No REASON for hardware anymore?

What is your opinion:

Since software synth's are becoming more and more sophisticated, there is no longer any reason for purchasing much more expensive hardware synth's, samplers, drummodules, etc...

Oh yeah there is. Softsynths are fine in the studio where a crashed computer just means a reboot. But in a live venue downtime caused by crashes is totally unacceptable. Dedicated hardware synths are much more reliable and have well designed user interfaces that make using then in a live situation much easier.

Hey that is not to say that one day I wouldn't add a laptop to my keyboard rig for playing live gigs. But rely on a laptop alone ???? NO WAY. I work daily with computers and know too well that their performance and reliablility is totally dependant on the the applications they run.

It all depends. You probably realize that no synth sounds exactly like the other. Don't think "Hardware/Software" just think different synths. Whenever you use one to emulate the other there are always differences in the results. Some people really really care about those differences. Some either don't care or simply don't have the ear to be able to tell the difference.

In other words it is a very individual thing.
Some guys don't mind mouse clicking. Some guys can't stand it and prefer knobs, sliders and even patchchords.

-ED-

I agree. I get different things from both. Even though they are close in a lot of ways, I don't expect my CS80V to be exactly like a real CS80, or the Pro53 to be an exact replica of the Prophet 5. I appreciate each module for what it can do instead.

Sometimes I appreciate being able to turn a piece of hardware on, and not having to fiddle with a mouse. Other times, I'm looking for a better sampleset, or an exotic analogue / hybrid sound that my hardware won't give me. Both have their place in my studio.

I've used my software synth setup live several times, with no issues or crashes to date.

AJ

When it comes to comparing modeling synths with the analog synths they try to imitate, try they do because modeling is not an exact science and modeling synths will never sound exactly like the instruments they try to be though the modeling algorithms will become more refined over time. On the plus side they can still sound great in their own way and can come very close to the synth/piano they try to be.

But when you compare software and hardware DIGITAL synths then the way they work is EXACTLY the same ie. microprocessors crunching numbers. FM, wavetable, sampler, ROMpler and modeling synths can all be implemented just the same on computers or stand alone keyboards ( really just proprietary music computers ) and don't differ at all except those running on PCs are running under operating systems like Windows, MacOS or Linux. The only real difference is the D/A converter hardware that also has a big bearing on the quality of the final sound. That is true for software synths as it is for hardware synths.

To be fair to Pierry my original post that indicated that computers are more likely to crash in a live situation should have mentioned that this is unlikely to happen if the computer is used solely for running music applications. If you don't install other non musical apps and don't use it for email and web browsing etc then it will most probably be a solid musical tone source.

I guess for me a lot of it is also the user interface. I like to have sliders and buttons to use playing live. To have to add a control surface to a laptop starts to complicate things though that would be the way to go for live performance.


[This message has been edited by Nigel (edited 07-26-2005).]

Nigel, I will have to kind of disagree with you on that one. Since each hardware digital synth model uses different hardware components (circuitry, processors, converters etc) and software it results in slight (or sometimes dramatic) differences of tone character and response (by that I mean the way the envelopes and LFOs behave. The way the filters work, bit-rates, digital aliasing of all sort etc.)
There are many things that lead to those differences. Some you have mentioned yourself. Some will take up a few pages of diagrams and schematics and endless explanations.

So even though the software Wavestation uses basically the same waveforms there are still some things that make it sound different from the original. I can say so with absolute certainty. You've mentioned FM. Well, as you know I own tons of FM stuff. Even though most FM synths (software and hardware) feature original DX7 algorithms (obviously for backward compatibility reasons) if you try to load original DX7 patches on different FM synths (FS1R, SY(77-99), DX7II, FM7) you will find that each will add their own character to the sound. In some cases the patches won't even work and respond the same way. It's a fact.

So to say that digital hardware synths and their software emulations sound exactly the same because they all use micro-processors and crunch numbers is almost as contrived as saying that everything digital sounds the same because it is digital. Truth is, there is more to the process then just numbers.

I must also say that not being able to tell the difference isn't a crime. This isn't a contest on who can hear what and who can hear better. As I keep saying, it is very individual. Some care about that stuff. Some don't.

