outboard gear vs computers

[däp]

i've been contemplating a conversion (of sorts) to an all (or mostly) computerized environment but don't like to be totally dependent on the computer. what if it crashes and so forth? right now i use it only for sequencing.

i use all outboard gear including recording devices for recording, etc.

curious to know how others feel about the use of computers for recording and sound modulation. looking at a mac G4 or 5. Thoughts?

[socratez]

I want to use a pc for storing data, visualizing stuff. But i want to use hardware as much as possible for synthesis and beatprogrammming because although some poeple disagree, it sounds better

[C hristian]

it's a lot harder to "play" a computer program and a computer keyboard.

[däp]

Originally posted by C hristian:
it's a lot harder to "play" a computer program and a computer keyboard. a lot of sequencing/recording programs have keyboard plugins right?

[Mocambo]

Most of the sequencing(except live instrumentation) I do on the PC(Sonar 2.2). Very little audio recording I do on the PC. Outboard gear I operate the opposite. Sequencing a little, record alot. I use both in conjuction with each other. Just in case the PC crashes, I have more than enough outboard to keep going.

[Tony Cano]

i use all computer with a midi controller.

tc

[jpsf]

Originally posted by Tony Cano:
i use all computer with a midi controller.

tc this seems to be the new standard. most people i know have moved completly to this. although i do hear of a few producers that i dig running things through an external mixer and compressor and recording back in to the computer.

i use a bit of both. i have a couple cool sythns that i like to toy with. but the softsynths sound great these days.

[socratez]

I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards

[C hristian]

yes ,they do. But to get the "life energy" of a woodwind, for example....you need to go with the real thing sometimes.

[jpsf]

Originally posted by socratez:
I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards i used to think that way smile.gif don't sleep on the new inovations though. most h/w synths are just computers in a box anyway. now (for the last few years) that computers are fast enough to handle the processing it only takes rewriting the algorythms of the old h/w synths. the math is the same.

[Nege]

Originally posted by C hristian:
yes ,they do. But to get the "life energy" of a woodwind, for example....you need to go with the real thing sometimes. this is where something like Cubase or Logic VST comes in handy for combining the "live" element with the vst synths.
I prefer using outboard gear but my limit if space forces me to use mostly virtual instruments.

[Nege]

Originally posted by socratez:
I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards yeah there really isn't much of a difference.
there are ways of getting a warm sound out of a computer......

[Kenny Carvajal]

I personally use a bit of both.

I use my PC for sequencing and recording audio but prefer to mix on my mixing console as opposed to the "On screen" approach. As long as it works!

I must admit, instant recall is a wonferful thing. Not to mention automation.

Kenny

[anfernee]

I started using all computer based but have found myself moving to hardware as there's a certain something that my PC can't emulate..... May never be able to emulate.

Also lessens the need for upgrades to a super powerful PC, as it just a stream of MIDI.

A

[Brian]

Originally posted by socratez:
I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards what do you think your hardware is? keyboards, samplers etc are simply low powered computers running software .. unless it's true analog it's all softsynths

[däp]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
I personally use a bit of both.

I use my PC for sequencing and recording audio but prefer to mix on my mixing console as opposed to the "On screen" approach. As long as it works!

I must admit, instant recall is a wonferful thing. Not to mention automation.

Kenny been thinkin about going w/the MOTU 2408 and doing all my mixing/mastering via pc but continuing to use outboard sound mods.

[ December 17, 2003, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: t o r i n ]

[Kenny Carvajal]

Torin, I'm using the 2408 MKII and absolutely love it!!! The routing options are wonderful. With all of the inputs you can just run your sound modules into the unit and mix on the PC. Not a bad idea. That way you can take advantage of the wonderful plugins available that are otherwise unafordable.

Kenny

[ December 17, 2003, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Kenny Carvajal ]

[socratez]

Originally posted by Brian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by socratez:
I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards what do you think your hardware is? keyboards, samplers etc are simply low powered computers running software .. unless it's true analog it's all softsynths </font>[/QUOTE]Im not a technician, but there are much more difference between dedicated hardware and software as most poeple might think.

