Hardware VS Software!

[Axiomstatic]

Genuine thread (but with a ''notorious'' title).

Axiomstatic, for consoles have a look at this:
http://www.alessandroboschi.eu/html/alexb/consoles.htm

Yes it is a genuine thread and not just trolling.
The questions I ask are also very genuine.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to sit and A/B all day long otherwise I would give it a go no doubt.

Your link makes sense and this is why I would never dream of letting my console go.

There is obviously something special about hardware (analog outboard) given the amount of emulations (Plugins) I see on the market.

[Hink]

I have no desire (mostly because of space) for a big console right now, I have no issues mixing itb...however the concept of no hardware at all just doesn't work with me. I am a guitar player and I cant feel the strings on a computer monitor ...but that's okay because I like a hybrid concept myself...I like my amps hardware (I have many sims but I still prefer the glow of my tube amps, that is not to say there is anything wrong with sims..just me ), I have hardware for monitoring fx and for NR in my guitar chain, I have an M-audio Venom synth, I have an old Alesis QSR rackmount and a Roland A-33 76 controller (I also have an old Roland XP-10 but it's in my daughter's room)...so I dont see hardware or software free an option for me...I need both

[Biome_Digital]

Genuine thread (but with a ''notorious'' title).

Axiomstatic, for consoles have a look at this:
http://www.alessandroboschi.eu/html/alexb/consoles.htm

Yes it is a genuine thread and not just trolling.
The questions I ask are also very genuine.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to sit and A/B all day long otherwise I would give it a go no doubt.

Your link makes sense and this is why I would never dream of letting my console go.

There is obviously something special about hardware (analog outboard) given the amount of emulations (Plugins) I see on the market.

lol

[jancivil]

Yes it is a genuine thread and not just trolling.
The questions I ask are also very genuine.
Unfortunately I do not have the time to sit and A/B all day long otherwise I would give it a go no doubt.

Your link makes sense and this is why I would never dream of letting my console go.

There is obviously something special about hardware (analog outboard) given the amount of emulations (Plugins) I see on the market.

Ok, I see that it is not just trolling now. I grant that artifacts of certain hardware, ie., 'analog' are deemed to be desirable; I want them in my music anyway. For most of us it's a matter of economics. If you have access, great. You have your console, and who would think to change your mind?

But the fact of hardware itself is not what gives the character we like, it's specifics. It's not that interesting to me, fighting about it, although there can be insight gained by reading such a thread, in terms of technical things at least.

[tehlord]

For me it's pretty clear cut.

Hardware sounds better, so much so that I don't understand how other people don't agree.

On the other hand software is massively more convenient and in some cases (Omnisphere, Alchemy etc) can do things hardware cannot realistically compete with.

I'm happy using both, but in an ideal world of limitless space and finance I would 100% use a large desk with a ton of outboard, because it sounds better.

Most importantly I don't actually enjoy using software. I don't like being hunched in front of a computer, no matter what conveniences it might bring.

Sadly I'm not in a position to do much about that right now, so my all powerful DAW will just have to do

[mcnoone]

I like mine, whether soft or hard.

[Compyfox]

Since I don't see this as "what is the best route to go" or "ultimate mix solution" thread, I think I can add some food for thought.


Personally I grew up with Cubase as plain MIDI sequencer and two hardware synths before going into the VST realm. That was mid 90ies where the VST technology first came up, and AVID also was like "Okay... so we introduce RTAS and TDM DSP systems now". So yeah, I also recorded on to tape (compact cassette actually, before I got some experience with DAT and R2R's), I had to use outboard mixers, I always thought over-dimensioned, bought gear that I barely scratched the surface with.

That for starters...

Then early 2000's, the VST game really hit off.

So the question I have is for the person or persons using both and can reasonably make a comparison?

Actually, yes and no.

Personally I love to get a VSTi of the Kurzweil K2xxx series, but that is highly unlikely - actually for convenience, easier usage, preset backup, etc. This is the only reason I say "I prefer software over the hardware synth". It's just so much more versatile.

