Just wondering...

You know that there are as many different need, different approaches and personal preferences as musicians throughout the world. So everyone uses what he thinks is best for him, which he feels lets him realize his ideas quickest. What this device is exactly is secondary.

As for me personally, I did full productions with Fantom-S, Fantom-X, JUNO-G and Fantom-G models and they feel totally alright for the task. Remember that not all musicians need more than what these boards offer. And with infinite part resampling and post-processing, they offer a lot.

Currently, my main workstation is GarageBand on a Mac. I am a minimalist so I don't need Logic for now, and you can't call 500+ audio/MIDI tracks with 6 effect inserts each a that of a minimalist setup anyway. But my main concern is I do not want to depend on a certain piece of hardware. As hardware generations change, and you change your instruments, your old projects no longer open. So I use hardware as a source of sounds and put everything into audio tracks, this way I know that in 10 years I will be able to open a project I did today.

Got my Fantom X in November 05, and have been using it alone for sequencing since.
From '88 til then, I used an SQ-80 exclusively.

I like to have it all together in one package.

Carl

Personally, I bought a workstation because I like to have the option of working outside the DAW if I want to. I completely agree, however. I wouldn't even begin to consider recording a complete track on the board.

Not to say it isn't possible to create something of substance.

I shouldn't speak for others, but, from accounts I've read here, I infer those who are working completely on board are less likely to have a few necessary things - 1) a fine tuned computer for audio production, 2) the necessary interfaces, and 3) various softwares in their toolkit, let alone plugins; nor do they have the time and, most noteably, the desire to become a techhead rather than musician.

Obviously, things are changing.

@Artemiy - are you serious when you say infinite part resampling? I think this is only possible when you also have infinite time to work with those samples. Of course, a lot of this has to do with what type of music you are creating, so you're not exactly wrong to say.

dbijoux:

Well, I am not sure how to answer your question... You do know that infinity is something we can only talk about but can actually never measure or understand?

Anyway, I mean that with resampling allows you to do as much post-production as you want, and in modern days post-production is plays a very important role. So after you've recorded all of your parts in a Fantom, you can add polish, transitions, fills, effects etc. using such technique. And if you also sample in sounds from other instruments... the only difference with a computer DAW is different workflow.

Yes, exactly, but in context you meant multiple recursions. In my experience, to stay on the math note, with each added step there is exponential increase in expense. This is why I was surprised to hear you say.

Of course the suggestions you highlight are possible, but the workflow and processing time can make it a very consuming process; repeat ad-infinitum.

For example, as an exercise I thought to create some breaks completely on-board, sequence, sample, chop, resample, etc. Lots of work for eight bars. Not a wonderful solution and I didn't even include FX.

I think it is rather simplistic to say it's only a difference of workflow.

So, I come to the conclusion a workstation's usefulness is closely related to the type of music one is producing. Of course, it makes sense that most EDM, DnB, Glitch, Techno producers are not going to use a workstation for their productions. They already have the many tools needed for this music.

On the opposite spectrum, a classical composer, small band, or songwriter are a few good examples. I can completely understand they could find everything they need to create everything on workstation alone.

I believe that music and technology are intrinsically inseperable. That's what we are really getting at here, isn't it? It's not a new hypothesis and maybe only a discussion for the classroom and tea. In practice, the artists know what they need, use what they do, and make what they make - there really isn't a question at all.

Ok, now back to ∞ and beyond!

MemoryGuy:

I've been in rehab (physical rehab) and it wasn't that much fun. (I'm not upset at you, by the way -- I'm just digressing a bit.) I agree with Art though that there are multitudes of ways in which to get your ideas down.

I could potentially see myself using a hardware sequencer again someday. It depends on a number of factors. Right now, I'm still hoping to be able to put out music that might be synched up to video; hence, I agree with you that the computer DAW method is the best way to achieve this.

If, at some point, I become independently wealthy, I might just buy a couple of analog synths, a Radikal Spectralis, and a reel-to-reel tape machine. At that point, I'll be creating REAL art, and I won't care how I do things anymore -- as long as the final product comes out sounding good.

But anyway -- I respect your point of view. I'm just musing on it is all.

This message and the one that follows it are part of an accidental triplicate message. I'm unsure of how it happened, because I don't remember even having a browser problem, but hey -- it probably was my fault.

- Sammy

Vee Cee Oh and Artemiy:

Believe me when I say that I have NO idea how I ended up with a triplicate message here. Please delete this one and the last one as well. (If you would be so kind, please leave my original response -- unless you think that it sucked.)



Thank you. And my apologies. I try to avoid even double-posts -- so a triple post is MOST rare.

- Sammy

Artemiy:

Garageband huh? Do you use it for production or more as a sketchpad? Using any plugins?

memoryguy, yes I use GB for actual productions (although I do not do more than 1-2 tracks a month, mostly individual sounds and loops as you know), and of course I have many additional plug-ins that I've purchased. I do composing mostly of audio tracks using the stuff I play with the V-Synth and Fantom-G, on the software side I use NI MASSIVE. For effects I have around 30 plug-ins from iZotope, Audio Damage and a few others, including my own AudioUnits.

Yea, I think Garageband is pretty full-featured as far as DAW goes. It's basically a poor man's Logic.

Since you have all those plug-ins, seems like you're covered on all grounds.