This is not a question about GP itself, but since I know there are so many people replacing their Korg Kronos (and other high end workstations) by a GigPerformer solution, I was wondering myself.
I didn’t touch my Korg Kronos for about a year, until a few weeks ago (to find some sounds I used). When I used the Korg Kronos I was happy with the pianos, hammond and strings and more. But when I played them I found them quite disappointing.
I’m using currently a lot of Native Instruments Komplete (13), and IK Multimedia XB-3 and a lot of free VSTs.
So, I was wondering, is my taste changed since I moved to VSTs, or is it because of the amount of GB sampling that VSTs really sound so much better?
Since the Korg Kronos is kind of the ‘top’ workstation, and VSTs seem to get better year by year, is the hardware synth (sound quality wise) a dead horse (to state it bluntly) ?
I don’t have the feeling I ever want to return to a Korg Kronos or related synth, having the flexibility of GigPerformer and the sound quality of VSTs.
I don’t think hardware synths are dead, but I think from an economic and usability standpoint it’s going to get harder and harder to put electronics inside a keyboard that can match the variety, versatility, and constant ability to tweak and modify that you can get with VSTs.
Maybe one of these days the next version of a stage controller will just contain a software host (like GP) and let the user load and configure their own selection of VSTs however they want. That might actually be pretty cool. Imagine a master keyboard built on a very light special purpose operating system that runs GP for all the sound generation. Maybe David should look into licensing opportunities for the GP core. I’m picturing a little sticker saying “GP Inside” on my next StudioLogic keyboard.
Roland, Yamaha (with the Line 6 Hexlic devices), and UAD all do some partial version of this, with the caveat that the “plugins” are their proprietary format and to my knowledge none of them run on a mainstream operating system (e.g., Linux). I’m not sure what the Pearl Mimic uses for an OS, but I believe the whole unit is just a hardware device that hosts Steven Slate Drums.
Bottom line to me - digital hardware synths do sound great, but because the hardware isn’t generally going to be as powerful as what’s in your computer, and it’s not likely to be as flexible as a host like GP, and it’s not going to run the variety of plugins available as VSTs, they’re always going to be outmatched if “all in price” isn’t in the equation.
I seem to recall they tried this about 15 years ago. Maybe it was too early.
The economics might be a problem. You would need a powerful cpu, a big (fast) hard drive and a lot of ram to handle today’s soft synths/sample libraries. It might drive up the cost too much considering this (musical keyboards) are a relative niche market (compared to laptops in general).
There were several attempts - the most well-known being the Muse Receptor. That was a rack running Linux and a seriously modified version of WINE to load Windows VST plugins — it worked quite well except every plugin company had their own licensing process and it was impossible for the Receptor to keep up.
It’s still ‘hard’ to find good presets as every company has their own preset system (if already exists). But after some time I mostly know which sound I can best get where (only for synth sounds it’s ‘too’ versatile … but I see it as a luxury problem).
I was first introduced to AU/VST-based modeling while in Sweden in 2004 (NI Guitar Rig), running on a Macbook. The owner of this system stated, “This is the wave of the future which will eventually put Guitar Amp and Keyboard manufacturers out of business.” Looking at the performance of his Mac Powerbook, I replied, “Not until the laptop can exceed the power of physical hardware.” It didn’t take long for this notion to come to fruition.
Although I have a Korg Kronos LS in my live rig, I have sold my Hammond XK3 and Leslie 2101, Triton, and M1 and replaced these with along with long-sold and much-loved keyboards Prophet 5, Roland JX-10, and Yamaha DX-7 with virtual instruments.
Investing in a powerful Apple M2 Max Gig Performer easily supports all that I throw at it. With predictive loading, GP extends my ability to stretch performance even further! “Take that B3x and AUDIO-MODELING SWAM Big Band configuration!”
