Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:28 pm
GeeJee wrote:
Changing to a software-only setup doesn't make sense to me, I mean, I can see it's advantages (as much as I dislike it myself) but I like to compare it with the release of the DX synths, it was the first different synthesis type back then. Did people go have DX-only setups...? Well I know, them DXs weren't as versatile as VSTs, but still...
A lot of established Musicians bought or used several DX's on stage due to its lack of Multitimbrality during its rein,but nowadays with a software FM synth you can have as many Instances(Timbres/Tracks)as your soundcard will allow,so its kind of not really comparable in terms of buying several hardware instruments
DX synthesis is just a single Synthesis,with Software studios you can have all different types in the same PC without having to have racks of gear or Mountains of synths
I can understand why People do opt for just a software way of working,You have less cabling more direct interface facilities and the ability to carry your studio in one box if you use a laptop
I have on my laptop roughly around 20 Vsts which more or less covers the same power as about 50% of my Hardware synth setup,but software is too volatile and unpredicatable thats why I would never work solely with it,why anyone would want to use Software alone I could never understand.But I'm lucky in that I have the room to accomadate 14 synths,most people don't and so a desktop studio would probably be sufficient.
I've always been in Bands doing live stuff so for me to retract to a strictly software approach would be like cutting my hands off,I far prefer to interact playing than using a finger to control a Mouse.
If you take the guts of the Hardware synth away essentially what you have left is a software version,Is still run from a Microprocessor it just lacks the hardware interface to house it.
Soundwise the VSTS are getting more and more true to the Originals,i certainly can say that the Wavestation/Polysix and M1 VSTS are identical to the Hardware,albeit a little more graphic detailing on the displays but emulating digital stuff is far easier being digital VSTS anyway
the Moogs and Arp and CS80 vsts certainly sound pleasing,the Spring reverb of the Arp2600 definetly gives the VST some of the charm of the original hardware and Arturia have made more of an effort to clone it with latest updates,but Thas the only real interaction i will ever have of these synths anyway due to their lack of Huge numbers to buy them,but too be honest i would rather settle for a vst of such synths,being that they cost a huge fraction of hte price and nothing at all in maintenance costs
But I suppose its the new generation of Musicians who don't really know of the older ways of working,,think about How Midi is utlitised today,you take it for granted as you never knew life before it,but yet Musicians were still able to control their instruments,although in limited ways,but thats all they had then and they made the most of it,most new upcoming musicians probably use Software in the same way and don't really feel a connection with having lots of Hardware
I'll Guess if you asked Jarre which way of working he prefers,I'm sure he'd choose the intimacy of interacting with his Vintage equipment,but I suppose he like other Musicians needs to find new ways of working that helps them to evolve its just about your own personal needs really,not if one is better than the other its a subject that there is no hard or fast solution to
LOADS OF SPACE 
