Korg Forums

I did a tutorial comparing NI Massive with the RADIAS and uploaded the results onto SoundCloud.

Massive plays through twice, then the same patch plays on the RADIAS
http://soundcloud.com/wolf-ray/massive-vs-radias

You can do the tutorial yourself here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WYZyPFn ... ture=feedu

The .rdp can be downloaded here:
http://www.file-upload.net/download-375 ... h.rdp.html

That is quite cool. you have proven the capabilitys of the R3

Morshu wrote:That is quite cool. you have proven the capabilitys of the R3

Idiot.

Even though I didn't use the R3, every parameter could be copied onto that unit.

CharlesFerraro wrote:Even though I didn't use the R3, every parameter could be copied onto that unit.

Regardless, this was a Radias demo.

And I'm not sure what this proves about the Radias or R3.

it proves how powerful the r3 is compared to massive

Morshu wrote:it proves how powerful the r3 is compared to massive

.....

First of all, it's still the Radias.

Second... how does this prove at all that the R3 is powerful in comparison to Massive?

Morshu does not know enough about what he speaks of. Morshu's logic is I-have-hardware-so-I'm-better-than-a-vsti. It just Morshu's opinion really of what sounds better, even though he doesn't know the difference between the two to argue his stance on the issue.

admittedly, some vsts are pretty spectacular, but they still sound like a toy when you take them out of the box- sure some korg synths are like that too, but they sound really bad and unusable with their presets unlike korgs. Sure thats not a very good way to judge, but in general, its preferable to have a piece of gear that you can touch and use, than to have a cd with a fake synth on it that costs about half the price of your real synth.

but i'm not trying to be biased- its just i have hardware and its better than something thats not real. lol.

Morshu wrote:but i'm not trying to be biased- its just i have hardware and its better than something thats not real. lol.

What a paradoxical statement

/facepalm

Morshu, here's the bottom line. There is absolutely no inherent difference in sound quality between a hardware Virtual Analog Synthesizer and software Virtual Studio Technology. Period.

Your argument is that you can touch hardware and that makes VA's sound better. And hardware is more tactile for sure. Want to know how to get around that point and click conundrum with a softsynth? Buy a MIDI controller.

In fact, my MPK has a better build quality than the RADIAS. Does that make the MPK sound better? lol. No! Its a controller!

You may be bedazzled by presets, but presets do not determine sound quality in a strict sense. If you give the most clever programmer in the world a piece of junk, he's going to make it sound amazing. If you give a block-head the most capable synth in the world, he can still make it sound like s**t.

"Sound quality" in the digital world can be characterized by two important factors: Sample rate and bit depth.
Hardware synths have their own D/A sound cards that convert the signal of the VA OS into a line level output which is boosted by a preamp. Preamps also have a lot to do with "sound quality" but thats a different topic (all you need to know is that commercial synths have a market budget when it comes to preamps).
As far as I know, the the hardware synths with the highest internal sample rate and bit depth are some of the Nords and the Access Virus at 96kHz and 24bits.
A VST on the other hand has the benefit of being assigned a sample rate and bit depth by the host application. This can be 44.1kHz with 16 bits all the way up to 192,000Hz with 64 bits. So softsynths, in theory, can blow hardware synthesizers out of the water in terms of "sound quality". Just depends on which audio interface you're using.

An easy way to think of 'sample frequency and bit depth' is 'color and dynamic clarity'. But clarity and character aren't necessarily the same thing. Now Morshu, if you were trying to argue Analog vs Digital then you may have a case. But what you're talking about is Digital vs. Digital and that doesn't make any sense. Hardware or software, VST's and VA's are all generating their sound with algorithms. 1's and 0's. Differences in character depend on how the programmers made the digital algorithms behave. A la, There is absolutely no inherent difference in sound quality between a hardware Virtual Analog Synthesizer and software Virtual Studio Technology.

hi there!

i need help.

i really want to make this same sound with my r3. so i downloaded the radias sound editor and loaded ur .rdp file. that way i could see the parameters. so what i wanna do is copy everything you did but on my R3.

my question is: does it matter which r3 patch i start with first when i begin to edit? which program should i copy your parameters too?
or do i need an actual preload radias program to start editing?

i look forward to your response

rbbplmr wrote:
my question is: does it matter which r3 patch i start with first when i begin to edit? which program should i copy your parameters too?
or do i need an actual preload radias program to start editing?

It doesn't matter what you start copying to because if you're going to copy over all of the parameters, then there won't be anything left. Of course, it's easy sometimes to miss something, so it's best to start from an initialised patch (basic sawtooth with no FX, filters, envelopes, etc. everything 'zeroed' out). So you know there's nothing unexpected going on.
There should be a short section in the manual on how to initialise from the keyboard itself, but if you're using the editor for example then you can right-click on a slot and choose to initialise it (I think).

thank you so much. i really really appreciate it. ill go try that now.