I don't know wether I've understood you or not, Phil. If you're talking about the controlling posibilities of synthesises, there could be more in the future. But if you're talking about sound abilities I have to refuse. So, why?

The sounds have reached its optimum. What do you want to make better on a flute or trumpet wave if it sounds absolute real? The sounds that I'm using are samples in a high performance quality (44.1kHz/16 bit/stereo).
They won't sound better in a rate of 96kHz as 24 bit/stereo surround sound waves.
In most cases they even sound worse than the established once. Sometimes I've thought the 24 bit wave sounds realer than real. That's the reason why it sounds unreal to me.

In my opinion the manufacturers try to invent the same wheel again and again. What's really new on soft synths? What's better on the sound abilities of soft synths? Do they really believe that we can run 20 real synths as one virtual synth using all the same converters as their audio output? There's no chance for them to do so with any non-adequate hardware.

I've heard the same sample on different samplers. I tried a guitar sample (taken from my Les Paul) on my Kurzweil's K2000RS and then on a Ensonic Mirage. My guitar on the K2k sounded slightly other than on the Mirage. The reason for those small differences are the AD/DA-converters which were manufactured by different chip factories.

Okay, one of you might think that these were failings in hardware developments that will be compensated by soft synth engineering.
The others are knowing that exactly these slightly differences were making the great distinctions.

------------------
Greetings from Frankfurt (Germany),
Sheriff ;-)

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 03-28-2005).]