But my opinion might be biased since i havent used a new softsynth since last year. And a lot can change in that period

[Brian]

Originally posted by socratez:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by socratez:
I still find it hard to believe that producers make tracks with only a pc. Those softsynths are not even close to good enough to meet my standards what do you think your hardware is? keyboards, samplers etc are simply low powered computers running software .. unless it's true analog it's all softsynths </font>[/QUOTE]Im not a technician, but there are much more difference between dedicated hardware and software as most poeple might think.

But my opinion might be biased since i havent used a new softsynth since last year. And a lot can change in that period </font>[/QUOTE]there really isn't a difference at all on the fundamental level. unless it's an analog synth it's software.

anyway whatever works for you..

[däp]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
Torin, I'm using the 2408 MKII and absolutely love it!!! The routing options are wonderful. With all of the inputs you can just run your sound modules into the unit and mix on the PC. Not a bad idea. That way you can take advantage of the wonderful plugins available that are otherwise unafordable.

Kenny did you use it for your latest?

[DOTSmusic]

i love using both hardware and software together.

[Kenny Carvajal]

Torin, no i didn't! I just got the 2408 last Friday. I used the Gina 20 for "My words" and for the "Let's be free" songs.

Wish I had this thing sooner.

What are you using now Torin?

Kenny

[So easy a protic can do it (QUAD)]

Originally posted by t o r i n:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
I personally use a bit of both.

I use my PC for sequencing and recording audio but prefer to mix on my mixing console as opposed to the "On screen" approach. As long as it works!

I must admit, instant recall is a wonferful thing. Not to mention automation.

Kenny been thinkin about going w/the MOTU 2408 and doing all my mixing/mastering via pc but continuing to use outboard sound mods. </font>[/QUOTE]TORIN! DO NOT - I REPEAT, DO NOT IF YOU CAN, USE THE 2408, GET THE LAYLA/ECHO CARD FOR YOUR SYSTEM.
I'VE USED BOTH AND LAYLA ALLOWS UP TO 16,000 SAMPLES VS. THE 2408 WHICH ONLY ALLOWS UP TO 2,408.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS IF YOU HAVE AUDIO SOUNDS SUCH AS VOCALS, SAMPLES, ETC(NOTE, AUDIO TAKES UP ALOT OF "AUDIO BUFFERS" EACH TIME ONE USES AN AUDIO TRACK IN THE COMPUTER). YOU WILL GET CRACKLIN NOISES IN THE BACKGROUND WITH THE 2408, VERSUS THE LAYLA WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO USE (DEPENDING ON HOW POWERFUL YOUR COMPUTER IS) 8,296 AUDIO BUFFERS/32 AUDIO TRACKS COMFORTABLY. I DO WHAT'S CALLED "CLINICS FROM TIME TO TIME WITH THE MUSICAL TECHS THAT I KNOW. HIT ME UP FOR MORE DETAILS. graemlins/acclaim.gif

[däp]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
Torin, no i didn't! I just got the 2408 last Friday. I used the Gina 20 for "My words" and for the "Let's be free" songs.

Wish I had this thing sooner.

What are you using now Torin?

Kenny i mix down to two tracks via a spirit board. i use MOTU Performer for sequencing. Been using that for over a decade.

- quad: thanks! i will keep this in mind when making my decision.

[JamesNelson]

one of the reasons torin, expensive studios, and mastering facilities will always exist is because they use high quality audiophile equipment. outboard gear, especially vintage tube processing is the best when producing and mastering.

the studio I was working in had avalon tube processing...theres nothing lilke it

[Kenny Carvajal]

Dj Quad,

As I mentioned, I just got my 2408 last week. Regarding the buffers, can't you adjust them anyway? I had that crackling problem when I first set it up but was able to fix it by adjusting the buffers that best fits my system. But, I personally don't use more than 8 tracks. Good thing!

Thanks!

Kenny

[ December 18, 2003, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: Kenny Carvajal ]

[So easy a protic can do it (QUAD)]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
Dj Quad,

As I mentioned, I just got my 2408 last week. Regarding the buffers, can't you adjust them anyway? I had that crackling problem when I first set it up but was able to fix it by adjusting the buffers that best fits my system. But, I personally don't use more than 8 tracks. Good thing!

Thanks!


