I probably need a shrink(Hardware VS software)

[ghettosynth]

It's bizarre to me that people are saying they didn't ask permission at KVR, that they don't have to justify using hardware, etc ... who said you did ? It's like people inventing adversaries to oppress them, unless I missed something on this thread nobody cares that you're using hardware synths one way or the other. Do whatever you want.

It's bizarre to me that loud newcomers often start out by talking about other people instead of talking about ideas. We're having a conversation about hardware vs software, it's a longstanding tradition on KVR, like Macs vs PCs, digital vs analog, noobs vs old farts, etc.

Feel free to join in on the conversation. One way that people converse is to share their own experiences or give commentary on the experiences of others.

So, yes, you did miss something on this thread, try backing up and coming at it from a different angle.

[whyterabbyt]

Most people I've heard say something like this don't map midi.

I smile when I see people using modular analog synths who are talking about its benefits in terms of being able to get a more interesting sound because of the knobs, being able to experiment, etc ... I always think, well, you'd have the same experience if you just mapped some midi knobs and started using them for your VSTs.

erm, no.

you get something approaching the experience of a non-modular analog or digital hardware synth, but, significantly minus the correspondence of physical layout to synth architecture.
you do not get 'the same experience' as a modular analog synth.

one step further on from the physical layout shortfall, patching is inherently a significant part of the modular analog experience. except in a very few cases you don't even get to midi map the functionality, let alone have a means of replicating the experience.

[vurt]

Most people I've heard say something like this don't map midi.

I smile when I see people using modular analog synths who are talking about its benefits in terms of being able to get a more interesting sound because of the knobs, being able to experiment, etc ... I always think, well, you'd have the same experience if you just mapped some midi knobs and started using them for your VSTs. It takes less time to map midi than it does to put together the hardware modular synths, and you can save your patches instead of having to take photos of your patches to "save" them with hardware analog synths. Ever try to recreate a patch on a hardware synth ?

I think some of it is because it's really so easy to get overwhelmed with the possibilities of software synths, I know that had been true for me, at least in the beginning. You sit down with a synth and start experimenting with features, then another, and another, in software you can have literally 10, 20, 30 or more synths, even multiple copies of each, more than you'd ever have in modular analog without spending five or six figures, and it's very easy to just become lost in the features. I honestly think that most of the appeal of analog synths lately is because people just need to simplify, they want to have just one or two oscillators, have knobs to use with them, really understand what they're doing, and modular is a great training tool ... but if you just learn how to map midi knobs, choose ONE SIMPLE software synth, and sit down and really learn to use it, you get the very same experience. The challenge is that it is so easy to spend 150$us and get a synth with as many features as a analog synth that could cost you 10x or 20x as much for the same capabilities, so people get overwhelmed and their brains get overloaded.

There's a lot to be said for midi mapping a few knobs, closing everything else out in your DAW to get a really simplified interface, and then sitting down with the manual and actually LEARNING your software synth, experimenting with it, really playing around to get a sound and see what it's capable of .. it can be a very similar experience to messing around with analog if you let it, and if you ignore the millions of distractions that are on the computer while you're doing it.

was this about my "real knobs" comment?
you put a lot of thought in to a reply to a penis joke dude!

[zerocrossing]

I buy all instruments and effects based on their character and feature set. The status of their physicality is irrelevant to me. I’ve got 3 hardware synths that I can’t even easily edit without their software editor. The track I’m currently working on is a blend of everything, and the only thing that’s tripped me up is forgetting to commit a hardware instrument to data before doing an audio export. To be honest, I’d probably be happiest just using software editors for everything. That said, I’m not a guy who feeds a sequence into a synth and tweaks while it plays. I’m mostly a hands on guy.

One thing I’ve done to prevent runaway bloat, is to set up some loose rules. First off, I find zero reason to own digital hardware synths. No DXs or Virus for me. I do all that in software. Any slight sonic benefit is far overshadowed by ease of editing, and I don’t actually believe there is a sonic benefit. (I break this rule for an Audiothingies Micromonsta... it sounds so cool! So small! So cheap!) I also keep everything to one single wire shelf system, which I’ve customized to have a desk level. Well, not everything. My studio monitors, Rise, and 61 key controller are off on an adjacent desk. I don’t own more instruments than I can have plugged into my Fireface 400 and ADA8200. All effects are done in software, though I may break this rule at some point.

This keeps everything pretty tidy. Real? I make it real.

[RichieWitch]

Most people I've heard say something like this don't map midi.

I smile when I see people using modular analog synths who are talking about its benefits in terms of being able to get a more interesting sound because of the knobs, being able to experiment, etc ... I always think, well, you'd have the same experience if you just mapped some midi knobs and started using them for your VSTs.

erm, no.

you get something approaching the experience of a non-modular analog or digital hardware synth, but, significantly minus the correspondence of physical layout to synth architecture.
you do not get 'the same experience' as a modular analog synth.

one step further on from the physical layout shortfall, patching is inherently a significant part of the modular analog experience. except in a very few cases you don't even get to midi map the functionality, let alone have a means of replicating the experience.

