That's just not true. I used to have all kinds of hassles with hardware but since going to an all software set-up we have had zero problems. There is also the peace of mind that if something should happen with my laptop, we have access to at least half-a-dozen other PCs that we could get up and running in almost no time at all. With hardware, if something broke it was out of commission for weeks until it could be fixed.Jace-BeOS wrote:Hardware is more reliable
Again, I can't agree. Using a mouse gives you at least as much direct control over a well laid out softsynth and only the most basic hardware instruments will have one-to-one mapping for controls. The closest I've had in the past 25 years would be the K-Station but it still shared controls between effects, which was a complete PITA compared to the simpler ways softsynths work over multiple pages. That's why I still have a V-Station and got rid of the K Station ages ago.no level of control mapping to generic controllers feels as ... direct(?)... as "real" hardware.
Of course it is - no dodgy cables, no laggy MIDI daisy-chaining or anything like that. As for start-up times, my PC boots in less than 10 seconds, whereas even the slickest hardware set-up I ever owned took me twice as long as that to switch on and power up.And no computer configuration that includes more than an OS and one single audio device and soft synth is as reliable as hardware (let's not even talk about boot and app start time).
A bad workman always blames his tools. I can make infinitely better sounds, in every possible way, in software than I ever could in hardware. There is simply no comparison as far as I'm concerned. Of course, half the stuff you've listed is hardware anyway and the vast majority of hardware is really just software. A few years ago I did some blind comparisons between my K Station and V Station and the only sheeple who were able to definitively pick which was which did so by hearing the noise introduced by the signal path in the hardware. i.e. They picked the hardware because it didn't sound as good.kmonkey wrote:I had what is considered best plugins on todays market. Nebula, UAD, Powercore.. whatever. I never could get that sound.
Yes, I do believe it is all in your head. I have been making music orders of magnitude better in every way since moving to a full software set-up, even though I have spent less than $500 on software in the last 13 or 14 years (compared to spending up to $10,000 a year in my hardware days). Even my laptop only cost me $1300 and handles the full CPU load without breaking a sweat.Prototype wrote:or do you guys still believe its just all in my head and that some soft synths are really identical to those keyboards i mentioned?
When the hell was that? I can't remember a time when synths sounded anywhere near as full and lush as they do now. Listen to anything from the 70s and 80 and it sounds pathetic compared to what we can do today.kritikon wrote:I'll second Danbroad's comments about mono. I think too many in the DAW age either forget or simply don't realise that back in the day with analogue gear everywhere, and big fat mixes and big sounds being made
That's purely down to how you choose to use things. My software studio set-up is far less complex than any hardware set-up I ever owned. Our most complex song will only have one 4x out Drumrack, a Sampler or two and 3 or 4 synths. That's maybe a dozen mixer channels, with half-a-dozen effects in total. I rarely use instruments with on-board effects and every VSTi I use is far less complex than any hardware synth worth owning. In my hardware days I'd have a dozen channels running on my Trinity, plus my sampler and one or two other synths, with two or three multi-effects units and/or on-board effects.Jace-BeOS wrote:But I still hold to my assessment that I have less complexity and less (internal) unreliability with hardware vs computers with all their hundreds of competing functionalities and configurations.
