minimax VS arturia modular: 1-0

petal · Post by **petal** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:09 am

On 2003-10-05 10:04, sinix wrote:

This is no bash on Creamware programmers at all, they are obviously very talented, but I dare to say many of the native programmers (Linn, Gmedia, NI, etc) are better then the DSP programmers to get the quality they have now natively.

It must be extremely difficult to put out a highly regarded native vsti that must compete with synths like Minimax, Pro-One, etc.

Now you better run and hide........

Thomas

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 10:27 am

On 2003-10-05 06:24, King of Snake wrote:
...If there really was no limit then there would be no difference because I'm sure there are programmers in the native world that are on par with CW's programmers.

Yes, that's certainly true - but programmers with that amount of talent, who are able to write a low level (native) math library of that quality are an extremely rare species.
While CW can start with the building blocks from Analog Devices, those dudes would have to start at point zero.

That's why I called it theoretical. It is a totally unrealistic assumption, considering the fact that a product has a deadline and of course limited financial resources.

In the earlier years when CPUs had a much simpler structure you frequently found programmers (still a minority, though) able to code on the machine language level from scratch.
Remember all those famous C64 games. 8 bit - 1 MHZ, but with an astonishing performance.

Later, with more complex CPUs, one usually let a compiler do the dirty job and generate the object code only as a first stage.
This output was disassembled again and critical routines were extracted and 'hand optimized', then assembled again and replaced the original machine generated output.
One could expect a 5 to 10 times better performance from this procedure.
In other words: you could make it an either faster or more sophisticated processing, whatever applied more.
Or in todays measures: instead of 1 GHZ you effectively get a 5 to 10 Gig machine.

I'm actually not in that kind of business, but from the comparison of the compiler output (the object code) of current apps like the Reactor family of products or even simple office applications you can guess that there's not a single bit optimized.
1 KiloByte of object code results in roughly 10-20 KB of assembler source - now go check your native apps for size

cheers, Tom

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 12:40 pm

On 2003-10-05 10:04, sinix wrote:

This is no bash on Creamware programmers at all, they are obviously very talented, but I dare to say many of the native programmers (Linn, Gmedia, NI, etc) are better then the DSP programmers to get the quality they have now natively.

It must be extremely difficult to put out a highly regarded native vsti that must compete with synths like Minimax, Pro-One, etc.

Yes, it must be. But I have to ask again, can we truly say that these VST devices compete with the Minimax or the Pro-One? I don't think they are in the same class. It's like saying my new VW is just as good as your Mercedes.

About the evolution of the technology...native programmers will get better at what they do. That is the nature of software and is a given condition. But at the same time, so will the true DSP programmers. The Minimax and Pro-One are a testament to that.

The struggle between native and DSP will continue, and I think all of us will benefit from those efforts.

sinix · Post by **sinix** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 6:56 pm

On 2003-10-05 13:40, interloper wrote:
Yes, it must be. But I have to ask again, can we truly say that these VST devices compete with the Minimax or the Pro-One? I don't think they are in the same class. It's like saying my new VW is just as good as your Mercedes.

See that's the thing... I completely agree with you!

Hands down, I think the Creamware devices are the best sounding dsp or native devices around. IMHO, most are better then the VA synths I've had in the past.

The point I was trying to make is that it must be very difficult for native developers to even get at the quality they're reaching now.

I'm a serious Creamware fan-boy, I think that shows!

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:12 pm

One thing should be mentioned about this comparison:

"It's not what you have , it's how you make it sound..."

R-type · Post by **R-type** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:21 pm

I don't know enough about programming to know if DSP based stuff is inherently better but what I do know is that Creamware synths sound better.

In my opinion Native Instruments FM 7 is very thin sounding in particular, it certainly sounds worse than Creamwares Vectron.

It seems logical that native synths and effects could catch up to Creamware's soon IF Creamware's offerings were a stationary target!

Since Creamware's stuff sounds better all the time native programmers would have to improve their sound more than Creamware can to even close the gap a little.

I think Creamware is only now reaping the true benefits of having a stable platform all these years for development.

Just like the Commodore 64 having a stable platform makes your development that much more easier, Creamware have been deveoping their "machine tools" for so many years great synths just come naturally now.

Another problem with native systems is you will always have the ever increasing overheads of the operating system and sequencer.

petal · Post by **petal** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 7:41 pm

On 2003-10-05 20:21, R-type wrote:

In my opinion Native Instruments FM 7 is very thin sounding in particular, it certainly sounds worse than Creamwares Vectron.

What an odd thing to say..........

Thomas

interloper · Post by **interloper** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 3:09 pm

On 2003-10-05 20:12, paulrmartin wrote:
One thing should be mentioned about this comparison:

"It's not what you have , it's how you make it sound..."

Absolutely.

One additional thing worth mentioning is that native developers must optimize their code so that it runs on a variety of systems. Using the FM7 as an example, it must run on at least a meager PIII 450 Mhz, and all the processors in between up to the latest & greatest CPU's from Intel (they did not seem to post any specs for AMD).

In any case, this is done by stealing a couple of CPU cycles here, a couple of CPU cycles there, and voila, it runs on all systems. A little aliasing is thrown in free of charge, of course, but I'm not complaining.

Then, native developers must make sure that it runs well on all operating systems indicated in the specifications, Windows 98/2000/ME/XP.

Seems to me that SFP handles all that stuff already for all synths, effects, and routing

, so that the DSP developers can focus on what's really important: that the devices, Minimax, Pro-One, B-2003, Solaris, Prophet Plus, Flexor, etc., sound like the bomb and blow you out of your seat.

DSP is where it's at.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:00 pm

On 2003-10-07 16:09, interloper wrote:
One additional thing worth mentioning is that native developers must optimize their code so that it runs on a variety of systems. Using the FM7 as an example, it must run on at least a meager PIII 450 Mhz, and all the processors in between up to the latest & greatest CPU's from Intel (they did not seem to post any specs for AMD).

that adjustment would typically be done in the software developement kit by various compiler settings. If it requires main attention then something with the programming (working) style of that company is very, very wrong

Nevertheless it can't be totally neglected, but it doesn't explain that 15 MByte binary of the FM7.

I've recently aquired a DX200 and the FM7 demo contains several imported presets of that box.
A one to one comparison isn't easy because the DX200's filter and fx section are somewhat reflected in the presets, but the FM7 seems indeed a little pale on that test.

On the other hand it's got a very usable sound character. It's not totally thin in the low end and it's crystal clear sound is probably what many users associate with FM synthesis. Nice user interface, too.

But if it comes to synthesis: how the hell did Yamaha arrange that stuff 20 years ago ? There's nothing but a DX7, the PLG150-DX to be exact, in that groovebox.
And the NI programmers who wanted to create an 'ueber-DX-synth', according to an interview, need 2 million lines of code and don't even supercede that oldie ?

cheers, Tom

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:13 pm

I'm no expert on the matter, but I heard that Yamaha have a patent on a certain method of doing FM, so it's impossible for others to replicate it exactly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong on this (which is quite possible).

peace

R-type · Post by **R-type** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 8:39 pm

It's not that the FM 7 is unusable it is just perfect example of of a highly regarded native synth that overall doesn't compare well with Creamware stuff.

[ This Message was edited by: R-type on 2003-10-07 21:46 ]

eliam · Post by **eliam** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 11:35 pm

I am in contact with a high caliber mastering company and they are equipped with a complete DAW running protools for remixing and precise mastering, and they realized that when their cpu reached a certain level of activity, some inaccuracies occured. Sometimes, for instance, an eq set at -3db could become a +3db instead. I don't think that this kind of thing can happen with dedicated dsp audio equipment, but when 1 processor is responsible for nearly all the processes involved, then the busier it is, the more likely the precision and thus the quality will suffer. So I think this can be a factor to also consider, apart from the actual software constitution...

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:41 am

I don't agree with you .
I'm in love with FM synthesis and I found the fm7 just fabulous ! in hardware I've got a tx802 ( 8dx7) , a FS1r ( fm and formant ) , and a dx200 . ok the fs1r is the most advanced in term of phase modulation ( they call that fm but it's phase modulation in reality ). but what your are able to do with the fm7 is just fantastic ! forget the preset it's just like shit ! like the real hardware !

. I didn't notice something wrong in the sound compare to yamaha piece of hardware ! there is the analog/digital fader that is really great . on creamware the only fm thing that could compete was the the old FM one but frankly i've found it very unusable . I think that if you want to show the superiority of creamware platform with the fm7 you choose the wrong horse imho . the fm7 is as warm as the hardware piece . do not compare with minimax or pro one . dx7 and minimoog are totally different beasts . to compare pro53 and john bowen pro5 ( or even pro1 ) is far better . actually I find pro53 not in the same class as the creamware platform clone . I find the creamware thing react more like a real piece of analog harware . the b2003 is more musical in my ear than the b4 too .. but to be honest a friend of my use only vsti ( he has a RME sound card ) . And his mix sound just very good too . so learn to use your tool in the best way IS the way to go .. I don't care if it's vsti or dsp code blah blah . but the fm7 is the only vsti I was impress for . by a keyboardist purist point of view .

[ This Message was edited by: spiderman on 2003-10-08 04:47 ]

R-type · Post by **R-type** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:57 am

I'll never get into the depths of FM 7 because I'll feel I was wasting my time. I just scanned the presets, was a little disapointed, then a couple of months later sold my copy. I mean, to be honest I thought FM 7 really sucked. I love Yamaha and I have a totally sweet bass midi picked made by them.

I'm not hugely experienced as a producer but I guess whatever the sound I'm looking for is in Minimax not FM 7 because when I started scanning those presets...heh heh.

Minimax and modular for me I do drum n Bass and some other slower dance stuff and basically I like my synths "raw and wriggling".

I'm saving for Solaris.

valis · Post by **valis** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:19 am

I have a few friends that LOVE the dx7-II's they have (and they have the fs1r etc as well as whatever the rack format of dx7 was) and we all thought they compared quite favorably with FM7. The original DX7's can be fairly harsh beasties, creamware probably has a bit of an edge against them with the overall sound of the aliasing in the CW dsp's. Plus FM7's MultiFX (and filters) aren't the greatest, but the original DX7's didn't even have filtering or the multiFX in the FM7. Disable them and use your own (something I definately do with almost all softsynth multiFX) and FM7 is right up there.

If you actually side-by-side with an original DX7(II etc) you'll note that the DX7 itself has a very digital, almost grainy at times, feel to it that makes it perfect for searing pads (and leads and wooden/drum sounds etc etc). Comparing to a wavetable/vector synth like Vectron isn't exactly fair because they're different beasts entirely...the only place that FM7 tends to fail when side-by-side with hardware synths is in the 'dynamic feel' which you could attribute to the converters, the analog board etc. However it sits in the mix pretty damn convincingly for me.

Fm synthesis isn't exactly straightforward when compared to other forms of synthesis (tho not impossible to get your head around), rejecting a synth based on the presets isn't unheard of but when you learn to plumb the sound engines rather than the preset banks there are quite a few synths that will surprise on further listening, if you have the time and inclination for that sort of thing.

valis · Post by **valis** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 4:49 am

Had to do another post to separate my thoughts on softsynths vs. sfp from the FM7 vs. sfp discussion.

I find that its more productive (at least for me) to talk about benefits vs. detriments to get a perspective on how not to use/do things and what ways to make things work well for me, rather simply adopting a fixed stance in any of the mac vs. pc, digital vs. analog, electronic vs. acoustic etc discussions that seem to abound in the online music world.

One thing I've noticed about my limited hardware resources (virus, jd800 & basstation key) and SFP synths is that they 'fill out' and sound very large compared to most softsynths when standing alone in the mix. We could wax lyrical about Creamware's aliasing in their dsp chips, the exhaustive nature of dedicated fixed amounts of dsp per voice vs. the tantalizingly fleeting cpu resources most of us face... Which is useful to a degree in supporting the idea that there is some 'fullness' to the sound versus softsynths. This means that (at least for me) I'm more likely to use these as 'large' or standalone sounds in a mix...

It is definately true that some softsynths (like Absynth and Virsyn Tera) impress the heck out of me on first listen but later I find in the mix that they have a very atonal quality in their top end (aliasing) or they just don't 'sit' properly. When the rest of the mix blends and breathes they stick out out like an untuned sore thumb. Sometimes not even stripping the patch of all Fx & odd modulations reveals a usable sound. But I find on the other hand that getting to know softsynths like PastiCz (PentagonI, FM7, z3ta+. Albino etc.) better than just browsing through their presets allows me to sit them quite nicely when layered in the mix or acting as supporting elements for some of the 'fatter' sounds I can make elsewhere.

Something I've noticed abouyt softsynths is that I tend to layer them a lot more, or use them as supporting elements in the mix. Whereas with SFP synths or my hardware I tend to try to get the sounds to stand on their own. I could posit that the highly controlled and somewhat predictable nature most software synths exhibit makes them less favorable standalone but helps in layering, that the high end aliasing nastiness some sofstynths exhibit can be compensated for by choosing & knowing a few softsynths well and knowing how to treat them in the mix. Etc etc etc.

Some even deride the basstation itself for lacking the 'warmth' that other hardware lacks. Yet experience has taught me that turning the resonance up and the filter down often yields more subbass than I can even coax out of SubDub2...

paulrmartin · Post by **paulrmartin** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 7:41 am

On 2003-10-07 20:13, dArKr3zIn wrote:
...I heard that Yamaha have a patent on a certain method of doing FM,.

FM is an invention of electronic music composer Chowning. His method seemed so weird when I learned it in university that I just didn't get it...

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:10 am

yes fm synthesis is not an instinctive thing.
but I think fm is virtually unlimited in term of synthesis. soustractive is very limited but instinctive and easy . i find fm texture fit very well together with moog style sound etc .. I think fm could complete very well the sound arsenal . You can achieve some very rich and complex texture or some terrific noise . very good for drum and bass too . I agree that it's a little bit more time consuming to do sound . but it worth the effort . the price to pay to have original sound ??

darkrezin · Post by **darkrezin** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:25 am

On 2003-10-08 08:41, paulrmartin wrote:
On 2003-10-07 20:13, dArKr3zIn wrote:
...I heard that Yamaha have a patent on a certain method of doing FM,.

FM is an invention of electronic music composer Chowning. His method seemed so weird when I learned it in university that I just didn't get it...

What I meant was a certain implementation of FM - not the concept itself.

peace

spiderman · Post by **spiderman** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 11:25 am

you are right ! korg don't have the right to call "fm synthesis" fm synthesis features they have in their synth , they called that phase modulation instead ! I mean the term " FM synthesis" is copyrighted by yamaha . I've read that somewhere ..
but in fact yamaha do real phase modulation and not real FM !!

[ This Message was edited by: spiderman on 2003-10-08 12:42 ]