-ED-



[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 07-28-2005).]

Been away for a while...

As you mention 3351, it is not a crime not being able to tell whether a sound comes from a hardware or software synth. Also I agree with the statement that every synth has it's own characteristics: No synth sounds exactly like another.

More than that, I think nobody, not even a "trained ear" can hear the difference between a hardware and a software synth, if he doesn't know the characteristic sound of both the synths.

In other words: Software synths have evolved to match the sound quality of hardware synths (that is, if the right computer hardware is being used).

So, my problem lies here: Why would I still spend so much money on hardware, while I can achieve the same with much cheaper -and much more compact- software?

Hello Pierry
I agree with you, but at the present time only 2 manufactures make keyboards were this is possible, (Wersi & Lionstracs) and these are at the top end of the market.
The only other way is to take a computer and keyboard with you, which for OMB use means additional setup work.
Give it another 5 years or so then the Arranger keyboards and Workstations that we know today will probably be gone, and there will just be controller keyboards were you choose what software modules you require.

Bill

I have been playing software synths live for awhile with no problems. I do keep a hardware unit just in case.I use M-audio keyrig and some of the Native instuments stuff. Using the Evolution UC33e I can control just about anything I want to. I use an Averatec laptop with the Echo 24 bit sound card and monster cable to the direct box. M-audio key rig is a really great setup with four modules including the B-3 sounds,FM,Analog.
I really like the ability to by another whole instrument for 200.00. The sounds are pristine.

hey I'm new to the board... had questions about this particular subject... I'm wondering about a live setup. If I want to perform with sounds from various keyboard (ie. some unique sound I've recorded with a prophet 5), and need to represent these patches as accurately as possible live, should I use a software sampler like Kontakt to sample the tone? Also, if I'm using a Mac laptop, what kind of output device do I need?... do I need to go through an M-box or some other sort of external audio device? Appreciate any thoughts.

To answer your question second question.I have heard unconfirmed reports that the latency in a Mac laptop is good enough to play software synth without a soundcard. I use an averatec laptop and the echo indego PCMIA card.This card has 24 bit sound and even capability to record two tracks if need be.
As to your first question,I think thats one of the beauties of software synths is that there are many ways you could achieve the same result depending on what you want to do,I heard this corny joke the other day,apparently this guy had a computer as his true love because it could be anything he wanted..........the truth is there,your computer can be just about) about anything you need it to be.
Armed with a computer,a controller,and say a prophet 5 soft synth(there is one)you could arguably do more to the sound than the origional could.
I was looking at that new Korg 8000 dollar monster out there,the KAOS.It is a really nice keyboard,but you can do most all of that with just a laptop and some good software.

thanks Tim,

Yeah, the latency issue was one of the main things I was thinking of... if I can just play live through a Mac than that'll be awesome. I still love analog synths -- I'm recording an EP right now and have a prophet 5 and an OBX at the studio I'm in that'll probably end up being recorded. I'm still pretty new to the synth world, though, so I'm sure as I get familiar with the technology, I'll be all about the software synths, since they're so versatile and affordable. For live shows I know it's they way to go. now all I need is a computer.... .

would a Korg MS2000 work decently as a controller?

Try a soft synth on your PC and if you think it's a fine synth emulation then try it again with another soundcard! The result is that your fine sounds have changed their face!!!
Compare it with a real hardware synth! If you create a good sound on your Korg then save it on disc, bring it to your friend's Korg and you'll have the same sound.

Well, another problem is: The only computer that was ever made for music were the Atari ST/Falcon series (and following clones produced in Europe). Also newer hardware synths which can easily be named as "music computers".

Why this?
Well, at first the computer. The Atari Corp. decided to create a computer concept which includes a midi interface and a special MFP chip which controlled the midi interrupt. So it was easy to develope music software - especially soft sequenzers - for it. Also the (T)OS operated in single task (switchable between single and multi in the later TOS version "Multi-TOS"). So, the music software could handle with 100% of the task window (no latency). Also the Atari computers were built in robust and habile cases with long life electronics.
Unfortuntely this computer concept died a long and painful way... ...but that's another story...

