 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Forums - Drums / rhythms / programming
Subject: computer vs. hardware
Original Message Date: 14-Jun-00 @ 05:51 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
oh dam, hit the return button, randomly
sorry guys...
let us talk about this topic:
in my opinion is using computer programs for creating samples (soft synths) not very useful.
1. for making music you need an INSTRUMENT you can rely to personally, appearence, functions vitalise your mind, a flat, shivering screen harms your creatrivity..
2. i don't like monitors! i have got a doepfer schaltwerk for composing in midi, much better than cubase
o.k. i agree: sequencing on a computer is standart, you have got better support and more offers.
i started to make music with my amiga (protracker!), still one of my cherriest machines, i do not doubt wheter it is easier to get a cheerful result on your comp than with your soundmachine, it is!
i am asking myself right now if music isn't in any realtion to machines, probably....
maybe i just this confusing tap is just a reaction on the current developement of the music market.
yet i am sure you cannot reproduce the sound of a music machine with a comp. (hmm..pulsar...letting the hardware in your co). the reason is as simply as hard to believe: hardware-problem, computer simulate, m-machines (of course! analogue babies, i love them) produce!
it could be that i am talking a lot of shit..in your perspective... i know what i am saying is true for me.. so let me have your comments...
sorry guys...
let us talk about this topic:
in my opinion is using computer programs for creating samples (soft synths) not very useful.
1. for making music you need an INSTRUMENT you can rely to personally, appearence, functions vitalise your mind, a flat, shivering screen harms your creatrivity..
2. i don't like monitors! i have got a doepfer schaltwerk for composing in midi, much better than cubase
o.k. i agree: sequencing on a computer is standart, you have got better support and more offers.
i started to make music with my amiga (protracker!), still one of my cherriest machines, i do not doubt wheter it is easier to get a cheerful result on your comp than with your soundmachine, it is!
i am asking myself right now if music isn't in any realtion to machines, probably....
maybe i just this confusing tap is just a reaction on the current developement of the music market.
yet i am sure you cannot reproduce the sound of a music machine with a comp. (hmm..pulsar...letting the hardware in your co). the reason is as simply as hard to believe: hardware-problem, computer simulate, m-machines (of course! analogue babies, i love them) produce!
it could be that i am talking a lot of shit..in your perspective... i know what i am saying is true for me.. so let me have your comments...
Message 31/48 24-Aug-00 @ 06:06 PM - RE: computer vs. hardware
hardware sequencers with 480ppqn can be/are tight as tight too.
Message 32/48 25-Aug-00 @ 12:02 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
huh???? what are you adding.....of course 480ppqn on
a computer or hardware unit can be dead on it...but
there is more room for error and the untrained ear will
tend to let the quants just fly all over and sections
don't match up tightly...anyway I guess as always it's
up to the user but heed the warning when shit falls off
or doesn't lock up tight even a little bit WE CAN HEAR
IT....this aien't analog vs digital this is on/tight VS
off/sloppy....hey do your thang no matter what...
_______jAswho
a computer or hardware unit can be dead on it...but
there is more room for error and the untrained ear will
tend to let the quants just fly all over and sections
don't match up tightly...anyway I guess as always it's
up to the user but heed the warning when shit falls off
or doesn't lock up tight even a little bit WE CAN HEAR
IT....this aien't analog vs digital this is on/tight VS
off/sloppy....hey do your thang no matter what...
_______jAswho
Message 33/48 27-Aug-00 @ 05:03 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
come on guys, don't make "hardware" a fetish; if h/w sequencer is a midi playback machine it just can't get over the the deficiences of the midi standard; that midi is a serial protocol unable to trigger 2 or more note on events simultaneously; every note on takes 1 ms so if there's a lot of events, midi smears them all over the place timingwise, no matter if it's atari or mpc what ever.
That's the reason you need to work in audio to get tight timing. or use internal step sequencers or arpeggiators not based on midi. Or good musicians.
That's the reason you need to work in audio to get tight timing. or use internal step sequencers or arpeggiators not based on midi. Or good musicians.
Message 34/48 28-Aug-00 @ 12:11 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
good answer!!!(saracastic) your right about one thing
midi is not a perfect protcol and HD step seqs or
arpeggiators as you stated are as tight as it probably
gets......but audio in computer is great when that's
your deal but if you want to make tight sequences, what
does an audio program have to do with it unless your
ready to edit each track one by one to lock it up (a
very tedious lame practice IMHO)... I mean shit the
post was which is easier or better computer or hardware
seq. and why!!!!it's all there forget about doing seq's
then redoing them in an audio program to tighten
up...Unless you've got time and a nice fast
computer...pick up an old cheap drum machine or
sequencer and tell me is easy as hell to create tight
as a drum-based stuff or what????
I rest my mouse go for yours cause it's way cheaper and
easier on the brain/pocket to pick up a cheap under
$100 unit and experiment that's all!!!!!!!
love will k
midi is not a perfect protcol and HD step seqs or
arpeggiators as you stated are as tight as it probably
gets......but audio in computer is great when that's
your deal but if you want to make tight sequences, what
does an audio program have to do with it unless your
ready to edit each track one by one to lock it up (a
very tedious lame practice IMHO)... I mean shit the
post was which is easier or better computer or hardware
seq. and why!!!!it's all there forget about doing seq's
then redoing them in an audio program to tighten
up...Unless you've got time and a nice fast
computer...pick up an old cheap drum machine or
sequencer and tell me is easy as hell to create tight
as a drum-based stuff or what????
