18 Aug
2005
18 Aug
'05
11 a.m.
On Tuesday 02 August 2005 17:17, Juhana Sadeharju wrote:
OK, I understand you now. Do you not rate ZynAddSubFX? At the moment I'm using
a combination of soundfonts (edited with swami) Hydrogen drumkits, a few
voices from my old external D10 and, of course ZynAddSubFX. I understand that
there's room for improvement, if someone turns up with an analogue oscillator
machine, I'm going to record that sound as none of the digital synths can do
that. I'm with you on the 'let's focus on making Linux apps as good as they
can be' front.
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
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)?