Running lots of synths at the same time
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2350 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
What sort of music requires huge numbers of synths in a song ?
I read here of the need for ever more powerful computers to run every more powerful synths, but why ?
Music needs space, as much as a comedian needs timing.
Just filling up space in a composition results in mush.
So why the need for so much CPU speed ?
I read here of the need for ever more powerful computers to run every more powerful synths, but why ?
Music needs space, as much as a comedian needs timing.
Just filling up space in a composition results in mush.
So why the need for so much CPU speed ?
- KVRAF
- 4590 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw
So what you're actually asking about? The number of synths used, or the CPU power?
Blog ------------- YouTube channel
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
- KVRAF
- 8180 posts since 22 Sep, 2008 from Windsor. UK
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2350 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
What sort of music requires huge horsepower.DJ Warmonger wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 10:00 am So what you're actually asking about? The number of synths used, or the CPU power?
- KVRAF
- 15205 posts since 8 Mar, 2005 from Utrecht, Holland
-
- KVRian
- 513 posts since 26 Nov, 2009
Any music with thick/rich textures and varied orchestration (let's say a tune in which there is a new synth section).
Even most commercial EDM (trance and similar) tracks usually layer lots of layers. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shlmDYo9lZA
In general, you don't need that much processing power, because you can export to audio, then disable the synth and use the audio file.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33107 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
why are you correlating more horsepower with more synths, when you admit that the synths are 'ever more powerful'.dellboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:48 am What sort of music requires huge numbers of synths in a song ?
I read here of the need for ever more powerful computers to run every more powerful synths, but why ?
Music needs space, as much as a comedian needs timing.
Just filling up space in a composition results in mush.
So why the need for so much CPU speed ?
Surely since 2007 youve worked out by now that developers are constantly making synths more complex and detailed, and that that takes more CPU time?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2350 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
No, I have never jumped onto that treadmill. The upgrade in sound would have to be considerable to make me pay out for a faster computer. What are these synths that people run that suck so much power? and is it worth it for a small improvement in sound quality ? Or am I behind the times and not noticed synths that sound vastly superior ?whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:52 pm
why are you correlating more horsepower with more synths, when you admit that the synths are 'ever more powerful'.
Surely since 2007 youve worked out by now that developers are constantly making synths more complex and detailed, and that that takes more CPU time?
By the way, I understand someone like Hans Zimmer needing a lot of grunt, and he has the musical output to prove its worth. So for a professional who makes money from playing with synths, yeah, I get that.
- Beware the Quoth
- 33107 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
What does your behaviour have to do with it, specifically? An explanation of why other people are probably following a pattern isn't dependent on whether you are.dellboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:35 pmNo, I have never jumped onto that treadmill.whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 3:52 pm
why are you correlating more horsepower with more synths, when you admit that the synths are 'ever more powerful'.
Surely since 2007 youve worked out by now that developers are constantly making synths more complex and detailed, and that that takes more CPU time?
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2350 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
Yep, you are right, my bad.whyterabbyt wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:27 pm
What does your behaviour have to do with it, specifically? An explanation of why other people are probably following a pattern isn't dependent on whether you are.
- KVRAF
- 4590 posts since 7 Jun, 2012 from Warsaw
People buy powerful synths and powerful PCs for same reasons they buy sport cars or whatever. Because they want it.By the way, I understand someone like Hans Zimmer needing a lot of grunt, and he has the musical output to prove its worth. So for a professional who makes money from playing with synths, yeah, I get that.
Also, Hans Zimmer didn't start playing or buying synths the moment he became famous. It takes many years, often decades, to progress from bedroom harmonica player to film scorer. Everyone is allowed to chase their dreams of assembling monster studio and in fact the whole business is based on that
Blog ------------- YouTube channel
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
Tricky-Loops wrote: (...)someone like Armin van Buuren who claims to make a track in half an hour and all his songs sound somewhat boring(...)
- KVRAF
- 9569 posts since 16 Dec, 2002
This should be in the Getting Started forum
Amazon: why not use an alternative
-
- KVRAF
- 6408 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Even a very subtle sound in there require the same cpu - so many does not mean mosh.dellboy wrote: ↑Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:48 am What sort of music requires huge numbers of synths in a song ?
I read here of the need for ever more powerful computers to run every more powerful synths, but why ?
Music needs space, as much as a comedian needs timing.
Just filling up space in a composition results in mush.
So why the need for so much CPU speed ?
And even coming and going, to make it interesting, require the same cpu when silent almost.
But with modern daws freeze ability - if computer can run the heaviest of the synths you have - this is all that is needed. The one you are recording need to run.
If in doubt, go external hardware on synths, pianos, midi modules and stuff - and just audio is needed - and really low cpu requirements.
-
- KVRAF
- Topic Starter
- 2350 posts since 28 Mar, 2007
Yeah I see your point, it does sound like a starter question. Truth is, I bought my first synth in the 1980's, a Juno 106. I then assembled a small studio based around an Atari running Cubase with a massive 20 megabyte hard disc, and a Tascam 4 track. As soon as PC's became powerful enough I jumped shipped, and was soon trying to learn how to get the machine to run TWO tracks of audio without crashing.
Then along came VST's, (and my daily KVR read) and it was a new path to tread.
Ever since then,its been upgrade - upgrade - upgrade, and nirvana is just around the corner. But instead of seeing power users saying they have enough now, they want Zeon processors, and 128 GB of memory. If anything, the need for speed is accelerating, rather than decreasing.
So what are you guys doing with this speed here on KVR ?
Any examples of the music a grunt PC has produced ?
-
- KVRAF
- 6408 posts since 22 Jan, 2005 from Sweden
Even knowing stacking tons of synths might create mosh - tell at least me this is not a beginner. It goes with experience.