Second, the music-computer. At the beginning of the 90's I bought a synth which had touched my soul with its fantastic sounds - a K2000 by Kurzweil!!! It was the 19" rack version K2000RS with a 16MB sampler on board. With its big display (I guess it was one of the first soft button menus), its floppy disc drive (DOS 1.44MB) and its two SCSI ports the K2k seemed to me more like a computer than like a synth. More than ever if I knew that all the filters, envelopes and oscillators are only programmed parameters. Hm, and the sampler came with its own sample editor. And samples are wave files - again digital parameters and values. But the whole hardware is made for music only - both electronic and case.

Conclusion: I will never renounce my hardware gear including the Atari. I will never use computers and their software in life situations (especially not for main control functions). Though I trust it I have to include the Atari because it's never easy to handle a software in life situations and it isn't very advisable to use computers in open air concerts (especially on rainy days).

It's another thing if you're working in studio surrounding. There you have time enough to try this or that, to simply do what you want. If your computer hasn't a good timing invest your time to correct it in an editor. If your software is hard to handle then no matter because you have time. If you want to create loops with your sampler (hard or soft based) you'll always spend many time for it.

I don't see that emulators are similar to the original synth but they are near to it. I don't hate soft synths but I don't need it. Though if I'll find a good soft sound then I'll feel free to record it with my hardware sampler...

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

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-25-2005).]

Hi!
Getting a Mac is always a good move.
I've got two here. Both work like a charm. Fast, reliable and easy to use. No issues with viruses or security. None!!!

Yes you will be able to use MS2000 as a controller. More so it's got knobs and you wil be able to use them to control and edit your soft synths and instruments.

-ED-

Every midi keyboard works as a controller.
Regards, Danny

i was wondering about the MS2000 because someone told me it was a difficult one to program when it's used as a controller.

danny, what do you use for a hardware sampler, and what do you play in live situations? my main problem is that we're going to be touring this EP and I need to emulate tones from at least six different keyboards we have here. I'm sure with piano/organ/pad sounds I can go with something that's just close enough, but some of these leads we're recording sound pretty unique to each keyboard and it needs to be bang on. That's where I was thinking I'd sample the actual tone from the keyboard. Or do many keyboards have sample libraries that can be bought or downloaded... does this make any sense?? don't mean to sound naive, I'm really just trying to learn here. thanks guys!

cheers.

evan

Why the hardware sampler?


Now, I don't know what the hell they meant by saying that an MS200 is difficult to program as a controller. If you are going to program it's own sounds then it's got plenty of knobs.
From there it's jus a matter of using them right. Even drunk musicians of the 60's were able to do that. LOL

If they meant that you will have a difficult time plugging in a MIDI out into the MIDI in of whatever you want to control then that isn't too difficult either. Although some in this forum found it rather challenging. Are you reading this Paul?

Nope, neither programming, nor using it as a controller should be a problem.
And yet again, I would advise to stay away from hardware samplers. Unless they are dirt cheap. Something like a K2000 for $600 or so or less.

Tell him about Kurzs Sheriff. THey seem to work for you pretty well.

-ED-

hey ed,

When i mentioned a sampler, i actually was thinking of using a software sampler, but I was just wondering what sheriff recommended for hardware since he seems so strongly about not using a computer live.

I'm going to look into financing a mac, since, like you said, it can only be a good move.

i'm sure I'll have no problem plugging the MS2K in

thanks for your help

Dan,
One more thing. You do not own any software synths. You do not have any experience using them what so ever. Atari is dead. GOne. Stop confusing all the new guys.

As I've been saying. I own two Macs. even my old G4 can load and use more samples and do more with them than any hardware sampler out there. There are no issues with using different audio cards. I just went from using Digidesign to MOTU and nothing is different. Stil playing and recording at 196k 24bit. NOt something that you can do with your Kurz. You've only got some 32 or 64 megs of sample memory available. Surely it is enough for what you do and you write great music with it.
But not everyone here writes space rock symphonies in Sheriff minour.
We can't all get away with using just a K2000. It isn't the early 90's and we need a bit more than 32 or 64 megs of memory to load today's sample libraries.

