Hardware vs. Software aka why do VST sucks?

[Snoogins47]

but I don't view them as substitutes for the real deal, something you get cause you didn't have the money, the free space, etc. To me, they are the real deal.

It's very liberating, and I'm glad I got there

I think that most of my preference of hardware over software has very little to do with legitimacy in the musical realm, and more in the consumer realm. I'm nowhere near the extent of a lot of folks, with their circuitbending speak-and-spells and such, but I pretty much view anything I have, that makes a noise, as a 'legitimate' option for creating sounds/music... as long as I like what it does... and soundtimes if I don't heh) I think my years of growing up as a guitarist already got me through the whole unbridled gearlust/'I'd sound as good as Suchandsuch if I had all his expensive gear" phase (which lasted longer, and was more pronounced than I'd ever like to admit)

Now, if I can just get over the whole "I'd rather pay money and get a box that does X, rather than a computer program that does X" thing, I'll be completely set

[AgonisThorn]

That's kind of the point, though - even though the exact same equipment (in this case, the thing being really well emulated in the actual discussion) is used on the record, the home user thinks that their one's bad because it doesn't sound as good as on the record. This actually has nothing to do with his bit of gear, but more to do with all the other processing that's done on a properly produced record...

"Yes, there's something wrong with my Stratocaster - it doesn't sound one BIT like Hendrix...what do you mean 'learn to play it?' " Even with sequencing, performance technique is a non-trivial component of the final sound. I own VSTIs and hardware synths, have even built analog synths and effects beginning in the mid-70s, and I would recommend that you try as many tools as you can possibly get your hands on. I'd be willing to bet you'll find a use for everything, unless you are severely genre-restricted. (I currently play in two bands ranging from near-industrial to alt-country. Fun times with both, and it DEFINITELY forces me to keep an open mind!)

[sounddesigner]

When that's said, I have some gear on the way, all software, but I don't view them as substitutes for the real deal, something you get cause you didn't have the money, the free space, etc. To me, they are the real deal.

It's very liberating, and I'm glad I got there

Whether software or hardware, an instrument has to be loved for what it is in order for a musician to be any good at using it! My vst's/vsti's are great instruments in their own right,and when used right my arsenal is just as deadly as hardware!

[.jon]

Whether software or hardware, an instrument has to be loved for what it is in order for a musician to be any good at using it!

Another great point, there is more to synths than sound, features and GUI - they need to "click".

Crystal is my favourite in this aspect. It does not have the best oscs in the world, and not all the bells and whistles of modern ubersynths, but I just love making sounds with it.

[pepelogu]

I think the hardware world has a few "killer apps" that people look to when comparing to software. A couple of examples is of course the Virus, Nord Lead3 and Waldorf Q. Nothing to this date sounds as big and beautiful (imo) as those beasts. And therefore software seems inferior. The plethora of crap analog emulations doesn't help either.

But the standard quality stuff (again imo) by Novation, Alesis, Korg, Yamaha, Roland etc. software competes with easily today.

What software needs is a couple of real "killer apps" (and i'm not talking about Bones synths, although they are quite good i'm sure).

Maybe Komplexer has the potential... it sure plays in the same league as the best of hardware, which for me is a first. (and i don't work for Terratec...)

[kritikon]

But coming back to the thread... I think that few vst has the "presence" of hardware, one of this is Reaktor and saying that I'm saying that sw can sound as hw. It's only a matter of good programming.

So the question is: Are sw engineers working on hw far more skilled than who is develping vst???

Very posssibly..and of course thay have far greater resources to draw on, both in terms of funding and equipment. The big h/w manufacturers have a far greater R&D budget as compared to any small VST developer. They have access to their own plethora of previous gear, testing equipment, larger numbers of testers etc, and of course years and years of specialised research. They also will have far greater access to high end users, even simply in terms of getting responses from engineer/ technicians/ producers/ artists to question about what is useful, what works, what doesn't etc.

look at the sales figures for any VST developer - they don't have untold thousands in reserve to back up their next project. It's not necessarily the skill of the coders that is the make or break point.

And to any of the ones that still maintain h/w has the edge...look at some of the classic names and pieces of equipment that hold respect and have or still do sell well.
Lexicon, Eventide, TC, Ensoniq (DP4), Korg Wavestation (in fact...several of their flagship synths), Roland JD80, Akai/EMU samplers, Virus, Yamaha SY99...the list could go on and on and on. All those makes and models are just s/w. The main difference to any of their parts is the speed or capacity of the processors they use - and even they don't have much of an advantage compared to a well-specified PC. The only real point of difference for sonic quality can be the converters - and often those are worse on h/w than with even a mid-range dedicated soundcard. So it must be the coding that worked the magic - not the fact it's in a fancy dedicated box with esoteric gubbins inside.

