how many are using sequencers and pluings today?

[HanafiH]

People who harp on the inherent sound difference between software and hardware betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Digital technology, which accounts for most of the instruments used today (the number of true analog synths on the market today is miniscule) always incorporates software at its core. That digital "hardware" synth you're using has the same kind of signal-processing logic (crunching 1's and 0's) as a VST running on a computer. Neither one processes "sound"--they're both just crunching numbers, 1's and 0's. The "sound" domain (or, more accurately, the analog signal domain)is entered only when the digital data is converted to analog, in the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter), at the very back end of the signal chain. The DAC can be high-quality or low-quality in your computer soundcard or your "hardware" synth; neither is inherently superior or inferior.

Almost all of the processing in a digital "hardware" synth is in fact accomplished in software which happens to be embedded in ROMs rather than in computer RAM. 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's whether in "hardware" or software.

All of this is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons to prefer hardware over software or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that people who claim that one is sonically inherently superior to the other really don't know what they're talking about.

Except of course the Microwave 1 I'm playing with now, which has digital oscillators but real analog filters. Oh and the Sondius algorithms which are guarded by patents and only available as some kind of hardware. Oh and the sixteen operator FM architecture of the FSR1 which is only available in hardware. Oh and...

You do it your way. And I'll do it my way.

[kritikon]

I think that the way of looking at gear from hardware guys, as I am, is completly different then those software guys.
We are NOT looking forward to that weekly update (friday) of the software... we just make music with what we have !

Right or wrong ?

Wrong.

I write tracks like anyone else, but also one of my pleasures is to simply dick around making weird sounds. Doesn't make any odds to me whether its my h/w or my s/w. I probably enjoy tweaking my h/w more if I'm honest, but the creative process is not necessarily about writing and finishing a "song".
I don't usually get excited about s/w updates - when I buy a piece of s/w, it's because it already does something specific I want from it, as is. I wouldn't buy it if I thought it might do what I want but only when it gets up to version 5.4.

I have some pieces of s/w that are several versions out of date - I don't always care about the newer features they've added since I bought.

People who harp on the inherent sound difference between software and hardware betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Digital technology, which accounts for most of the instruments used today (the number of true analog synths on the market today is miniscule) always incorporates software at its core. That digital "hardware" synth you're using has the same kind of signal-processing logic (crunching 1's and 0's) as a VST running on a computer. Neither one processes "sound"--they're both just crunching numbers, 1's and 0's. The "sound" domain (or, more accurately, the analog signal domain)is entered only when the digital data is converted to analog, in the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter), at the very back end of the signal chain. The DAC can be high-quality or low-quality in your computer soundcard or your "hardware" synth; neither is inherently superior or inferior.

Almost all of the processing in a digital "hardware" synth is in fact accomplished in software which happens to be embedded in ROMs rather than in computer RAM. 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's whether in "hardware" or software.

All of this is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons to prefer hardware over software or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that people who claim that one is sonically inherently superior to the other really don't know what they're talking about.

There's truth in what you say, but there are exceedingly good reasons to prefer h/w in certain cases. Most of my h/w synths (not all) are analogue, and they tend to be of the more characterful type. They mostly have no 0s and 1s in them at all. Some s/w emulations are very very good, some analogue synths are still unmatched.

Even within digital h/w - I've yet to come across any native reverb that'll remotely give me the same results as a PCM91. A Lexicon piece of h/w sounds inherently better to me than any native reverb. Yes, it's s/w in a black box, but it is still Lexicon s/w in a Lexicon black box and only Lexicon release them, so it is inherently better IMO than any s/w. The reason for the inherent improvement is irrelevant - I know it's not the fact it's h/w that makes it better, but it is still better than any competing native s/w.


In terms of $$$ value, I still have far more h/w than s/w. However I use s/w in effect more than h/w. I wouldn't want to use only one in preference to the other - it's the results and the sound that matter, not the packaging, even though I still prefer mixing on a desk to s/w mixing. Even though I now do s/w mixing - doesn't mean it has to be my most pleasurable method. In exactly the same way I much prefer tweaking a h/w synth with a bank of dedicated knobs/sliders and controllers than using a mouse. But I'll happily use a good VSTi when it sounds good, and many do.


