Hardware instrument appreciation thread

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I prefer hardware synths. Probably it's just a matter of crappy converters, noise, lack of synchronization with the host (so when you play a note you have a small delay, and the amount could not be forecasted), but there is a lot of life there. I suggest to try an hardware synthesizer and compare with a vst instrument on a real song. For example virus B desktop vs the software/poco one (same algorithms).

A lot of big studios use a common tecnique: they reproduce the syntesizer track on a loudspeaker or cabinet, and mic in again for doubling. Someone says it adds "air". And it's true imho it's less static. Maybe it's for the new distortions introduced, the lack of synchronization, little mistakes and errors, but the track sounds like it was "played" by humans, not computers (and don't say it's just a matter of shuffle or quantization).

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

software is shit, here buy my software.
that makes sense?

Software is NOT shit, software is the future. Sooner or later, there will be no hardware any more. But do you remember when the sampler was introduced? they said that a moog could be substituted perfectly. Now tell me for what reason a lot of big studios are using ancient gear TODAY. Software is coming close to hardware and closer. It's a matter of time. For example I'm selling an "hardware" emulator, but I write everywhere that the original hardware is DIFFERENT (obviously not better if you are looking for boosting 2.3dB at 102.2323232 Hz). Our attempts to give better products IN SOFTWARE should be not confused with a PERFECT emulation of them or of their qualities. We need more processing power, because even a crappy converter (which could have a meaning in the audio path) needs an awful amount of calculation for being emulated. Obviously if you are looking for a super-clean synthesizer, the vsti world is crowded with choices.

[Vegetarian]

A lot of big studios use a common tecnique: they reproduce the syntesizer track on a loudspeaker or cabinet, and mic in again for doubling. Someone says it adds "air". And it's true imho it's less static. Maybe it's for the new distortions introduced, the lack of synchronization, little mistakes and errors, but the track sounds like it was "played" by humans, not computers (and don't say it's just a matter of shuffle or quantization).

I've never seen that used in any "big" studios I've been to, but all that's going to do is colour the signal according to the characteristics of the speaker, microphone and how the mic was positioned. There's absolutely no way it'll make it sound like "it was played by humans" - the only way you could possibly think that is if you had some preconception thanks to a clever producer that doing that would actually "humanise" the sound you're recording.

The best way to get a synth part to sound like it was played by a human is - wait for it - get a human to play it

[Sam@Megablastic]

My take is I love both, but software emulations of synths and compresors is not there yet (although Nebula is doing a damn good job of getting the closest yet). I'm sure in time software will improve hugely, you only have to hear the new Sonalksis filter to realize this.

But it's like, a review on the Korg Monopoly vsti in Sound on SOund I think, said that it sounded better than the analog version. I can tell you side by side the vsti is pants. It's the same with just about all the other virtual emulations, the MS-20 was laughable against the real thing, as was the Moog emulations that cropped up everywhere. Gmedia's Minimonsta was and is a damn good synth though in it's own right.

And this is the point, vsti synths are great when they are vsti synths and not tring to be "analog" they lose something that I can't
explain in words. But I trust my ears and know that there is a real difference between the real thing and the emulation.

Putting Vsti's through hardware eq/comps/fx and then back into the Sequencer seems to fix a lot of the sterile sound that vsti's have, and give back some of the grit. Miking up your monitors does this as well.

Compressors like the uad-1 are really close, but still are not there
yet, eq's for me are getting really close, Nebula 3 is the closest yet for eq's to analog as are there reverbs. You have to admit that nearly any mid priced hardware reverb beats virtual ones. But Nebula has stopped me buying a pcm 70 (which I was going to do this year).

Synths that are designed from the ground up to be original vsti synths and not emulations tend to sound amazing and no hardware can come close, but vsti's emulating hardware just are not there yet, not for me anyhow. I wish they were then I wouldn't have to worry about tuning, midi timing, reliability and space.

Everyone goes on about what vsti sounds like a virus, I've yet to find something as awesome sounding as my Virus Ti, and that is just a virtual synth with some hardware d/a converters but it does have a sound that vsti's don't have just yet.

