Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

A forum for comparing two or more synths against each other. Also known as "versus" threads.

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby Ashe37 » Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:50 pm

Ok well, your 3.4 Ghz Pentium IV is just slightly slower than my cell phone.

No, seriously. PC performance in workstation environments, whether audio, video, or 3D, is my 'specialty'. Some might even say it is occasionally my day job.

First of all, if you have a Win98SE machine for DAW use, never connect it to the internet. EVER. Either specifically firewall it off from the internet completely in your router, or keep it off a network (in which case you lose the advantage of having more than one computer on the network...).

Second, yeah that P4 is going to be very long in the tooth and crashy. You are at or past the expected total lifetime of the CPU .

The SSD isn't going to matter much because the hard drive controller is likely going to not be able to match the performance of the drive. At best, it is likely SATA 1, at 1 Gb/s, and the drive can do most all of the 6 Gb/s that modern SATA is capable of. If its connected by parallel ATA, then it will max out at 133 MB/s. If it is connected by a Serial ATA PCI card, it will max out at 133 MB/s because that is where the PCI interface maxes out.

One reason the push to 64-bit started is because the arts and engineering users needed more than 2 GB, in the case of filmmaking moving to HD over SD was a great driving force. The 3D models for visual effects suddenly needed to be 4x more detailed just to maintain their current level of detail and at that point many SD shows were already pushing the 2 GB limit. It was becoming difficult to edit long-form TV because editing software was pushing the 2 GB limit and their was a brief push back to older editing techniques of using proxy footage just to make it through for awhile. Photoshop had been using various tricks to work on only parts of super-large images for over a decade. (Arts and engineering folks are the ones who were the primary users of Windows XP 64-bit)

It has since reached the point where even *games* are breaking the 2 GB limit. Its not 'bloat' its the sheer amount of detailed geometry and textures and preloading everything rather than having loading screens and the fact that people want open world games rather than being on rails for the story.

(As a note: i never used Win98, my machine dual-booted 95 and Win2k because i was running a dual pentium pro at the time. 95 was for games.)
Ashe37
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Central VA
Real name: Unpronounceable
Gear: Ensoniq SD-1/32,SQR,VFX,ESQm
Virus Indigo, M3-61 , MS2000BR, Volca Bass
Emu XL-7, Matrix 6r
TG-33, K3m, Blofeld, Micron, Mopho, BS II, JV-1080
Band: Eridani V

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby jxalex » Mon Apr 03, 2017 12:58 pm

OK, how many more others are here who attack the less-than-modern setup or also retro computer users?
Or just feel that their newest devices being superior despite its function? ;)


Ashe37 wrote:Ok well, your 3.4 Ghz Pentium IV is just slightly slower than my cell phone.


Perhaps that "being faster" is the only function. Unless it can run all the same software and peripheral hardware, providing the same function what I use, we cannot really do the comparison.
Or that phone has all these 18 port MIDI I/O hardware and can run MadTracker 2.6 with that on top with
its MIDI port capability?
Even better if the DOS programs some of those would make sound having SPDIF output...


And what about those who really still use the ZX Spectrum with 3.5Mhz CPU and not even 64kB RAM is usable for program? Really inferior or what in Your opinion?!??
Perhaps it does not matter if it is fun to deal with such hardware. However I do not wait from that device to play video files nor to transfer files in several gigabytes (but I am not sure about this -- perhaps someone geek does that already with some special controller in a lightspeed ).

Yes, but at the same time it is certainly not a progress in a society if we still have to visit foreign country with a plane and not with a rocket??!!

Oh and yes... I can downclock that setup to 1.5GHz with CPU with less cache and still can do all the same things without any problems. But even if it has been 3Ghz, it is enough, nothing were undone becouse of such more than 10 year old "slow" single-core CPU becouse my strict choice of programs. ;) Never been problem unless these software giants get lazier and make programs bigger and clumsier.
And thats why other people are worried if their quadcore CPU setup with 8..32GB RAM is enough to their modern "typewriter with TV".

ANd so what? Amiga, despite with its 12Mhz CPU was way more powerful than 100Mhz Pentium having processing power when it comes to graphics, becouse of some graphic accelerators, but I really cannot take a word in this topic becouse I did not have experience with that.

Also back in the old days Gravis Ultrasound MAX with 386 at 25Mhz speed had no problem to play 32channel module (trackers, demoscene), and with bit interpolation, where 100MHz Pentium machine with Soundblaster had big problems. ;)

First of all, if you have a Win98SE machine for DAW use, never connect it to the internet. EVER. Either specifically firewall it off from the internet completely in your router, or keep it off a network (in which case you lose the advantage of having more than one computer on the network...).


