Is it worth it to get a bunch of hardware? (coming from software only)

[himalaya]

Your post above (with the 1966 Moog) is trying to steer the conversation in the general and much abused 'analog vs software' direction, which I have no interest in.

As much as your supposed Moog Modular from 1966 would sound superb, all recorded nicely to tape via some valve outboard, I'm 100% certain that it would not sound as good as for example, Steinberg's PadShop Pro when it comes to deep intricate, multilayered motion pads. Which is better? Can you see what I am saying? A blanket statement "hardware sounds better than software' is totally meaningless. A stubborn stance, "I'm still convinced that hardware sounds better than software" is just sad to read.

Do you actually own any other hardware besides your Akai S2000?

Hence I view it as a real world "hardware" synth that is utilizing the properties of electricity,in the analogue domain,much like I view an electric guitar ot Hammond B3.

I can not but wonder why making a distinction that a "hardware synth which utilises the properties of electricity" has any advantage over a software synth? Can you explain why the lush, multi-layered granular pad from PadShop Pro is inferior as compared to a sound from the 1966 Moog? Can you see how ridiculous this question is? If it's not clear yet, then let's spell it out: The amazing Moog can not make that sound, so is it still better than the measly, cheap PadShop Pro if I desire a lush, granular, multilayered pad?

This conversation as fun as it is, just meanders so much. Just a few posts above you were talking about some inherent limitations of keyboards when it comes to expression, I provided two examples how this is not so....and? We can keep this (immaterial) conversation going, but if we don't acknowledge the points raised by each party, then there is no conversation.

[Distorted Horizon]

I think Ive got T-shirts older than you.

LMAO

[thecontrolcentre]

Listen, kiddo.

[himalaya]

I'm still waiting for your much better Akai S2000 to make me my Halion patch that consists of granular synthesis, virtual analogue synthesis and deep sampled patches, all in one program. It is better after all?

Again, you need to re-read my post. I believe I said I had more "fun" with an Akai S2000. Not that it is "better".

Nothing will ever take away the thrill of switching it on the first time,seeing the blue screen,and loading in the floppies. Heck,even my 12 bit sampler addon for the Amiga was more fun than playing with Halion.

Oh dellboy! Come on my man!
You have mentioned the S2000 as hardware in a "hardware is better than software" segment of this thread. So please acknowledge, is the S2000 better than Halion with my given example? Be sincere (and by doing so you will become brave!).

If you want to steer this conversation and talk about how fun using hardware is, I can join in with some fun examples too. I have plenty of anecdotal accounts of hardware being fun as well as infuriating, or sounding amazing, and sounding totally shit! But this will become a different topic then.

Heck,even my 12 bit sampler addon for the Amiga was more fun than playing with Halion.

OK! Cool example, and I wonder how relevant that Amiga sampler would be if I wanted to make a high definition multi-layered cinematic soundscape that lasts 10 seconds before it loops... the client is waiting, and is expecting the results in 30 minutes...can you make this sound in your Amiga sampler for the waiting client? Which tool would be better in this scenario, which would give you the right sound, do you feel? Your Amiga 12 bit sampler or your PC/Mac with a copy of Halion (or Falcon, or Omsnisphere, or ...etc)

[sjm]

I think Ive got T-shirts older than you.

LMAO

I have a few T-shirts from ca. 93 or 94. Definitely better than the modern digital emulations. Real fabric wear and tear, and holes all over the place are not something you can just emulate. That would be like simply walking into Mordor.

[dellboy]

A blanket statement "hardware sounds better than software' is totally meaningless. A stubborn stance, "I'm still convinced that hardware sounds better than software" is just sad to read.

Here we go again. Please read what I write.

Where have I ever said that hardware "sounds" better than software ?

I said that "hardware is better than software", not that it "sounds" better. But even so, I still think that hardware in a live enviroment is better than a bloke playing stuff from a computer. Nord Stage EX versus a laptop ?

I like the tactile and visuals of hardware. I downloaded the latest Reason demo, and it has a lot of nice pictures of rack units and modules and stuff,and it sounds ok-ish. But it lacks the immediacy and tactile feel of real knobs and sliders etc. Yeah, you can twiddle the knobs with a mouse or maybe even a touchscreen,but real hardware is, errrr, real.