YEAH YOU CAN ADJUST THEM BUT ONLY UP TO 2408 BUFFERS. AND THAT'S GOOD IF YOU ONLY USIN 8 TRACKS, BUT FOR US, WE GET PROJECTS OR CLIENTS WITH PROJECTS THAT REQUIRE 20 TRACKS OR MORE, DEPENDING ON WHETHER IT'S AUDIO OR MIDI, EITHER OR, MOTU 2408 SOMETIMES GIVES A HARD TIME.


Kenny

[Kenny Carvajal]

DJ Quad, very very good info. Thank you so much! I used to use the Gina 20. Is that any better?

Kenny

[jerry santiago]

WELL I USE BOTH BUT IVE BEEN WORKING WITH BLVD EAST AND THEY JUST WENT ALL COMPUTER BASE PRO TOOLS HD WITH PRO CONTROL AND MAD PLUGINS ITS SOUNDS GREAT.THIS PLUGINS ARE GETTING BETTER BY THE DAY.FOR KEY BOARD SOUNDS SPECTRASONICS HAS SOME GREAT SOUNDS FOR A PLUGGIN IM ABOUT TO CHANGE TO A COMPUTER BASE SYSTEM AND HAS FOR THE COMPUTER CRASHING IF YOU MAINTAIN YOUR HARD DRIVE AND KEEP YOUR PROGRAM'S AND OPERATORING SYSTEM UPDATED YOU SHOULD NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM.FOR OUT BOARD I LOVE MY MOTIF THATS IT FOR OUT BOARD.

[juju]

yeah the avalons are wonderfull!
u'll never get this with a plug-in

as far as signal processing ,synthesys,and fx
i'll use hardware-it just have it's own sound

computers are good recorders and sequencers,
just get a good quality high resolution A/D converter (like rosetta or something)and ur set
bottom line -just tube it.... ;)

[O'love]

hi Jerry, thanx for your info!

something else: it's considered shouting when you type in capitals and don't use comma's etc...

smile.gif

Olaf

[Mocambo]

Question:

What outboard gear that allows an adat to be slaved, using the PC as the master?

[Kenny Carvajal]

Originally posted by juju:

computers are good recorders and sequencers,
just get a good quality high resolution A/D converter (like rosetta or something)and ur set
bottom line -just tube it.... ;) Yeah, that's pretty much all I use my computer for. Recording Audio, editing and sequencing. Most of the rest of the sounds I use are external.

Very cool topic.

Kenny

[däp]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juju:

computers are good recorders and sequencers,
just get a good quality high resolution A/D converter (like rosetta or something)and ur set
bottom line -just tube it.... ;) Yeah, that's pretty much all I use my computer for. Recording Audio, editing and sequencing. Most of the rest of the sounds I use are external.

Very cool topic.

Kenny </font>[/QUOTE]that's why i brought this up. i agree as well. i just wanted to know what others were doing.

[Bold Soul]

There is nothing that outboard gear can do that a ROCK-SOLID PC/MAC system can't.

Stress the ROCK SOLID! If you want to use a 44.1 soundcard and the same PC that you check your email and make your spreadsheets with, your music is going to sound like crap.

Pull together a DEDICATED DAW system with QUALITY AUDIO MONITORS and use the same sounds as outboard gear (i.e. Akai, Roland, Giga samples) and tell me if you can hear a difference.

You can't shortchange production. Cats move to PCs because krack'd music software is plentiful. Invest some dough in a kit and it comes out the other end every time.

[Kenny Carvajal]

Pull together a DEDICATED DAW system with QUALITY AUDIO MONITORS and use the same sounds as outboard gear (i.e. Akai, Roland, Giga samples) and tell me if you can hear a difference.

You can't shortchange production. Cats move to PCs because krack'd music software is plentiful. Invest some dough in a kit and it comes out the other end every time. [/QB]It's very true that it's hard to tell the difference. But it's more of the "hands'on" thing for me.
Kenny

[Brian]

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
There is nothing that outboard gear can do that a ROCK-SOLID PC/MAC system can't.

Stress the ROCK SOLID! If you want to use a 44.1 soundcard and the same PC that you check your email and make your spreadsheets with, your music is going to sound like crap.