I wouldn't bother explaining why one would need gigs and gigs of samples because it is obvious to those who need good pianos, strings, drums and other acoustic instrument samples. Some amateurs are quite fine with using 8 meg sound sets for home entertainment and MIDI playback of Karaoke tunes but by the same token some freaks out there don't use electricity at all and don't bathe. I mean there are lots of weird limited people out there. It is just a nature of today's world. Too many freaks. Not enough circuses. I for once do not use online banking at all. It's suppose to be very convenient...
LOL

Okay. back I go to my Macs and all the challenges they bring.

Cheers brother,

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-26-2005).]

Oh, you're using a 192kHz/24bit CD-player on a 192kHz/24bit HiFi system, yet???
I don't need more than 44.1kHz/16bit because that's HiFi standard. As long as this is standard for CDs this will be sufficient. Any higher rates uses too much disc space only.

Oh, and by the way, I know softsynths in the meantime. A friend of mine uses Cubase (and others) with many plug-ins but he's also not really happy with it. He says: "It's not comparable with a real synth played in life situations!"
What should I say? I couldn't agree more...

I don't confuse anybody here - I only make some facts clear. The hardware architecture of modern computers are not fitted for making music. You have to power them up by extra hardware elements like midi cards, audio cards or USB-to-midi converters. And those extra elements require extra software drivers for the OS communication. That's the way it goes if the hardware wasn't made for music. You'll have to bow it...

Siriously, if you want to have a good synth (not a baby toy keyboard) you'll have to pay $3,000 and more. That's also the price for a PC with the required power, a good qualified audio system and a high quality midi system with no latency. It's a little bit more expensive if you plan to by a Mac instead of a PC. Okay, you can lower the system's price if you're familiar with Linux.
The difference is: The computer is good for studio surrounding only but the synth is extra made for studio AND life situations. Okay, you may say that there are laptops which were made for outdoor usage but though don't trust a laptop system for any main controlling in life situations.
I know there are some users here in this forum and anywhere else in the world who didn't make any bad experiences with their laptop but I personally made three times the experience that a band couldn't start to play because of a computer crash - they used a Windows laptop!!! I never saw any other band playing with a computer!!! The other band's gigs were good - only minor failures which means "standard" to me!

@evan: I'm not really sure what you want to try. Do you want to play life on one computer instead of on six synths?

I'm using a Kurzweil K2000RS - a hardware synthesizer with a sampler on board. But I'm using it in my studio where I'm also using an Atari Falcon HD recording system and a Windows PC as a digital tape recorder (my 2nd stereo sampler). So, I can sample sounds and re-sample it with tons of effects by using only one effect device...

In life situations I'm playing my Gibson only. I let the keyboardist play the keys...

Oh, and there's one further point before I forget it: If you create a good sound in your studio, for example a good grand piano, when you hear it through your studio speakers then it's possible that the same piano will sound terrible through the PA's speakers or monitors.

We often changed our instruments from gig to gig and so we played this or that piano sound. I didn't realize any different envelopes because I tried to hear my guitar all the time through the monitor...
And the audiences didn't realize any differences because they heard our songs the first time...*LOL*...that's really a big advantage...
Regards, Danny

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-26-2005).]

ED!!! I'm not only playing space rock!!!
I did many things since 1982 when I started my musical carriere with playing guitar...

I only told my opinion to Pierry's topic question. I need my hardware gear and I'm only looking for more hardware gear. I'm not really interested in softsynths because I worked more than ten years on a computer screen and hated it. But more than this I hated all software which came with Windows because of its bad user interfaces. All things that I hate by working with computers are overflowing modern computer systems.
Even Macs are not that what they were one or two years ago. Also the things that you told me about Tiger OS are not really inviting me to work with Mac OS.

No, I like to play real hardware. Maybe the world will play SIM MUSIC in a few years but I'll still rock the places with real instruments...
Don't know what you wanna do? It's your choice...
Best regards, Danny

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-26-2005).]