A musician uses whatever he finds to make his music become possible - to suggest if you don't use h/w that you're not a musician, actually reveals a level of ignorance and arrogance that is bordering on stupidity. And I say this as one who for many a year was h/w only - now s/w is rapidly taking over for me.

Some of the comments made here also resonate with me though...even though I use mostly s/w now. I do find there's a level of ignorance about h/w in some corners, and an assumption that s/w must be better/more flexible or whatever. Some comments I read make it glaringly obvious the authors haven't had the benefit of hearing some of the better h/w, if any h/w. I'd go for s/w for most audio duties gladly nowadays, simply because I can afford it so much more easily, and I can get 1000 times more bang for buck out of s/w. But, sorry guys, I also know that some of that expensive h/w leaves s/w in it's dust for that magical audio quality we strive for.
Just because you can't afford it, don't assume it isn't worth the price.

And also the younger end assume all music is better done on s/w...it's horses for courses, but there is a whole world of goodies in h/w that has good reason for its existence.

The fanatics on both sides can carry on feeling smug about their choices - me, I'll carry on using what I consider both the best and the easiest of both that I can afford at the time.

[HanafiH]

You know this argument is almost as much fun as picking on Cubabes, but in this case it's an argument I have no interest at all in winning. The glorious end product of the belief in the intrinsic betterness of software is that so much incredibly good gear is being turfed onto ebay at a fraction of its purchase price.

So you don't need that hardware synth at all, oh no, you're absolutely right in everything you think, you can't ever possibly be wrong and you're never going to die. Better sell that old synth before the prices get even lower.

[BONES]

Not many years ago I had a room full of hardware devices

It was 1985 when I last had a room full of hardware. That was the year I bought my multi-timbral CZ-101 and my first MIDI sequencer. From that time on my hardware set-up shrank and shrank. The smallest it ever got was ASR10, O1R/W and KORG S3 drum-machine. From there it bloated back out a little bit - Trinity, CS1x and K5000R was the last full hardware set-up I used.

i dont understand one thing:
people RESPECTS and admires the dude, that plays mp3s with his warezed dj soft on his pc in the local disco, and still are thinking, that to make music on the pc is not a serious thing...

Perhaps that is why? They admire him for having th eballs to get up in front of people and sound so lame. I think you would find that the vast majority of people who are snobbish about software would be even more snobbish about DJ's. I know I am.

Could I do it all in software? Of course. But I don't have to, because I have a room full of toys to play with!

I have a computer full of toys that require far less maintenance and are at least as rewarding and enjoyable.

I am basicly a hardware guy, which means that I mostly play with a couple of hardware synthesizers.
My MIDI sequencer of choice is allso hardware, a Yamaha QY700.
Multitrack recorder is an 8 track Roland digital recorder.

Ok, that's the "how", I would love to hear the "why" because I cannot imagine what advantage you could see to a QY700 over any software sequencer.

I've been through the whole software fad and I'm happy to say that I'm back with my hardware. All of the software synths just sound soooo....muddy. I can power up my Motif and think, "why did I ever even bother with VSTs?" there is NO comparison.
I'm not speaking without experience. In the past 3 years I bought into the music software brainwashing and spent over $4500 on software/peripherals and tried just about everything on the market. I literally chucked it all in the garbage one day out of frustration.

You have got to be kidding? I haven't spent 10% of that amount on software at I've got a sound which is infinitely better than I ever could have using hardwar ewhich was at least the equal of yours.

My new setup? Motif 8, Triton, Boss BR-1600CD, guitars, basses, microphones. No updates to buy, no wasted time getting the right drivers, no frustration with unreliable software. I just power up and go!

What about a mixer? Or outboard effects? Every time I see someone with this attitude its always the same and I have to look at it and think that if they had even the slightest idea of what they were talking about their mixer would be almost the first thing listed, because in terms of getting a good, clean sound it is the most important part of any set-up.
How is the overall noise level of your studio? How much time do you spend chasng down hum and line noise and replacing leads and sockets when things get crackly, etc, etc, etc. That used to take up 10 times more of my time, and considerably more of my money, than getting a stable PC set-up ever has.

