2 Aug
2005
2 Aug
'05
7:46 p.m.
Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
i can see where yr coming from .... i've often thought of doing (A) with
my songs. the problem isn't really that the open-source synths don't
sound any good, but that they're a little obtuse in *how* to get good
sounds ... unfortunately, inspiration don't usually hang around for a
learning curve to apply :(
however, the only commercial synth i really use - that i *must* use, cos
it just fuckin rocks - is B4 from Native Instruments. i'm sure i could
probly get similar results from Aeolus, but man - i haven't even been
able to get a sound from it yet.
as far as open-source synths go, you can't go past the spectacular
ZynAddSubFX.
shayne
From: tim hall
<tech(a)glastonburymusic.org.uk>
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)?