I rest my mouse go for yours cause it's way cheaper and
easier on the brain/pocket to pick up a cheap under
$100 unit and experiment that's all!!!!!!!
love will k
Message 35/48 08-Sep-00 @ 05:29 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
I use both h/w and s/w...
Cubase to make the editing easier and a Roland MC-80 to do live PA.
Transferring MIDI files to the MC-80 can be a pain though... I've not managed to transfer with program change messages intact - I've had to add them back in by hand on the MC-80.
I'm thinking of ditching the MC-80 for live and using the on-board sequencer on my E-mu e5000 Ultra...
Cubase to make the editing easier and a Roland MC-80 to do live PA.
Transferring MIDI files to the MC-80 can be a pain though... I've not managed to transfer with program change messages intact - I've had to add them back in by hand on the MC-80.
I'm thinking of ditching the MC-80 for live and using the on-board sequencer on my E-mu e5000 Ultra...
Message 36/48 12-Sep-00 @ 03:04 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
One problem about Hardware Seq is
that the Midi spec is a piece of crap,
and if you use a computer + VST you don't need
to go through Midi.
Too many CC's and your beats stuff up.
My 2 cents
that the Midi spec is a piece of crap,
and if you use a computer + VST you don't need
to go through Midi.
Too many CC's and your beats stuff up.
My 2 cents
Message 37/48 12-Sep-00 @ 07:48 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
midi spec is fine on hardware sequencer, none of this has to do with serial code or the amount of data etc being moved. The timing is tighter due to it being dsp based with a fixed clock pulse whereas pc & mac & atari etc sequencer just aint so solid cos of the other crap the buss is juggling at the same time whereas a HW sequencer or an atari doesnt share it's midi buss with any other data, Atari's have the equivilent of a PC AGP port for midi with a dedicated two-way bus.... my mate just upgraded from an MMT8 to an Atari , despite that Atari's are VERY tite, he still says he noticed a difference in timing and the atari is sloppier....
By the way did you read Amiga are pushing their OS again, for a variety of platforms this time and they have a developemnt kit out etc.
By the way did you read Amiga are pushing their OS again, for a variety of platforms this time and they have a developemnt kit out etc.
Message 38/48 27-Sep-00 @ 10:38 PM - RE: computer vs. hardware
am i wrong or isnt a slight drift of beats good ? i mean 1ms isnt going to matter either way. even the best live drummer isnt going to be accurate within a 1000th of a second
seems like a little "feel" is a good thing. Just like the analog tunings drifting slightly so its not so cold and clinical
i think when people listen to music we expect slight changes and if its to perfect it sounds odd.
seems like a little "feel" is a good thing. Just like the analog tunings drifting slightly so its not so cold and clinical
i think when people listen to music we expect slight changes and if its to perfect it sounds odd.
Message 39/48 28-Sep-00 @ 02:40 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
A small random shift of timing isn't good, since what makes human drummers sound groovy is that their timing offsets aren't random. If the beat drifts it's not going to sound tight or good.. A nice regular (ie hardware) stream of note events will sound tighter and better.
Windows is crap for this kind of task, since it has crap multitasking and isn't really made to handle media streams. The new Amiga OS isn't really that exciting, since it's basically a developers kit on top of Linux. Don't expect anything like the old amigas. (Kind of the same thing Viscount does with the OB12...)
Windows is crap for this kind of task, since it has crap multitasking and isn't really made to handle media streams. The new Amiga OS isn't really that exciting, since it's basically a developers kit on top of Linux. Don't expect anything like the old amigas. (Kind of the same thing Viscount does with the OB12...)
Message 40/48 28-Sep-00 @ 08:32 AM - RE: computer vs. hardware
The biggest asset to any instrument is not necessary
it's sounds, but the the interface through which we can
control those sounds. It's great to have synth, soft or
hard, that has amazing effects and so forth, but if the
artist connot control those sounds or arrange notes in
an intuitive and logical manner the instrument will not
see much use or exploitation of it's full abilites.
I have a friend who has an AN1X. He also has Logic, and
he always writes his sequences on the AN1X because he
finds he has more control than through Logic or any
other sequencer.
This is what I think makes most hardware superior:
control and access to it! Lack of these can make an
instrument suck, the DX-7 comes to mind. And ReBirth
only sounds good with a hardware controller (in my
opinion).
Without a hardware controller, software will not beat
hardware. It may someday sound phatter, and better, but
I think the above is true, regardless.
An anyways, I've found that most people who use
computers solely just get distracted and surf the net
or look at porn instead of writing tracks - there's not
much commitment. Or just stealing samples of beats and
such they could never write themselv
it's sounds, but the the interface through which we can
control those sounds. It's great to have synth, soft or
hard, that has amazing effects and so forth, but if the
artist connot control those sounds or arrange notes in
an intuitive and logical manner the instrument will not
see much use or exploitation of it's full abilites.
I have a friend who has an AN1X. He also has Logic, and
he always writes his sequences on the AN1X because he
finds he has more control than through Logic or any
other sequencer.
This is what I think makes most hardware superior:
control and access to it! Lack of these can make an
instrument suck, the DX-7 comes to mind. And ReBirth
only sounds good with a hardware controller (in my
opinion).
Without a hardware controller, software will not beat
hardware. It may someday sound phatter, and better, but
I think the above is true, regardless.
An anyways, I've found that most people who use
computers solely just get distracted and surf the net
or look at porn instead of writing tracks - there's not
much commitment. Or just stealing samples of beats and
such they could never write themselv
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
There are 48 total messages for this topic
Reply to Thread
You need to register/login to use the forum.
Click here to Signup or Login !
[you'll be brought right back to this point after signing up]
Back to Forum
