Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
>>From: tim hall <tech@email-addr-hidden>
>>
>>WADR Juhana, I think you're being silly.
>>
>>Every different synth has its great voices, unique tones and also its
>>weaknesses, hardware or software.
>
>
> Many of you miss the point. I use bricks:
>
> 1. Why the original poster and me would rather use well-known
> commercial synths than open source synths?
>
> 2. Why demos of commercial synths do sound well better than
> anything I have heard made with open source synths?
>
> Sure every commercial synth sounds different, but we need to
> have an open source synth at least in the same top class.
>
> -*-
>
> I would rather try to solve the case (2) first as it helps to
> solve the case (1):
>
> (A) Someone who makes great songs with commercial synths should
> replace the synth track with a track made with an open source synths.
> For the demo purposes only.
>
> (B) Someone could create a MIDI file which plays great with
> commercial synths. The output should be recorded for us.
> Then we try to create the same with open source synths, possibly
> improving the software at the same time.
>
> Who of you can do (A)?
> Who of you can do (B)?
i can see where yr coming from .... i've often thought of doing (A) with
my songs. the problem isn't really that the open-source synths don't
sound any good, but that they're a little obtuse in *how* to get good
sounds ... unfortunately, inspiration don't usually hang around for a
learning curve to apply :(
however, the only commercial synth i really use - that i *must* use, cos
it just fuckin rocks - is B4 from Native Instruments. i'm sure i could
probly get similar results from Aeolus, but man - i haven't even been
able to get a sound from it yet.
as far as open-source synths go, you can't go past the spectacular
ZynAddSubFX.
shayne
Received on Wed Aug 3 04:15:06 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Aug 03 2005 - 04:15:06 EEST