Developers like Kjaerhus, Voxengo, URS, GMedia et al have shown they can compete at that level. But of course, the number will be limited and the field they code in will be limited. Torben can't possibly compete with the facilities that a company like Focusrite have access to. IK can't get close to the facilities and past experience of Lexicon or Eventide. It took TC a long time to muscle their way into that market even...

So I don't even think that the big names even have the better coders - but they sure as hell have an advantage acquiring them if they want to...if that was your line of work, would you rather risk living meagrely on the few sales you're likely to get (while hoping you'll make it big, and sell a couple of thousand plugins - a couple of thousand! Roland, Korg, Lexicon would laugh at those figures)...or would you take the offer of a well paid job at Lexicon/Focusrite/Korg/etc. Look at that advert recently on here for the Receptor people - wasn't it $70,000? And that'll be with sick entitlement, paid leave, maybe even other perks thrown in. And they're a smallish company. Do you really think some of our treasured small developers earn anything like that with their plugins?
Look at Sascha Eversmeier...coded some fantastic plugins as Digitalfishphones. He got swallowed up by the Samplitude people - I hope he does well - how could he turn his nose up at the offer he no doubt got? He's probably got some sort of a life back now.

And that is the sort of area where the h/w companies have a huge advantage.

[Z3R0T0N1N]

your points are well made.


-g.

[Urs]

Hmmm...

there are some points about the advantages of hardware guys recently, mostly reducable to: Hardware manufacturers have more money, more experience and more time. While this may be true to some extent, it may also be true that: Hardware manufacturers are big companies. Thus they probably exist for shareholder value rather than for any sort of idealism. That's just like it is when you drown in debts. They probably have decision makers that care more about market than about customers (I mean, what costs an upgrade from SynthX to SynthX2 XT? Does it exist at all?). There's certainly an awful list of not so nice properties for hardware manufacturers as well.

In comparison, a software manufacturer - which truth to be said might live of a tight budget - has an advantage that you can't get from hardware: He can send early versions of the software to a hundred of folks with golden ears, experience and a wide range of tastes. Thus he can get feedback way before more money is burnt than say a couple of weeks of one developers living. And he can still *change* features upon feedback, which is something that you can't easily get in hardware, be it analog or digital. This alone compensates for *years* of experience.

I would say that these are two paradigms in creating musical gear. Each has its own disadvantages and advantages over the other. However, I think none of the two paradigms says much about the stuff that comes out afterwards. One can turn each advantage into the opposite perspective: I.e. hardware manufacturers *need* more money and time to make competitive products. They *need* the experience to survive. Software manufacturers have to provide updates, not because they can, but because they have to keep up with changes in the hardware world (i.e. new types of computers with new operating systems -> or would you keep your old MacOS 9 machine only to run a certain software, just like you keep your old Akai sampler?). And so on.

Nevertheless, the essential thing is: Computers get faster, software gets better, the combination of both gets cheaper while hardware becomes rare and comparably more expensive. Software will more and more be able to replace hardware, with the golden advantage that one license can replace several bought & owned items. Thus, no matter if software is perceived "so VSTi" today, nothing will stop the trend. Software wins, hardware dies. Just like typewriters died and like analog film is dying. What'll be left is the hardware that does universal jobs: Computers, audio interfaces, master keyboards and controllers. Guitars (or only guitar controllers?). I say r.i.p. to specialized music hardware today, even though I regret to have contributed in killing it (well, a tiny little bit, maybe).

There's one question to ask: Will you spend 4000 bucks on a killer piece of hardware today when you take into account that a similar sounding software for 200 bucks will probably come out tomorrow?

Cheers,

Urs

[Kingston]

There's one question to ask: Will you spend 4000 bucks on a killer piece of hardware today when you take into account that a similar sounding software for 200 bucks will probably come out tomorrow?

Cheers,

Urs

hmmmmmmm. intriguing. To take it (coming from you) literally, or figuratively...

[droolmaster0]

Hmmm...

there are some points about the advantages of hardware guys recently, mostly reducable to: Hardware manufacturers have more money, more experience and more time. While this may be true to some extent, it may also be true that: Hardware manufacturers are big companies. Thus they probably exist for shareholder value rather than for any sort of idealism. That's just like it is when you drown in debts. They probably have decision makers that care more about market than about customers (I mean, what costs an upgrade from SynthX to SynthX2 XT? Does it exist at all?). There's certainly an awful list of not so nice properties for hardware manufacturers as well.

In comparison, a software manufacturer - which truth to be said might live of a tight budget - has an advantage that you can't get from hardware: He can send early versions of the software to a hundred of folks with golden ears, experience and a wide range of tastes. Thus he can get feedback way before more money is burnt than say a couple of weeks of one developers living. And he can still *change* features upon feedback, which is something that you can't easily get in hardware, be it analog or digital. This alone compensates for *years* of experience.

