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

[himalaya]

I'm not confused, but you definitely are!
I mean it in a humorous way, and don't mean to offend.

For me, a real instrument is one which allows me to express myself by using sound. It could be a spoon or a DAW running a hundred plugins on my computer or anything else for that matter.

However, I do understand the distinction you are trying to make, but just do not see it that way. This distinction of what a real instrument should be, is fake. It's wholly arbitrary and some would say, elitist, and certainly does not reflect the simple reality of what musicinas use as their real instruments!

To say that the Moog Is a real instrument because you have to record it to tape, contrasting this method with software synths which can be simply sequenced via MIDI, is curiosum abstractum! (you know that you can treat a software synth in the same way and print it to tape in real time? Does it become a real instrument in this scenario?).

The music tech forums have seen a lot of such erroneous sentiments like you have shown above over the years...I'm surprised to read it here now.

You also allude to the real time expression again, as if to say that the Moog can be expressive, but a software synth played via a midi controller, can not. We have covered this already. My two audio examples were ignored by you. Don't be affarid, you can listen to them.

[foosnark]

You understand how different this is to a hardware vs software synths? You play both by using keyboard based surfaces, or just simply trigger via sequencers, or if you are esoteric, you have some other means of note input. But in essence, the common ground with hardware and software is the same note input surface. So your proposition that hardware is better than software because it....just exists in front of you is silly. It's all in the mind.

Almost everything important about music is all in the mind. Every effect it has on us, other than perhaps hearing damage and the vibration of various organs


The last few tracks I've made on my modular have gone like this:

-- create a handful of complementary drones, usually with multiple oscillators modulating each other in various ways.
-- set up a MIDI rhythmic sequence and/or a Eurorack master clock, which feeds Euclidean pattern generators, clock dividers and logic gates.
-- those patterns feed rhythmic modulation of timbre and/or amplitude. In one case, they also feed a matrix mixer which allows the generative "sequence" of gates to create different pitch intervals, which are fed to different oscillators.
-- via switches, VCAs and mixers, manually control the "performance" of the different parts -- setting levels, selecting/enabling different sets of modulation, rhythm, melody etc. -- while recording.

Yes, that same process could be done in software plus an assignable MIDI controller -- probably with Max or Reaktor and a lot of coding and setup -- but it would not really have the same feel, and who would bother? I wouldn't. I'd rather plugin in a few cables and just do the thing while I'm in the mood.

More typically, I use a MIDI keyboard and piano roll to do my sequencing, but mostly hardware (and mostly modular) synths. The music comes out differently than it did when I was just using software. Working with hardware (even before I got into modular, but especially then) has changed my overall approach, my style, and the sorts of timbres I work with.

Maybe you're arguing that digital synths aren't any different from plugins in a DAW, but honestly, I make completely different types of sounds when I work with an SH-01A than I do when I use LuSH-101. The physical factor -- "all in the mind" or not -- does have a huge influence.

I really like Aalto. I use Aalto differently than I would have before, because I worked with fairly similar Eurorack hardware first. I definitely use Aalto a bit differently than I use (for instance) Hertz Donut + Function + Natural Gate though.

I also really like Buchla Easel V for similar reasons, and using it has influenced how I patch "real" modular as well.

For me, a mix of hardware and software is "better."

[himalaya]

No, I am not arguing the usual hardware versus software sounds better. But real versus synthetic.

For me,a 1966 moog is a real instrument.

Oh dellboy!

The 1966 Moog is synthetic. So is the 1970 Moog.
No matter how you will dress it, the Moog it will remain as synthetic as any synthesiser you care to mention.

Or at which point does it stop being synthetic? When you play back a recording of it through the speakers?

[himalaya]

For me, a mix of hardware and software is "better."

So is for me! In fact, it's even better when I 'switch off' my mind while playing!

[.jon]

Hardware is more inspiring, and makes playing more immersive and enjoyable.

For you... that is a subjective statement and just cause you find it so is not indicator that someone else will too.

And of course it also depends very much on the hardware. I found the old workstations distinctly un-inspiring. All the menu diving to do sound design was awful.

Me, I find playing the new breed of MPE controllers more immersive, expressive and enjoyable... and most hardware these days does not support MPE... whereas lots of soft synths do.

Also, I have software synths with no hardware equivalent...

