1 Dec
2007
1 Dec
'07
4:35 a.m.
David Griffith wrote:
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007, david wrote:
I agree with that! The Moog was so *manipulable*. Even the Hammond organ
I played during my professional music career was manipulable in ways
that synthesizers don't conveniently make available - moving the
tonebars in and out while playing, for instance.
Reminds me - I need to splice an audio tape back together and get a
working tape deck. I have an old solo recording of a Hammond organ going
through a wah-wah pedal and fuzz box before going into an amp, I should
make another tape copy and digitize it before the tape dies completely.
It would have been recorded sometime between 1973 and 1975.
I do want to try my Wacom tablet as a control surface sometime. Even a
Smartboard would be an interesting way to do music.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
Well, I think that Yamaha's sound patches in
their hardware synthesizers
sound much better than any soundfont I've heard. But if you're talking
about a pure synthesizer (one that generates its own sounds, not simply
playing what is basically just a sampled sound) - hard to tell. I still
think the Moog synthesizer sound is the best!
Another thing that hardware synths have over software is the user
interface. You just can't get the kind of flexibility that you have when
you reach out and grab cables and frob knobs.