Sheriff,
Chil!!!
Surely you don't just write in rock minour. You also write in rock major. LOL

I do not know why you fail to recognize that recording at high bit rates leads to better results. A/D conversion has evolved a great deal since Atari Falcons were discontinued. Recording with 24 bit converters and even mastering is better. whatever it gets dithered to wen recorded to a CD is a different story. The results are still better.
Mathematics aren't the only factor here.
I'm not sure as to what you actually mean by me waisting hard drive space because I've got just over 700Gb of it total. Even if I get very sloppy with recording and don't edit and don't trancate the files I stil use up a fraction of all the space that I've got available to me. Even if I had just half of what I've got it's way more than enough. In fact most of my work gets backed up to DVDs (that's after I usually cut out the bits that do not end up being used on the actual recording).
OR CD's for that matter.

Another thing that you keep looking away from is sample memory. It will actually cost you some astronomical amounts of $$$ to get enough hardware to be able to load several gigabytes of samples. In most cases it will be impossible to do so with hardware. Software does it on a fly.

I don't know what you mean by so many additional drivers and hardware components needed to run soft synths. All one really needs is a USB MIDi controller, an external sound card and that's it.

Since I haven't used PC and Windows for music I really have nothing to say about them. I only use Macs. They work. My G4 upstairs is hooked up to an EDIROL FA 101 firewire interface and it doesn't require any additional drivers. You just plug it in. It uses Apple audio drivers and since MAc OS X is designed especially for music and graphics there is no latency issues or any issues actually. You plug-in the card and you use it. It comes with it's own MIDI port. Plug in and go setup.

No you do not have any real first hand experience of using software synths on a computer that works. Rather, you have a really crappy second hand experience of using your friend's system which doesn't function that well if I understood correctly. It is really up to your friend to complain about it or upgrade his system to something better. There are a lot of soft synth users in this forum and they do not complain. There is nothing to complain about. If things are setup properly and you have all the appropriate components installed DAW and soft synths work without any problems. Surely there are issues. But that is mainly because things have advanced quite a bit since the times of Atari Falcon systems and naturally got more complicated.

Yes, it will cost as much and may be a little more to get a decent computer setup but you will be able to do more than hardware can offer. Read threads in this forum. Ask people who use soft synths.

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-27-2005).]

Heres my opinion,and its just that, an opinion,but it is based on experience with both hardware and software synths.
They are both great. As with any new technology there have been growing pains with soft synths in the past,but that is largely in the past. I know of some class pro acts that use software synths in live performance with thousands of people.They have gravitated this way becuse it has cut down on carrying so much heavy gear on the road. They have an extra computer on hand all loaded up and ready to go just like the big acts had extra synths on hand years ago.
I think that if Rick Wakeman would have had software synths back in his heyday he would have used the heck out of them.They all played the Prophet 5 and korg polys(and others) because thats all there was and it was cutting edge at the time.Noone had Abelton or Reason to play with.
Maybe you can tell the difference between the two but I honestly cant tell on the good emulations.
Have you heard about the Panasonic toughbook? This computer is the one used by the military and police forces.If your afraid you might damage your laptop check that computer out,it will probably withstand twice what the average pro synth will. I have velcro holding my Averatec on the controller pretty good and have had no problems.
Don't get me wrong,I also love hardware,but honestly I can do more for less money with software synths.As someone has already mentioned,most "hardware" synths are just a midi controller with a small OS and some sounds to be recalled from ROM.So they are just software synths themselves.
One big issue right now is that I think the big synth hardware manufacturers are scared to death of them because they can import sounds from anything and sound like anything for less money.
Seeing as how most all of us in this day and age depend on a microprocessor and OS for just about everything,your car,your heating system,your paycheck.......and on it goes. The argument that somehow laptops and software synths are more falureprone is hard to buy.

Maybe my ears are too bad, maybe I'm deaf but, I can't really say that 24bit rates are better than 16bit rates. Yes, I hear a difference between them both but I can't really say which is better. From my feeling, I hear what I've played when listening to a 16bit recorded wave. Sometimes, if I'm listening to a 24bit wave I think I hear much more high frequency noise and low frequency flutter/jitter/sludge (don't know wether you understand me or not ).
So, I have to decide for my own what's better to handle. 16bit or 24bit, 44.1kHz or 96/192kHz, 10MB per one minute stereo sample or 30/60MB per one minute stereo sample. Well, you know my decision! Disc space is rare and expensive...


