Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[BONES]

clean electric guitars sound just plain awful

Sure do. Can't imagine why anyone would use them.

[thecontrolcentre]

clean electric guitars sound just plain awful

Sure do. Can't imagine why anyone would use them.

... mine's absolutely filthy (sounds great)

[Stupid American Pig]

The onlything the interests me about DSP cards and hardware is the ability to offload a portion of the processing to those devices. Other than that, Im perfectly happy with the Voxengo and Kjaerhus efx I use.

For instruments, I think that something like MTRON is superior to the hardware, no maintenance involved, but all the sound(or 99.9% of it). I am starting to realize that while nothing has quite captured my rhodes or wurlitzer, the fact that it is non midi, very heavy, and Freeware gets damn close has ALMOST made me consider selling them.

[stash98]

so you guys would also admit then that a VSTi virtual guitar amp sounds as good as the real hardware version?

If you say so, you probably can't hear well.

I love VSTs. I use them for abut everything when im at home using my DAW. They are really going to replace hardware some years down the road. I believe that.

But to say a VST compressor sounds as good as it's hardware counterpart just shows a lack of experience using the hardware.

Another reason VST gets ripped is the reverbs. Even the impulses just don't have the tails that the DSP ones have....YET. They will.

I am not dogging VSTs, but be realistic or get more experience with hardware if you think there is no difference.

[superddman]

Compared to hardware, it is so easy to make a VST plug. That's why there are so many vsts out there. Any kid on the block can learn few VST coding formats and make their own plug. With all these plugs, there is a higher chance you will find some bad ones.

[ugo]

over the last few days i decided to mess with my hardware synths again. i have hardly touched them in ages. the first things i thought were:

1.) i still had menus and little lcds
2.) hands in control is cool
3.) the sound of most of these synths are no longer any better than many of my vsts

now to touch upon each of those briefly...

1.) having a nice big display were i can see everything with an absolute minimum of menus/paged panels (preferably none.) i find it much easier, more fun, and more relaxing to program when i can easily see what the hell im doing. i've programed way more presets since i started using softsynths than i ever did when i was only using hardware, and the vst visability is a big reason why.

2.) i was never much of a real time tweaker though, so this is a very minor point to me. but when i feel like it, i can assign some of the CC transmitting controls on my hardware synths to my software. one day perhaps i will get a proper midi knob box.

3..) years ago, it was true that most hardware synths sounded better than most software synths. i do not believe that is the case anymore. for example, spectra and vertigo sound every bit as good as my kawai K5000S. do they sound the same? no, they are different synths...just as spectra and vertigo sound different from each other. but the overall quality of the sound of those softsynths is excellent and i really cannot say that the K5K is any better. do i feel the K5K sounds better than some additive softsynths...absolutely...but certainly not all of them.

my microwave XT is among the best sounding hardware synths i've got. its hard to compare it to softsynths only because there really is nothing out there that is like it. kubik is as close as it gets, but not close enough (imho.) that doesnt mean that the XT sounds better than all softsynths though. it just means that the XT is still pretty unique and that waldorf did a fantastic job when designing it. often in these types of discussions, hardware owners will be quick to say that no software they've heard can sound as good as their their favorite hardware synth...therefore software is inferior to hardware. but that, in and of itself, proves nothing. more likely than not, no other hardware can sound just like their favorite hardware either.

so anyway, i can say all the same stuff in regards to all my other digital hardware synths. they sound great, but so does the best of my software. and in fact, some of my software sounds far better than my no-so-great hardware. so great stuff, be it software or hardware, sounds better than not so great stuff, be it hardware or software. while that should be a blindingly obvious, stupid, and unnecessary statement, its a thought that hardware enthusiasts like to ignore. but to me it is a very simple example of how even i feel the playing field has become. just because something comes in its own plastic, metal, or wooden case, does not magically make it sound better than all software in the world.

i am less picky and far less knowledgeable about effects so i cant speak about them quite so much. i dont own any analog effects units, just digital, but i certainly have software effects that i like just as much, and in some cases more, than my hardware effects.

now...on to my analog and hybrid synths...

i feel that imposcar and minimonsta are the best VA softsynths i've got. so i used them as my software refference points for the evaluation. the hardware synths they were up against were my akai AX80, crumar bit one, and DSI evolver (the hybrid of the bunch.) in all cases, the VA's sounded like what they are...virtual, not real. could i pick that out in a mix? no. but head to head, i could hear the difference.

this experiance is similar to when i went to a shop and compared an alesis andromeda to every hardware VA they had in the store. as great as those VA's were, to my ears they all sounded digital and fake in comparison (for a lack of better words.) that included the Q, the ion, and yes...even the virus. but that doesnt mean they sounded bad. they all just had that "VA sound", somewhere in between straight up digital synths and analogs. its a cool sound, just not analog.

well that feeling came right back when doing this recent test. it wasnt as pronounced when comparing against the AX80, but it was there. however that vibe became much more obvious as i switched to the bit one and the evolver. so if i had to actually make a choice and say which i thought sounded better....i'd have to say the real analogs did. but that doesnt mean its the sound i always want to use. i really like the VA sound too. its got a power and character of its own, and its usually what i prefer to work with these days. if nothing else, i find VA's to be easier to mix with than the real analogs.

and as far as the whole aliasing thing goes. its not a big deal to me if some shows up. more often than not, i just view it as part of that particular synth's character. in comparison, real analogs (at least the older ones) are often noisy and some suffer from tuning issues. so for me, there are clearly trade-offs in either direction, and like i said, i have enjoyed working with VA's more than real analogs for the last few years.

but that the my own discussion/evaluation has been brought down to the finer points of personal preference between tone, usage and quirks, to me just further underscores that the whole 'all vst's are crap' argeument is bullshit. if someone doesnt like the sound of something, then sure...it could be crap to them. but i just dont buy into the line of thinking that hardware is better, just because its hardware.