But it's also down to personal taste a lot of it

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

I've never seen that used in any "big" studios I've been to, but all that's going to do is colour the signal according to the characteristics of the speaker, microphone and how the mic was positioned. There's absolutely no way it'll make it sound like "it was played by humans" - the only way you could possibly think that is if you had some preconception thanks to a clever producer that doing that would actually "humanise" the sound you're recording.

not, it was reported in Mixing Engineer's Handbook:

http://www.amazon.com/Mixing-Engineers- ... 0872887235

I'll tell you the pages and who said it (there are a lot of interviews there to the best engineers in the world).

[mao]

Sam@Megablas

+1

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

The best way to get a synth part to sound like it was played by a human is - wait for it - get a human to play it

Sometimes I ask to myself if someone who is writing about hardware has a long experience of it (I'm not speaking about software embedded in an hardware box). I remember an interview where the producer of Robbie Williams said that they were forced to substitute a lot of plugin tracks with tracks played by hardware to get the right sound. But there are countless examples. In any case if you don't get it, I'm not here for a crusade. I'm expressing an opinion.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

My take is I love both, but software emulations of synths and compresors is not there yet (although Nebula is doing a damn good job of getting the closest yet). I'm sure in time software will improve hugely, you only have to hear the new Sonalksis filter to realize this.

But it's like, a review on the Korg Monopoly vsti in Sound on SOund I think, said that it sounded better than the analog version. I can tell you side by side the vsti is pants. It's the same with just about all the other virtual emulations, the MS-20 was laughable against the real thing, as was the Moog emulations that cropped up everywhere. Gmedia's Minimonsta was and is a damn good synth though in it's own right.

And this is the point, vsti synths are great when they are vsti synths and not tring to be "analog" they lose something that I can't
explain in words. But I trust my ears and know that there is a real difference between the real thing and the emulation.

Putting Vsti's through hardware eq/comps/fx and then back into the Sequencer seems to fix a lot of the sterile sound that vsti's have, and give back some of the grit. Miking up your monitors does this as well.

Compressors like the uad-1 are really close, but still are not there
yet, eq's for me are getting really close, Nebula 3 is the closest yet for eq's to analog as are there reverbs. You have to admit that nearly any mid priced hardware reverb beats virtual ones. But Nebula has stopped me buying a pcm 70 (which I was going to do this year).

Synths that are designed from the ground up to be original vsti synths and not emulations tend to sound amazing and no hardware can come close, but vsti's emulating hardware just are not there yet, not for me anyhow. I wish they were then I wouldn't have to worry about tuning, midi timing, reliability and space.

Everyone goes on about what vsti sounds like a virus, I've yet to find something as awesome sounding as my Virus Ti, and that is just a virtual synth with some hardware d/a converters but it does have a sound that vsti's don't have just yet.

But it's also down to personal taste a lot of it

quoted every word.
@vegetarian: sorry if my previous post was a bit harsh.

[mao]

First of all I think that future is software running on external dsp box.

Second... open your FM7, FM8 and play it for half an hour... yeah it sounds amazing. Now switch on a 150$ old yamaha TX802 and play it half an hour. You'll look your FM7/8 in a different way. It's always amazing but not as punchy, clear, aggressive like the TX802. Why? I don't know... Sure the FM7/8 is far more powerful in the feature list but the truth is that the old TX802 still kick a@@.
The same for Minimoog clones... the Minimonsta sounds amazing when played alone, or in a mix with other vst... but switch on the real one and you really must be earless to say that is quite the same. But as opposite of an 150$ TX802 you can easily afford.... there is a big difference on buying a Minimonsta or a Minimoog.
I really don't care about emulation. Do you like your FM vst (fm7/8, sytrus, ...) well go with them. I prefer a more feature limited TX802 but that's my taste.
Do you like minimonsta? ok I prefer an MFB synth II... or a little phatty. The main problem is that it's very easy for an hardware player to do comparison with the sw (download the demo... play it) but it's very difficoult to a sw player to try some good hw(not for only 10 min at the shop).

