What is best for the environment: Plugins or hardware?

[Numanoid]

I would think hardware leaves a bigger carbon footprint, in that it takes more energy to deliver to the recipient, and also to move around when gigging.

And it also takes a lot more power to run several hardware synths, while plugs run in the same DAW for the most part.

[fluffy_little_something]

It seems obvious at first, but I am not so sure, especially in the long run. How much energy does a hardware synth consume? Since hw is clumsy and expensive, most people only have very few hw synths, like two or three. Also, most people run their computer at max when using DAW's, so the computer might use a lot more energy at the end of the day.

[Daags]

oh goodie. another plugins V hardware thread.

are you bored by life, numanoid ?

[Numanoid]

Yeah, the answer is not given.

I would also think that since plugs are so much easier to get hold of, casual users as on iPad who do not really use them much, but they consume power nevertheless due to the frequent automatic updates that happens on iOS/Android.

[Aryaroman]

Yeah, the answer is not given.

I would also think that since plugs are so much easier to get hold of, casual users as on iPad who do not really use them much, but they consume power nevertheless due to the frequent automatic updates that happens on iOS/Android.

I hate how the batteries in the old phones lasted many days longer.

But this is a good question. A PC with online connection leaves a bigger carbon footprint than with no connection, but I would assume a hardware keyboard takes less energy to run on itself than a PC even without a connection.

[AsPeeXXXVIII]

Since hw is clumsy and expensive, most people only have very few hw synths, like two or three. Also, most people run their computer at max when using DAW's, so the computer might use a lot more energy at the end of the day.

Those two points are actually pretty legitimate. But as far as eco-friendliness is concerned, I'd say software synths are the better option. Then again, I'm not so sure how much processing power hardware synths actually require as opposed to software.

[fluffy_little_something]

According to the site, Dave Smith's Prophet 6 uses 30W max, so most of the time probably just 15W or so. In terms of power consumption I suppose hw is much better.
But of course the production of a hw device consumes a lot of energy and materials. So I suppose the longer the period of comparison, the better the hw does relative to the sw.

[Michael L]

Yes, need to consider the enviro costs of materials manufacturing and maintenance amortized over the lifetime.
A hard synth is a one - time tangible goods purchase and can last decades.
computers have a life of 5 to max 10 years and with controllers, interface etc have at least as much materials as a synth.
Soft synths are intangible services and eventually disposable.
So soft synths are a bad "investment" requiring ongoing expenditure.
Less cost = less carbon footprint.

[do_androids_dream]

I would think hardware leaves a bigger carbon footprint, in that it takes more energy to deliver to the recipient, and also to move around when gigging.

I guess it depends on whether you believe there is any such thing as a 'carbon footprint'

[BertKoor]

If carbon footprints are all you care about, you should just sing your tunes (live, don't record) and be done with it.



That reminds me of:

What's the difference between a piano and a violin?






A piano burns longer

[chk071]

I would think hardware leaves a bigger carbon footprint, in that it takes more energy to deliver to the recipient, and also to move around when gigging.

And it also takes a lot more power to run several hardware synths, while plugs run in the same DAW for the most part.

Please tell me that you're kidding.

Especially as the carbon footbrpint is only one tiny piece of the puzzle, even if scientist ride on this wave forever. But i think caring about your carbon footbrpint when deciding whether to use hardware or plugins is like having a crisis of conscience every time you fart when caring about the influence of methane on the environment.

[Numanoid]

Please tell me that you're kidding.

No not kidding

And I also belive ambient is a more environmental music to listen to than EDM/Dubstep/Metal, because you don't need a powerful subwoofer to enjoy ambient

[Mr Arkadin]

Uh... Carbon footprint. Just another way to monetise and subjugate the masses with a soundbite phrase and make them feel guilty for even breathing. Please define 'carbon footprint' for me (btw, there's been more carbon around at other points in history when there were no factories or industry, yet the world didn't end. Go figure).

The M1, one of the highest selling synths of all time sold a massive... 250,000 units. How many cars, planes, tanks, nukes etc. were built and sold in that same time period? I'm guessing synth manufacturing and usage amounts to a tiny proportion of all the other shit we can't seem to do without in our lives and at least it represents the positive and creative side of humans.

[fluffy_little_something]

And most of those M1's are still in use

[Numanoid]

Please define 'carbon footprint' for me

the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result of the activities of a particular individual, organization, or community.

Now it start to dawn on me why they called that synth Carbon Electra