Re: [LAU] Hardware synths

On Saturday 01 December 2007, lanas wrote:
[...]
> That makes me tend to believe that hardware synths sounds are
> still leading in quality, deepness and richness. Any other
> opinions ?

Theoretically, there shouldn't really be a reason for softsynths to be
inferior in any way at all these days. If the same algorithms are
used - and that's well within reach with current CPUs - the results
are identical.

Obviously, you need to use a serious sound card to do any softsynth
justice. Actually, you'd probably have an edge over most hardware
synths if you use a really good 24/96 sound card.

So, why do hardware synths still tend to sound better? (*If* they do,
that is. I'm out of the loop, so I just don't know what the best of
the respective worlds sounds like at the moment.)

I believe it comes down to tweaking and polishing. Hardware synths are
expensive beasts, and all you get is one instance with limited
polyphony. They *have* to sound better, or be vastly superior in some
other way, or no one is going to pay that kind of money.

There shouldn't be a problem getting at least as good sound out of a
softsynth, provided someone actually takes the time to tune the DSP
to perfection and program a set of really good sounds. I'm not sure
that is ever going to happen for Free/Open Source synths - but then
again, it just might if/when the community reaches that particular
critical mass.

//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate

.------- http://olofson.net - Games, SDL examples -------.
| http://zeespace.net - 2.5D rendering engine |
| http://audiality.org - Music/audio engine |
| http://eel.olofson.net - Real time scripting |
'-- http://www.reologica.se - Rheology instrumentation --'
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sat Dec 1 04:15:06 2007