-ugo

[pdxindy]

Business economics play a big role in this stuff. You can buy $1500 TDM plug-ins, but I don't think there are $1500 vst plug-ins.

No market?

It is an essential element of business economics to be able to set the so called high-end apart with a professional mystique.

I doubt hardware digital effects or synths are going to be any better, certainly not in any fundamental technical sense.

It is easy to see why someone would think so. A person or studio who can afford a room full of hardware synths and effects can often afford a $2000 mono compressor, and similar preamp and mic etc. Plus a great studio space with superb acoustics.

VST is second class, not because of an inherent limitation but because it is financially advantageous for the big boys to set themselves apart to keep charging many thousands of dollars for boutique gear... all so the majority of people can listen to it on cheap boom boxes.

hehe

Years ago I used to listen to this crappy recording of Lightnin Hopkins playing blues at a small theatre. I could do a better job recording/producing it on my laptop with its vst plug-ins than what was done back then. Doesn't matter. I loved that music.

[ugo]

so you guys would also admit then that a VSTi virtual guitar amp sounds as good as the real hardware version?

If you say so, you probably can't hear well.

doesnt that also depend on what real amp is being used, how its mic'd, the ability of the engineer, the location, etc.?

in a perfect setting, with great gear and people who know what they are doing, working on both real amps and vst sims, i think real amps will still turn out on top. (personally, i like the sound of even my pods to the most of the recordings of vst amp sims i've heard.) but in less than optimal conditions, and for the average person, a vst amp sim can potentially provide them with far better recordings than if they tried to mic their real amp. just because an amp is real, doesnt mean its going to automatically provide better recordings. so what is really "better" depends on the situation too, not just the gear. i see it as one of those 'right tool for the right job' type things.

-ugo

[The Chase]

Mr. Ozio, anyone?

[Torben]

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?

Good point Andrew. If people pay money for studio time they expect to see some hardware and not a computer with plug-ins like they got at home. If you can't sell better sound you have to sell some kind of lifestyle; big brands know that in every industry no matter if they are selling cola, perfume or whatever.

Torben

[ulozilla]

i remember people saying "amd cpu's sucks"(intel fanboys)..(athlon xp times,i was a happy amd xp owner), and now they love amd.....and the same it's happening with software......the same f**** people, saying "vsti's sucks" now are saying "ohh yes, this vst is really cool", f**** you!!!, im a vsti user since i was 12 because at that age i wasn't able to purchase a hardware synth...
now i still use them....
so again , f**** you sell out people

[BASSDRIVE]

yeah VSTi's suck.

CMON, just look at Synth1, dammit! That Synth ROCKS and it's F-ing FREE!


Some people are just jealous IMO because they spend hundreds and thousands on Hardware equipment, yet in the end, the result is the same or inferior to someone who used pure software. It all depends on the user.

[james0tucson]

so you guys would also admit then that a VSTi virtual guitar amp sounds as good as the real hardware version?

I can put my Fender DeLuxe on a stage and fill the room with sound.

Maybe that sound can be simulated, but to reinforce it enough to play live, with a bass and drums, and get anywhere near the performance of this simple amplifier, would require complicated and expensive amps and speakers. Might as well just crank up the DeLuxe, no?

There's really something very satisfying about a tube amp. People seem bound and determined to replace the tube amp with something else, but I really don't see the point.

[Kingston]

People seem bound and determined to replace the tube amp with something else, but I really don't see the point.

The *point* is convenience in the studio. Having 20 amps in a box is certainly more attractive than having 20 of them physically with the need to mic them up in a good room.

Sure the sound is only somewhat close to authentic as of now, but in the hands of a great engineer and a guitarist the sound will be the same on the end product, the finished mix.

Live is another matter, but certainly something like Vetta is more convenient as it accommodates so large pallette compared to a one single tube amp.

Again, on the end product, the final stage sound, it's already indistinguishable. Not to *us* of course, but even then only academically.

You can endlessly wank about the differences, but in the end it's already good enough to make it a mostly psychological issue.

[aallvor]

I have never heard a sound on a record and thought "I could not do this with software"

Agreed 100%. I think any differences are simply "perceived" differences rather than actual differences, Kraftwerk included. I have complete confidence in my software set-up, infinitely more than I ever did with hardware. Its easier to work with and I am able to produce significantly better results. Whether it might not be able to match a particular piece of hardware in a particular area is irrelevant, the simple fact is that I can achieve more in less time at a fraction of the cost of hardware and to a higher standard. Aren't those the only things that matter?

Apart from the percieved and actual thing (how can we really know the difference?), I agree 100 %. It seems that people get caught up in minor details and forget just how damn incredible this whole vst thing really is..