If I don't need more than 16bit rates then I don't have the problem to minimize the recording for a CD...
I don't wanna make it more complicated then it really is. Remember, in earlier days we only needed to push a record and a stop button...and the recording was made on tape...
Oh man, we lost sooo much comfort...

The thing is: I'm a musician and I want to play my instruments but I don't want to waiste my time in front of a computer screen. I made music with a computer more than 10 years now...I'm burned out!!!

Today I would really like to give it away. If anyone is ready to turn the knobs for me then I could change back to music again...*LOL*

10 years ago I still thought: "Cool! The music instrument market doesn't share the sucking policy of the other concerns!" Unfortunately things have changed! If I'm visiting my local music dealer then I'm always laughing because their drum center is so full with hardware that you can't really move through, their guitar center is so full that you need sun glases to not get blinded by the light reflections of sooo many beautiful guitars but...are you ready for this...their keyboard center is empty!!!
I don't see any keyboard there - only DJ mixers with up to 4 channels and CD scratching ability...*LOL*...and software packs for Windows or Mac OS...*LOL*

I think the time of new and innovative sounds has ended now. Who is creating new real oscillators and hardware filters? The time of synth emulations will soon be over because there won't be any new synths to get an emulation from.

Also, every PC studio production I've ever heard sounded weak and weird to me. So, it's natural for me (as a musician) that I refuse to use such LoFi stuff unless the song requires it. My K2000 is still able to overtrump modern synth emulations or softsynths because of its fantastic filters and oscillators. The result is always convincing...at least for me... [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/smile.gif[/img]

Oh, by the way, I know that there's a Kurzweil softsynth emulation for Windows but...haha...why should I try to get and run an emulation if I'm having the original here??? [img]http://www.synthzone.com/ubbs/wink.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by Sheriff (edited 09-27-2005).]

Hate to say this and you will probably kick me for doing it but you really come across as being slightly... jealous???
So you cannot afford a Mac right now. So you can't record at 24 bit but why kick at it? For some kind of therapeutic purposes?

You have no real argument either that you don't like software. Actually because of my computer I now don't have to spend and waist my time loading,saving,using magnification glass to just kill my back sitting in front of hardware modules trying to do what I can basically do with just one or two soft synths.

There is some hardware that nobody! NOBODY! Will ever take away from me or tell me that it's old or whatever. I have my addictions too. DX/TX stuff and my other FM/FOrmant?Additive toys are staying in my studio - period. Same with my guitars. Even if they come out with some magical virtual plug-in that replaces my Bass, Harmonica and 15 guitars you will still find me using the real thing.
Sure, Yeah, Yeah. I know . That is how you feel about your old Atari and K2000. But why kick at soft synths? Just because you can't afford them?
Soft synths are awesome. They are big help in the studio. Pain in the ass sometimes but usually fixed with updates.
It hurts me and insults me to see someone like yourself say sarcastic and unjust things about something that I love using and appreciate.

And NO I will keep recording at 196k 24-bit since hard drive space on this side of the street is dirt cheap and blank CDs come in box of 50 for less than a price of a DAT tape.

Sure, I will let you have your last word if that's how you want it. But whatever you say just comes across as some type of jealousy or even immaturity. Of coarse you always have my benefit of the doubt. Therefore if I am wrong on this one feel free to get my apology.

Later Dan,

-ED-

Okay, okay!!!

I'm not a soft- and hardware engineer, I'm not a composer, I'm not a musician, I'm not a sound engineer, I'm not a computer freak, I've no answer about physics and sounds, I'm deaf and blind...
Who am I? I'm nobody...
Okay, I'm not allowed to have my own opinions and experiences. So, I go and rock myself...

It sounds like we maybe need to start another thread on the pros and cons of 24 over 16 bit recording.Sometimes I am inclined to think the hype over 24 bit sounds like something a salesman of a 24 bit machine would say. Scientifically speaking 24 bit resolution is thousands of times better than 16 bit,actually audible difference to the human ear is small and probably not noticed on a lot of source material(please dont tell me I'm jealous )
24 bit is becoming the norm with 16 bit recorders still selling in personal studio recorders. If you play a hardware synth chances are you are playing 16 bit or less.
The general public has largely embraced the Mp3. That means the general public is happy with a sound inferior to 16 bit. A lot of commercial concerns rejected the Mp3 to start with because it was deemed unsuitable in audio quality and therefore unsuitable as a sales medium for songs.Steve Jobs showed us this is not the case(and made lots of money).
You can shoot me in the fanny on this if you want to but I have to mostly agree with Sheriff. For the web and CD production if you already have an investment in good 16 bit equiptment keep using it and don't look back. If you are investing in new gear,what the heck, get 24 bit stuff because it might sometimes make a subtle difference and because it will make you feel better.

