Does anyone NOT like soft synths?

[V0RT3X]

I imagine even the most hard core analog afficiando on gearsluts secretly has a few soft synthesizers on his or her computer

[seismic1]

Soft synths are like toilet paper, I need them, but I don't really like them.

I love my toilet paper! Can't be too soft, nor too hard. The right amount of friction, balanced with the right amount of cottony goodness. Too soft will leave you sore, too hard will, too. Aye, there's the rub.

The inclusion of Shakespearean prose in revivalist literature is to be applauded, no matter how abrasive the context.

[trimph1]

I imagine even the most hard core analog afficiando on gearsluts secretly has a few soft synthesizers on his or her computer

[Examigan]

I liked them in 2005 and even now in 2016...though I now have a Sub Phatty

[felis]

There's so many of them that it's hard to try them all out to see which ones click for you.

Other than that, I've found some that I really like.

[Examigan]

There's so many of them that it's hard to try them all out to see which ones click for you.

Other than that, I've found some that I really like.

I have many of them, and love Dune 2, impOSCar 2, Synthmaster, ACE, Diversion, OP-X Pro II, Zebra, and Saurus.

[chk071]

There's so many of them that it's hard to try them all out to see which ones click for you.

Other than that, I've found some that I really like.

Same.

[Firebird]

I imagine even the most hard core analog afficiando on gearsluts secretly has a few soft synthesizers on his or her computer

These days, soft synths can get the job done with no problem.
Some that have been ported from hardware to software sound nearly identical and in some cases better.

And sure, why not?

[Taurus]

Real analog hardware is the new hipster beard.

[ariston]

Real analog hardware is the new hipster beard.

But... but.... haptics!

You know, you might just have something there. I sometimes get the feeling that the energy devoted to the analog-digital debate is inversely proportional to the real musical output.

[deastman]

That's why there are so many great musicians who are also mathematicians.

Isn't that a Right Brain Left Brain thing? Left hemisphere for Math, Right for Creativity? Which leaves a half wit like me at a distinct disadvantage.......

That left brain/right brain thing is such a tired old myth. It dates back to old studies of individuals who had had their corpus callosum completely severed. Under normal circumstances, an FMRI will clearly demonstrate that many different areas of both hemispheres of the brain are involved in both logical and creative tasks.

Oh, and I like both hardware and software.

[jancivil]

I have about zero interest in hardware synths. There is a whole bit in another thread about the tactility of workin with specifically ARP 2600 and a kind of qualia that attaches. Seems basically irrelevant to me. Ca. 2003 I bought Absynth 2 around the same time as I picked up a DX7 at a pawnstore. I was pretty typical about capturing an older workflow w. the latter; never happened, it takes up space and collects dust. I did far better w. the tweezoid Interface of Absynth, amounted to far more stimulation for me. I have loads of hours with a Minimoog but to turn the actual vs the virtual knob does not seem to make a musical difference to me (per NI Monark). But I don't have much interest in emulating specific synths in software actually.

[wagtunes]

Having worked with both hardware and software, what seems to be missing from these debates is how horrible it was working with hardware programming interfaces even when they went digital and LCD. The screens were stupidly small. You have to tab through tons of menus in this minuscule space (I'm looking at you Korg Triton Rack and every other wannabe that came out at the time) and ultimately, I wasted more time trying to program sounds I wanted than actually making music. I won't even get into the horrors of early analog synths where you couldn't even store a patch (I'm looking at you ARP Odyssey and Moog Minimoog)

Today, I can program a "good" sound in a synth in a matter of minutes. If i want something great, maybe a half hour.

Honestly, if I had to sit down and list the advantages of hardware, I'd be hard pressed to come up with very many.

1) Easier to use for playing live. I hate the idea of dragging a PC around. And God, what it the PC crashed in the middle of a performance? With hardware, assuming I have more than one synth, if one goes, I have backups.

2) The thrill of hands on the knobs and slider. But this applies more to older analog stuff than the newer digital synths which leave me cold. I actually get more interaction from my VSTs.

3) No need to have to reinstall my hardware. If my PC goes, I have to reinstall everything. I dread that day and I know it has to come eventually. I am not looking forward to this at all. With the hardware I used to have, I never had to worry about this. And I had hardware that lasted for 20 years and never broke. PC VSTs is a new world that is not without its annoyances in this area. And that's putting it mildly.

But that's it. Those are the only 3 things I can think of as far as hardware being preferable to software. Everything else, software is either just as good or better.

So in spite of these 3 pluses, and 3 is a HUGE one, I would never go back to using hardware.

[Uncle E]

Having worked with both hardware and software, what seems to be missing from these debates is how horrible it was working with hardware programming interfaces even when they went digital and LCD.

I quite like the Moog Source/Studio Electronics ATC-1 interface with 1 knob and a bunch of dedicated buttons. The Kurzweil system, which allows you to jump between relevant parameters, is also surprisingly intuitive. I never really got comfortable with the E-mu and Korg LCD interfaces. The old Roland's just completely did my head in, although I still have a JD-990 that I basically just use 1 voice at a time.

If it hasn't already been said, a good thing about hardware is it gets you to commit. Plus, tools like Melodyne allow you to take audio files so far that it's not really necessary to leave leave instruments live anymore.

[ras.s]

If it hasn't already been said, a good thing about hardware is it gets you to commit.

This is actually one of the most underestimated things. Not having to commit is exactly why I don't always like software synthesizers.

With software synthesizers, that moment is pretty much always pushed back until you have to commit (bounce to audio), because your computer just can't handle it anymore. Until that moment there's always the kind of thinking that maybe I can still tinker with, it's going to need a bit of quantizing, slicing and dicing, maybe I'll modulate it somehow .. At least I tend to think like that, always pushing back the moment when I actually do make the commitment that I'm happy with my performance. It can be really counterproductive.

Pretty much the only reason that I record a software synthesizer directly to audio is that I'm resampling it. But just as recording audio is rare, it's always the case that I'm pushing my computer with numerous processor crunching synthesizers until my computer just can't take it any more, and I still haven't done the tinkering I was thinking I will do. It can even lead to abandoning the project. I do always bounce everything before mixdown, but reaching that -- sometimes it just doesn't happen.


Damn heck. I do record real instruments, but with software synthesizers I never really record them, I only save the performance for some future moment that may not even come.


The next few projects I'm going to do exactly that -- commit to it.

Thanks, Uncle E.