Virtual vs. Actual. Your thoughts please.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:00 pm

IMO = in my opinion.

mercyplease · Post by **mercyplease** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:20 pm

frankie123 wrote:
hambone1 wrote:A lot of it is personal preference.

IMO, virtual just can't compare to slapping a '63 J-Bass, filter sweeping a Minimoog, or whacking a DW snare. As useful, cheap, and accessible as virtual instruments are, they were born without a soul.
Born without a soul? Thats hogwash dude. Not to mention you are making a generalization with so many holes in it.

It always comes down to what you can put into your equipment. Obviously, things like guitars and basses should be recorded with real instruments whenever you can, but I've heard excellent sounding tracks using only a program like reason. It's not the arrow, it's the indian. If you can make it sound good, it doesn' t matter what you use.

The bone usually does talk shite but on this one I have to agree with him.
Hardware=feel, its is as simple as that.

And no one is going to tell me that during a session with tons of plugins your going to lauch rob papen blue or any other virtual synth or sampler and proceed to play as if it were a hardware synth that has keys that are responsive and no delay. The VI will be a major hassle unless your playing one note and even then it will be recorded in the wrong place. if you use a mouse exclusively then this is not a problem but you will never get better as a player.

Angstrom · Post by **Angstrom** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:23 pm

nolus wrote:I like virtual. how else could I fit half a dozen synths, a couple of sampled sound modules, a grand piano, an organ and a mellotron into a shoulder bag. Also because I can afford lots of them.

On the other hand i would love to own the real versions of these - especially the grand piano - and be able to employ a technician or two to keep them all maintained and tuned!

I did a track a long time back which featured a cheesy hammond organ skanking away in the middle eight. We did this tune for a Peel session and as I played my bad hammond-ish part .. the engineers couldn't stand it and set up a real B3 and Leslie plus some freaky old mic that looked like a metal space-donut from 1952.

anyway, big suprise, the B3 sounded a lot better than the one on the 'Vintage Keys' or whatever I was using at the time. Even with me playing it.
when I say 'a lot', I mean - we were just laughing at the preposterousness of the difference in the recording.
They couldn't stop me playing it, it was like driving a stock car, or perhaps a steam tractor.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 9:25 pm

It's kinda like comparing porn-wanking to shagging.

They both have their pros & cons, but still get you there in the end.

RawTheory · Post by **RawTheory** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 12:40 am

hambone1 wrote:It's kinda like comparing porn-wanking to shagging.

They both have their pros & cons, but still get you there in the end.

thats hilarious!

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:05 am

im a purist.. one of those wankers who lubz analogue n all that..

i think soundwise, ive heard vsti's that sound as good as my andromeda.

the approach to vsti's and integration with live is awesome.

however i wouldnt want my mix to ever be fully comprised of sounds from vsti's... in this day and age with all the progress we have made and the sounds people dig, there is no digital vs analogue, its just stupid.. they both coexist peacefully.

what it does come down to (and more relevant to the topic name) is actually
digital hardware vs digital software.

the difference i think is mainly in the effects. software effects have a long long way to go when compared to their hardware counterparts and you will find that a virus c has a very high quality effects section compared to a top range vsti...

glu · Post by **glu** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 1:13 am

expanding on what i said earlier for no apparent reason...

I like the character of sampling a djemba or tabla versus the clean samples I can get off a CD. Recording the sound of the room gives it more personality.

I have tried many moog emulations, but nothing is as fun as playing the ol' beat moog through triton fx. Keep a little bit of than line noise in the sound, and it too has more character.

I do love VSTi's though, especially the free ones

msticman · Post by **msticman** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:03 am

imo, i would say it depends. first is studio size. if your studio is limited on space, you would probably be better off with virtual. however, virtual also takes up screen space, so multiple monitor setups are, imo, a must. some hardware its easier to play and tweak the sound easier than doing it on a virtual counterpart, if it has one. in my studio, i use virtual, mostly because of space and cash reasons. but i would like to purchase a few pieces of hardwar, mainly drum machine and vocoder.

another thing is studio vs live pa. i think in studio virtual would is easier, maybe a little more time consuming. if your out there performing i would think hardware would be the way to go. although i havent done any performance yet, i would think that it would be easier to just go the the piece, play your part, and be done with it. as most hardware has some kind of sequencing function, you wouldnt really need to route it to your pc. another is, i think the audience would rather see you working the several machines and not just the computer.

but these are just my thoughts.

rbmonosylabik · Post by **rbmonosylabik** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:16 am

this thread was over from the 1st reply

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 3:27 am

Use both. Each have advantages.

hambone1 · Post by **hambone1** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:38 am

rbmonosylabik wrote:this thread was over from the 1st reply

Perhaps for those without a preference, true...

DJ VAKIS · Post by **DJ VAKIS** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 7:44 am

I love both.But now i only use virtual.Because of space and cash reasons.

Virtual vs. Actual. Your thoughts please.

What do you prefer?