Where has software actually improved on hardware?

[m-ac]

What I mean by the title of the thread is, say the last 30 years, massive massive leaps have been made in computing whereas music hardware has moved forward at a much slower pace in comparison.

So, in what areas is computer DAW/software now finally leading the way? IMO, in sequencing and recording there is no contest. I couldnt go back to my Fostex 8 track and casette tapes for anything

Samplers, theres another that has hardware beat by and large.

Synths, or more to the point, VA's. The difference seems to be so small now that without a spectrum analyser its barely noticeable. As far as everything else 'synth', well theres no contest really is there.

Software seems to be leading the way as far as delay also. You dont hear anywhere near as much 'not the same as analog' talk as you do with, for example, compressors.

How long is it going to be before software 'beats' outboard completely? Surely its unavoidable?

ALl the above are IMO of course, I know some people love thier hardware...I used to myself

[MitchK1989]

I've never seen a hardware delay that's as flexible as delay designer, timeless, MFM2, ohmboyz, or ricochet.

I've also never seen hardware multiband distortion that wasn't just some bandpass filters and fuzz units. Certainly nothing to rival Trash or Ohmicide.

Nothing in hardware can touch software when it comes to non-analog forms of synthesis. FM comes close (the FS1R rivals software FM synths), but additive? the K5000 is the only real competition, and it's still blown away by Cameleon or Cube. Don't even get me started on the additive/FM hybrids out there like sytrus and Octopus. Extraordinary.

I have yet to find anything in hardware that can touch the zany-ness you can get with Reaktor or MAX/MSP either. The Nord modular can do some things, but it just isn't as flexible.

And software VAs tend to sound more authentic than hardware VAs... and before anyone tries to flame me on this, I used to use hardware. I switched to software and I'm a whole lot happier with it.

[DevonB]

Synths, or more to the point, VA's. The difference seems to be so small now that without a spectrum analyser its barely noticeable. As far as everything else 'synth', well theres no contest really is there.

VA is a VA. I still prefer hardware VA's as the sound as a full 'package' I find I like better. What I get out of a Roland, Waldorf, Yamaha, etc. I still prefer over the vast majority of software only plugins.

You're right, there is no contest for analog, because digital still doens't sound like analog; close, but not quite there.

ALl the above are IMO of course, I know some people love thier hardware...I used to myself

Yup, I used to love my hardware, switched to software, getting tired of its problems and sounds that just wasn't as inspiring to me as hardware and switched back to hardware. Yes, I still do both, and will continue to do both, but my preference still leans towards hardware.

Devon

[shamann]

Software's greatest strengths as I see it are scalability without physical constraint and parameter/information recall.

I'm not sure the two need be in competition though. If you reduce these things to just sound, maybe, but that's overlooking the experience. Whether you view one worse/better compared to the other is up to you, but either way, experientially the two are different.

One thing I like about software effects compared to hardware effects is that there is less pandering to the guitarist market, which is often a necessity to survive selling certain kinds of hardware effects, so that there's much less reductionism involved (fewer parameters, fewer inputs/outputs, etc. Guitar effects don't really need stereo inputs, for instance). Sometimes reductionism is a positive, but at least you have the choice more often with software. I think both hardware and software manufacturers still have lots of things to learn from each other, and I don't think they need to always compete if they each play to their strengths.

[legendCNCD]

"FM comes close (the FS1R rivals software FM synths)"

Yeah, come on developers, I want my FS1R copy without the quirks now

[etapper]

Software's greatest strengths as I see it are scalability without physical constraint and parameter/information recall.

I'm not sure the two need be in competition though. If you reduce these things to just sound, maybe, but that's overlooking the experience. Whether you view one worse/better compared to the other is up to you, but either way, experientially the two are different.

One thing I like about software effects compared to hardware effects is that there is less pandering to the guitarist market, which is often a necessity to survive selling certain kinds of hardware effects, so that there's much less reductionism involved (fewer parameters, fewer inputs/outputs, etc. Guitar effects don't really need stereo inputs, for instance). Sometimes reductionism is a positive, but at least you have the choice more often with software. I think both hardware and software manufacturers still have lots of things to learn from each other, and I don't think they need to always compete if they each play to their strengths.