Interesting, if You worry about WIN98SE with internet connection so much, what about you say in a situation that DOS machine used to surf in the internet (there is also besides SSH and ftp clients sort of graphical web browsers)? :) Hazardous for everything in the computer in this case? (currently sitting behind Linux machine)

You take quite much a word about my system whereas You have never seen it or used it or kept up to date what are all the unofficial tweaks for that system and if there is anything else besides web browsers to use internet connection!

I can still use to read mail, news, use FTP sites even with such old machines without fear that the website content would tear down the system. Not every internet site requires latest browser! FTP servers are good ones, also not every e-mail reading goes with web browser, and there are also evergreen terminal programs.
Oh yeah there is ssh port too.

Also, why You think that I have something connected *directly* to the internet?
I block out all the traffic and links to facebook, google and so on in the router already.

In fact I have ALL machines with LAN connectivity whatever it runs.
For example when I do 16bit EPROMs burning for synthesizers then that is under the DOS with 486 in which I load the binary files over 100Mbit ethernet with NFS protocol. Also I can use the same machine to read e-mail (vt100 terminal emulation) and sftp if needed. :)
Modem cable I do not use, but I know someone who uses it. :)

And.. always ... backups -- partition image files (some persons still partition the harddiscs whatever big they are) and then it is totally ok to experiment with whatever things as there is always possible to restore the whole previous HDD contents.

Also...
since when internet really did harm to win98se computer systems while all kind of viruses and worms are winXP and newest browsers compatible long time ago? ;) These modern platforms are the most fragile ones in my experience (as I have to listen other average people complains that why their latest trendiest computer system wont work and has utterly weird problem!) and seeing the computers with several mechanisms installed as these trojans, worms and all sorts of things really are most compatible with them, whereas on older systems or out of the ordinary configuration they just wont work. SOmeone still havent said that "Why you wont use windows 10? ALl the newest viruses and trojans work there, so you cant get the newest viruses in your collection...".
It was also some years ago situation which shows that do not go blindly with every update for windows and programs. 2013 (or so) there was a internet worm which affected the skype, but it affected only those ones which were the latest versions, it did not touched my skype as I had 5 years ago by then switched off all updating (if it works, do not repair it).


Still, I do not do all in the one machine and neither I plan to have it.


Second, yeah that P4 is going to be very long in the tooth and crashy. You are at or past the expected total lifetime of the CPU .


...and it is still working and why there should be crashes or crashy becouse of CPU?


The SSD isn't going to matter much because the hard drive controller is likely going to not be able to match the performance of the drive. At best, it is likely SATA 1, at 1 Gb/s, and the drive can do most all of the 6 Gb/s that modern SATA is capable of. If its connected by parallel ATA, then it will max out at 133 MB/s. If it is connected by a Serial ATA PCI card, it will max out at 133 MB/s because that is where the PCI interface maxes out.


I put SSD inside just to have quieter environment as that UltraSCSI160 73GB harddisc was the only loudest element remained. It was not so much gain in transfer speed after all. But I really do not bother if the copying speed would be even double speed as the most common files which I transfer are just couple MBs, not GBs.
I have tweaked and choosed all other componets to the lowest noise level and only the screen and couple 50Hz transformers are louder than computer -- so really no issue.

ALso, it is quite rare that I move the files in several GB sizes so often that I would have to wait or if that SSD would be bottleneck in my applications. Photo editing and larger files and archives I have with Linux in another machine.

None of these machines nowadays have compatibility with software or enough expansion boards to accomodate all these expansion boards and units what I have in order to use all the programs I like, so setup with multiple PCs is what I use. ;)

At the same time brand new laptops with stickers "USB3" with Kingston brandnew USB3 stick had no faster performance than 3MB/s (windows 8).



It has since reached the point where even *games* are breaking the 2 GB limit. Its not 'bloat' its the sheer amount of detailed geometry and textures and preloading everything rather than having loading screens and the fact that
..............
people want open world games rather than being on rails for the story.

(As a note: i never used Win98, my machine dual-booted 95 and Win2k because i was running a dual pentium pro at the time. 95 was for games.)


THen why you ever take a word about this if You never used that system and did not learned to know? Yet you are making many many assumtions as I still would have average system or just "wanting what others want".

I never considered getting computer for a games or any hardware upgrade becouse of games and never been interested about any game titles after DukeNukem3D and all past 1995 year or the platform or arcade games. (I prefered to deal with electronic schematics and building hardware instead).

