Sujet de la discussionPosté le 11/01/2003 à 19:08:52POur clore le débat soft vs hardware
Tiens, c'est tellement bien dit que je le rajoute dans ma FAQ sur les synthés. C'est une réponse d'un n-ième soft vs hard sur le forum waldorf de Wolframe Franl, developpeur principal chez waldorf ( boîte qui fait des soft ET du hard ET de l'analogique ) :
Citation :
Is it okay if I try to stop the discussion by giving you some facts?
Software and hardware synthesizers and samplers ***can*** sound
equally good because in both worlds, mathematical algorithms are used
to generate or process audio data in processors. In general, there is
no big difference if an algorithm is calculated in 24bit fixed point
or 32bit float format.
D/A convertors in good sound cards are as good as those found in
hardware synthesizers.
The only difference between hardware synthesizer- and plug-in
programmers is that the people who develop hardware synthesizers are
usually better skilled to do the job.
They invented or at least know better algorithms to generate
oscillators, filters etc. than most of the plug-in programmers know
of.
Another factor might also be important: if you are in the synthesizer
business for a long time, you simply know how to make a synthesizer
good-sounding. For Waldorf, for example, it has always been good that
we have a really brillant hardware developer, Tommy Kircher. He knows
all important synthesizer circuitries and knows why a VCA influences
the sound of a synthesizer dramatically.
BTW: I don't think that the PPG and the Attack sound worse than our
hardware machines.
Il me semble que les arguments de chacun portaient plus sur l'ergonomie en fait et non sur les sons : genre "les softs ça plante" ou le "hard, il te faut empiler les modules pour avoir ce que tu as avec un soft", etc...
Mmmhhh, non, il y a quand même beaucoup de ça sonne mieux, ou je sais pas quoi.
Pour l'ergonomie et le plantage, on est d'accord. Et personnellement, ça m'empêche pas de préférer le hard, mais pour des raisons ds methode de travail seulement