Pull together a DEDICATED DAW system with QUALITY AUDIO MONITORS and use the same sounds as outboard gear (i.e. Akai, Roland, Giga samples) and tell me if you can hear a difference.

You can't shortchange production. Cats move to PCs because krack'd music software is plentiful. Invest some dough in a kit and it comes out the other end every time. exactly

i also think that because a lot of "workstation" type hardware (korg triton for example) comes with presets that consist of multilayered waveforms with complex effects routing built into the patches, a browse through the presets on a hardware synth tends to be more impressive than a browse through the presets that a plugin synth has .. and thus people come to these conclusions that software is inferior. i think it's just a matter of understanding the way it's intended to be used. with the plugin synths it's a given that you will be using them in a system that includes effects, so the plugins don't have the effects built in the way most hardware does. if you're not interested in sound design then hardware tends to give you more bang for the buck immediately out of the box.

[ December 20, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

[djyoavb]

all u have to have is a good set of ears and good imagination. there is no one way to do anything. realy- all those talkings about using exlusivly hardwear can make people that don't have the ability to work with some, get realy scared to finish their product and get it out.
u can make a great record with a rebirth or reason alone. if u r talented offcourse.
so to all the people that can't afford outboard and hardwear, use plugins, soft synths and samplers, and experiment with it. u can make records with it for sure! and good ones too!
good luck.

[djyoavb]

Originally posted by juju:
bottom line -just tube it.... ;) hey Gal, what up bud? smile.gif
say- if what ur saying is true than all the music that was produced until about the end of the 60s should be great. they all used tube... ;) i don't think u think so...
what i'm saying is that if u don't have tubes it's ok too. the thing is that music producers of our times became more engineers and less musicians. if your music is not in the right place no tube will help, but if the music is good, u can still capture the vibe and energy of it even if it was made with very cheap equipment. graemlins/beerchug.gif

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Pull together a DEDICATED DAW system with QUALITY AUDIO MONITORS and use the same sounds as outboard gear (i.e. Akai, Roland, Giga samples) and tell me if you can hear a difference.

You can't shortchange production. Cats move to PCs because krack'd music software is plentiful. Invest some dough in a kit and it comes out the other end every time. It's very true that it's hard to tell the difference. But it's more of the "hands'on" thing for me.
Kenny [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]I do dig that.

Hands on is what got me into CONTROL SURFACES. I use the Radikal Technologies SAC-2K, which controls Digital Performer, Logic, Reason, all plug-ins, etc. It's a true MIDI device, so it is even an on-board controller if configured as such.

http://radikaltechnologies.com/Products/SAC-2_2/sac22ored.jpg

[So easy a protic can do it (QUAD)]

Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
DJ Quad, very very good info. Thank you so much! I used to use the Gina 20. Is that any better?

Kenny I BELIVE THAT GINA HAS A HIGHER BUFFER QUALITY THAN MOTU, HOWEVER, I'M KINDA IN QUESTION ABOUT THE "2 INPUTS, 8 OUTPUTS" THING. IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND, SEEING AS ONE MAY WANT TO RECORD 8 TRACKS AT A TIME.

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by DJ QUAD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kenny Carvajal:
DJ Quad, very very good info. Thank you so much! I used to use the Gina 20. Is that any better?

Kenny I BELIVE THAT GINA HAS A HIGHER BUFFER QUALITY THAN MOTU, HOWEVER, I'M KINDA IN QUESTION ABOUT THE "2 INPUTS, 8 OUTPUTS" THING. IT SHOULD BE THE OTHER WAY AROUND, SEEING AS ONE MAY WANT TO RECORD 8 TRACKS AT A TIME. </font>[/QUOTE]Actually DJ Quad, if you're using MOTU hardware with the MAS or AudioUnits, you'd experience far greater buffer quality. What you're describing seems like a limitation with the system's native processing OR a driver issue with ASIO.

For example, using MAS/Audio Units with Digital Performer with a late model MOTU 828, I'm exceeding far greater buffer settings than what you're describing. Granted, this is Mac talk. I have yet to use any MOTU hardware on a PC system.

