Like here's one example: I know a guy who owns both an akai s6000
and an akai z8. the z8 has the 24-bit engine while the s6000 has the
16-bit engine. Akai samplers are just samplers, they don't have an
internal sound engine, so it's unlikely that there are any preset
eqs, etc. However, my friend likes the sound of the older s6000 over
the newer z8. he says it's warmer, fatter, and louder on stage.
----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:cb1963@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Chris Belle
To: <mailto:realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>realmusicians@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 31, 2010 8:12 AM
Subject: [realmusicians] Re: synth question
Well, I think there are a lot of factors to consider.
I think with the advent of big sample libraries, and virtually
unlimited sampling capacity, the manufacturers want to make
everything as big sounding as possible.
I notice that with drum libraries, nothing is ready to use, kick
drums have a lot of over-ring, and you need to use gates, comp, and
eq to get them record ready.
Sounding real isn't what you necessarily want, but something that is
polished and ready for the tracking bus is often better.
I think the older synths with they're more limited libraries tended
to get you closer to something that you could use, and with the newer
stuff, they give you raw samples and you have to roll your own.
But I also think a lot of the new stuff is more ambiance and modern
rock oriented too.
Hip hop guys are always after the older 80s gear, and old school
samples because that's what works so nicely in that sort of music,
old rockers back in the day tended to use big drum kits and just mic
everything up but now that rock drummers are going for the triggered
stuff more, they're probably being cater to because the hiphop guys
already have so much.
It's a marketing thing.
Also, it's a perception thing too, if you grew up on hearing a
certain kind of sound, you like it, I still love some of he old sound
canvas and korg m1 sounds, even though by today's supposed better
standards those sounds are dated and cheesy, well, look at the
kurtzweil crowd and how relkgious they are about the kurtzweil work
stations, over-priced and
behind the technology curve as they are, they keep re-packaging the
same old stuff over and over again with a few tweaks and well, no
offense to my kurtz lovers on list here,
but I will say one thing about the kurtz sounds, they are ready make
to drop on a track, they don't sound big and huge on their own, but
they work so damn well in a mix.
I'd love to have one, even an older one as a go to synth for just
those sort of sounds, especially orchestral stuff.
Well, Omar, you and me are both old roland gear fans, I love my jv1080,
I need to go grab it out of the storage room and sample some stuff
off of it to use.
YOu are so right, you know I do a lot of country and southern gospel
I do all sorts of music, but the bread and butter and what's made me
the most money in this part of the country is the s g crowd, and I'll
go use a drum off the dm4 module or dm5 which works better than
something off the hypersonic old as it is, it just works better for
that style.
So I think it's marketing, and kind of the same way with computers,
back when memory was limited, they had to get the code tight and
right and make every lick count, and same with sample libraries, if
you wanted to sell a module, better make it count on the sounds you
can offer, but now presets and thousands of sounds are the average,
so just make any old sound, and don't worry about it,
and let folks sort out the particulars.
At 05:53 AM 5/31/2010, you wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I'm curious to hear some feedback from you guys on this topic:
>
>A lot of people, myself included, often feel that older synths sound
>warmer/fuller/fatter than the latest ones on the market. Example: i
>like the motif es over the xs, or I think that older Roland synths
>sound warmer/fatter than the newer ones. Although the samples in
>newer synths sound more real, the older ones don't sound as "watered
>down." What are your thoughts on this? If this might be the case, is
>it simply due to the way sounds are eqed on the newer ones, or do
>the physical components of machines also play a part in the way
>sounds are generated?
>
>Looking forward to your input!
>
>
>Omar Binno
>
>Website:
<<http://www.bigoproductions.net>www.bigoproductions.net>http://www.bigoproductions.net>www.bigoproductions.net
>AIM: LOD1116
WARNING!!!
This email could contain innocent phrases which, if taken out of
context, or read from an existing inclination to be hostile, or an
overly politically correct world view could induce cursing, abusive
language, or other indications of less than desirable behavior in a
public venue.
No ill will is intended.
The sender takes no responsibility for mis-interpretation or
otherwise extrapolated extended meaning, intent, or purposes implied
or imagined from said phrases.
The receiver of any such email containing such phrases is solely
responsible for good
interpretation and intelligent deployment of subsequent responses to
the above communication.