I bought my Gravis Ultrasound card even if I just had EGA monitor. (VGA was very expensive on that time). But to me the picture was not so much important as to get that Gravis Ultrasound.
To me all what counts was music and what was related to demoscene and electronics. All the adjustments what I did were always considering the trackers only. At the same time the tracker music and MIDI files was for me the holy grail and that for was the whole system meant as I collected modules since 1994.
In my surrounding the Soundblaster card and its clones were much more appreciated and praised by those who were into games and not so diehard about tracker music.

(ANd now imagine 486 computer with 3 soundcards installed -- Roland RAP10, ESS Audiodrive 1868, Gravis Ultrasound ACE --- "no no, you have many IRQ conflicts this way!", are saying many dudes in first heartbeat.

So, we really are seeing importance in a different things?

I do not care about the games, but I imagine the web browsers also breaking that 2GB limit and also as other latest office software, which is absolutely ridiculous as there has not changed so much when it is need just to write couple words on to paper and not creating complex documents for publishing.

Also I hope that there will be compact small footprint DAWs coming and available which work. For MIDI work there is not really gigabytes needed. Or is it?




Still, I am not so eager to go along with new things but those who want to use FastTracker 2 on a newer hardware too which does not have ISA bus in machines, I can provide help and info. Also those who want to have somewhat unique
setup out of the ordinary. ;) I have spent countless hours to suss out the problems with the pileon of expansion cards with these systems.




@alltheVSTevangelists and contemporary computer trend followers

SO... go back to your box-of-sounds which You bought just yesterday with 1001 VSTs.

I only wanted to make my voice heard that the hardwares one particular advantage which is somewhat easy to forget is that its back and forward compatibility and thats why some hardware piece is having certainly value over its contemporary VST counterparts and it is certainly NOT a "no brainer" to everyone to get a VST even if it would be free. Thats all.
Afterall that thread was about hardware too, and not about the VST only, so hopefully I did not wrote in a wrong thread by saying some word about for hardware Wavestation protection... ;)
jxalex
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Sweden
Gear: enough

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby jxalex » Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:51 pm

well... about that WIN98SE... I took in use only after 2005 on a 3GHz Pentium, becouse on those days when WIN98SE came out then the average machines were very underpowered to that system. On 300..500MHz AMD even with UltraSCSI160 I would not dare to put something more than WIN3.x. Becouse compared to WIN95..98 that Win3.x was a way MUCH faster with its response! Like a real rocket. All the user interface was with zero wait state, programs opened fast. ANd I did not wanted to sacrifice neither that user interface speed and so I was more than to willing just to seek the alternative programs which do the same job as others do under those bigger windows version numbers. I found them, got them, and so I used it until 2003, and no work was suspended. ;-)
At the same time the other people just went along with newer windows versions becouse they did not bother to choose the hardware nor programs with its requirement, but becouse of the price (the hardware with wider support was more expensive).
In fact my one oldest DAW was just like that -- 300MHz AMD 32MB RAM with WIN3x and 5.1GB+6.4GB HDD at the year 1998 (there is CD writing software under DOS with SCSI drives)!! Others would have certainly used Windows NT on that machine already.
Also the fellows who visited me often said "Why is it so that every time when I visit You, I get an urge to tweak my own PC?" (well, they were using WIN98 already then).

Also I was using more SCSI than IDE becouse there still were many motherboards at 2003 which were struggling with 8GB barrier with large IDE HDD (Dell desktops with 1.6GHz CPUs for example).
I took that WIN98SE system in use only after 2005 on a Pentium IV 3GHz with 512MB RAM becouse then the computer speeds had reached to that level that I did not had to wait after user interface. Quite enough.
But still 300Mhz AMD with its WIN3.x has much faster user interface response than
3.4GHz machine with WIN98SE (still, that would be perhaps the only function then).
With XP and other systems I wont dare to compare they are deadslow with its GUI and all other troubles follow.
jxalex
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Sweden
Gear: enough

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby NotASpeckOfCereal » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:32 pm

Look,

I started this thread. Mainly I asked about the sound differences, but also asked about some performance indicators. So your initial comments about software vs. hardware were fair enough.

Then you kept going, deriding the idea of software synths, modern operating systems, evil computer company, lazy programmers, greedy updates, etc. etc.

At the end of the day, your stance ends up being a justification for your chosen way of producing music on a legacy platform, then you continue to deride those paths of advancement that others follow.

So in your attempts to show us how wrong our chosen studio setups are, you opened the door on us giving our opinion of YOUR platforms' shortcomings.