I would say that these are two paradigms in creating musical gear. Each has its own disadvantages and advantages over the other. However, I think none of the two paradigms says much about the stuff that comes out afterwards. One can turn each advantage into the opposite perspective: I.e. hardware manufacturers *need* more money and time to make competitive products. They *need* the experience to survive. Software manufacturers have to provide updates, not because they can, but because they have to keep up with changes in the hardware world (i.e. new types of computers with new operating systems -> or would you keep your old MacOS 9 machine only to run a certain software, just like you keep your old Akai sampler?). And so on.

Nevertheless, the essential thing is: Computers get faster, software gets better, the combination of both gets cheaper while hardware becomes rare and comparably more expensive. Software will more and more be able to replace hardware, with the golden advantage that one license can replace several bought & owned items. Thus, no matter if software is perceived "so VSTi" today, nothing will stop the trend. Software wins, hardware dies. Just like typewriters died and like analog film is dying. What'll be left is the hardware that does universal jobs: Computers, audio interfaces, master keyboards and controllers. Guitars (or only guitar controllers?). I say r.i.p. to specialized music hardware today, even though I regret to have contributed in killing it (well, a tiny little bit, maybe).

There's one question to ask: Will you spend 4000 bucks on a killer piece of hardware today when you take into account that a similar sounding software for 200 bucks will probably come out tomorrow?

Cheers,

Urs

I agree with everything that you say, but I don't believe that any piece of software (to my ears) really sounds and feels like true analog. I'm not talking about whether in a mix, person A or B can't tell the difference with some patches, etc....I'm talking about actually playing on the instrument and finding it more inspiring because of (vocabulary lacking) a subtle but dramatic (aware of contradiction) fluidity in the sound.

So, yes - I'm willing to spend lots of money for a hardware modular, despite the inconvenience of not being able to save patches. My Doepfer simply sounds much better than the Nord modulars, or Vaz. My Spectralis, with its analog filters simply sounds 'more analog' than any vst or au that I've heard. Similarly my Andromeda, etc, etc.

On the other hand, I don't claim that this makes a huge difference in the sound of the final product, only in the inspiration. And I also don't claim that analog is better than digital, except at being analog. I LOVE Zebra, Tera, Symptohm, as well as some others...

but I think that the end is not in sight for expensive analog gear. In fact, my impression is that the market is improving. I can't recall a time in recent history when more was available - modulars and non modulars.

Perhaps this translates to 'only fanatics with a fair amount of disposable $ will buy expensive hardware', but unless this basic impulse changes, I don't see the market for the high end stuff changing that much, at least for analog gear.

[Urs]

hmmmmmmm. intriguing. To take it (coming from you) literally, or figuratively...

I knew someone would pick on this. Take it literally in the essence, but keep tomorrow a metaphor.

Urs

[Urs]

I agree with everything that you say, but I don't believe that any piece of software (to my ears) really sounds and feels like true analog. I'm not talking about whether in a mix, person A or B can't tell the difference with some patches, etc....I'm talking about actually playing on the instrument and finding it more inspiring because of (vocabulary lacking) a subtle but dramatic (aware of contradiction) fluidity in the sound.

Yes, I agree for today. I still wished I had a Roland System 100M around

However, time will come when computers are fast enough to render algorithms that i.e. make for truely self oscillating and fluid sounding filters like this.

Cheers,

Urs

[aMUSEd]

I think the hardware world has a few "killer apps" that people look to when comparing to software. A couple of examples is of course the Virus, Nord Lead3 and Waldorf Q. Nothing to this date sounds as big and beautiful (imo) as those beasts. And therefore software seems inferior. The plethora of crap analog emulations doesn't help either.

None of those are analog synths - they are all emulations or digital synths (or a mixture of both).

[.jon]

Urs what is that

[droolmaster0]

I agree with everything that you say, but I don't believe that any piece of software (to my ears) really sounds and feels like true analog. I'm not talking about whether in a mix, person A or B can't tell the difference with some patches, etc....I'm talking about actually playing on the instrument and finding it more inspiring because of (vocabulary lacking) a subtle but dramatic (aware of contradiction) fluidity in the sound.

Yes, I agree for today. I still wished I had a Roland System 100M around

However, time will come when computers are fast enough to render algorithms that i.e. make for truely self oscillating and fluid sounding filters like this.

Cheers,

Urs

You might be right. And I'm sure that someone like yourself will break new ground in the quality of digital synthesis sound. But even if some new digital va synth sounds incredible, I really wonder about whether it will really feel/sound analog so that a 'true' analog fan won't be able to distinguish the difference. That is a somewhat different question than whether the filters sound fluid, or are self oscillating. Conceptually, the absolute upper limit of an emulation is to be indistinguishable from what is being emulated - so the question is whether enough is known about the physical generation of analog sound so that the digital emulation is indistinguishable by humans....

If I had to choose only one kind of synth to own - digital or analog - I'd choose digital without hesitation. I think that it has much more potential, and that will become clearer and clearer as the years go buy. (edit - now there's a nice slip...I meant 'by')