If you'd have read the whole post, I even told it's subjective.

But then again, you actually agree- you also find MPE controllers, physical hardware, more immersive, expressive and enjoyable.

[himalaya]

The physical factor -- "all in the mind" or not -- does have a huge influence.

No question about it! That's not what the conversation was about. The (silly and time wasting) argument was more about supposition that 'hardware is better than software', for whatever reasons, and it also veered towards the old 'hardware sounds better than software' sentiments. As a disclaimer, I'm a fan of both, and love the sound of both, I think it should be clear to anyone who knows me.

Your statement that the physical factor can have a huge influence is true. I see it to be true, but I can not judge that this can be used as a leverage for one to be better than the other. Your account is great, and I can bring similar accounts showing how software has enabled me to work better and get results I could not with my hardware gear. And vice versa. That's the point. It's all conditional.

[fluffy_little_something]

All-synth music made with hardware was not really so great, either, it sounded about as cold as today. The good thing about 30 to 40 years ago was that synths were usually just one type of instrument alongside "real instruments" such as electric bass and guitar, drums, Rhodes, organ etc. - and vocals of course. And if one makes that kind of music today (even if it is just samples of those real instruments), quality software synths do the trick just as well in my view.

For more extreme, experimental music hardware might still be the better choice, though, especially when playing live. It's simply more direct and foolproof to turn dedicated knobs...

[himalaya]

All-synth music made with hardware was not really so great, either, it sounded about as cold as today.

Oh I beg to differ!
I must have gone through a different history of electronic music, because the albums I grew up with had some very sweet, lush, warm synthetic timbres. Cold, were the winters. We had snow then. Nowadays, the only frost I get is in my fridge.

And today's electronic music (or sounds) don't have to sound 'cold' either. And many don't.

[fluffy_little_something]

Like for example?

Kraftwerk for instance has always sounded cold and boring to me.

[pdxindy]

But then again, you actually agree- you also find MPE controllers, physical hardware, more immersive, expressive and enjoyable.

In that case, all there is is hardware... no software can even run without the hardware to do it.

[himalaya]

Like for example?

Kraftwerk for instance has always sounded cold and boring to me.

Like:
Pheadra, Rocochet, Rubycon, Startosfear, White Eagle, Logos...
Oxygene, Equinoxe, Magnetic Fields
Spiral, Albedo, Beaubourg, Soil Festivities, China, Antarctica...
Oasis (by Kitoro)
The Planets by Tomita
Upstairs at Eric's
Switched on Bach
and more....

[fluffy_little_something]

Like for example?

Kraftwerk for instance has always sounded cold and boring to me.

Like:
Pheadra, Rocochet, Rubycon, Startosfear, White Eagle, Logos...
Oxygene, Equinoxe, Magnetic Fields
Spiral, Albedo, Beaubourg, Soil Festivities, China, Antarctica...
Oasis (by Kitoro)
The Planets by Tomita
Upstairs at Eric's
Switched on Bach
and more....

Tangerine Dreams, JMJ etc. doesn't do anything for me. It is the kind of music where I skip forward and forward and forward in order to get to the point where the song actually starts, which it never does, it is just like one giant intro to nothing

[himalaya]

Well, I can appreciate that you may not like their music, but as a synth fan, surely you must be able to approach such works and focus on the sound design or production values in order to ascertain whether they are 'cold' or 'warm', right? I don't like Death Metal, but I can listen to Death Metal tracks and ascertain whether the singer sings with a death growl or with falsetto. You follow?

You've been here on KVR for years, have great interest in synths, so you can listen to music without prejudice (there must be an album title here, lol) and be able to judge with clear mind how things sound? If not, off you go to the back of the class and start learning ("the sound of the sawtooth wave is...")

[sjm]

Tangerine Dreams, JMJ etc. doesn't do anything for me. It is the kind of music where I skip forward and forward and forward in order to get to the point where the song actually starts, which it never does, it is just like one giant intro to nothing

It's not really sing-along song stuff, no. But that doesn't equate to cold. Kraftwerk I get what you mean, it's not really meant to sound human, is it?

[fluffy_little_something]

Well, I can't really separate the music from the synth sounds. There tends to be a strong correlation.
The instrumental "space music" of JMJ sounds the cold way it does for a reason.
The most appealing synth work is usually part of normal songs in my view.