I do use the PC platform guys, and my experience with it is that it has been quite reliable, especially running XP. Of couse it is very helpful to remove as many non essential Windows and add on apps that aren't related to music production as possible, and staying off the 'net with a dedicated machine is also a good idea.

I won't get much into the Mac vs PC debate. Years ago I thought Mac was superior vs PC, and perhaps it may still be, but my apps are all PC based and I'm just fine with it. I can record 24 / 192 with no hassle at all. Yes there are reasons for recording and mixing down at higher rates. Any studio worth their salt does this. I probably cannot explain properly in the correct technical jargon why, but basically it comes down to something like bitrate losses ( not true 44 / 16 ) when you mix multiple files into a single file. Atari.... ohh the memories. I still have a soft spot for progs like "M", FMC2, ludwig, Autobusk, Grid Sequencer.. I could go on and on... I even mess with that stuff now and then, mostly for nostalgia, via the virtual Atari Emulator for PC "Steem"

As far as hardware vs software. No right or wrong answer as far as I'm concerned. Both are valid and viable ways to work. As for me, I'd love to have a real CS80, Prophet5, Waldorf Ppg, Moog Modular, etc ( there are plenty more ) in my studio here, but space wouldn't permit all of those. Even if it did, many of these are quite old now and the thought of having to repair them ( and at some point they'd likely all need repair ) is almost mind boggling. so.. my only "hardware" analog is the AN150 card that resides inside my Motif ES... for now anyway. I am always looking at vintage beasts as they become available and I do plan to add a real one to the studio at some point. Unless it's built like a tank though ala the CS80 ( and then it will be too heavy anyway ) I'll still gig happily wiyth my laptop full of softsynths / effects and my controller.

I agree that the same softsynths won't always sound the same on different soundcards, but ya know what ? The same two moog modulars wired up exactly the same won't always sound exactly alike either, especially as they age. The electronics and components themselves that were used in the older analogs dictate this, and I have seen ( heard ) it for myself. Ahh the beauty of true analog.....

AJ

Well first of all I did not call anybody jealous and merely hinted at the fact that whatever is being said comes across as some kind of jealousy and that's it. Perhaps there is another way of saying what I meant to say but I guess at the moment nothing else came to mind. I'm sorry if I've insulted anyone.

Now, I have to totally agree with everything that AJ just said because often times I notice AJ saying exactly what I had in mind but being a nasty character I am I don't express it in ways that some find acceptable.
I just want to add something.
Software samplers are better. Why? Well, I've said it many times so either check the archives people or just read a few posts above this one. Yet, lots of people still use hardware samplers and it seems to work for them just fine. Although I don't see them post odd statements about 32 or 64 megs piano samples being as good as Steinberg's "The Grand" and Ilio's "ivory". Or Kurzwell K2000 being just as powerful of a sampler as NI Kontakt or EXS 24 because it uses the same .wav file format or whatever

24 bit 196k. If you can use it and have enough hard disk space (as well as 20 bucks for a box of 50 CDs or a bunch of DVDs for backups) use it and enjoy.

Otherwise stay tuned at 44.1. It's much better than 15k tapes. It is indeed a standard. But don't mix up not having a choice with not needing something.
If you use 44.1 16 bit by choice it is your choice and yours alone. You get no critique from me.

-ED-

[This message has been edited by 3351 (edited 09-29-2005).]

Unfortunately there's no Falcon emulation but Aranym for Linux, and Aranym isn't really stabil or suitable for Cubase Audio. So, I'll still have to use my original hardware...

It's still amazing me...up to 16/50 samples, no midi latency and realtime mp3 decoding...all with a DSP @32MHz and a CPU at 16MHz...this was a real technical invention, guys!!!