(Not) another virus vs. VST thread

[HUROLURA]

Originally Posted by MBTC

There is nothing I'd love more for hardware vendors to figure out how to give the dedicated processing of hardware, but the integration of VST. Sadly it seems like things in the hardware scene have stalled, while VSTs continue to get better sounding.

I wouldn't agree on that. VSTi is easier to design (no hardware constraint). So more people can offer new advanced solution without being forced to be big companies.

On the hardware side, after the rise and fall of hardware samplers which are mainly replaced by software based DAW, the synth inovation landscape showsome enhancement from time to time among which I would notice:
- the Virus TI concept which I find really clever though actually I never tested it but I feel this is the challenge for other maufacturers.
- the virtual modular concept initially invented with 2 different solution by clavia with their Nord Modular and CreamWare with their PCI DSP based Modular/Elektra solution at the end of the 90's were really interesting and still made progress rencently on the Scope size with the launch of the Mod IV version associated withe the Xite-1 rack.
- the Arturia Origin which provides a new attempt to get something symbiotic out of a hardware and software modular mix
- the awaited John Bowen Solaris

Actually I think there is more space for VA synth now than for Rompler as one could get better result with VSTi and maybe a solution with VSTi host like Muse Research Receptor or SMProAudio V-Machines...

I just think hardware control on a synth is just a must.
Access Virus and Clavia nord lead have shown the way in their time providing good sunding instruments easy to edit and fun to play.

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by HUROLURA

I wouldn't agree on that. VSTi is easier to design (no hardware constraint). So more people can offer new advanced solution without being forced to be big companies.

Well you're right that actually producing and selling a pure VSTi solution is easier to get out the door, but that makes an even better case for why innovation might be occurring more rapidly here, thus resulting in VST improvements happening faster than hardware can keep up (my original point that I think you were disagreeing with).

Originally Posted by HUROLURA

On the hardware side, after the rise and fall of hardware samplers which are mainly replaced by software based DAW, the synth inovation landscape showsome enhancement from time to time among which I would notice:
- the Virus TI concept which I find really clever though actually I never tested it but I feel this is the challenge for other maufacturers.

Aha... this probably explains why we aren't on the same page here. Any issues I have with the Virus as an instrument have nothing to do with how good it is as a standalone keyboard. I've mentioned this before but if I could only have one keyboard on stage with me it would be a Virus. If I did play live (I don't), having hardware like that would be much more important to me than lugging around a laptop, controller, dinking with stuff in software, etc. But it is the DAW integration I'm talking about here. If your music creation centers around the software host, getting a bunch of hardware to behave as well as a softsynth can be a chore. I fall into that category of folks who is very DAW-centric. So, my only rationale for adding hardware would be (A) offload processing power from the CPU (B) get better sound than a softsynth can provide, hopefully via things like more responsive filters and dedicated fx that do not have to compete with an mainstream PC OS for resources. However, if in the quest for (A) & (B) I am for one moment burned with misbhaving hardware, synchronization issues, latency issues, USB limitations, etc., then the advantage of having hardware at all can be a huge disadvantage. Everyone's workflow is different, I acknowledge, but for me I have very limited time to create music, so nothing must stand in the way of the creative process. If it does, it is a tumor in my workflow and will be removed.

I love the concept behind Total Integration -- I think they have the right idea, they just need to improve upon it. I am very eager to see if they solve this with the next generation of Virus products, nothing I'd love more to own one but it must promise not to misbehave too much

[sacredgeometry]

Its all about sound design for me to be honest, I would love nothing more to have albino/predator, sylenth, gladiator, ace or massive in a hardware synth it would allow me to get the most out of them which is hard even with the amount of control surfaces i have.

There is something special the virus though sound-wise, it really does make my excited when i make sounds on it I have had this experience with vsts too but of different flavours and in different places. Seriously though "Sound Quality" wise hardware has next to nothing to offer and all the sounds on any digital hardware could be recreated using pretty much identical algorithms on computers as thats all that they are in the end bar a few differences.

And the only reason we choose it over software is as a preference to that particular sound. Not because its any better or worse but because we prefer it.

I think alot of people enter into it expecting all their sound design problems to disappear. They think that because they have x synth and y multi effects module that they will be able to create Z sound. These are the people that tend to get disappointed. When they realise that all the sounds they make are exactly as limited as their own motivation to learn and that those synths they initially listed as useless were actually more capable then they were I can imagine its quite upsetting looking at an expensive lesson in patience.