As an owner of Kronos LS, I believe GP and the VST revolution on laptops is the reason Korg is hesitant to release a replacement for its flagship keyboard. Now if GP would get together with Korg and build a hybrid…
I have had the same experience with my Roland Fantom 7. It’s got lots of great sounds, but after spending time with VSTs and going back to the fantom, sounds that are originally acoustically based, like piano and others, they sound flat and lifeless and less realistic and “playable”. But the hardware keyboards don’t have the latency I sometimes get with VSTs which I like.
I think I tried VSTs around 15 years ago, but also came soon to the conclusion it was not comparable to a hardware synth (at that time at least). Maybe I was a bit biased, because I liked Korg, and also I only tried a few free VSTs, of high likely mediocre quality at best. And I compared it to presets of the Korg which were already full of effects.
I decided to fully stop using Korg when they (onofficially) announced the Nautilus as their new flagship, meaning less controls, cheaper hardware, about same price, i.e. the software is the same, but I think the only benefit of a hardware synth is the hardware (everything in one package).
So I’m glad I made the step, and finding GigPerformer did not take long and that combi with VSTs works great.
Initially I thought it was just because I was biased with (in my case) Korg sounds. However, almost all sounds are better, but as you say especially the acoustically (sampled) based. But also regarding the variety of synth models VSTs outperform every hardware synth.
The reason probably that hardware synths don’t have latency is that the manufacturers ‘limit’ the possibility of their gear, or they create fixed amount of voices, programs, effects. And in GigPerformer you can do as much as you want, but that can overflow the CPU (not a latency problem though). But I prefer to have this flexilibity than the hard limits of hardware synths.
plus, its quite easy to pickup additional Latency based on using additional plugins like a end of chain Limiter for example. ( The TDR one is good. But only in one specific setting)
I just recognised yesterday that my go to “saturator” plugin would add 4.6ms of Latency.
The compressor i used added also 3ms or so. I was very surprised to see this.
Plus all my just purchased UAD plugins do also add 1.8ms per plugin.
I use three of them now also in same chain. Thats close to 20ms in total.
Its here mostly within the FX path. But Comp and Saturator were directly behind the Instrument.
That was 7.6ms in total just behind my E-Piano.
I think most Band-context players use less “FX” stuff behind their Instruments than what i am doing. But its worth it to check all plugins vs. their Latency value (just hover with the mouse over a plugin block)
While it´s exactly the use of such plugins that helps to enhance the soundquality of plugin-instruments even further. ( and also helps to “unmuddy” the things)
i feel same.
But there are the Synths that incorporate sequenzing like the Yamaha Montage.
There i see an advantage with some specific HW.
While the korg Wavetable ones are now available as plugins.
It´s not much HW left that has something tempting to it, as a GP user
(saying this as a Studio user with no needs to carry my stuff around)
However, my life also got easier, I have two audio interfaces, two keyboards at home, two in the rehearsal room, so I only need to drag a laptop with me back and forth for rehearsals.
I too made the switch from Kronos to GP & VST instruments. In general, I do find the VST sound is better except for a couple of sounds that I am still struggling to better what was on the Kronos and also the Fantom (though I now have a Fantom-0 in my rig to cover that base). I am still perfecting my primary acoustic piano sound. I used the Stereo 3-way Grand patch on the Kronos and became very, very comfortable with it and found it has just the right amount of presence within our band’s sound. I still don’t think I am quite there with the PianoTeq replacement, but that maybe just needs time for me to become accustomed to the new sound.
But considering if VSTs sound better than hardware in general, I still don’t think there are any piano VSTs that sound more pleasing to play than the “Natural S” piano sound on my old Yamaha S90ES. That may also be down to the converters and the audio hardware within the S90ES as much as the piano samples themselves which, almost unbelievably, are crammed into just 228Mb of wave ROM alongside all the other samples for the whole sound set of all the included patches. It shows that the closed eco-system of hardware can be optimised to a large extent that may not be as easily attained using mix-and-match hardware of VST based systems. Whether or not an audience would notice the difference is a very different matter, though as performers, we do notice and that helps our performance!
