Juhana Sadeharju wrote: >>From: tim hall <tech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>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
