My first priority is to get a part time job. I know of a guitar shop that''s looking for help too. In any case, I''m only a freshman in high school, so I have at least four years to save my dough. Then I plan on getting a bachelor''s degree. So as for budget... nothing stable.

xoxos, I know exactly what you mean. I''ve been in a similiar situation. A friend of mine got really into softsynths and showed me what could be done. We were listening to Reaktor, and Absynth and were blown away. I was ready to throw my hardware synths out the window for a moment. When I checked out all the softsynths on my system (which I know intimately) I went from loving to liking the sound. I don''t know, something was just missing in the sound itself. Generally (in all the softsynths released I''ve messed with) the highs sounded squared off, almost like mp3 compression, and the low end just wasn''t there like on my analog gear. I know very popular artists using softsynths for example BT. He used Reaktor on the track "Dreaming", although I like how he put everything together in the track, the sound was very softsynthy with artifacts like I described above. I''m open still though. I think they will get much better, and I might use some to layer onto track. My foundation will forever remain in hardware though.

The Audiowerk2 card is good. Who made that digidesign? The point to using higher bitrate is for extended dynamic range. I record in 44.1 / 24bit. That way when the mastering engineer gets the .wav to master they''re not looking at 16bits of dynamic range (which makes a big difference if they''re working with a theoretical 140dB of dynamic range, instead of 90 or whatever). After they get through with it, the mastering engineer can reduce the bit rate with much more grace than we can. Imagine working with a 24bit graphic file, after you''re done with it and converting it to a gif is much better than working with a small amount of colors the entire time.

Ice, here''s what I recommend if your budget is absolutely nothing. Get a soundblaster live!, or audigy, a good but inexpensive controller to control the soundblaster, and then learn more about SoundFonts. That will give you the basics of understanding akai once you upgrade your equipment. Plus, there are some pretty good soundfonts available. Push that to the max and your transition to some bigger guns will be easier.

-Aaron

i see it like this:

nyquist puts the 44100 sampling rate at a max capturable frequency of 22050, which as we all know, equates to one point of data per ''peak'' on the waveform.. one above and one below dc zero (pending a signal in valence..)

so all frequencies look exactly the same here, regardless of their waveshape..

let''s drop that down to 11025.. 4 points along an entire 360º cycle.. down to 5512.. 8 points, only 4 for each 180º .. even at this very discernible range, most of our waveforms have barely any definition. i tend to think of the 8 points per 180 at 2756 hZ as a casual reference more than an accurate depiction

it''s the old ''argument'' tho.. i distinctly remember the first time i heard a softsynth, being astonished at the absolute purity of the signal. you just can''t achieve that in hardware! still, purity, digital gritty-smoothess, analog power summing vs. digital ''discreteness,'' they''re all just textures.

my last album was 99% freeware, sans a few pro-one high frequency modulations for a bit about robots.. of course my motivation was to support the new paradigm.. synergy.. people contributing for the greater good instead of playing marketplace for their own benefit. major players.. synthedit, tobybear, smartelectronix..

(i hear "chinese heaven" and "chinese hell" are the same place.. a huge table crammed with food, everyone is seated with 10'' chopsticks.. difference is the "heaven" people feed each other while the hell people struggle unsuccessfully to procure food for themselves. i just like to share that as frequently as possible..)

i don''t believe the difference is really pertinent to any commercial stationing.. only an electronic musician or audiophile with an awareness of the technology paradigms would delineate the difference.. there are countless sprofessionals who use an entirely soft studio, and i am convinced that virtually any professional assignment can be accomplished exclusively employing *freeware* it''d be a hell of a fun challenge, at any rate.

i''m not arguing that this is good or anything (seems most commercial media is about repeating established forms, desensitizing the populace and creating a vacuous, cancerifous meme..) and i''d pretty much have to say any pro not using the most interesting, aesthetogenic sound sources they can is my robot enemy from brainwash hell..

Whoa, easy man. You''re zagging off course!

"it''s the old ''argument'' tho.. i distinctly remember the first time i heard a softsynth, being astonished at the absolute purity of the signal. you just can''t achieve that in hardware!"

Well, not in 16-bit maybe. You have to understand the S/N ratio, and gain structure of a finely crafted signal path.

"still, purity, digital gritty-smoothess, analog power summing vs. digital ''discreteness,'' they''re all just textures."

Digital discreteness a planned texture? No, a forced, hey you''re stuck with it texture.

