Is it worth it to get a bunch of hardware? (coming from software only)

[chk071]

With the price of hardware being so low I'd say maybe try it out but be prepared to be underwhelmed as its probably not as good as you think its going to be.

Which hardware do you mean? A Virus is a couple of thousands, and the used Nova synths mentioned in the OP are several hundreds up to thousand as well. I don't find hardware to be very cheap... if you're talking about analog mono synths, yeah, but, what can you do with those, compared to complex virtual analog gear? The only really cheap VA synth, which gives you functionality you typically have in a soft synth is the Waldorf Blofeld for me. But, you'll have to live with the limitations of its user interface then, and, with almost the same synth in software form, that's a pretty hard decision as well.

For me, hardware really only makes sense if it gives me a complex sound architecture, and loads of knobs. And that's expensive in any case. If you want a analog mono synth, which gives you a fraction of what you can do with a soft synth, yeah, you can get that for a couple of hundred bucks, if that's worth it for you.

[Omniphonix]

Digital-based hardware (stuff running on DSP chips) is not technically possible to be better than software. The underlying technology is the same. Those DSP chips they use are specialized to do audio faster than your standard Intel CPU, but they also run at much lower clock speeds and cost far less. Even the very latest DSP chips are much slower than x86 CPUs, they can just be dedicated to only doing some audio processing and not have to do everything else a CPU does. Just about everything you listed is this kind of digital-based hardware. I would put the latest top-tier software synthesizers up against even the mighty Virus TI (I should know, I have both).

True analog is a different story. There is a character to analog gear that is very difficult to emulate with software. Arturia does a pretty damn convincing job of it, but it will never be perfect. The question is, how much does that matter to you? It better matter thousands of dollars worth, because real analog gear is still not cheap. This is especially true if you want anything polyphonic (and forget about multi-timbral). Your average Joe music consumer would likely never know the difference. I'd bet most hardcore audiophiles would have a hard time telling you if a track is using a real Minimoog or an Arturia Mini V. So is it worth it to spend $3500 on a Model D versus $150 on a Mini V? Especially when you consider the Mini V will have additional features? A solid MIDI controller keyboard with good control mapping functionality like a Nektar Panorama is a better use of that money in my mind. No, it will never be like having dedicated one-to-one controls on a hardware synth, but it's good enough considering the cost difference.

[chk071]

+1

Also, when i think of what i have to relinquish, it's an even tougher decision. Dozens of instances of the same synth, full control over the sound until the render of the whole track, no cables anywhere, no need to deliver power to several additional hardware devices... of course, it is great to be able to control something from the device itself, and even more so if it is one knob per parameter (which, again, is expensive of course), but, quite a few advantages compared to the many disadvantages for me. Never say never, but, ATM, i don't really feel the need. Some hardware surely sounds lovely though.

[Omniphonix]

Save the cash for a big multi-core CPU so you can run more plug-ins in real time without having to freeze. More RAM and SSD for bigger sample libraries. Get better studio monitors. Get a mixer controller. So many ways to make your ITB studio feel more OTB.

[foosnark]

if you're talking about analog mono synths, yeah, but, what can you do with those, compared to complex virtual analog gear?

Between the Microbrute and modular, I have been using monosynths so much over the last 2 years plus that I hardly consider it a disadvantage. I think that was a big part of the shift that happened when I came back to hardware.

Digital-based hardware (stuff running on DSP chips) is not technically possible to be better than software.

"technically", yes, in terms of raw power available. In practice: plugin developers can't use all of that because people complain if their filter takes 20% of CPU time. Still the power balance favors software.

More relevant though, there are certainly digital synths and modules that are not available as plugins. And of course, digital hardware can provide the sort of hands-on specialized control (as opposed to generic/assignable control surfaces) that analog is known for.

I have LuSH-101 and an SH-01A. Both are digital. LuSH-101 has a lot more features, taking it well beyond emulation. I still find it useful to have a hardware version, because I have a tendency to approach it very differently and get different results.

