How the heck do hardware synths make sense to you?

[IncarnateX]

Yeah. After my latest experiences I must ask this.

Here is the story: I have been making music on laptops since 2006. Just loved the fact that I could bring a laptop with me everywhere. However a week ago I really started to miss my knobs , sliders, faders and the feel of hardware so I decided to ressurect my hardware studio, which basically consist of an Emu MP command station as main sequenser and some synths (Alpha Juno, Mopho, JP8000 and microkorg). However I had really forgotten all the problems associated with using hardware. Soon I found myself into the good old problems of cable chaos, midi spaghetti and coordinating it all by programming every device individually. And it got much worse when I finally had a set up going, because programming and editing sequenses on the MP command station imply lots of clicking within several individual menus and submenus, which makes the proces extremely slooooooow compared to working with a PC Daw. To deal with some obstacles, I based the septup on my laptop instead running Orion with midi out. But even doing this implies a lot of individual editing pr. synth when you make patches. Finally, when I got some sound to be recorded, I had to record the synths one by one and further proces them in an audio editor to remove hum and noise. I was stunned by all these forgotten obstacles compared to working within a DAW from scratch. I have finally reached the stage where hardware productions is something that belongs to an era long gone - at least for other things than playing live and jamming. Even if it really sounded better than software, it would not be worth it due to the slow production proces.

I have now bought a Oxygen controller for my Reason 6.5 that works out of the box and this seems to be the only type of hardware that will make sense to me in the future.

Thus, I just have to ask you guys how you make sense of hardware synths ( and drum machines) beyond jamming and live performances. Are there anyone who would go through a proces like the above to produce some synths and why would it be worth it to you?

[Mushy Mushy]

Patchbays and intelligent/flexible cabling.

[justin3am]

Having a computer with multi-I/O audio and MIDI interfaces as a hub and interface for hardware makes things a lot easier, IMO. Patchbays won't hurt either.

To answer your question more directly... sometimes the slow, deliberate process can be enjoyable. I understand that you aren't having fun with the stuff that you are using but that doesn't mean that all hardware is a chore to use.

I have just as much fun with hardware synths and sequencers as I do with DAWs and controllers. It's all good.

[zlatan]

I made two setups : 1 analog and 1 with just a computer and some controllers.

Sometimes I hate the slower workflow of the analog setup and sometimes I hate just staring at a computer screen and clicking my mouse for hours.

Depends on the mood and project , but I love them both equally.

For a lot of styles and sounds it still makes sense to use hardware, because sonically computers are not there (yet).

[DevonB]

Everything is a tradeoff, and nothing is 'better' than the other; it's just different. In general, my hardware units just 'work'. They sound good and have their own niche sound I want. I turn the unit on, and in a few seconds it's up and ready. Each synth offers its own approach to editing and working with it. Sometimes the change is refreshing. Now I'd never again record MIDI data on anything but my DAW. I'd never use a hardware sampler again either. I know my limits of pain, and I haven't waxed poetically about losing my Emu E64 and waiting minutes to load off of a 6x CDRom... oh... ever? But the sounds, oh, it's worth it to record individual tracks for me. Not a big deal. If I recorded guitar, drums, bass, vocals, it be individual tracks anyway.

Devon

[Robmobius]

Access Virus TI works well... Hardware sound with the accessibility through usb (not that everyone loves the Virus sound, but I do). The Virus also controls my Vermona PerFourMER from it's midi out.

Mackie Onyx, connected via a firewire cable.

So it's a pretty ez and painless set up, but with the quality of sound I'm after.

[deastman]

For most of my hardware synths, I just have two long audio and one long MIDI cables which I patch from my audio interface to whichever synth I feel like using. I play around on the synth for a bit, jamming with my DAW. When I'm ready to track notes, I play from my main controller, looping the MIDI back out to my hardware synth. I record the MIDI into my DAW, make any necessary edits, and then record the audio to a new track. Then I'm free to make a new patch, plug in a different synth, or whatever. For my modular, I use Silent Way to control it, and before that I used a Kenton.

I look at pretty much the same way as playing my guitar or other instrument into a DAW track.