[D-Fusion]

I prefer Software for these reasons:

1. They sound good enough for music production
2. When a hardware is released it gets discontinued after a short while (Specially Roland synths).
3. Software gets constantly updates and the knobs always work.
4. No need to turn on 3-4 different synths and wait for them to warm up before use.
5. You have everything in one screen instead of having to turn left and right to turn some knobs.

But i also agree that for example a NL 2X is a damn good synth and also works great as a midi controller.

The only thing i don't like about traditional midi controllers for vst instruments is that you get a bunch of knobs, and i would really like one who is layed out as a traditional synth instead (Like NL 2X).

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

The main problem is that it's very easy for an hardware player to do comparison with the sw (download the demo... play it) but it's very difficoult to a sw player to try some good hw(not for only 10 min at the shop).

+1
You need to work with it and with your music for a while. It's my point. It seems like a lot of forum posters have a little experience with good hardware, while everyone could download software and compare with low priced hardware
Sometimes software is considered better because in a large display you have a lot of controls or people simply can't hear the difference and compare only the interface (old instruments sometimes have a crappy interface).

[living sounds]

I couldn't play an FM7 for half an hour, it doesn't sound interesting enough. A 15+ yeas old hardware FM-synth on the other hand sounds great, I can play one for hours. Maybe it has to do with being a pianist...
As for the Minimonsta, I always found it to sound boring. An analog synth sounds so much brighter, more unrestrained, focused.

Plus, something is wrong with the bass in VST-synths. It lacks definition. I've compared simple sinewaves played from a software sampler and sinewaves coming out of my TG77 (digital). They don't sound alike. The software spits out perfect sinewaves. What comes out of the hardware is not a perfect sinewave, but it sounds better. The envelope, distortion characteristics, the "click" at the beginning of the envelope with very low attacks - it's different. And no software plugin I've heard does this.

The same goes for what software compressors do to bass. A hardware compressor adds a smack no plugin can give you. Why is that?

I'd like the software devs to analyze these things and reproduce them - then I'd buy plugins instead of hardware.

[Sam@Megablastic]

Plus, something is wrong with the bass in VST-synths. It lacks definition.

This is one of my biggest reasons for using hardware against vsti's, but I found that running vsti's at 88/96khz did help the bass a lot more.

Sampling hardware and playing back in a good sampler seems to keep the bass energy intact, but vsti's never seem to have that full fat bass sound. Anything can sound bassy by turning up the bass, but it's a fabby soft mushy bass that to me I find a lot harder to get to sit in a track.

I have more luck using a single square wave from say a Yamaha CS-30, damn even my Ensoniq Esq-1 with 8bit sampled waveforms is better for bass. It's also one thing my Virus Ti can't do, that is bass. I never use my Virus for bass because it sucks at it.

[kilon]

I do not think there is a doubt that hard synths still sound more fat. I also think that whatever the software will do, hardware will take this and evolve it a step further. I also see that the market moves towards hybrids, hard synths with big screens and a lot of software inside enhanced features and optimised interfaces. It is not an attack on soft only , it as an attack on computers as well. Soft will still remain as a cheap option and hard as more complete more expensive option. Nothing will disappear.

People still talk alot about Virus, but the truth is that there are even second hand synths that truly sound amazing today cannot be beaten by soft like YAMAHA SY 77 , which a very enhanced DX7 Clone. FM is pretty much a digital technology which thereotically software could replicate easiliy but I feel that hard companies tend to push the envelop abit more. It is not only about 0s 1s or how much software is include inside a hard synth. I think the matter is a lot more complicated than that and the diffirence is made in the small details.

On the other hand many pros work soft -only and do not experience any loss in sound quality. That is because layering sounds can bring this exra fat, easily. Still the good thing is that are many options and seems most artists foloow the approach that makes them more comfortable. We live in the golden age of "Who wants to be a music artist?".

[living sounds]

Yea, but I still have a hard time imagining why a very old digital synth like the tg-77 beats the vst-instruments hands down. It's not even funny. The bass coming out of the hardware is tight and punchy, the high end is crisp and shining, the sound is textured, every time you hit the keys it sounds a little different, alive... the vst-instruments on the other hand sound muddy in the bass, muffled in the high end, and there is not much texture/richness/mojo whateveryouliketocallit to be found. So the question is WHY?