The reality is that people actually producing music inside and outside of small personal studios MUST have platforms keep up with advancements in technology. They mostly don't do just MIDI, so they need systems with vast amounts of memory and processing power that has low latency.

As I already said more than once about your platform: if you like it, THEN PLAY ON.

But have some respect for people that chose progress and happily fork over money for it. We ARE doing a lot more than you can.

Speck
NotASpeckOfCereal
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:56 pm
Gear: Roland JV80
Roland JV1080
Korg Wavestation
Claivia Nord Lead 2

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby madtheory » Mon Apr 03, 2017 7:51 pm

Agreed. Also jxalex, try not to ramble on so much. Try to be pithy.
User avatar
madtheory
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
 
Posts: 5028
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: Cork, Ireland
Real name: Tomas Mulcahy
Gear: Pro Tools, Komplete, MIDIQuest, Novation KSR, Casio FZ1+SK5, Korg Legacy, Theremin, Digi Vocalist, Quadravrb+, Kaoss Pads1+2, SPD11, OB Cyclone.
Band: Minim

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby jxalex » Mon Apr 03, 2017 10:05 pm

Really, I have nothing against those who choose to have last thing, still and there must be also respect to those who do not choose "progress" and not to take that all what is "right" is the last thing or as ultimate truth or solution.
Then it is all ok.

I hear more than zillion times that "oh too bad that You have this or that" as they see always through their point of view, whereas ignoring the fact that maybe it suits what I have chosen better *to me*, becouse in that old system are properties what I need, but which are not included in the new system or are worse. Yet every time when it is question about software then it ends with "go for a new platform" and comes instead the lecture about the ultimate advantages of newer system and bashing old one, while totally ignoring what are the things which I actually need, but are NOT any longer in the new system... And THERE FROM comes that critics towards programmers.

But ok, I drop that topic. I think I made my point, however it is questionable if it was understood.

Hm, with that energy interesting how many GOOD things would have been done instead.
jxalex
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Sweden
Gear: enough

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby Ashe37 » Mon Apr 03, 2017 11:41 pm

I skipped Win98 because i needed to run my dual-processor machine for video editing and 3d. In my case, 98SE did *nothing* my Win95 partition didn't do.

Don't presume to tell me how an Amiga was faster than a 100mhz Pentium PC. it wasn't. a 100 mhz pentium PC with a decent Diamond Stealth graphics card was faster than am Amiga with anything slower than the 50Mhz 68060, which was the last and fastest CPU available on the Amiga during the brief time it was owned by ESCOM. A 120 Mhz Pentium was faster than the '060. The 'graphics processor' was largely a set of fixed function processors that handled specific real-time processing tasks- like the original GPUs. This is also why, once again- my cell phone can emulate an Amiga faster than any actual Amiga ever was.

Note on the first two above: I ran a Amiga 3000 with a 25 Mhz 68040 side0by-side with my Windows PCs for the first several years after transitioning off the Amiga.

I literally have a dual 3.06 Ghz Dual Xeon in the other room i am considering taking to computer recycling because it consumes too much power for its speed. This is another very real consideration when running an old PC. Especially for DAW usage, with a moderate GPU, a modern pc will not just be faster but consume less power than a system from ten or fifteen years ago.

My point about relative speed is you were complaining about stability problems and how much FM7 you could run and your ability or inability to run a certain number of VSTs. The PC you are using when referring to this is less than half the speed of one core out of four on my current machine- which is a 8 year old PC running a 9 year old CPU (HP z400 running a Xeon 5560, you can get them for about $150 on ebay.)
Ashe37
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Central VA
Real name: Unpronounceable
Gear: Ensoniq SD-1/32,SQR,VFX,ESQm
Virus Indigo, M3-61 , MS2000BR, Volca Bass
Emu XL-7, Matrix 6r
TG-33, K3m, Blofeld, Micron, Mopho, BS II, JV-1080
Band: Eridani V

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby NotASpeckOfCereal » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:09 am

Back on topic: I purchased the Korg Legacy Wavestation soon after this thread started and am quite happy with it.

But the WSRAM format that it exports is new to me. Is this just a the Patch, Performances, and Wavesequence SYX data concatenated into one file? Are there WSRAM to SYX conversion utilities? Or can I simply rename the extension from WSRAM to SYX?

I ask because it would be nice to see what some of the patch banks sound like on the WS EX hardware. I know I can't port the Timeslice bank (which comes with the Legacy Software Synth) over since it requires PCM data, but I should be able to play the Dreamwaves and Trancewave (which I acquired separately, also in WSRAM format) banks on the WS EX as those banks only use stock waveforms.