[kritikon]

And it got much worse when I finally had a set up going, because programming and editing sequenses on the MP command station imply lots of clicking within several individual menus and submenus

Must admit I don't look back with fondness to h/w sequencers. I don't find working with h/w particularly difficult as long as I use a DAW to control it all. Use the best of both worlds, and DAWs on PCs are certainly IMO better than complete h/w with h/w sequencer. It could be seen as being a bit doctrinaire using a h/w sequencer just because you want to use h/w synths.

I based the septup on my laptop instead running Orion with midi out. But even doing this implies a lot of individual editing pr. synth when you make patches.

A matter of viewpioint really. You have to individually edit every VSTi to save patches too. Certainly some h/w synths are a PITA to programme, but I tend to avoid most of those unless it's a very good synth (like Wavestation). Mostly I find patching knobby analogue synths quicker than VSTis via mouse.

Finally, when I got some sound to be recorded, I had to record the synths one by one and further proces them in an audio editor to remove hum and noise.

Well, I still use an older version of my DAW, so maybe you can batch record stuff nowadays, but for me at least, I have to record everything one at a time in my DAW anyway, so no difference there. As for the noise - some synths I edit the noise out, but mostly I don't bother nowadays. If it's set up right, the noise is not a problem for me. Gainstaging is a process that pays dividends IMO. And how often do you see posts at KvR blathering on about lovely analogue noise and "how do I make my recordings noisier?" So to some, noise is actually an attraction (not that I necessarily agree with that sentiment). I was brought up with h/w, so I learnt how to minimise noise. I know it's very easy to get anal about noise, but when you're recording one synth at a time, there generally isn't enough noise to bother about - with some notable exceptions - I always found Yamaha DX range noisy - I always gate or noise reduce mine. But the analogues don't really make much noise. And again - if they do (Junos with chorus on could be noisy) just patch a gate in, either via h/w (I've still got some from old) or digitally via your DAW input.

Are there anyone who would go through a proces like the above to produce some synths and why would it be worth it to you?

Yes, I go through that process regularly and I don't find it difficult at all. I actually enjoy the process. It's worth it to me because:
A) I hate working with a mouse. I really loathe it
B) I like fiddling with h/w and real knobs'n'sliders
C) I tend to only collect h/w that (to me) sounds different to VSTis mostly. As mentioned by Justin - use the best of both. DAWs are great, h/w sequencers aren't. VSTis and analogue synths are great. I love all the VST delays I can get nowadays, and I love that I have real character VCA comps. Horses for courses - some of us like the process as well as the sound.

[Lotuzia]

They sound different, that all.

No VAST synthesis in the software world, no Transwave, nothing like my old TG77, or Jedi, and of course no real analog either that can compare to my old ladies. I could dd to the list endlessly.

Hardware/Software : Good instruments in bot worlds. None better, or worse than in the other world. Just for those who have the room, and/or enjoy difference. Also for those who play live, or rehearsals, or often travel.

Immediateness is also very enjoyable. At least for me. YMMV.

[SODDI]

They are really two different things - virtually the same-sounding and pretty much interchangeable, but a hardware synthesizer is a machine dedicated to a single purpose - making "that" sound. The user control surface is an integral part of the machine.

A VST is an application run on a general purpose machine and cannot exist apart from that machine and its technical requirements. The user control surface needs to be adapted to fit those tech requirements. But you can still run spreadsheets and an Internet connection on the general purpose machine.

I personally think that the VST instrument is part of a much larger meta-instrument, the DAW recording environment. The DAW is the frame and the canvas, the sounds and plug-ins are the pigments and the control surface the brushes.

I suspect the reasons that the hardware synth sounds better to your ears are:
a. The micro latency of even the best computer audio interfaces - which is resolved in the DAW recording environment.
b. The signal path of the hardware synth. At the out jack its output is to analog. There's probably a small amp stage right before that and you probably are using a stage amp. That's where you get some nice warm analog distortion. If you ran your laptop's signal through a small analog pre-amp before the stage amp, you might be happier with sound.

[IncarnateX]

Hi Guys
Thanks for the input. You surely have your reasons for using hardware and of course most -if not all- of you make sense: Sometimes you just want THAT hardware synth sound and yes, nothing beats the knobs and sliders of god old analog synths. And most importantly, as noted by someone above, sometimes the most inspiring elements of music production are neither the fastest nor the most rational. To each his own, YMMV and all that stuff.