And judging from what little $$ I need to spend now (firmware updates are almost always free), I'm willing to bet that it's much cheaper in the long run.

Until the next big thing when you need to try and find a sucker for your old synth and then pay for the new thing. Only a complete moron would feel that keeping hardware up to date was anything but infinitely more expensive than keeping software up to date. The money I lost on my Trinity after only two years of use [and three years trying to get sold] was about 4 times more than I have spent on software in total.

Dude, talk to me in 5 years when subsequent versions of Windows or Mac breaks all of your software and you had to upgrade ($$), reconfigure, re-optimize your new system for better performance.

If I had to buy all my software again brand-new, with no upgrade pricing it would still be cheaper than the price difference betwen selling an old hardware isntrument and buying a new one. i.e. My whole software studio has a total RRP of around $400 and with it we have recorded two albums of which I have very happy and proud. With the tens of thousadns of dollars worth of hardware that went before it and $5000 worth of studio time I managed to produce an album which, at the time, I was never very happy with.

Or that new VST you just have to have won't run in your out-of-date software ($$).

In the last two years I have spent less than $50 on new instruments.

Or the new hardware you may need for that new OS ($$). Keep shelling out that $$.

What new OS? What are you talking about? I've been using my computer exclusivly for music for around 6 years and I have never had an issue with music software that was incompatible with my OS. I don't even know where you get krap like that from.

I've had my Motif since 2001 and the only thing I've ever had to do to it is dust the damn thing. Even though I have other equipment, I could do everything on the Motif and I can use it for another 5 years without spending a dime.

And you will still have spent 10 times more than me in the same period and received only a fraction of the power that I have.

You could choose to use your software that long, but I know very few folks who can resist having the latest and greatest.

And I know people who are the same with hardware. So what? That's achoice. I have exactly the same attitude towards software that I always had with hardware.

Also, if I ever get tired of my Motif, I can sell it.

And again, you will lose more on it than I have spent on software in total.

Especially things like Reason refills. You can transfer the program, but if you invested in any Sonic ReFills, you can't sell those or give them away (13 @ about $50 each -- all useless without Reason).

Similar story for sample sets you buy for hardware.

100% moron and proud of it!

Good for you!

I don't require a separate recording unit because I can record a song as audio data right in the Motif, if I choose to.

How many tracks? How many effects can you apply to them for mix-down?

I looked though my puchase records last night and found that, indeed, I have spent less on the hardware route -- in fact, 45% of what I spent on software when I used it.

That's your choice. You choose the most expensive, top-of-the-line software but then go the cheap route with your hardware. Like I said, if you are consistent with your attitude to both, software is orders of magnitude less expensive.

I think that the way of looking at gear from hardware guys, as I am, is completly different then those software guys.
We are NOT looking forward to that weekly update (friday) of the software... we just make music with what we have !

As a former hardware guy, my question to youis why can't you take the same attitude with software? I certainly can. I'm still using an eXT version from last August which would be avbout 6 updates old now. So what, it works for me. OTOH I used to drop into my music store on a weekly basis waiting for the next OS update for my ASR-10, in the hope that they would fix a few problems. With software I can tell the developer what the problem is and get a fix in a couple of days, all without interrupting my life.
It all comes down to the individual's attitude.

ROTFL!!! I was on the Cubase forums a few nights ago and all anyone ever talks about is when is version x going to be out or when will get a maintainence release to fix this or that bug. Same thing on Reason forums. Poor bastards! It's like living with a digital heroin addiction.

And its the same on the Alesis Ion/Micron forum at Yahoo, just as it was on the K5000 group and the ASR-X group. But I never bought into any of it, except where I had actual faults with my hardware, which inevitably took months or years to fix if they ever got fixed at all.

Where is your instrume....oh, wait, your one of these "I can assemble loops and enter notes into my sequencer with a mouse so I'm a musician" types. I've got news for you -- you're a composer, you're no musician. A studio would be useless to you -- use the couch.

And here it is. You are a pathetic, elitist, ignorant fool. When I owned twenty grand's worth of hardware i was no more or less a musician than I am now, I was just far more constrained in what I could achieve without going into a real, commercial studio and spending real, non-transferable, non-refundable cash to do the same things I can now do to a higher standard whilst sitting on the lounge in my living room.

