[LAU] Hardware synths
Gordon JC Pearce
gordonjcp at gjcp.net
Sat Dec 1 17:47:21 EST 2007
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 23:04 +0100, David Olofson wrote:
> On Saturday 01 December 2007, bradley newton haug wrote:
> > like most 'gut feelings' related to anything audio the only real
> > answer lies in a pair of heaphones,a blondfold and an A/B box.
> > Solves all problems of perception.
> ...but that would require playing the *exact* same sounds on both
> systems, which is pretty much where the very problem is here: The
> hardware synths tend to use secret, proprietary algorithms.
"Algorithm" implies it's a software synth anyway. A softsynth running
in an FPGA or DSP is not a hardware synth. Well, not in my book anyway.
> From a theoretical standpoint, there's no need for an A/B test at all.
> The hardware synths most people are talking about here *are*
> computers running software synths. Same algorithm ==> same result.
> (Assuming "algorithm" includes using or emulating the exact same data
> types, obviously.)
> And, if you find a softsynth inferior to some hardware synth due to
> resolution issues, recompiling it with 'double' sample and control
> values would allow it to beat most hardware synths flat to the ground
> in that department, I'd think. Or why not 'long double' while you're
> at it. ;-)
It depends on the software involved. Great though Novation stuff is, it
aliases terribly (for instance). Nice filters though.
More information about the Linux-audio-user