Then again - I had the chance to use the one or another hardware and directly compare it with software. A prime example of a good comparison in terms of instruments is the V-Station by Novation. This thing is actually a good port from the internal software of the V-Station hardware, over to software. The good thing on it, preset exchange: what you create on the hardware, can be loaded in the software and the other way around. I wish more companies would offer that (again: Kurzweil comes to mind)

Now the purist might be saying "but wait... that's not the same DAC you hear. That is correct. The hardware uses a different DAC than your computer. But the general concept is there, the same sounds and synthesis is there. You can't do much wrong. Again: convenience over "better" sound with hardware.


I also had the chance to compare the Tech21 Bass Driver with various software clones - and it was really hard to distinguish the hardware of the software. Trident EQ hardware vs. Trident EQ software - minimal differences. But I actually preferred the software over the hardware due to less noise and software recall (also known as "total recall", as Steinberg used to call it).



Emulations over the years clearly improved. Synths are already great, FX are still being improved even though they are at a point where you're like "what? that was software?!".

Doesn't mean that you can't use what's available already. In my case, I love and swear upon the Nomad Factory British EQ (based upon the NEVE 1081). Not necessarily due to it's accuracy in terms of an emulation (to stop the hate upfront), but for it's simplicity to use. Console sound and handling these days are greatly emulated as well. You can mix and match, something you can't do without having several consoles in the hardware realm. If desired by the client, I personally love to have a specific console as individual channels, FX returns and Sub Groups with another console, and the summing bus with either a character console or a clean one. Sometimes even even only use Sleepy Time Records' "Crosstalk" to just add the crosstalk effect and stay clean otherwise. Ton of possibilities.

But... this all comes with a price:
Needed CPU power, and the chance that someday you can't use your software anymore. While with hardware, if properly maintained (if you still get spare parts), you can simply plug in the power chord, connect a chain as needed and start working.

So how are they? I only really care for plugins that can be compared to mixing with a console as I work on API with other flavor of outboard hanging on.

Plenty of tools on the market by now, several companies in focus even. Though mostly NEVE and SSL. API is a bit rare. But... if you want, you can check out WAVES with their API bundle in therms of the filters (just the filters, not the "analog" mode, which only adds digital distortion as "saturation" effect), or maybe one of the many great advanced EQ's for the same (DMG Audio comes to mind). And then use them together with a console type emulation of your choice. Not many that went for API so far, so Slate VCC might be a start.

If you want to go that route, that is.

So do you see the big ol console going away anytime soon you think?

There is even a great article here on KVR that says, that large scale studios still have a right of existence. Again, hardware can clearly outplay software in terms of longevity and CPU usage. But you're limited to what you have (amount of modules/channels), you need space, maintenance, routing isn't that simple, you need to fight noise, etc.

what about outboard, are people like me just stupid and think outboard is simply better because you spend $6k on a decent compressor and it has to be better

While I don't disregard the fact that certain hardware definitely adds some fairy dust that software is still lacking, or that "hands on" experience is simply unbeatable (even at the era of touch screens)... I'm hesitant on the "you have to shell out 6k USD on a device" thing. S

oftware these days is so versatile and easily accessible, it's not funny anymore. While you need like 3-5x 1176 hardware compressors for a specific sound (and spend 2-3k each), you can for example load up the same amount of instances with software and only pay a fraction of the price (between 30USD to 200USD - once!), have total recall and you can throw around that module until your CPU says "funk you - I'm out of juice!".

There is no excuse anymore for spending that much money. Unless it's really a "must have" module, or for sound purists.

Hardware still constantly drives to stay "clean", but still have a certain "analog sound" (which is technically a flaw). Yes, you do not waste CPU power. But you have to battle noise, you have to take gain staging into consideration, you need space, you invest a load of money for one(!!!) device, you don't have total recall, hardware might not be as versatile as modern modular software tools, etc.

This can work if you have the money to burn and an uber large scale studio that you can afford to maintain. This can work if you insist on a certain sound/chain while recording (I know people that insist on using specific modules prior to hitting the ADC). But these days, and especially in small environments, I rather recommend to invest on a good ADC and selective software, then hitting the ADC as clean as possible and do the rest ITB (in the box).


Is that stupid?
IMO no. That's a matter of preference, what you can afford, and if you're cool with being limited. On the other hand, even in 20 years you can still use that particular hardware. While maybe software X might not be available to use anymore.