But, sorry guys, I also know that some of that expensive h/w leaves s/w in it's dust for that magical audio quality we strive for.

Yet in a blind test I would guarantee that there would be a fairly even split between which sounded "better" and plenty of pro-hardware guys would be on the wrong end of it.

Well, after all that do I need to state my own case?

[cfurlin]

You know this argument is almost as much fun as picking on Cubabes, but in this case it's an argument I have no interest at all in winning. The glorious end product of the belief in the intrinsic betterness of software is that so much incredibly good gear is being turfed onto ebay at a fraction of its purchase price.

So you don't need that hardware synth at all, oh no, you're absolutely right in everything you think, you can't ever possibly be wrong and you're never going to die. Better sell that old synth before the prices get even lower.

It's amazing what you can pick up from folks who have convinced themselves that it's better to be a slave to the software developement cycle. Keep the hardware coming! I've got two rooms left to fill!

[BONES]

So you don't need that hardware synth at all, oh no, you're absolutely right in everything you think, you can't ever possibly be wrong and you're never going to die. Better sell that old synth before the prices get even lower.

Which, of course, makes you Mr Reasonable, does it? I invested far more time and money in hardware than I have in software so I think I'm entitled to my opinion too, whether it fits with your world-view or not.

[bluediver]

People who harp on the inherent sound difference between software and hardware betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the technology. Digital technology, which accounts for most of the instruments used today (the number of true analog synths on the market today is miniscule) always incorporates software at its core. That digital "hardware" synth you're using has the same kind of signal-processing logic (crunching 1's and 0's) as a VST running on a computer. Neither one processes "sound"--they're both just crunching numbers, 1's and 0's. The "sound" domain (or, more accurately, the analog signal domain)is entered only when the digital data is converted to analog, in the DAC (Digital to Analog Converter), at the very back end of the signal chain. The DAC can be high-quality or low-quality in your computer soundcard or your "hardware" synth; neither is inherently superior or inferior.

Almost all of the processing in a digital "hardware" synth is in fact accomplished in software which happens to be embedded in ROMs rather than in computer RAM. 1's and 0's are 1's and 0's whether in "hardware" or software.

All of this is not to say that there aren't legitimate reasons to prefer hardware over software or vice versa. I'm just pointing out that people who claim that one is sonically inherently superior to the other really don't know what they're talking about.

Except of course the Microwave 1 I'm playing with now, which has digital oscillators but real analog filters. Oh and the Sondius algorithms which are guarded by patents and only available as some kind of hardware. Oh and the sixteen operator FM architecture of the FSR1 which is only available in hardware. Oh and...

You do it your way. And I'll do it my way.

Fair enough, but I'm afraid you may have missed my point, which was that hardware is not INHERENTLY superior to software, or vice versa. Availability only in hardware (or software) is beside the point, and patents have nothing to do with it. The fact that an algorithm (which is software by definition)is patented and only available embedded in some kind of hardware doesn't at all mean that hardware is inherently superior. And what are FM operators? They're digital manipulations of digitally-encoded waveforms. That's all software, regardless of whether it's only AVAILABLE in a particular hardware device or not.

My point is not that all software synths sound as good as all hardware synths, or vice versa, just that neither is INHERENTLY superior to the other.

[HanafiH]

So you don't need that hardware synth at all, oh no, you're absolutely right in everything you think, you can't ever possibly be wrong and you're never going to die. Better sell that old synth before the prices get even lower.

Which, of course, makes you Mr Reasonable, does it? I invested far more time and money in hardware than I have in software so I think I'm entitled to my opinion too, whether it fits with your world-view or not.

Selling any of it?

[HanafiH]

My point is not that all software synths sound as good as all hardware synths, or vice versa, just that neither is INHERENTLY superior to the other.

Yar absotively. So, a copy of X emulation is every bit as good as X hardware, regardless of the soundcard, the computer and the keyboard you use to instantiate it?

Oh, you didn't mean THAT hardware. Oh yes I see.

