I have a Clavinova CLP-170 digital piano, Audigy 2 soundcard, Cubase and Sonic. I find I am limited to the quality and variety of sounds this setup can give. Eg neither the digital piano's strings, the Audigy's strings, or any soundfont's strings I've tried are good enough. What I'm after is top of the range synthesizer sounds and effects. Is there a soundcard and/or software synth software that can give me superior professional sounds compared to what I have. Or do I really need to get a replacement for the digital piano, eg the Yamaha S90ES. The editing side of things I am fine with - Cubase and Sonic are a breeze. The piano sound I have is fine (can record directly into mp3/wav from digital piano to pc and sounds professional). What I need is professional synthesizer sounds and effects (strings / bass / drums / other instruments etc).
Thanks

http://www.edirol.com/products/info/hyperCanvas.html



http://www.edirol.com/products/info/hq_orchestral.html



[This message has been edited by Dnj (edited 08-22-2005).]

Soundcards are hardware interfaces that Cubase and similar apps use to process the audio signal. Think in similar terms of the mixer / audio amplifier stages of a multitrack tape recorder.

Some also have a midi interface so that you can route midi data in and out of your computer. There are a few ( mostly older models ) that do come with built in sounds.., SYXG1000 and the old Korg Oasys cards for example, but most of the current models do not. The Audigy 2 is not a high end soundcard, but it's more than adequate for reproducing the sounds in a softsynth and for general recording.

Hypercanvas is ok.. It has strongsuits vs some of the other GM offerings out there, mainly that it recognizes patch and bank changes. Plugsound's GM module and Steinberg's Hypersonic, which are competing products, do not, but I also think that both of these have better sounds, in most areas, especially synth types( subjective of course ). Most of the ratings I see at forums like KVR Audio tend to support this as well, again, subject to the whims of the user(s) who rate this stuff.

Hypercanvas is "plug and play", where the others I mentioned are not... you have to enter each instrument manually on each track. Not at all a useable setup for someone who uses midifiles to play live, but ok for studio work if you don't mind the extra work ( although Hypersonic now has some kind of workaround that is supposed to allow it to recognize patch changes ).

There are other alternatives for an all in one solution. A good sampler like Kontakt for example, which allows you to add your own sound library. Again not plug and play but if you don't need it live... well the sounds can be incredible if you get the right samples.

You can also use soundfonts, the Audigy does support them right ? There is a freeware soundfont called 'SGM180' out there that I dl'd. It's a large soundfont ( the 180 = 180 mb of samples ). I think even dry ( no add on effects ) it gives Hypersonic a good run for the money soundwise. I open it in SFZ+ soundfont Vst hosted by XLutop chainer ( you could host it in Cubase ), and add a slight touch of Kjaerhaus Chorus and Reverb vst effects ( also freewares ), and I think it excels vs Hypercanvas and Hypersonic.

If you are looking for synth sounds close to the real analogs of yesteryear, then a specialty module ( focuses primarily on a particular group of sounds ) like NI's Pro 53 or the CSv80 might also be a consideration.

Of course there is certainly nothing wrong with using a good hardware rompler ( workstation ) like the Motif ES, Triton Extreme, or Roland Fantom X either. All of these are packed with some rather good sounds.

Good luck with whatever you choose.

AJ



[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 08-22-2005).]

Thanks for that, I just tried hypercanvas and also the SGM-180 soundfont. Not bad for messing around with, but I still find these things a bit gimmicky - it still doesn't sound like real quality to me, how about you? Am I basically pushing it to get any more quality sounds from the setup I have? Would a more professional soundcard make a big difference? I assume if I got a better soundcard I'd still need to hunt down the actual sounds because as you say they don't contain them themselves. So just wondering if it's worth getting a better soundcard if it's only going to make the likes of the SGM-180 sound a bit better. What I'm after is real quality, is it possible to get this at all through a computer - ie very realistic strings, piano etc.

Hi Mr Big C

Go to your question in PC/Hardware forum

If your computer setup is really fast with lots of RAM (at least 1.5-2GB), you could run GigaStudio 3 Orchestral version and that would give you nearly 20GB's of incredible sounds. Generally its best to run GigaStudio completely by itself so that conflicts don't occur and the processor isn't taxed much but running it with other software can be done on a really fast system. You'll need a hard drive that's bigger than the Giga Library file size (17GB+) if you want all the files to be resident. I'm certain you aren't going to complain about the quality of the Giga samples, especially if you've been using just a sound card and Clavinova. GigaStudio has some amazing samples and sound libraries and there are many synthesizer, orchestral, and drum libraries available.

Another option would be to run Reason, Reaktor, Pro 52, PPG Wave 2.V, or Arturia's CS-80V or Minimoog VST's. It all depends on the speed of your system as many of these programs can and will severely tax your CPU's speed.

Yes, my dream home setup would be to have a computer (or two) solely dedicated to running gigastudio, with absolutely nothing else installed! Thousands of professional samples avalable in brilliant, searchable, menus!

My main PC would run Cubase, and I'd probably have two monitors - one for the mixer view, the other for everything else.