I am just glad that I finally bought a controller for my software. Now I can have my knobs and sliders controlling Reason 6.5. with very little effort due to Direct Link. If I want my synths to sound more analog, I have a great sample lib consisting of lots and lots and lots of analog waves, patches, snippets and loops. Works great in a simple sampler like the NN-19 or a loop player like Dr. Octorex.

This is what the "best of both worlds" means to me for the time being, but hey, I have not sold my hardware yet and do not intend to, so maybe I will come back in a year starting a thread called "don't you get tired of software synths?" or something like that.

Cheers
(and feel free to tell me more about your hardware, I am all ears)

[Kartik]

I completely understand the motivation for your viewpoint. The key is (as others have said) hardware and software each have their pros, cons and place within music making. If you've gotten to the point where you can make everything you want to make with software, then by all means, do it in software! There's nothing saying software is worse than hardware (I am assuming you mean analog hardware) for what you want to do, as you're already accomplishing everything you desire to musically achieve. However, if there are musical elements you feel analog hardware could provide you, then start using hardware. Using the tools that get you to your end goal in the easiest way (for you) is what everyone does. Aspects of using analog hardware that I find very stimulating when compared to (most) software are: Latency free audio response/feedback for each action I perform, the ability to tweak parameters in much smaller divisions than the 128 steps midi can provide, easy access to parameters (my favorite hardware has everything right in front and accessible), the smooth sound of the analog circuit for audio (which distort (to my ears) more smoothly) vs. software modeled equations (which distort more aggressively), and the fact that it's a little easier for me to concentrate on what my ears are hearing with hardware than when using a computer.

So far, I've used mainly software, and am in the market for a good hardware synth. My main sources for synths have been the Virus Snow, U-he Diva and FXpansion Synth Squad. I've found these to be great synths and while the Snow comes close to sounding analog, when it distorts it distorts the audio much more aggressively than analog hardware. So, all of this is why I am actually in the market for some hardware.

To your other points regarding workflow, I would recommend trying out some more recent hardware synthesizers instead of vintage as most newer synth makers are providing tools for computer/DAW integration. I'd recommend checking out the Elektron Analog Four, Moog Minitaur, and DSI Synths as examples of analog synthesizers with some computer integration. However, in the end you generally will still need record your tracks from your synths, though you may not have as many noise issues and could sync several to record at once. I would also recommend checking out Expert Sleepers' Silent Way software as an option to gain more computer integration with your hardware synthesizes.

Hopefully, this gives you a few options and at least a little taste of why some may choose analog hardware tools over software.

Wish you all the best!

(Edited to remove links as my post count is too low)

[loveyoumaxin]

Sound quality.

Soft synths can't make good sound because cpus are still too slow.

DSP = Infinite core cpu.

[HaganeSteel]

Thus, I just have to ask you guys how you make sense of hardware synths ( and drum machines) beyond jamming and live performances. Are there anyone who would go through a proces like the above to produce some synths and why would it be worth it to you?

I actually made this argument a long time ago myself when a friend and I were discussing Korg/Roland/Yamaha not properly committing to making software synths.

Hardware's a thing of the past for the most part. It's only good for two purposes: Either you love your hardware (it's an instrument after all - it doesn't matter how good or bad it is, if something moves you, it's legitimate and you should use it no matter what), or live work.

Software's not quite where it needs to be yet, but it will be very soon.

The only reason for me personally to buy a piece of hardware is because the only truly complete software workstation I've found is the Korg M1 VST, but in time, there will definitely be better options for me to use.

[trimph1]

Having a computer with multi-I/O audio and MIDI interfaces as a hub and interface for hardware makes things a lot easier, IMO. Patchbays won't hurt either.

To answer your question more directly... sometimes the slow, deliberate process can be enjoyable. I understand that you aren't having fun with the stuff that you are using but that doesn't mean that all hardware is a chore to use.

I have just as much fun with hardware synths and sequencers as I do with DAWs and controllers. It's all good.

This.

T'is all for the good.