You know. after downloading a fair number of soft synths for my Powersampler card it, I thought about the way in which it uses all the DSP power to run the synths. I was thinking, seeing as we have VST Instruments and the DX variety, I would have thought it would make very good sense to actually make conversions of Soft Synths to the Pulsar/Luna Environment. Think about it, all the DSP taking care of the soft synth while you do your other stuff in Cubase/Logic etc. I honestly don't see why this would not be possible. Imagine running the Prophet 5 or the Waldorf PPG in the Pulsar Environment, how about Reaktor for example? OK maybe there isn't much point perhaps because machines are much faster these days but there are still plenty of musicians like myself who run a lowly Pentium 2 and would love the opportunity to use those softsynths. I mean to to use them you would have to pay alot of money to just get a decent machine to run them! It seems now that Sonar have their DX format the software developers are also making conversions to that format as well so why not for the Creamware environment too?
Have your say lets get some opinions on this.
Software Synthesizers, for Creamware Cards.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Well, one very good reason is that we have John Bowen himself working on Prophet remakes and many extremely talented people creating incredible devices that are not available in VSTi or DXi format. If you look around, you can find a Pulsar counterpart for major anologue synths (like those you mensioned) anyway, and plus those that are Pulsar original.
The DSP issue is simple... many VSTi and DXi instruments get mega polyphony with less processing power because they use simpler calculations and probably lots of workarounds. You can hear the difference. Pulsar synths may use lots of DSP, but that's why they sound better. And I'm talking scientific superiority. (though there probably are exceptions)
But it would be good if we had an option of changing the quality:polyphony ratio on the Pulsar synths. Sometimes short phrases and weaker lines don't need the mathematical accuracy and sonic quality that takes up so much of the DSP power. (having to sample them to save dsp power is a hassle) Getting 1 note using all of Pulsar II's DSP is.. well, probably mega high quality but also mega impractical. I think many feel the same way about this. :>
So the Pulsar platform does have its short comings... Yeah, I'll give that one away. I tend to think of it this way.. Back then, when people spent thousands of dollars just to get monophonic synths, along with the new sounds, they were introduced into a way of thinking. Voice efficiency. If each voice costed you 2 grands, you'd better make each one count. It's sort of like arranging for acapella. Each voice has to be efficient. And just as Pulsar recreates analogue synths with extreme precision, it naturally recreates the "voice efficiency" bit. You get to feel what it was like in the 70's and early 80's. But instead of spending cash per voice, you spend DSP.
Even if you got a bunch of real analogue synths, you'd be stuck in the same dilemma. So don't think you're getting a bunch of soft synths. Pulsar synths are real... half hardware, half software, but they're just like real analogue instruments. No mega polyphony, no exaggerated numbers, no cheap tricks to make them sound better. They're real, with all the restrictions.
Ok, so what if people actually did conversions from VSTi and DXi? Well, of course they'd have to rewrite the whole thing.. and during that process, would have to refine the code so the synth lives up to the Pulsar communitie's expectations.. Put a synth through a process like that, and you're still going to end up with lots of calculations that require lots of DSP. In the end, you'd end up with a synth with 5 note polyphony max that's super high quality. Not much different from most of the Pulsar synths that are out there already. Don't you agree?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2001-12-29 05:44 ]</font>
The DSP issue is simple... many VSTi and DXi instruments get mega polyphony with less processing power because they use simpler calculations and probably lots of workarounds. You can hear the difference. Pulsar synths may use lots of DSP, but that's why they sound better. And I'm talking scientific superiority. (though there probably are exceptions)
But it would be good if we had an option of changing the quality:polyphony ratio on the Pulsar synths. Sometimes short phrases and weaker lines don't need the mathematical accuracy and sonic quality that takes up so much of the DSP power. (having to sample them to save dsp power is a hassle) Getting 1 note using all of Pulsar II's DSP is.. well, probably mega high quality but also mega impractical. I think many feel the same way about this. :>
So the Pulsar platform does have its short comings... Yeah, I'll give that one away. I tend to think of it this way.. Back then, when people spent thousands of dollars just to get monophonic synths, along with the new sounds, they were introduced into a way of thinking. Voice efficiency. If each voice costed you 2 grands, you'd better make each one count. It's sort of like arranging for acapella. Each voice has to be efficient. And just as Pulsar recreates analogue synths with extreme precision, it naturally recreates the "voice efficiency" bit. You get to feel what it was like in the 70's and early 80's. But instead of spending cash per voice, you spend DSP.