Whats your take on it friends?

My take on it is... if I had the space, I'd get a 32 channel mix console (with direct outs or suitable AUX busses) so that I can instantly record a small band. Not necessarily SSL or NEVE, but actually a more "uncommon" consoles (DDA, Toft, TL audio, Neumann, etc come to mind). Outboard gear wise, I'd only focus on what's really needed, or keep in mind what is already built into the console. Everything else can be handled within the DAW. And yes, Analog summing is IMO nothing special. Especially if the concent is pressed to it's limits anyway.

Else I'd rather focus on a balanced computer with appropriate software, a good ADC/DAC with suitable in/out (RME in my case, though I really hope Behringer keeps on continuing the Ultramatch SRC2496 - which is great for converting DAT/MD), a good host controller, a couple of good microphones and a usable environment.

I've seen environments that only used ProTools, RME gear and either an AVID ProControl 1 or the AVID ICON controller. This can work just as well. Actually, pure digital consoles these days are(!) small computers. Only that you can't use your own VST/RTAS/AAX plugins.



To be honest... hardware wise (additional to my rig, not counting hardware synths), my studio is heavily reliant on Behringer gear.

I already hear the outburst: "What?! That's BS, Behringer is crap!" - well, not if you know how to use it, and pick out the secret treasures. Certain modules are unbeatable compared to the competition: the Ultramatch comes to mind, the DEQ2496 Mastering Module, the new Touch-X consoles look great compared to the AVID ProControl-1 and old Halion, I rely on my Behringer Control modules, the Behringer Cable Tester is more versatile than the Palmer or SMPro audio one, the now discontinued B2-Pro Mic was a great budget multi-character microphone, Behringer has great Tube Screamer and Big Muff stomp box clones, I still love my Eurodesk (Mackie Clone), the new Monitor Control 1 is a great gear concept, the "Truth Series" monitor speakers are great (they now work with KRK and created improved clones of the regular KRK ones), the list goes on!


Else, my studio is software bound these days:
Cubase and Wavelab. FX wise: Variety of Sound / Tokyo Dawn Labs, Melda Production, Slate Digital, Nomad Factory, Brainworx, ToneBoosters, Klanghelm. Just to name a few in the FX realm. Synth wise I use Novation's V-Station, (now) Cakewalk's z3ta+, Spectrasonics Stylus RMX, One Small Clue Poise, Native Instruments Kontakt, Ichiro Toda Synth 1, amongst others (like Rayzoon Jamstix as Drum Brain and Toontrack EZ Keys as Harmony Tool). Hardware wise still my Kurzweil K2000, my Yamaha MU-15/DB-50XG and my EMU XL-1 (though I think about getting the Kontakt sample set).


Everyone can make music these days. Everyone has access to great old gear (with some rare exceptions: Neumann and JoeMeek comes to mind) at mere pocket money (or no money at all!). People even want the problematic "dark ages" (Tape Machines) back.



A lot has happened in the last 20 years. Some things for the definite better.


Again - if you can afford it, and have the space. There is nothing to say against hardware. It has it's advantages and disadvantages. If you can't afford it, then software wise you won't feel like left behind anymore. Actually it's the other way around these days. But software also has it's advantages and disadvantages.

Whatever you feel the most comfortable with in terms of using and working - go for it. The rule books still exist, but once you read and understood them, throw them out of the window and change the rules to your favor!


Unless you work at a facility, where certain standards and guidelines are still the norm.



Food for thought...

[umd]

Once upon a time, I was playing live in a bar, and there were these 2 drunk guys right in front of me. One said to the other that he was going to throw his beer over my keyboard. I heard what he said, and I leaned towards him and told him "do that, and I'll break the synth right on your head!". The other guy,(probably not so drunk as his friend) discouraged him from the idea and took him away from me. Moral of the story -- If I had threatened him with breaking a software plugin in his head, it probably wouldn't have made him change his mind, so at least in this situation, hardware was clearly better than software...
...and hey, TRUE STORY !

