14 Jul
2005
14 Jul
'05
2:33 p.m.
On Thu, 2005-07-14 at 18:45 +0300, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
Well, you're basically saying that the Linux audio
is not
professional enough yet. This information is great. Now
you should tell the ZynAddSubFX author (Paul?) what his
software is missing.
Does it matter which colour you paint your walls? Or do you pick the
paint which is available?
I care what my apartment looks like. I take care in choosing the correct
floor material, the colour on the walls. That is not saying that the
paint or floors I didn't choose is bad in any way. It's just not the
paint for this apartment.
You cannot cram all possible synths into one. For synths, the UI is
instrumental in what sounds come out. With clever design, it is very
easy to manipulate an analog synthesizer (Zyn). On the other hand, that
UI will not be usable as an organ synth (=Aeolus).
These are instruments. You can't make a Telecaster sound like a Les
Paul. We shouldn't try to make Zyn something which it isn't.
And no: no software synth in the world, on any platform, can sound
exactly like a rhodes, a moog, a theremin. If one prefers the sound of
his/her 80's rompler, you'd better use that synth.
If musicians avoid using Linux software synths and
other similar
software, we simply don't face the problem. It does not help
if only non-musicians try to use these software. We need
a demo made by professional musicians, not by non-musicians.
Nobody is avoiding using Linux software synths. Like I said, there is
some advertisement value in doing 100% linux production, but it isn't
really that important.
The musicians we would be trying to impress with our 100% linux
productions use hw synths too. They would never switch their beloved
vintage gear for software synths, regardless of how good the sw synths
are. They would be impressed by a good work flow, the quality of
applications (synths, sequencers, daw's, audio editors), availability of
hardware, efficiency.
--
Sampo Savolainen <v2(a)iki.fi>