[infraction]

Originally Posted by sacredgeometry

There is something special the virus though sound-wise, it really does make my excited when i make sounds on it I have had this experience with vsts too but of different flavours and in different places. Seriously though "Sound Quality" wise hardware has next to nothing to offer and all the sounds on any digital hardware could be recreated using pretty much identical algorithms on computers as thats all that they are in the end bar a few differences.

When I had my poco version, up against sylenth it wasn't that bright and didn't stand out in the mix more, but sylenth still sounded cheapish quality wise (now my TI eats both for breakfast ).

A lot of native vst plugin developers (especially the best synth ones at the moment like u-he and lennard digital) seem to be one or two man teams unlike access which is something like a 20 strong team and IMO not a fat lot of research gets put into the vst synths. If a say twenty strong team of native plugin developers got together and decided to make a more professional product than no doubt it would easily compete or maybe surpass the virus sound.

But that isn't happening, even novation who seem to be very pro software keep their best algos in hardware these days. Maybe the fear of warez is to blame for the lack of really good quality softsynths that can match their hardware counterparts?

[MBTC]

Originally Posted by infraction

If a say twenty strong team of native plugin developers got together and decided to make a more professional product than no doubt it would easily compete or maybe surpass the virus sound.

But that isn't happening, even novation who seem to be very pro software keep their best algos in hardware these days. Maybe the fear of warez is to blame for the lack of really good quality softsynths that can match their hardware counterparts?

I would definately agree that piracy fear holds back VST progression, but I couldn't agree that there aren't some soft synths taking it to the next level with large teams of talent. Take a look at something like Omnisphere or Alchemy. Especially with Omnisphere, you can browse around it and immediately see that there were a lot of folks involved in it's making. Granted, we are talking $500 softsynths at this point, but they are out there.

If I could try to identify one item that contributes to the widespread mediocrity of so many "regular" soft synths, it may be the availability and use of open-source algorithms to do much of the processing or filter work. I think many of these VSTs are based off the same common library that provides much of of the math functionality so the developer can focus on the creation of the instrument. The instrument itself may turn out unique, but that uniqueness is defined by the UI, the range of parameters, the included patches, etc.

At this point, the VST developer has made the choice of not re-inventing the wheel... this is typically a good idea in software development, finding ways to re-use work others have done, but when creating virtual instruments or similar, it can be enormously stifling to creativity and uniqueness to have a common foundation of re-use across projects.

Some of the most famous synthesizers were created by one or two guys, and what often gave the synth their unique sound was really a flaw or bug in the design that manifested in ways that was recognized as character. If we saw more of that in soft-synth creation, the end result would be better, but there is a resistance to recreate all algorithms from scratch (first because it's really damn hard work and not everyone has the math skills to do it, second because its a means to an end and most synth creators would prefer to work at the end).

Back to the subject of piracy for a minute, although as a developer of business software I am not up to date on embedded systems / DSP programming, I am unaware of anything that would prevent the code that powers the Virus from being completely reverse-engineerable. In fact I'll step out on a limb and say that someone has surely done it already. Furthermore, the fact that they offer a pure software solution that requires only powercore tells me that there is nothing necessarily magical about the algorithms in the Virus, someone has surely already dissected them.

I think hardware has a bit of sound advantage simply due to power of dedicated processing. By that I mean the DSP in the virus is doing one thing and one thing only -- producing sounds. The actual power of the unit is rather pathetic compared to a modern CPU, but the difference is that it is not producing sounds for multiple, disparate instruments on top of all the executing code for the host software which is running atop a gazillion services, which is running atop the OS kernal itself which is of course way more general purpose than a synth DSP. Multi-threading / multi-core helps with this problem but it's only as beneficial as the software is designed to take advantage of it, and since multi-threaded code is hard and limited by the presence of any serial-execution tasks, there is a seriously limiting lowest common denominator here.

So by adding a hardware to the arsenal, you are guaranteed a certain sound output. It doesn't matter how many other pieces of kit make up the studio, each one always produces constant output. I can't say that for a VST environment on my current PC, even though its a nicely powered CPU. I can add a VST, whip up a sound, and compare that side by side with a Virus and be amazed that the VST sounds as good or in some cases better. But once I've built out the mix such that there is A LOT going on, the sounds coming from that VST can be muddied up or lagged by other things -- in some cases the entire DAW starts wigging out from just too many instruments, effects, etc all bogging down the same chip that is also running regular OS services. Meanwhile the Virus is able to do it's sole job, producing a consistent sound that doesn't change as you add more hardware synths (it could of course as you add more effects or somethign to the virus sound itself, which may affect polyphony etc).

But despite all that, and the elegant simplicity we should get from just plugging in another piece of hardware kit, it seems we are still plagued with timing / latency issues, integration problems in general. Now we are at the core of why I am remaining software based at the moment.