (although sometimes eg with some grime or chiptunes that can be pretty cool in itself) and yeah, I often get stuck on that and use samples to give it a bit more width. But tbh I blame my boring writing for that more than anything else - if I had better tunes and riddims there wouldn't be time to think 'hmmm, this synth sound is a little lifeless isn't it.'

Nuff people can make great, fat, characterful music using pure digital stuff, so I don't think it's impossible, it's more that decent samples / acoustic instruments and analog synths (afaik, I don't own one) seem to shit out character as soon as you turn them on and play a note rather than it being something you have to work at a bit.

jade_monkey wrote:i do not think that there is a sound difference between hardware synths/software emulations/software synths anymore.

Wrong!

I use a mix of hardware and software for both producing and for live sets. The main problems with hardware are the price, size and fucking wires! But it is worth it.

For example - If you play the exact same pattern on a TR909 and then a sampler or emulator the difference is noticeable even when recorded. When comparing them live, the difference is massive! No matter how high the bit rate and sample frequency are, something (quite noticeable) is lost with the digital reproduction.

TEC-HO wrote:

jade_monkey wrote:i do not think that there is a sound difference between hardware synths/software emulations/software synths anymore.

Wrong!

I use a mix of hardware and software for both producing and for live sets. The main problems with hardware are the price, size and fucking wires! But it is worth it.

For example - If you play the exact same pattern on a TR909 and then a sampler or emulator the difference is noticeable even when recorded. When comparing them live, the difference is massive! No matter how high the bit rate and sample frequency are, something (quite noticeable) is lost with the digital reproduction.

You are talking about sampling. I'm talking about synthesis.

jade_monkey wrote:You are talking about sampling. I'm talking about synthesis.

I think there's still a difference between analog hardware and software emulations of the same analog hardware. Is it so major that you can't make a tune with software? No. Is it so minor that only a handful of geeks with golden ears can tell much difference in an A/B test with the clean sounds? Maybe.

In general I'm not sure how much difference it makes if what you're interested in is making tunes rather than trying to convince someone you own a Moog Voyager via the medium of audio files...

tools are tools.

*yawn*

unklefesta wrote:*yawn*

Innit. Make some music and shuddubaboudit

Theres no answer.... There are too many who/what/how

Its like asking 'which makes better art - a paint brush or a pencil?'

It depends on how you work best, and what sound you want...

Personally I like to hear some kind of analog dirt in my dubstep, but many others like the pure digital sparkle!

Thx for replies

Was considering if the cost of hardware justifies the means.
I dont think it does at this point.

Can make just as good Dub using Warez or Hardware.

TI is goin back

Paint brush (hardware) can cost grands, while Pencil (Warez) are free.
Both make decent Art.

make love, not war......ez

Prefer hawt s3x to love...

No war = unic men imo

jade_monkey wrote:

TEC-HO wrote:

jade_monkey wrote:i do not think that there is a sound difference between hardware synths/software emulations/software synths anymore.

Wrong!

You are talking about sampling. I'm talking about synthesis.

The difference is blatent

both have their qualities.

Wallace wrote: Paint brush (hardware) can cost grands, while Pencil (Warez) are free.
Both make decent Art.

Mate, software is easier to steal, not free.

So its not stealing for corporation to release product still in beta, knowing full well that there product is buggy.
So that the buyers can be beta testers.

Instead of releasing same product already beta tested and bugs worked out of it.

Nice double standard...

have nothing agaisnt software developers making skrill for there hard work. Its the greedy corporations that are ruining it.

Yeah mate. Lots of corporations are fuckers, standards, but there are plenty of people who aren't corperations making sick plugins. In fact, lots of my favourite plugs are a 1 or 2 man operation.

Obviously it's not my place to tell people what to do, but I definitely feel sorry for some of these guys who are trying to make a living from doing something they love when people say that their stuff is 'free'.

Also feel for those peeps tryin to make it doin somthn they love.

With pretty much every music warez available for PC and most for mac
So easly for download.
Makes it hard for most peeps, to buy a product when they can easly just download it.
Its not going away, it seems like its just getting more rampant.

If its a good peice of Warez peeps are gonna buy it anyways. IMO
Buying Warez comes with alot of benifits that dont come with sharing it.

Support the 2 man op's fo sho.

You need to learn what "warez" really stands for.