Even if you got a bunch of real analogue synths, you'd be stuck in the same dilemma. So don't think you're getting a bunch of soft synths. Pulsar synths are real... half hardware, half software, but they're just like real analogue instruments. No mega polyphony, no exaggerated numbers, no cheap tricks to make them sound better. They're real, with all the restrictions.
Ok, so what if people actually did conversions from VSTi and DXi? Well, of course they'd have to rewrite the whole thing.. and during that process, would have to refine the code so the synth lives up to the Pulsar communitie's expectations.. Put a synth through a process like that, and you're still going to end up with lots of calculations that require lots of DSP. In the end, you'd end up with a synth with 5 note polyphony max that's super high quality. Not much different from most of the Pulsar synths that are out there already. Don't you agree?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2001-12-29 05:44 ]</font>
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Reading the "atoms" post makes me ask a different question in the same line as Akuma's question. Yeah, many Pulsar synths can easily whip VSTi and DXi... but considering that many Pulsar synths are built from the same atoms anyway, then it might be hard to beat VST and DX versatility in that their code is probably written from zip. So my question would be, since we all have to depend on creamware for most developement, can creamware keep up with ALL the trends in synth design, native or non-native?
But then again, any kind of synth works under a similar limitation. Ya got OSC, EG, LFO, and a couple of filters.. That's pretty much it. You can make dozens of synths with different combinations of these parts but essentially, you're limited to these parts. It seems to me the only parts that leave space for developement would be OSC.. Like a different oscillation source (like the stft resynthesis I was once blabbering about) And when it comes to implementing something like that... well, I'll have to admit VST and DX has the advantage because us Pulsarians have to wait for Creamware to come up with the right atoms where as most companies that make VSTi and DXi have in house developers. And as we all know.. it takes quite a while for creamware to get things right. (and they like keeping tricks up their sleeves)
So I guess VSTi and DXi and any other soft synth would have their merits. Think of a synth that uses a picture as an oscilator.. there are dozens of softsynths that do that. But I'd imagine it would take another 5 years before Creamware implements something strange like that. I get the impression Pulsar synths are analogue only. (rotar is an exception I guess)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2001-12-29 10:51 ]</font>
But then again, any kind of synth works under a similar limitation. Ya got OSC, EG, LFO, and a couple of filters.. That's pretty much it. You can make dozens of synths with different combinations of these parts but essentially, you're limited to these parts. It seems to me the only parts that leave space for developement would be OSC.. Like a different oscillation source (like the stft resynthesis I was once blabbering about) And when it comes to implementing something like that... well, I'll have to admit VST and DX has the advantage because us Pulsarians have to wait for Creamware to come up with the right atoms where as most companies that make VSTi and DXi have in house developers. And as we all know.. it takes quite a while for creamware to get things right. (and they like keeping tricks up their sleeves)
So I guess VSTi and DXi and any other soft synth would have their merits. Think of a synth that uses a picture as an oscilator.. there are dozens of softsynths that do that. But I'd imagine it would take another 5 years before Creamware implements something strange like that. I get the impression Pulsar synths are analogue only. (rotar is an exception I guess)
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2001-12-29 10:51 ]</font>
P2's is so cheap! DSP's is expensive! why not get better PC, then you don't have to be worry. Because you can run them all (VSTi/DXi and DSP-Synth) at sametime, who cares what it is? DXi/VSTi or pulsar-synth?
BTW, there would be a trade-off, don't forget, the good pulsar-synth is used huge DSP's power too. Then you soon will need pulsar or Scope boards? $$$???
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LHong on 2001-12-29 12:57 ]</font>
BTW, there would be a trade-off, don't forget, the good pulsar-synth is used huge DSP's power too. Then you soon will need pulsar or Scope boards? $$$???
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LHong on 2001-12-29 12:57 ]</font>