You really can't beat samplers like Giga for quality sounds in my opinion!

thanks for replies and advice. I've never heard of gigastudio, I'm going to check it out - maybe this will be the answer! I've got Dell 8400 pc with 2GB memory, P4 3.4GHz, 250 GB hard drive - so that should do it?
Cheers.

[This message has been edited by BigMrC (edited 08-23-2005).]

I see on ebay someone is offering gigastudio3 along with m-audio delta 1010 soundcard. Is this soundcard a LOT better than audigy 2 if used with gigastudio (or anything for that matter). Or is there really not much in it, maybe I should just stick to getting gigastudio?

I have a Delta 1010 and I love it! You'll have to look at Soundblaster and M-Audio's websites to compare. The best thing about it for me are all the inputs/outputs which enable me to have all my synths and extenal effects hooked up to Cubase together. For example, it's dead easy to route an audio track in Cubase to my external effects processor, for example.

It would make your sound set-up and playing more enjoyable if you got the m-audio delta 1010 soundcard. Especially if later you want to record vocles or other instruments.

Thanks Carrie, I wouldn't really need all those inputs - I just have the digital piano feeding in. So am curious as to what advantages this card would give me over my audigy 2 in terms of sound quality... anyone advise?

Sorry, can't really comment on the specs. You might enjoy reading this review of the Delta:
http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/jan00/articles/midiman1010.htm

I think of Hypercanvas and SGM 180 as good backing sounds Mr C. Like the ones I would use for playback of a midifile. Would I use them as lead voices ? No .... but I have quite a few different options.

Remember though, that when you try these things, if you're not adding effects, none of them are going to sound top notch, not even with high quality samples. It's easy enough to do. If I turn all of the effects off any voice in my workstation ( Motif ES ), what's left is not very impressive.

I agree though that a sampler like Gigastudio will yield much better results. No question about that, because you can use better quality samples. I use Kontakt as my sampler, although I don't have the anywhere near the quality of sample collections that some other members have. I really love working with analog sounds, so I tend to gravitate toward the specialty modules, and that is how I built up my system. I use two computers, one is a laptop P4 2.8 Ghz 1.5 Gigs of memory. The second is a PC 2.4 Athlon and 1.28 gigs memory. Your setup should be more than adequate, but if you are going to dedicate it as a music computer, you will want to get rid of as much of the proprietary Dell and non essential Windows junk as you can.

My favs include Imposocar, Pro 53 and Arturia's Minimoog and CS80v as analog modelers, Absynth and Korg Wavestation ( Legacy collection ) as digital synths, Dasample's Electroacoustic and Musiclabs Realguitar for acoustic guitars, Plugsound's guitar collection for electrics, DR008 or BFD for drums, Edirol orchestral for traditional orchestral sounds, B4 for Organs, and Eve and Super Quartet for pianos.

Someone suggested using the pc forum here at Synthzone. Good thought, probably where this topic should be, but usually that's a very quiet forum, so sometimes better to be here although we are off topic again..lol. You might want to check out the KVR-Audio site. It is dedicated to computer music and there is a wealth of info available there, as well as working demos and excellent freeware modules and effects.

As far as the souncards, what it comes down to is sound quality. After I look past the digital ratings 24 bit / 96 or better KHZ sampling, the next most important spec to me is noise floor. I have an older SBlive card, and noise floor was it's main shortcoming, along with it being locked at a non standard 48 khz. I also have an M Audio audiophile and USB Quattro, and the noise floor is much lower. The Delta 1010 uses the same chip, but I'm not sure that it includes a midi interface, so if you were to use one you might want to keep the Audigy for that and as a soundfont player. I run 2 add on cards in my PC with no conflicts at all.

AJ

[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 08-23-2005).]

Thanks AJ, going back to gigastudio - is Kontakt better than gigastudio, or is it just different?

Giga sounds like a great choice for you MR C, I think, probably even vs any top notch hardware workstation. I think there are some differences between the two softsamplers. I tried Gigsastudio on another studio's computer. I didn't have enough experience so I'm not sure, but I walked away with the feeling that Giga is a little more like your hardware workstation in that the patches are there already ( not that you can't add more ), where Kontakt is maybe a little more DIY, you mix and match the samples as you see fit.

I could be totally wrong about that btw, and maybe it's all in the way the interface looks itself. Giga looks like a hardware board onscreen I guess. I will say that the Giga patches I played were superb, beyond anything I personally have here sample wise. I think if I were going to use a sample based system, and looks and interface count, I'm guessing I'd probably pick Giga over Kontakt.. it just looks more intuitive and complete to me.

Sampling itself just isn't my thing per se, and maybe I've kinda gone backwards, but I prefer a quasi modular approach where I plug things in as I need them. Kinda suits me though since analog sound and analog modeling is more my passion these days. I can fill in the other sounds I need nicely with the other modules I have and my Motif ES.

For you, Giga could be just the thing, and even though it isn't cheap when you start adding quality sample libraries, it still can be a less expensive solution overall vs adding individual modules or buying a hardware board. A great all in one that also seems to have the ability to allow the user to add and tweak to his / her hearts content, and far superior to any "locked in" module like Hypercanvas.

AJ




[This message has been edited by Bluezplayer (edited 08-23-2005).]