Talk:Software synthesizer

message: file formats? - Omegatron 15:01, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
:What about them? Oddity- (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  File Formats 

message: I think there should be a link to the article on LabVIEW, since the labview refers to its programs as "virtual instruments."  I wouldn't know where to put it in the article, however.
*what about how it works? dont you just throw two sine waves together? Spencerk 07:54, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Labview's Virtual Instruments are not musical instruments in the sense that sowftware synthesizer's are. An instrument is some sort of device, musical or not. A thermometer, for example, is an instrument, can be a Virtual Instrument (VI), and obviously has very little to do with software synthesizers. Indeed you can build a VI to act as a musical instrument by adding sine waves together, just as you can build a musical instrument from a stick, a bucket, and a piece of string.Mikeeg555 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  LabVIEW 

message: Could someone please explain (in the article) the difference between this and a music sequencer? Actually, the whole article could be written more clearly. Twilight Realm 23:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could certainly use work. I'm not sure where the answer to this question would best fit in the article. But in essence a synthesizer (software or not) is an instrument; it makes sounds in response to commands from a player. The player could be one of several things, including a human playing a keyboard live or a sequencer sending a preprogrammed sequence of commands.  --Rick Sidwell 21:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: There is this huge list of software and no one wants to check for every one of them wether or not it will run on their operating system and if they will have to pay for it. (Unsigned)
I would agree that a trimming down on that list would be a good call.  If there is an offsite page that lists these programs, we can list a couple of the prominant ones (perhaps an entry level program and then a few different professional ones and delist the rest. 68.219.117.59 18:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Operating Systems 

message: This article is really bad. Not even any mention of the various synthesis methods (FM, PM, subtractive, additive...)? The histoy of synthesizers (Theremin, TB303, Mini Moog, DX7, VL1...)? How popular they are in modern music (Pop, Dance, Rock, Vangelis...)? Or is all this part of the Synthesizer article? And people - Cubase and FL Studio are not synthesizers! Zyxoas (talk to me - I'll listen) 08:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it basically needs to be rewritten to (a) tie it in closer to the other synthesis related articles and (b) to have some reliable information about the differences in software synthesis.  The current content could be stripped down to about two lines without losing useful information.  I'll put a rewrite on my tentative to-do list. Scott.wheeler 21:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Horrible 

message: Looking offhand, I see DirectSound and ReWire mentioned in this article. Neither are software synthesizers, but both are audio generation protocols. DirectSound is simply a framework with which a person could write programs using audio and ReWire is a protocol used to streamline the link between audio software and other software or hardware. I removed both from the list, which needs a closer look. Robocracy 15:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should put the plug-ins and the actual synthesizers in seperate sections. --Apocalypse FP 15:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some of these probably aren't software synths

message: I attempted to expand the article a bit.  I tried to clarify the common question on software vs. hardware synthesis, and to explain the types of software programs out there.  The page needs a lot of work.  The list of softsynths is way too long.  Wikipedia does not need to be a catalog of commercial products, does it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.34.148.192 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Edit 

message: The offensively huge list here really needs to go.  Not only is it inaccurate, it's so huge as to have lost any real purposefulness.  There is already a category for software synthsizers, which I'll be adding to the "see also"  section.  I'll then go through and make sure that some of the more notable synths have been put into that category. Scott.wheeler 19:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From list to category 

message: Software instrument should be merged with this page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.189.218.26 (talk) 18:02, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: I know only few examples of software synths that emulate real existing synth models (like DX7) in such a realistic way that you could even load your sound banks and play your old sounds even if you are on train or your original synth was broken. C-Sound patch converter or Hexter are 2 examples. More, please?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:BC07:9E00:9C2A:DEEB:C269:CDD (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  SoftSynths capable of loading sysex patch filex (hardware emulation) 

message: I was going to sweep through this quickly for grammar and fact checking, but honestly this is just in need of a full rewrite. It doesn't really explain much comprehensibly, and what it does is organized strangely. Some stuff is listed for seemingly no reason, like the seemingly random list of software synthesizers halfway through the article, and other stuff is repeated multiple times.
The sections also mostly don't make much sense. Many are very short and don't seem to have a good reason for inclusion in the article, most notably the "Microsoft GS Wavetable SW Synth" section. The software instrument section doesn't really say much aside from what the article already said in a more confusing way, and also portrays software instruments as being basically the same as soundfonts, which is wrong. The "Types" section lists synthesis types (without explaining anything about them, and saying phase distortion is FM, which is wrong) and then immediately proceeds to ramble about software vs hardware for the rest of the section (and then says something incomprehensible about "draft" and "production" modes in notation software for some reason). Later on, there's actually a section explicitly for hardware vs software comparison which is mostly unused. The synths in "Typical software synthesizers" are mostly well known, but I'm kind of unclear what makes these synths "typical" (UVI Falcon and Reaktor are not typical if you ask me), as well as why there are no links or citations other than one linking to gearslutz. In fact, there's a severe lack of citations throughout the article. The mobile section re-explains what synths can do (for some reason) and then mentions Logic Studio, which is both outdated (it's Logic Pro now) and not on mobile, listing some vague words which are not in fact the names of the plugins (EFM1, ES M, ES1, and ES E, respectively). I could go on.
I honestly don't think that going through the article and fixing individual things has much of a point. It should just be started over. nzsaltz (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a very bad article