Thanks for any advice.
Speck
NotASpeckOfCereal
Newbie
Newbie
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2017 8:56 pm
Gear: Roland JV80
Roland JV1080
Korg Wavestation
Claivia Nord Lead 2

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby Ashe37 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:26 am

I'd look at the file and see if it looks like sysex. I cant find anything that indicates a wsram is a sysex file.
Ashe37
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Central VA
Real name: Unpronounceable
Gear: Ensoniq SD-1/32,SQR,VFX,ESQm
Virus Indigo, M3-61 , MS2000BR, Volca Bass
Emu XL-7, Matrix 6r
TG-33, K3m, Blofeld, Micron, Mopho, BS II, JV-1080
Band: Eridani V

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby jxalex » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:40 am

Ashe37 wrote:I skipped Win98 because i needed to run my dual-processor machine for video editing and 3d. In my case, 98SE did *nothing* my Win95 partition didn't do.

Don't presume to tell me how an Amiga was faster than a 100mhz Pentium PC. it wasn't. a 100 mhz pentium PC with a decent Diamond Stealth graphics card was faster than am Amiga with anything slower than the 50Mhz 68060, which was the last and fastest CPU available on the Amiga during the brief time it was owned by ESCOM. A 120 Mhz Pentium was faster than the '060. The 'graphics processor' was largely a set of fixed function processors that handled specific real-time processing tasks- like the original GPUs. This is also why, once again- my cell phone can emulate an Amiga faster than any actual Amiga ever was.


well I said before
...but I really cannot take a word in this topic becouse I did not have experience with that.

but I really wont take that it was just "in the spec" configuration in this case or the comparison numbers were different.
Dont know.

Good atleast that you had it.

ANd still..... even if Your cellphone "can emulate" that Amiga. does that Amiga software really runs on it? Trackers and its editors, and demos made on those times?


My point about relative speed is you were complaining about stability problems and how much FM7 you could run and your ability or inability to run a certain number of VSTs. The PC you are using when referring to this is less than half the speed of one core out of four on my current machine- which is a 8 year old PC running a 9 year old CPU (HP z400 running a Xeon 5560, you can get them for about $150 on ebay.)


the complain was not about stability but about the compatibility (the platform requirements of the newer VSTs).
So far no problem after all these stresstests.
How many I can run I have not tested yet, but becouse it does not interest me so much and havent hit the limit.
jxalex
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Sweden
Gear: enough

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby Ashe37 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 12:51 am

I've run a tracker under an Amiga emulator on my android tablet, which is older and slower than my phone (but has a physically larger screen, so my old eyes can read it) Played some really old .mod files.
Ashe37
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Central VA
Real name: Unpronounceable
Gear: Ensoniq SD-1/32,SQR,VFX,ESQm
Virus Indigo, M3-61 , MS2000BR, Volca Bass
Emu XL-7, Matrix 6r
TG-33, K3m, Blofeld, Micron, Mopho, BS II, JV-1080
Band: Eridani V

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby jxalex » Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:04 am

now that would be something good. Really.
jxalex
Active Member
Active Member
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:05 am
Location: Sweden
Gear: enough

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby Ashe37 » Tue Apr 04, 2017 1:16 am

and apparently that a**roid tablet phrase triggers a frikken sales link now, sorry.
Ashe37
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 3741
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:43 pm
Location: Central VA
Real name: Unpronounceable
Gear: Ensoniq SD-1/32,SQR,VFX,ESQm
Virus Indigo, M3-61 , MS2000BR, Volca Bass
Emu XL-7, Matrix 6r
TG-33, K3m, Blofeld, Micron, Mopho, BS II, JV-1080
Band: Eridani V

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby vicd » Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:33 pm

Watch on youtube.com

:idea: so, one of you guys did a direct comparison?

I don't like the drums, but the drums like me!
User avatar
vicd
Supporting Member!
Supporting Member!
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:26 am
Location: Siberia
Real name: Victor
Gear: Blofeld, Formanta (EMS01, Maestro, Mini), Fusion 8HD, JD800, Morpheus, MP7, Plugiator, TG77, TOM1501, TR626, UltraProteus, V-Synth XT
Band: ROBOPOP

Re: Wavestation Hardware vs. Wavestation Software Synths

Postby JeEA » Thu Apr 13, 2017 11:33 am

Please keep to the subject guyes ;-)
JeEA
Junior Member
Junior Member
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 2:49 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Synth Shootouts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests