right, what synthesizer should I buy?

  BCM said:

well this is what i've bought....10/10 in the looks department!

 

I was looking at these. Sadly, they've gone out of business. :\

  chaosmachine said:

  BCM said:

well this is what i've bought....10/10 in the looks department!

 

 

I was looking at these. Sadly, they've gone out of business. :\

shit, guess i won't be getting much customer service support then... you can still buy the synths in a few places in the uk though - http://www.dv247.com and http://www.rubadub.co.uk (this is where i got mine from) have them in stock.

  Tamas said:

There are many software synthesizers that are more tweakable than hardware synths. You can buy a piece of hardware with a decent amount of knobs like the Prophet, which may sound nice (I admit I haven't tried it out before), or something that is more complex like the Blofeld etc with less knobs (and I guess for an analog purist something like the Blofeld wouldn't be sufficient), but VSTs can sound just as nice (as long as you render at something higher than 44kHz).

 

Completely analog synths sound nice, but I think it's outrageous to buy analog equipment when there are much more useful tools that an electronic musician can buy... You can make the mistake of wasting a ton of money on hardware and later realize that software can do what you want and more. Unless you're playing live shows where stability is important (hopefully you have a hardware sequencer as well then), and you need the ability to modify the changes in variables dynamically, software synths are just as good (if not better) than hardware.

 

I guess it's nice to show your dedication to making music by spending a lot of money on hardware synths, but I just think there are better places to spend the money. If you use hardware mainly you can buy a cheap computer/laptop, and run one VST at a time at a high sampling rate, and still be able to have low latency... The computer + a MIDI controller + decent soundcard would probably cost less than a hardware synth and give you just as much power over MIDI.

 

 

Either way BCM good luck with whatever you find. I don't want to sound like an asshole or anything and I'd love to own more hardware as well (even though most of what I own already isn't in the city I'm in) but you know, I like to present the other side of the question as well. I hope you don't take it the wrong way!

  Tamas said:

  hahathhat said:

just like sini, i read the first sentence or two before higher consciousness pushed down the fader on your post.

 

Lol. Well I hope it's not simply because I am seemingly against spending money on hardware.

1) Most of this sounds like you're jealous of hardware lads, and you're rationalizing your situation, telling yourself, you're better off. It's OK 'cos, hey, I do that too sometimes. Just sayin'... maybe you should think about why you're in a thread asking about hardware synths, telling us all to use software.

2) It seems your criterion for judging a synth is how many knobs it has. Bafflement! Confusion! wat p.s. knobs can be assignable; you can have more parameters than you do knobs... in fact, most synths do.

3) MAIN POINT: If I may partially nick something squarepusher said and reconfigure it for this debate: comparing hardware to software is like comparing your hand to your arm. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! you can say stuff like, "they are both pale and hairy" but that doesn't really mean anything. Working on a computer with a mouse, maybe a knob box, is a very, VERY different experience from working with hardware and produces different results. Yes, you may be able to do identical tracks on both, BUT YOU NEVER WILL!!

it should come tomorrow! woo-hoo! will post some samples or a track with it in.....

i was gonna suggest evolver before i even opened the thread to see that it was one of your choices.

  hahathhat said:

  Tamas said:

There are many software synthesizers that are more tweakable than hardware synths. You can buy a piece of hardware with a decent amount of knobs like the Prophet, which may sound nice (I admit I haven't tried it out before), or something that is more complex like the Blofeld etc with less knobs (and I guess for an analog purist something like the Blofeld wouldn't be sufficient), but VSTs can sound just as nice (as long as you render at something higher than 44kHz).

 

Completely analog synths sound nice, but I think it's outrageous to buy analog equipment when there are much more useful tools that an electronic musician can buy... You can make the mistake of wasting a ton of money on hardware and later realize that software can do what you want and more. Unless you're playing live shows where stability is important (hopefully you have a hardware sequencer as well then), and you need the ability to modify the changes in variables dynamically, software synths are just as good (if not better) than hardware.

 

I guess it's nice to show your dedication to making music by spending a lot of money on hardware synths, but I just think there are better places to spend the money. If you use hardware mainly you can buy a cheap computer/laptop, and run one VST at a time at a high sampling rate, and still be able to have low latency... The computer + a MIDI controller + decent soundcard would probably cost less than a hardware synth and give you just as much power over MIDI.

 

 

Either way BCM good luck with whatever you find. I don't want to sound like an asshole or anything and I'd love to own more hardware as well (even though most of what I own already isn't in the city I'm in) but you know, I like to present the other side of the question as well. I hope you don't take it the wrong way!

 

 

  Tamas said:

  hahathhat said:

just like sini, i read the first sentence or two before higher consciousness pushed down the fader on your post.

 

Lol. Well I hope it's not simply because I am seemingly against spending money on hardware.

 

1) Most of this sounds like you're jealous of hardware lads, and you're rationalizing your situation, telling yourself, you're better off. It's OK 'cos, hey, I do that too sometimes. Just sayin'... maybe you should think about why you're in a thread asking about hardware synths, telling us all to use software.

 

2) It seems your criterion for judging a synth is how many knobs it has. Bafflement! Confusion! wat p.s. knobs can be assignable; you can have more parameters than you do knobs... in fact, most synths do.

 

3) MAIN POINT: If I may partially nick something squarepusher said and reconfigure it for this debate: comparing hardware to software is like comparing your hand to your arm. THEY ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! you can say stuff like, "they are both pale and hairy" but that doesn't really mean anything. Working on a computer with a mouse, maybe a knob box, is a very, VERY different experience from working with hardware and produces different results. Yes, you may be able to do identical tracks on both, BUT YOU NEVER WILL!!

1 - Nahh I'm not jealous... I felt the way pro-hardware people feel for a while, thinking hardware was much better in every way, but then I realized that it was just pretentious bullshit. I don't mean to put any of you in that category, but I can tell you, that for me, it was definitely a large part of it. Also, I bought into quotes by random electronic musicians like AFX saying that software sucks, and it took me a long time to realize that they were most likely bullshitting. Obviously they do use hardware since they have it, but I think if they didn't own hardware they most likely wouldn't buy any unless they wanted a toy. And this statement will only become stronger as time goes on, since computers are getting faster. I myself am looking forward to the day of +16 core machines where I can have 15 VSTs running at once at 96KHz or higher in a live setting. One upside to hardware synths over computers though is that they will appreciate in value, whereas computers severely lose value even after a single year.

2 - I didn't want to make my post too long, and even at the current length you completely blew it off!! :P But since you mention it, I will elaborate. Yes, most synths have more parameters than knobs, but usually each knob will only have one or two different settings, unless you get something small like the Alesis Micron (and yes, I probably should have just used "parameter" instead of "knob" in my post, but I didn't think people would assume that I thought that most hardware synths only have one parameter per knob lol). The MS2000B was pretty good in terms of parameters, and there are other hardware synths that have more to offer, but IMO software synths that are professionally made have way more options than hardware. Unless you want to build a modular synth, whiiiich is already reproduced quite well by quite a few VSTs for less than 5% of the price.

3 - I suppose. It's hard to debate this statement, because there really is no way to prove it either way. But I will say, that I started with hardware, and I am quite confident that anything I did with the hardware (or would do if I still used it) I could still do with software. The thing is for my music my main focus is on the composition, and I don't really see what the difference is between using a MIDI keyboard or a hardware synth's keyboard (which is technically a MIDI keyboard controlling the synth as well). If the focus of someone's music is effects etc, then I can sort of see how being able to tweak multiple settings at once can be useful, and change the dynamic of the song. But using a knob box would pretty much allow that. The only difference is the tactile feeling of actually controlling the hardware without a seperate interface, and I used to put a lot more weight on that before, but I just don't agree anymore.

I really don't want you to take it the wrong way of course. I'm simply stating my opinion, and I realize that many people don't agree with me. But I only gave my suggestion to help, because I could list a ton of hardware that is way more important in an electronic music setup than synths.

Btw BCM sorry for all this, I didn't mean to hijack your thread, I will stop posting about this if you want me to...

Hardware is just so much more fun to make music with than a bunch of softsynths, bland sounding software aside. At least, this is the conclusion I've come to after spending most of my composing life using trackers and cubase and VSTs and whatnot until I could actually afford to buy hands-on gear. Brushing it off as 'pretentious bullshit' is just a shield you're setting up because deep down you know you're missing out on the fun :P

  BCM said:

  chaosmachine said:

  BCM said:

well this is what i've bought....10/10 in the looks department!

 

 

I was looking at these. Sadly, they've gone out of business. :\

 

shit, guess i won't be getting much customer service support then... you can still buy the synths in a few places in the uk though - http://www.dv247.com and http://www.rubadub.co.uk (this is where i got mine from) have them in stock.

They're just Sonic Core now. Available in the U.S. on jrrshop.com

the biggest thing I've found when using hardware, is that I respect the sounds more... and I'll tell you why. (and obviously, this isn't a rule, or fact, or whatever... it's just my personal experience in switching to a mostly hardware set up (2 nord modular g2s) after many years of just soft synths (logic, native instrument, arturia, etc).

I found that the fact that I have to record everything that comes out of my synths, to audio files, has made me respect the sounds more.... with soft synths, you can just hit save, and you are free to tweak what youve done at a later point. With hardware, you have to record it to audio at somepoint, and that simple fact makes me put much more effort into each patch, more care, and sureness of what exactly I want to do.

of COURSE you can have this with software... but you know, sometimes things make you work a different way, just by the natural essence of the thing.

So, when working with my nords, I try to think of them as performers, actual instruments that I will be capturing to audio, instead of just some notes and automation data that I am free to tweak at any point.

And surely that has its merits.... I dont know.... thats just the biggest thing Ive noticed.

my main reason for getting a nord in the first place though, was that when I learned synthesis at school, it was on a nord g1. it makes the most sense to me, and since Ive been using it so long, I grew very found of its unique sound. I tried using reaktor, and it just didnt click with how I approach synthesis.

so yeah, Im a huge nord modular fan boy... be it g1, micro, or g2. i think (especially the G2) that the nords strike a very fine balance between being very flexible and deep, but sensible and musician friendly

  rex sole said:

  pantsonmyhead said:

  Awepittance said:

  Mimi said:

evolver kinda sucks

 

this statement only emphasizes your inability to use one

 

 

actually it's kind of true

i oogled the crap out of being able to modulate everything off each other then when i had borrowed seans poly i noticed something i never had before....the evolver kind of sounds terrible

it's shrill and thin

not saying i couldn't make shrill thin space sounds and creepy pads but i had to coax and plea so much just to get some decent bass out of the thing

 

honestly if you've been lookin at a waldorf q i'd go to it

or some other dave smith thing like a pro-one

 

What Awepittance said. The Evolver does wicked bass.

i didn't say it was impossible

but simply put

i had it up in my room for 4 months next to an ms-20, an arp odessey and a waldorf microwave and in the bottom end department

even with the most brutal bass patch i could muster out of poly-evolver

the ms-20 and odessey spanked the crap out of it in comparison

the waldorf came out about equal but with much less fiddling

now having that said I'm still curious about this mopho thing

i had a little while with a pro-1 and that thing made some sweet bass

i made some wicked pads and warping metalic sounds with the evolver but i wouldn't have it as a bass machine when given other options for that dept.

for what it's worth (2p) i have to say i agree (on the whole) with tamas. I started many years ago with hardware, albeit, cheap and unfashionable hardware (and pretty primitive) and while i had more fun making stuff like that, for all intents and purposes, nearly everything anyone (who posts tracks on here) can do with their hardware can be more efficiently done with software. i know there are exceptions to this from first hand experience with hard/software and i'm certain that 9 times out of 10 in a blind test, people would not be able to tell the difference between hardware and expertly used software.

also, i can't really remember this sort of argument even existing in 1/100th the scale that it now exists, post analord. what does that tell you?

sorry. back to the creamware discussion (may i add, BCM, that that is a very sexy looking piece of kit - may you 2 make sweet music togther)

and may i add, further to that last statement (and possibly contradicting my original point) that how a bit of gear looks and feels is what it boils down to a lot of the time and hardware generally wins hands down in this area.

also , i can't imagine myself referring to a VST as "him" or "her" or having a personal name for it, whereas this happens with hardware machines, and even this kind of intangible relationship one can have with a solid real live piece of equipment can benefit ones work and their approach to that work

in summary

1: hardware is much sexier, friendlier, warmer, nicer, to play with

2: software is more versatile, complex, easily available, and takes up less room

love from LUDD (bit drunk)

  rex sole said:

Hardware is just so much more fun to make music with than a bunch of softsynths, bland sounding software aside. At least, this is the conclusion I've come to after spending most of my composing life using trackers and cubase and VSTs and whatnot until I could actually afford to buy hands-on gear. Brushing it off as 'pretentious bullshit' is just a shield you're setting up because deep down you know you're missing out on the fun :P

yeah, you made that point much more succinctly than i did. :)

  Tamas said:

1, 2, 3

my OTHER point -- a bit more abstract -- is that your environment shapes the music as much as your personality does. just as you'd tend to write different music in the evening than in the morning, you write different music with software than with hardware. honestly, if you go listen to my tracks, it's screamingly clear which i did with hardware. and not because of audio quality!! both sound like turds of equal magnitude.

i guess if you spent a day meditating, writing the entire track in your head, every sound, every detail, and DID NOT DEVIATE FROM THAT AT ALL, hardware and software could yield identical results. however, that's neigh-on impossible unless you're some masochistic jedi type. there are always things you want to change once it's coming out your headphones.... and this isn't taking into account the practicalities of the situation either! take linear audio editing. my MPC lets me do that to a degree that i could duplicate what cubase does, but it would be PAINFUL. so in hardware tracks, no linear audio editing, simply because it's impractical.

note that i didn't say either was BETTER, just DIFFERENT. BETTER is a different debate entirely, and i think the king of sole's point about hardware being more fun is the best talking point in that arena...

