On Tuesday 02 August 2005 17:17, 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)? OK, I understand you now. Do you not rate ZynAddSubFX? At the moment I'm using a combination of soundfonts (edited with swami) Hydrogen drumkits, a few voices from my old external D10 and, of course ZynAddSubFX. I understand that there's room for improvement, if someone turns up with an analogue oscillator machine, I'm going to record that sound as none of the digital synths can do that. I'm with you on the 'let's focus on making Linux apps as good as they can be' front. -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