"my last album was 99% freeware, sans a few pro-one high frequency modulations for a bit about robots.. of course my motivation was to support the new paradigm.. synergy.. people contributing for the greater good instead of playing marketplace for their own benefit. major players.. synthedit, tobybear, smartelectronix.."

That''s great, but you should be thinking about the music first, not a new paradigm. If truly a paradigm it will form by itself, it''s self important to think you can change it''s direction.


"i don''t believe the difference is really pertinent to any commercial stationing.. only an electronic musician or audiophile with an awareness of the technology paradigms would delineate the difference.. there are countless sprofessionals who use an entirely soft studio, and i am convinced that virtually any professional assignment can be accomplished exclusively employing *freeware* it''d be a hell of a fun challenge, at any rate."

This is just a plain difference in musical, and audio philosophy. You''re right, I''m right. Pro doesn''t = talent BTW. If you can fart in a mic, put it in a pretty package, and sell it more power to you. I''d like to know of some pro''s that use softstudios exlusively, and if so I''d like to hear their music. Don''t use your economical struggle to glorify softsynths, that''s all too easy, a cop out.

"i''m not arguing that this is good or anything (seems most commercial media is about repeating established forms, desensitizing the populace and creating a vacuous, cancerifous meme..) and i''d pretty much have to say any pro not using the most interesting, aesthetogenic sound sources they can is my robot enemy from brainwash hell.."

Do I hear the X-files theme? Calm down mulder, it''s not a conspiracy. I''d say if a "Pro" is making money off as little as he/she is spending into it then go for it. That''s basic econ. If you want to create a strong work of art, and sculpt the sound in ways beyond just crapping out tracks for money then that''s great too. If anything you''re the robot enemy brainwashed by a Native Instruments press release.

I''d like to experiment with softsynths down the line more. As REAL converters get better and cheaper I''ll be the first one running softsynths. They sound ok now, but not for what I''m trying to produce. You''re probably going after something completely different. Personally I feel like I''m wasting my time if what I''m doing doesn''t feel perfect to me (musically that is).

Ancient chinese secret: We''re both right.

-Aaron

what''s your problem?

maybe a discretely digital texture isn''t something you consider part of your palette, likely it''s not relevant to your compositions, but that''s no need to disenfranchise the validity of my texture choices or compositional subject or intent. might want to check out what is a rather dated genre.. idm.. revealing the imperfections in the machine is what it''s all about.

a digitally generated signal with 0 s/n is not the same as a low s/n.. the bit rate has nothing to do with it.

then you suggest that my actions can have no affect toweards altering paradigms.. can you discern between self importance and paradigm importance? why are you attempting to invalidate my posts? don''t you realise that many new paradigms have been progressed by a single individual''s actions? i''m not looking for this, but the way you suggest "everybody sit down" is sickening.

you''re obviously not an american.. as someone recently put it, "americans don''t realise they''re ants.."

aah, i''m sick of replying. i''m fucking out here trying to help more people have an *equal* voice (maybe you don''t know what a ghetto is) and all you can do is say my actions have no importance and continually seem to suggest that i''m not capable of making any sensory discernments. did you even check out my music?

and i think native instrument are crap. go back and read what i wrote again, or find someone else to act like you know more than.

now i see you''re in the other thread saying "neo''s scream was supposed to sound nasty and digital." i guess you''re going to tell me they didn''t have the budget to make it nasty and analog because digital is an undesirable "you''re stuck with it" texture, those poor scientologist blighters. what''s the real deal?

this is just pure hardware snobbery. the only difference between a vsti and a comparably engined hardware synth is the price tag (and the extra a/d and lousy midi timing, but you can use tobybear''s free midi plugs to ''hiumanise'' the timing.)

by your own admittance, pro vs. amateur is no indication of quality, so get with it! assuming that native instruments produce the highest quality softsynths because of their high price tag is a fallacy.

if you like the sound of an analogue mixer, get a multi out soundcard. explain how a nova, ms2000, jp8k or nord lead have a better sound engine than crystal, or mda''s dx10 better than yamaha''s dx100. the issue of software romplers vs. a box with data compression is laughable.

the fact is, freeware is setting a new paradigm whether you like it or not. there are features in freeware hosts that i''d love to see in the multi-hundred dollar hosts. get a hardware synth because of a special function, or an analogue, but patently ignore the suggestion that hardware sounds better than a vsti just because it''s hardware.