Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Kermit Jagger]

we've never had it so good...

Spot on !

Do I give a monkey that ARP2600V does not sound 100% like the original ? Do I give a toss that Minimonsta does not replicate a Minimoog 100% ?

Nope. Because the last time I checked the ads, ARP2600V + Minimonsta = under 10% of a real ARP2600.

So yes, we've never had it so good, and that's coming from someone who's used hardware since a Korg Trident in the early 80s (which wasn't bad at all) and still uses some today. VST are a God-send as they have enabled many to have fun producing tracks at a fraction of what I had to spend 20 years ago.

And even if VST were not on a par with hardware, and some VSTi are, since when does the hobbyist at home need Apogee, Focusrite, SSL... gear to make tracks and have fun.

[Debutante]

Debutante,

great post. Spot on.

[/quote]

Thank you! ...nothing to say, just didn't want to stay on post # 666 for too long ... how convenient .

[sounddesigner]

I think its gonna take some Big time famous platnum selling artist to come forth and say they only use vst's and no hardware to get their sound, then other software studio owners will be convinced finally that software is great for the job.When that happens then you'll have everyone from then on trying to copy the sound of that famous platnum selling software user.For some reason something is only great in many peoples eyes when they see someone else use it well.In the next music age when we move from computers to spaceship nuclear powered synths, you'll have people trying to copy the old digital vst sound

[blaster78]

I think its gonna take some Big time famous platnum selling artist to come forth and say they only use vst's and no hardware to get their sound

the weird thing is that these guys don't mean much to me.

most of the artists i listen too use a bit of all sorts but almost all of them say reaktor is a major part of their arsenal. no other bit of kit is that universal amongst them.

cheers,

steve.

[ddummer]

9 pages in one day?!

OK I haven't read it all and will probably repeat someone else..

The core difference is not really a difference but all hardware
mostly got input and output stage before the process where
the electronics will color the sound.. same as a soundcard
will do only that the soundcard contain very little around
the digital stuff.

So if you do a digital mixdown you'll miss a big part of the
"hardware" sound.

But what if you ran all plugs out and in again through
some amp stage... analog sound as a result when everything
is added in the end?

//Daniel

[lex_strooder]

... nice thread with alot of good input

> A modern CPU can easily calculate with 32/64 bit fixed and floating
> point arithmetic and most dedicated hardware runs with a lower bit resolution

even low bit gears sounds good (or different), like the 8-bit lexicon pcm-60 or the 12-bit 40KHz Akai MPC-60...

[MackTuesday]

I think its gonna take some Big time famous platnum selling artist to come forth and say they only use vst's and no hardware to get their sound, then other software studio owners will be convinced finally that software is great for the job...

Vincent Clarke used only softsynths when making Nightbird, which had three top 10 entries in Billboard's Hot Dance Singles list.

[sweet_trip]

we've never had it so good...

Spot on !

Do I give a monkey that ARP2600V does not sound 100% like the original ? Do I give a toss that Minimonsta does not replicate a Minimoog 100% ?

Nope. Because the last time I checked the ads, ARP2600V + Minimonsta = under 10% of a real ARP2600.

So yes, we've never had it so good, and that's coming from someone who's used hardware since a Korg Trident in the early 80s (which wasn't bad at all) and still uses some today. VST are a God-send as they have enabled many to have fun producing tracks at a fraction of what I had to spend 20 years ago.

And even if VST were not on a par with hardware, and some VSTi are, since when does the hobbyist at home need Apogee, Focusrite, SSL... gear to make tracks and have fun.

i agree. it's not like people make "Roland" music or "Korg" beats; no one says "man, that's a nice Nord intro."

i'm originally a guitar player, and i've been doing the guitar thing for many years now, and i think i can spot a les paul or a strat on any recording, but i do not enjoy music that way.

i agree that because of the countless crappy VST and software synths out there giving the few good ones a bad rap, people lean towards hardware because of it's "Supposed" better sounds. but to me that's like the PC vs. Mac argument when people say, yeah with a Mac you do not get the million of spyware and virus and trojans you get with a PC. but if Mac computers were the majority then that same argument would most likely be reversed. i have nothing against Synthedit or any other modular-to-vst software. i use a few synthedit creation (and lately synthmaker) very often. but i always wonder about what differentiates x synthedit creation from y synthedit creation, when may be using the stock oscillators and filters that come with synthedit... i know that there're many that do use custom modules...

[Z3R0T0N1N]

I stopped believing that hardware DSP had anything at all over VST DSP, the day i heard ZynAddSubFX for the first time.
I had doubts before that, but that synth cleared things up for me

And for anyone who has SEEN the thing, you can't tell me for a second that 'the fancy GUI is colouring my opinion' If anything a GUI like that would make it sound worse to an impressionable soul like myself.

[AndrewSimon]

I think its gonna take some Big time famous platnum selling artist to come forth and say they only use vst's and no hardware to get their sound, then other software studio owners will be convinced finally that software is great for the job.

Very unlikely that this will happen.
If you are in the "studio business" then you must know that these days it's a very hard way to make a living and studios go belly up daily.

What is great for us "home studio" owners, is a nightmare for small and startup "pro studios".
For studio owners to openly embrace software is simply bad buisiness.
Hey if you can do it all on a PC then who needs an expensive studio?

[blaster78]

I stopped believing that hardware DSP had anything at all over VST DSP, the day i heard ZynAddSubFX for the first time.

slightly ot sorry, i've tried this synth countless times and never understand what people heard in it, it seems incredibly pedestrian to me. not a dig, just a question ?

and i've currently got a penchant for scanned synth with way to many parameters and no gui at all so it's obviously not that putting me off.

cheers,

steve.

[mistertoast]

>>You really should do you self the favour and get yourself a HP"

It's all in the feel of the keys. That's why HP is best.

[pdxindy]

Yep that is what i meant
The trick with hardware is that it just sounds more rich & Phat out of the box.

no it doesn't

[pdxindy]

hehehe @ snooky
Maybe you should start using photoshop instead, dont you feel embarrest when you say stupid things?
No, I dont know the answer to "why VST sucks", because its a myth. I have several VST/i here that are awesome. All I'm saying is that there are still a few hardware that no software still havent archived.

And there are VST's that no hardware has achieved, and there are VST's that not other VST has achieved. Just because something, software or hardware has a unique sound, does not make it a better sound, although any particular individual might like it better.

Overall, there is greater diversity of sound from VST synth's than there are from hardware synths.

[deaf dunderkwac]

Overall, there is greater diversity of sound from VST synth's than there are from hardware synths.

amen!