Yeah I suppose I can see why it is funner for some people. I do admit, that while I was in Vancouver (the place where my hardware/studio exists) I had a fun time playing with everything.

Buuut I guess, the whole question in this debate would be, what is the purpose that you are using the (virtual or real) instrument for. Because if for fun, depending on how you make music, real instruments could be better for some people... Buuut for the purpose of composing, and simply making any sort of electronic music or otherwise to convey any sort of emotion, like LUDD said, can be done on either setup.

Personally for me I have just as much fun on my laptop as I do in my studio. I actually feel emotionally attached to my laptop (which is now completely disconnected from the Internet, making it super safe and sound), so I enjoy it no matter what. And well, I didn't name it or any of my synths either. I have actually taken a nap with my laptop on my bed, and I have never slept next to any of my synths, so I'd actually say I'm even more attached to my laptop than my hardware. :D

And well, while fun is a large part of why I make music (though most of my fun is had listening to a final master of a track on my iPod), the major part for me is conveying an idea or emotion through music (which is fun in it's own way, though not the same type of fun that could be had on hardware synths I don't think).

I guess ultimately the bottom line is, "whatever floats your boat". Everyone has their preferences: if you like hardware, buy hardware.

Oh and hahathhat, I like the analogy you used about the editing aspect. It is similiar to my thoughts on writing letters vs writing emails: letters must be written in a preemptive fashion, while emails can be cut and pasted and redone a ton of times. Though no matter how you record/create your track the mastering process will be what makes the difference (assuming the compositions are good).

everyone makes good points - tamas, feel free to say whatever the hell you like in my threads, it's all good :) all opinions are valid. personally, i just like the hands on approach of hardware - love having lots of knobs to twiddle! oo-er.

  Quote

i didn't say it was impossible

but simply put

i had it up in my room for 4 months next to an ms-20, an arp odessey and a waldorf microwave and in the bottom end department

even with the most brutal bass patch i could muster out of poly-evolver

the ms-20 and odessey spanked the crap out of it in comparison

the waldorf came out about equal but with much less fiddling

now having that said I'm still curious about this mopho thing

i had a little while with a pro-1 and that thing made some sweet bass

i made some wicked pads and warping metalic sounds with the evolver but i wouldn't have it as a bass machine when given other options for that dept.

Oh well, if you're comparing it with the MS-20 and Odyssey bass daddies then it probably is going to come up short in comparison. No arguments from me here!

"Bass Masters."

"yeah, I know Bass Masters...."

If you think VST's can replace analogue synth 100% you either haven't tried a decent analogue or a fecking idiot.

Believe me I've tried and although stuff like the Arturia can come close you still don't get than organic gritty upper mid or dramatic modulation of proper analogue.

Current VST's analogues although great are at the end of the day like soft cartoon versions of the real thing.

"can you flyyyyy Bobby?"

ive been to enough crap trendy acid nights and seen enough crap trendy kids freaking out and hi 5ing each other to even the most atrocious 303 lines to ALMOST make me hate the 303.

:(

so this kind of thing clouds my judgement in the hard/soft debate. 99% of the time these kids and the nobs who bought all the 303s at ridiculous prices couldnt tell the difference between a 303 and a VST .

so when these debates come up i cant help but be cynical regarding hardware and the reason for peoples NEED for hardware. (i know its better and more fun) but all im saying is there are loads of shit electronic producers making shit music with vsts, who are now making shit music with hardware. if you told these people that a kids bontempi organ on an ironing board was really cool in 1987 and a staple ingredient of the RAVING sound then theyd all go out and blow their allowance on one and make more shit music to dance badly to while dressed like neon pricks . so when i said anyhting that can be done on analog can be done better on vst. i didnr COmpletely mean that . all i meant was thta these acid revival kids are all mindless cunts and pricksn and i want them to die (not the girls)

sorry woke up at half 11 and got drunk. wrong thread

Shite music is shit music no matter what you use methinx.

Check the sound demos on http://www.sherman.be/ and see if anyone can get a VST to do that?

"AH-N-N-NE-NE-NEE-NEEE-NEEEEE.....!"

Fortunatly, using hardware is mutually exclusive to making terrible acid.

I like hardware better but stick with software for $ reasons. Not a fan of hardware with labrynthine parameter schemes though.

Using hardware is a joyful experience.

the Pro 12 was delivered this morning. it looks fucking wicked in the flesh. i want to go home and play with it, but i'm at work so will have to wait till later :(

i make music with my head.

i make music with a pen.

i make music with my fingers on the washing machine.

i make music by whistling badly.

i make binary music via the caps/num/scroll lock beep in windows.

i make music with my penis in willing holes.