[jerry santiago]

GOOD DAY MUTHA F$#KERS OOPS FOR GOT ABOUT THE CAPS.So i just got cubase sx 2.0.i was using 5.0 vst,just stepped up the game.ITS HOOOOOOT,it work well with reasons.A lot of records now a days are totally done in a computer.The return of the meat(light)was done on reason,BLVD EAST(its your life)done on performer and spectasonics and mach 5,its your life ftl mix done on cubase and reasons.There's so many tracks out there that are done on computer base studio's and you cant tell the difference.

[alex zen]

i like all hardware straight to dat or reel. i don't want to micro produce music and i like to ride channels and effects by hand. less clinical and more rockin'.

[Brian]

Originally posted by sex, drugs, and alex zen:
i like all hardware straight to dat or reel. i don't want to micro produce music and i like to ride channels and effects by hand. less clinical and more rockin'. i do that same thing but with software ... i've got hardware knobs and sliders controlling things in realtime in my software .. it rocks

[socratez]

Originally posted by jerry santiago:
GOOD DAY MUTHA F$#KERS OOPS FOR GOT ABOUT THE CAPS.So i just got cubase sx 2.0.i was using 5.0 vst,just stepped up the game.ITS HOOOOOOT,it work well with reasons.A lot of records now a days are totally done in a computer.The return of the meat(light)was done on reason,BLVD EAST(its your life)done on performer and spectasonics and mach 5,its your life ftl mix done on cubase and reasons.There's so many tracks out there that are done on computer base studio's and you cant tell the difference. Yeah,, reason+cubase+protools+$23409823monitors+230984209 83micpreamps

[socratez]

I love working with softsynths althoug most of m sound a little to thin. Its so easy to layer them with other sounds and add the right fx

Softsynths aint no mach for a Kurzweil K2600 though graemlins/jpshakehead.gif . Compare those two and youll notice that softsynths do have a long way to go.

The hardest thing on a pc for me is making beats, somehow it wont work out for me. It takes to much time to find the right samples

[ December 30, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: socratez ]

[O'love]

Originally posted by socratez:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jerry santiago:
GOOD DAY MUTHA F$#KERS OOPS FOR GOT ABOUT THE CAPS.So i just got cubase sx 2.0.i was using 5.0 vst,just stepped up the game.ITS HOOOOOOT,it work well with reasons.A lot of records now a days are totally done in a computer.The return of the meat(light)was done on reason,BLVD EAST(its your life)done on performer and spectasonics and mach 5,its your life ftl mix done on cubase and reasons.There's so many tracks out there that are done on computer base studio's and you cant tell the difference. Yeah,, reason+cubase+protools+$23409823monitors+230984209 83micpreamps </font>[/QUOTE]you refuse to believe that it's the cook not the kitchen ;)

damn, you don't wanna know how many fine vocal recordings were done using a handheld dynamic shure mic using a simple pre-amp.....

i witnessed ron carrol singing live in utrecht a little while ago, he just plugged in this dynamic mic in the DJ mixer, used his DJ monitors and sang the entire room away! it opened my eyes, once again......it's all about technique, at least 80%......

Olaf

[Bold Soul]

Originally posted by socratez:
I love working with softsynths althoug most of m sound a little to thin. Its so easy to layer them with other sounds and add the right fx

Softsynths aint no mach for a Kurzweil K2600 though graemlins/jpshakehead.gif . Compare those two and youll notice that softsynths do have a long way to go.

The hardest thing on a pc for me is making beats, somehow it wont work out for me. It takes to much time to find the right samples This is a serious misconception.

The reason a hardware synth "sounds better" is because of ENGINEERING. Average hardware comes with its own dedicated hardware outputs, most of which provide at least 48khz 24bit sound. Most provide multiple channels and effects.

A soft synth with a consumer soundcard isn't going to sound as well, especially if it isn't routed through the same effects.

A user dependent upon presets isn't going to get the most out of a computer DAW. Period.