[zerocrossing]

I did a fun little experiment with my software and hardware synths the other day. I just used Live and its looper to make little 4 bar loops of each instrument. I wasn't all that surprised at my conclusion. Each instrument had it's own strengths and weaknesses and I was able to get pleasant sounding loops as long as I stayed out of the flaws. I was also able to get analog hardware to sound pretty bad. The Minibrute was most pronounced in its ability to sound great or crappy with a nudge of a knob/slider. My ATC-x qfs, on the other hand, is hard to make sound bad, IMO. Also, there is a lot of overlap between analog hardware and good software VA. More than most hardware devotees would ever admit, but there are also important differences. If the difference is integral to your sound, then you already have your answer. Don't think you can cheat and learn what you want to know on any forum, though. You will always find people who agree with your presupposition and those who not and the choice is so personal only you can figure it out.

[Compyfox]

I can relate to that.


Then again... I still keep selective hardware (my synths), since there is really no software alternative on the market. Or no official ones (Yamaha MU series comes to mind). As long as I can afford it, I will try to keep my Kurzweil alive. If the funds allow it, maybe even get a fully maxed second one (K25xx rack or something).

Same with Roland's XV series (if I can afford to get a XV5080), which doesn't sound great by today's standards - but it still great bread and butter content to the currently over-processed sounds you get for Kontakt and x-synth.

[Axiomstatic]

I think my problem is this.

I work as a graphics artist from 9 to 1 pm 5 days a week and most of that time is spent on a computer. This may be the very reason why I look forward to real hardware and a console for mixing.

Last night I did get my hands on some plugins and spent a good few hours running demos from Soundtoys and Softube.

Was not all that impressed, certainly nothing made me say WOW. Certainly would not trade any of my hardware for any plugins any time soon based on last nights demos.

Flexibility yes software wins hands down.

Sound wise still not convinced.

[Robmobius]

Use both, simple as...

[Axiomstatic]

Again should add to my above post, I am clearly biased. Sure most hardware guys are.
For example how am I ever going to say a software plugin sounds better then my Phoenix for example or Pultec???????

No hardware guy is ever going to admit that are they?
I run an API 1608 and no way ever am I going to admit a piece of software made to emulate my API sounds better?
Its like buying a Ferrari, then jumping into a friends Hyundai then saying the Hyundai is better ) its just not going to happen.

No matter how much I may A/B I am to far entrenched in my hardware set up to ever admit any software available will ever sound anything like my beloved hardware. Thats just fact.

I have been brainwashed my friends. I am sure many software guys would relate to this, thinking some magical bit of hardware worth x amount of dollars is likely to cure for there lack of experience )

[Gonga]

Different strokes for different folks. I'm disabled and do all my work in bed lying flat, with a 27" flat screen overhead and my mouse on the bed. I have a small keyboard mounted above me also. It's slow, frustrating, and even painful, but it's what I've got! I can no longer sit at my keyboards / mixer for any length of time.

I prefer both. You need hardware as an interface, unless you don't or can't play. Some hardware sounds like crap (my old Novation X-Station). DIVA sounds better than my Moog Voyager used to (before I sold it), because the Voyager produced stepping on midi pitch bends while DIVA always sounds perfect (and is much more flexible - and cheaper).

I have three old keyboards that are great used as controllers. And two rack-mount synths (Roland JV-2080 and Yamaha TX-802) that cannot be replaced by any current vsts. We should enjoy our hardware while we can, because most of it will disappear in the coming years as it wears out. And we should embrace the future, where anything will be possible using superior interfaces with ultra-powerful computing tech.

Life is good.

[tapper mike]

I think my problem is this.

I work as a graphics artist from 9 to 1 pm 5 days a week and most of that time is spent on a computer. This may be the very reason why I look forward to real hardware and a console for mixing.


Sound wise still not convinced.

May you never work from home. I'm a technical writer with experience in programming. The last 12 years I've had two computers at home. One for work and one for play. They sit along side one another.

I've gone back and forth between hardware performing/recording and software equivalents. While prior to my online career I'd done quite a lot of work on hardware consoles/recorders None the less I still prefer software for the ui and workflow. I tried mixing and matching between the two I just got more done faster via a daw then the conventional route.

Not all hardware processors are built the same. If you are looking for a perfect replication of your favorite consoles or effects expect disappointment on some level or another. That being said I keep an open ear and in many cases virtual plugins have exceeded my expectations.