Also I'll point out that digital Eurorack modules have the advantage of analog control and freely mixing with analog gear, as well as hands-on control.

True analog is a different story. There is a character to analog gear that is very difficult to emulate with software. Arturia does a pretty damn convincing job of it, but it will never be perfect. The question is, how much does that matter to you? It better matter thousands of dollars worth, because real analog gear is still not cheap.

Any analog synth -- mono, paraphonic, polyphonic, modular -- is cheap compared to historical prices. In some cases, dirt cheap. Monosynths and even semi-modular paraphonic synths now are approaching plugin prices.

[Michael L]

I really like this example of integration: hardware in the foreground, software in the background:

[S0lo]

Also I'll point out that digital Eurorack modules have the advantage of analog control and freely mixing with analog gear, as well as hands-on control.

It's not really analog control once it reaches the ADC at each patch point. Everything has to be digitized for the internal software/code to make use of it. The question is at what resolution/sample rate the ADC and module is running. The higher, the smoother the control and hence closer to analog.

Notice that there is a human limit/threshold to what we can perceive as smooth or smoother. Going higher and higher in the resolution/sample rate will eventually reach a limit of smoothness where we just can't hear any improvement any more, simply because our own ears and perception have limits of it's own.

[VariKusBrainZ]

Y'all make digital sound negative. Do you know what software is

[Steve Bolivar]

Y'all make digital sound negative. Do you know what software is

It's not really digital if it's virtually analog.

[recursive one]

Most of my favourite electronic music (trance, psytrance, DnB, breaks, downtempo, psychill) is also from the same era - late 90"s to late 00's. Interesting that like the OP I also think about 2008-2009 as a some sort of "turning point", after which most releases in my favourite genres started to sound different - brighter and harsher, more "in your face"/less deep, much louder at the expence of individual synth parts becoming thinner. I'm not sure the transition from hardware synths to plugins was the main reason, probably the mixing techniques changed to meet the new standards set by loudness war, but the use of plugin synths may have contributed something.

Anyway, like the OP I started around 2012 all ITB, few years later I bought Virus Snow wich is still my only hardware synth, and I freaking love it. I agree that technically it is not better than the new generation of plugins but it does sound different. I don't use it in each track I make but I do use it a lot and in my opinion my own tracks where I have a lot of Virus sounds do sound different from my 100% ITB tracks, like the Virus tracks are a bit more deep/raw/organic, while the ITB tracks sound cleaner, with better defined high frequenices. I have most of the latest and greatest software synths, like Spire, Serum, Rapid, most of the U-He synths. Still, Virus provides the most authentic late 90's-late 00's sounds, also Virus TI offers some synthesic techniques not available in software, like Grain Complex/Formant Complex wavetable oscillators.

Tl;dr. Imo, someone coming from 100% ITB and looking for the most authentic mid 00's sound may consider buying a Virus TI - not because it is better than current plugins but because it is what was actually used a lot during that era and it has THAT sound. A used Snow may be found for around 500 bucks and it runs as a plugin in a DAW.

[Michael L]

Here's BT in his all-analog studio having huge fun playing with hardware and its problems.
This says it all:
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2018/ ... k-session/

[Distorted Horizon]

Agree with Recursive.. Hardware, digital or analog, has some certain "mojo" that software doesn't offer. Just tested that awhile ago by making saw FM top bass first with software synth and then with Blofeld. Similar settings and the sound was pretty similar but when listened with headphones... There's more.. something with Blofeld. Sound has more life and isn't so boring to listen for a longer time. Cable noise maybe?

[recursive one]

Cable noise maybe?

It must be a very special USB cable in my Virus Snow providing that magic noise ...

Wait, it's not an original USB cable! That one was broken, I replaced it with the cable from my old MIDI keyboard.

[vurt]

Do you know what software is

i know it has something to do with how we came to exist. and kung fu.

[Russell Grand]

Other people associate computers with work and would rather record on to reel-to-reel tape.

Mmm tape