[O'love]

i always think this is an interesting discussion..it also has to do with the whole "analogue vs digital summing" debate where peeps claim that mixing through analogue outboard instantly gives a better sound than mixing "in the box" (ie digital) .... people have been experimenting with this, but only recently some of them start finding that it seems to be much more the input-stage of analogue mixers than the summing itself....ie if you run your DAW arrangement using a multi I/O soundcard through a good quality mixer with good quality pre-amps and then back into your DAW, and mix it in the DAW the sound is as good as mixing using the mixer....

i believe this theory has definately some truth, and i always tend to record stuff into my DAW running through a good quality pre-amp (focusrite) to get the signal balanced and loud....

to socratez: you could try running a softsynth out from your computer into a good mixer or pre-amp/DI box and then back into your computer, and see if it helps you?

peace, Olaf

[jerry santiago]

OK OLOVE ITS ALL ABOUT THE TALENT BUT THE BETTER YOUR STUDIO,THE MORE TOYS YOU HAVE TO PLAY WITH,THE MORE YOU CAN CREATE.SHIT I CAN DO A TRACK WITH AND MPC,I KNOW PEOPLE WHO CAN DO A TRACK WITH A SP 1200.ITS NOT ABOUT THE STUDIO BUT LIKE I SAID,IT HELPS. ;) I WAS JUST SAYING THE SOUND IS GREAT,ALOT OF PEOPLE SAY OUTBROAD SOUNDS BETTER,AT THIS DAY AND AGE,COMPUTERS ARE CLOSE.

[O'love]

i think we agree 100% ;)

(PLEASE STOP SHOUTING IN CAPS!!!! ;)

[socratez]

THe gear also should be the right gear for the music you want to make. I personaly couldnt make a good track with a sp1200 because im not a sample wizard. I can make good/better music with some nice synths and romplayers because i need that stuff for the music i want to create.

[So easy a protic can do it (QUAD)]

Originally posted by jerry santiago:
GOOD DAY MUTHA F$#KERS OOPS FOR GOT ABOUT THE CAPS.So i just got cubase sx 2.0.i was using 5.0 vst,just stepped up the game.ITS HOOOOOOT,it work well with reasons.A lot of records now a days are totally done in a computer.The return of the meat(light)was done on reason,BLVD EAST(its your life)done on performer and spectasonics and mach 5,its your life ftl mix done on cubase and reasons.There's so many tracks out there that are done on computer base studio's and you cant tell the difference. HEY JERRY, CAN I INTEREST YOU IN THE 2.01 UPDATE OF "SX" AS WELL AS PLUG-INS CALLED "ATMOSPHERES" AND "STYLUS" BY SPECTRASONICS?? DO SOME RESEARCH, AND WATCH WHAT HAPPENS...... :D hail.gif

[<juju>]

Originally posted by djyoavb:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by juju:
bottom line -just tube it.... ;) hey Gal, what up bud? smile.gif
say- if what ur saying is true than all the music that was produced until about the end of the 60s should be great. they all used tube... ;) i don't think u think so...
what i'm saying is that if u don't have tubes it's ok too. the thing is that music producers of our times became more engineers and less musicians. if your music is not in the right place no tube will help, but if the music is good, u can still capture the vibe and energy of it even if it was made with very cheap equipment. graemlins/beerchug.gif </font>[/QUOTE]yo yo
ofcourse-great recordings were made by only a couple of mics... i do believe the preformance/musical essence/vibe is more important than any gear.
still you can't escape the fact that outboard gear,especially tubes sounds better than plug-ins
in the end of the day...
+ nobody stopped using it in the end of the 60's
you can hear tube mics and pre-amps in almost every modern production
peace
ju

[socratez]

Originally posted by Danny Gardner:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by socratez:
I love working with softsynths althoug most of m sound a little to thin. Its so easy to layer them with other sounds and add the right fx

Softsynths aint no mach for a Kurzweil K2600 though graemlins/jpshakehead.gif . Compare those two and youll notice that softsynths do have a long way to go.

The hardest thing on a pc for me is making beats, somehow it wont work out for me. It takes to much time to find the right samples This is a serious misconception.

The reason a hardware synth "sounds better" is because of ENGINEERING. Average hardware comes with its own dedicated hardware outputs, most of which provide at least 48khz 24bit sound. Most provide multiple channels and effects.

A soft synth with a consumer soundcard isn't going to sound as well, especially if it isn't routed through the same effects.

A user dependent upon presets isn't going to get the most out of a computer DAW. Period. </font>[/QUOTE]SO ARE YOU IMPLYING THAT I ONLY USE PRESETS???? mad1.gif

smile.gif ;)