On Sunday 02 December 2007, bradley newton haug wrote: > I think that I invoked some defense of software synths that wasn't > my intention. Well, personally, I'm just concerned with the truth - what really is better. (Not that I care much, though, as long as what I'm using is sufficient for my purposes.) Besides, I don't really see any relevant difference between hardware synths and softsynths (unless you go into analog and hybrid designs), so I don't really have a side to defend. I even have an FPGA development board with a 24 bit CODEC on it lying around, that I intend to play around with some time. :-) > When I said a/b I had meant to point out that there is little > difference in sound other than the biased and guarded perceptions of > the owners/implementers. Yeah, I figured, but it's hard to do in real life, unless you're just comparing dry sample playback or similar. > What is 'better' anyway? Whatever sounds most "right" for the job, I guess... A modular synth with absolutely clean, mathematically correct output would of course be the ideal; then you could just implement whatever artifacts you may want explicitly - but realistically, trade-offs will have to be made, for performance reasons. (Though the need for that diminishes as we get access to more powerfull hardware.) In that light, it depends entirely on what you're doing. Different sounds mask different artifacts, so unless you have a single perfect tool, you need to use the right tool for the job. > What is thicker? Now, that is probably very subjective, but in general, it would be a sound with more information in it. For example, some sounds are improved by adding slightly detuned oscillators in large numbers. (Well, most sounds, if you're into "organic" or analog/acoustic feel sounds in general.) > Cognitive dissonance justifying your recent purchase? Maybe, but to me, it's more like "What!? Audible distortion...? I shouldn't get that from a machine this expensive!" If I can't tell the difference, I can't tell the difference, and that's that. Or, so I believe. :-D > if you've ever seen (or are) a professional audio engineer go up > against your garden variety nutjob 'audiophile' you know what I'm > talking about. > > .. or watched an engineering team argue over which tens of thousands > of dollar analog equipment 'must have' to use only to run it through > an effects box with radio shack converters in mastering. :-D > equipment doesn't matter. the sound matters. Indeed. And I believe the sound (good or bad) has more to do with the operator than most are willing to admit. > I'm working on my first album since my stint in Faith & Disease > some 15 years ago and when it is finished I will defy anyone to tell > me that linux limited me in any way. Well, this is how I see it, somewhat simplified: There's a feedback loop through the whole system, including your ears. If it sounds perfect to you, that's as good as it gets, regardless of tools used. If not, you have to work around the limitations of your tools, or use different tools - or just decide that it's "good enough". //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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