[dellboy]

deleted

[dellboy]

deleted

[dellboy]

OK! Cool example, and I wonder how relevant that Amiga sampler would be if I wanted to make a high definition multi-layered cinematic soundscape that lasts 10 seconds before it loops... the client is waiting,

I dont do that sort of stuff.

Music is subjective. You like to do that sort of stuff,but I soon got bored of that in the days of the Yamaha SY77. I remember buying my Korg M1 in 1990 and making all that type of evolving pad sounds,it was a thrill for a while,but even back then it soon became common place. Its not the sounds you have at your disposal, but how you use them that matters. For a good example of that a guy on here who goes by the name "Ariston" has some incredible tracks on his Soundcloud page that show off his amazing composing and musician skills,even though he may be using Omnisphere or Halion or whatever.

[himalaya]

Cool beans. I doesn't matter whether you do that sort of stuff or not, it was a rhetorical example, meant to stimulate and show how software is better in given examples than hardware, but then again, you are not claiming this after all, as you say.

I still love evolving pads and have lots made in my SY77 too (also bought in the early 90s ). But what went on in the 90s is much different to what is possible nowadays, in software. It's just another example of how software is much more capable here when compared to hardware synths (and workstations of yore). The sounds certain software synths and hybrid sampler/synths can make are astounding, never available in hardware before, and I see it as unwise to ignore one family of sounds ('evolving pads' or 'soundscapes') because they are deemed as 'old' and done to death. You could take a single plugin like Alchemy and keep making new sounds for all your life, whereas something like your old Korg M1 can reach its potential pretty quickly (as it already had back in the 90s).

And what about expression, the "keybed" issue? that you have raised?

[dellboy]

You could take a single plugin like Alchemy and keep making new sounds for all your life,

I would love to try out Alchemy, but I do not buy software that comes with a dongle.

[dellboy]

I can not but wonder why making a distinction that a "hardware synth which utilises the properties of electricity" has any advantage over a software synth?

A software synth is zeros and ones. Its code.

[himalaya]

Why does it matter ? What do you hear when you play a soft synth through your speakers? Select a bass sound in your chosen soft synth and what do you hear? Some noise? Morse-code like beeps that represent the actual code?

This is the 'analog vs software' topic, which is just not interesting and it's done to death, I hope you realise that.

And by the way, your answer shows me that you are in fact interested in the 'hardware sounds better than software topic'. you've been caught!

[himalaya]

You could take a single plugin like Alchemy and keep making new sounds for all your life,

I would love to try out Alchemy, but I do not buy software that comes with a dongle.

You can still buy Alchemy 1 licence second hand. However, choose something like Falcon, which will also give you years and years of sonic exploration. Add Harmor to it, and suddenly the sonic palette is expanded exponentially. This combo will give you sounds that you will struggle to find in hardware. This is only two instruments, but we could extend this list and add more unique software synths not available in hardware, as you well know.

[dellboy]

Why does it matter ? What do you hear when you play a soft synth through your speakers? Select a bass sound in your chosen soft synth and what do you hear? Some noise? Morse-code like beeps that represent the actual code?

This is the 'analog vs software' topic, which is just not interesting and it's done to death, I hope you realise that.

And by the way, your answer shows me that you are in fact interested in the 'hardware sounds better than software topic'. you've been caught!

No, I am not arguing the usual hardware versus software sounds better.But real versus synthetic.

I play a lot of real instruments. Violin, guitar, bass guitar, piano, harmonica. For me,a 1966 moog is a real instrument,as is a Hammond B3. If I am laying down a track,and I have a real instrument to hand I would prefer the organic sounds and overtones that it alone can bring to the table. Also, the realtime expression that only a human being interacting with his chosen instrument can achieve. I lay down to audio,and not midi.
However, if I need a slow evolving pad I will lay down a software track in midi. I would lay down the Moog in real time to audio, and not midi,because it is a real world thing.

If,however, people have grown to like the sound of synthetic tone,then that instrument (the computer) has started to become a real instrument.

Confused ?

So am I !