[cfurlin]

BTW, the name calling thing -- appropriate for children under 10, not adults. If you don't agree with me, why don't you respond with something intelligently communicated. I'd be happy to continue the discussion.

Also, if you look back, I never said hardware was better than software. You put those words in my mouth. I said I moved back to hardware because I couldn't find any instruments that met MY quality sound bar. I never asked you to jump on my bandwagon.

Let me refresh your memory about what I said:

I can power up my Motif and think, "why did I ever even bother with VSTs?" there is NO comparison.

I thought this, I never asked you to think it.

I guess what I'm saying is that the $$ issue is really moot -- I wouldn't discourage someone from going the hardware route because of it.

I wouldn't -- I never asked you to stop doing anything.

I love walking into my studio, flipping the power on, and getting to the creative process right away. I wouldn't trade that experience for anything.

Again, my experience and observation. Never asked anyone to make it their experience.

My experience (again, not asking you to make it yours -- just in case your still reacting instead of listening) is just as valid as your experience. I never asked you to jump on my bandwagon.

I just don't get the aggression here -- sounds like you are expecting me to jump on your bandwagon and don't like the fact that I'm not.

[bugs]

I'm shooting for a nice mix of hardware and software instruments. I love my MU100R and am plnning to get a MOTIF ES Rack to go with it, but I also love my Spectrasonics and Native Instruments stuff. I don't think there are any hardware sequencers to rival my SX3, or editors to rival WaveLab, so I'll stick with them. I'm buying a new classical guitar because I like the feel compared to even good VSTs when just diddling around, but prefer the VST when recording.

I'm going to hear the London Philharmonic in a few weeks, my favorite orchestra along with the Philadelphia, but neither group is willing to come to my small studio in the middle of the night and stay for two weeks for the $3000 I can afford. Are there any virtual modeled hardware synths to rival VSL or EWQLSO?

And the computer itself, its like a whore, you won't get much love from it, but it will be whatever you want, whenever.

The hardware v software argument is moronic--the inane realm of fanbots.

[BONES]

Selling any of it?

Its all long-gone. The only thing I really miss is my O1/W, nothing could do the amazingly expressive pseudo-analogue stuff that it could. I also miss one multi-sound I had on my ASR-10 that never translated properly into a soundfont. That's why we don't use guitar sounds any more.

So, a copy of X emulation is every bit as good as X hardware, regardless of the soundcard, the computer and the keyboard you use to instantiate it?

Ultimately it is because it remains in the digital realm from one end of the production process to the other and is therefore independant of all that krap, just as it is from the vaguaries of a hardware set-up. I couldn't use Sik's Prophecy, the only hardware synth I think is superior to any software, in a mix if I wanted to because we have been completely unable to eliminate mains hum from it, despite having plugged it into every outlet in my place.

[bluediver]

My point is not that all software synths sound as good as all hardware synths, or vice versa, just that neither is INHERENTLY superior to the other.

Yar absotively. So, a copy of X emulation is every bit as good as X hardware, regardless of the soundcard, the computer and the keyboard you use to instantiate it?

Oh, you didn't mean THAT hardware. Oh yes I see.

No, you're still not getting it (or I'm not explaining it well enough); that's not at all what I'm saying. Of course there are inferior software emulations of hardware. There could very well be inferior hardware emulations of software as well. So what? That's beside the point. Once again, the key word is "INHERENT".

[yemski]

Some hardware is excellent, some hardware is crap. Some software is excellent, some software is crap. Most products in the two categories kind of lie somewhere in the middle. Both work for me with their attendant advantages and disadvantages. To my mind there's no point favouring one over the other.

This thread is just indicative of the kind of nonsensical absolutism that people descend into when they feel they have to defend subjective choices. The tools used are merely a means to an end.

[Ildon]

Some hardware is excellent, some hardware is crap. Some software is excellent, some software is crap. Most products in the two categories kind of lie somewhere in the middle. Both work for me with their attendant advantages and disadvantages. To my mind there's no point favouring one over the other.

This thread is just indicative of the kind of nonsensical absolutism that people descend into when they feel they have to defend subjective choices. The tools used are merely a means to an end.

Wonderfully said! I was in the middle of posting something similar to that, but I thought I'd just reply to this and agree.