'm puzzled by your statements as the hardware you're referring to is DSP type of hardware that requires software to run also. IMHO the main difference between hardware and software is the capability of the current CPU's being much more capable acting as a DSP unit then the old stuff and this with improved flexibility.

etapper

[shamann]

the hardware you're referring to is DSP type of hardware that requires software to run also

I don't see that I mentioned DSP hardware at all. Please point out where I did?

[Shane Sanders]

Software's greatest strengths as I see it are scalability without physical constraint and parameter/information recall.

That's what I was gonna say. That and the fact that you can morph between paramerters a lot easier than with hardware. Mind blowing really.

[rifftrax]

the thing about software vs. hardware is that with hardware you are always looking at a higher cost in production because you not only have to deal with the dsp - you also have to design the amplification and power stages as well as tack on a higher price to compensate for the presence of (often) heavy and expensive steel and other materials that go into the construction. Then there is the issue of people not wanting to lug the stuff around everywhere when a comparable digital copy could be toted around on a 1mm thick sd card that weighs less than an ounce...

midi production on computer is also just a tad easier.

[jplanet]

Cost effectiveness, sampling capacity and expandability.

Compare a $3000 Motif or Triton with a $1000 laptop loaded up with Forte Ensemble. The workstations give you 128MB samples...with up to THREE whole velocity switches! With a laptop, you get Ivory with 7 velocity levels, and 4GB samples...

Try to install a B3 modeller on your Fantom...or even a decent virtual analog...it takes a $3500 Kurzweil before you even begin to see those features.

[DWb]

Software's greatest strengths as I see it are scalability without physical constraint and parameter/information recall.

Surely the absolute biggest one is the comparatively low cost of research and development and then the negligible cost of production and distribution? I mean, can you imagine a hobbyist starts building hardware synths and giving them away for free to anyone that wants them...

And this doesn't just mean that I can get a nice sounding virtual analogue for a lot less money than the hardware equivalent, it also means that there's a lot more scope for experimentation and the propogation of new ideas. Where previously a new idea would need a few years of R&D and would basically never see the light of day if it didn't have enough mass appeal to shift thousands of expensive hardware units, now an amateur or semi pro developer can come up with a new concept, implement it in their spare time, and if they maybe shift a hundred units at $30 a throw they can feel pretty pleased with themselves. Meanwhile, because the idea's out there in the open, it'll maybe get picked up and played with by someone else... and because you don't need to shift loads of expensive units to break even, you don't need to make sure that everything you release appeals to trance kiddies and bar singers.

I mean, how many of the FSU effects in the KvR database would have been made in hardware?

[Mac of BIOnighT]

Look, there's one thing that convinced me to switch to software for good, the one thing that hardware will never be able to equal, no matter what: You don't have to dust software. (yes, I'm serious!)

[DevonB]

Cost effectiveness, sampling capacity and expandability.

Compare a $3000 Motif or Triton with a $1000 laptop loaded up with Forte Ensemble. The workstations give you 128MB samples...with up to THREE whole velocity switches! With a laptop, you get Ivory with 7 velocity levels, and 4GB samples...

Try to install a B3 modeller on your Fantom...or even a decent virtual analog...it takes a $3500 Kurzweil before you even begin to see those features.

I can pick up a Motif Rack for under $500 on Ebay. I can pick up a Triton Rack for around $450-$600 on Ebay. Ivory is $319 on Musician's Friend, and then I only have a piano, and that still doens't include the hardware to run it on (computer, sound card, etc.) If it was only a piano or a B3, then sure, I'll agree with you. Those instruments are not the reason why I bought a Motif or a Triton either. I'm still looking for a soft synth that patch for patch sound better than a Fantom. I can replace indivudual pieces (the piano isn't the greatest piano in the world, but certainly playable), but I'm still not hearing software sound design that's rivalling hardware yet.

Devon

[shamann]

Surely the absolute biggest one is the comparatively low cost of research and development and then the negligible cost of production and distribution?

I was going to add cost reduction to my list, but think the other two are bigger strengths.

[etapper]

the hardware you're referring to is DSP type of hardware that requires software to run also

I don't see that I mentioned DSP hardware at all. Please point out where I did?

I guess that all hardware requires a form of programming to do something. Even if no software is used a wiring scheme and or electronic components are "programmed" to produce the required output. It's never a magic box you see
I've build a synth a while back (40 years) with opamps and other means. I'm sure you would agree that this is also a form of programming to make it work the way it was designed.

etapper