Glad someone responded to this--saved me the trouble. LOL

[jancivil]

The integration of potentiometers and so forth in a modular setup does point to <things that are just not the same> in the box. Another is, you can't really do Frippertronics, or [aka] Eno's setup where you extend the tape over the second machine's playback head and feed output (at both stages if you like) back thru a mixer to do it all over again. You can emulate it kind of but it is not the same thing. Tape has certain properties which may be modeled but there is a more than sum of parts whole thing here. There are other things audio that are simply different owing to medium, a dedicated box versus the computer box. Also see: microphones and very particular reflective capacities.

So, I embrace software synthesizers because I get vastly more done as a composer; it's not too different than embracing instruments I don't have and will never learn to play really, availed to me in software form. I would still do the Eno two Revoxes bit if I could. There is stuff that just happens in real time, if you get my drift.

I do think however that some knob love is a bit of a fetish.

[Mike777]

I confess I like real knobs way more then moving mouse on a virtual knob, and yes you can use a controller with knobs, but a real synth is just so much more enjoyable. Especially in live performance.

I can't believe a performer like Keith Emerson would have ever used a soft synth live on stage, or in the studio. No matter how perfect they sounded.

[ghettosynth]

I confess I like real knobs way more then moving mouse on a virtual knob, and yes you can use a controller with knobs, but for the real hard synth is just so much more enjoyable. Especially in live performance.

I can't believe a performer like Keith Emerson would have ever used a soft synth live on stage, or in the studio. No matter how perfect they sounded.

Hard to say, not that your speculation means anything, by his death he wasn't really on the forefront of anything, and it's really not relevant here. Why would what Keith Emerson uses have much impact at all on the overwhelming majority of musicians entertaining hardware vs software today? Has their been a prog rock revolution that I missed? In any case, in his later life he moved largely to digital hardware which is, for all intents and purposes, plugins running on a dedicated computer.

By the late 2000s, Emerson was employing "a host of Korg gear" including the Korg OASYS and Korg Triton Extreme music workstation synthesisers.[132] A review of the DVD release of ELP's 2010 one-off reunion show said that the Korg OASYS "appear[ed] to be Emerson's go-to instrument"

The Korg OASYS is hardly equivalent to the hardware that he was using on stage in the 70s.

Keep in mind that 2010 was eight years ago. I started going ITB in 2009. So I find it highly unlikely that someone who embraced the most cutting edge digital workstation of the era would not find some appeal in software as it improved dramatically in subsequent years.

[jancivil]

"can't believe Keith Emerson would..." Meh. _I_ use things which don't, and won't, exist in any hardware synth.

[ghettosynth]

"can't believe Keith Emerson would..." Meh. _I_ use things which don't, and won't, exist in any hardware synth.

Well, we have that in common then.

[low_low]

Meh

[zerocrossing]

Okay but let’s not get too revisionist here. I’ve had a Q for a very long time, and eventually added a Blofeld to augment that. Largo came out long after the Blofeld, so I don’t think it is fair to characterize it as “the only reason to own a Blofeld is because you like Largo”. How about because you bought a synth before the plugin was introduced (and as far as I know, still doesn’t include the PPG LPF), and can’t be bothered to sell something that you already own and love? Hey guys, there’s Largo now, better throw all those Blofelds in the landfill!

Just an FYI, Largo existed as a plugin called Komplexer in a somewhat simpler form, though I’m not sure if it preceded the Blofeld.

[JoeCat]

I'm of the opinion that hardware is no longer sonically superior to software for most practical applications. I'm not saying some hardware isn't superior, just that it's not often necessary.

I recently produced music for a large outdoor light-sound installation with attendance of upwards of 5000 on a given evening, in a large park setting. We were originally tied in with Moogfest and were going to have a rack of Minataurs, Mother-32s, and Sub 37s. That didn't work out (mostly because of logistics). Except for the Subs, which were only used for live performance, I replaced all of the Moog hardware with Monark (I'm sure The Legend would have performed admirably as well). The difference in acoustics from one location to another 10 feet away far outweighed any differences between Monark and the Moog hardware for the sounds I was using. There was a lot of Monark bass, and it was off the charts. The entire production - except for some live performance parts - was ITB (Ableton Live + a lot of NI instruments).

A few weeks later I was going to use one of the Subs for recording a Moog lead and bass on one of my band's tracks, but didn't have it in hand at the time and ended up using Monark again. That worked out really well, because I made some changes to the sounds right just before the final mix-down, and doing that with the Sub would have entailed re-recording, etc.

But - I own that Sub now and love it, not just for the knobs (but that's a big factor!) It inspires me in different ways, and even though I can obviously save presets, I still feel like it's more "in the moment" when I record it. It may also make it's way into a few live shows. I'm starting to get the appeal of a modular rack, and the commitment to a single patch is so much greater than with software. And I really agree what everyone has said about learning your instrument - I'm going to spend a lot of time with that Sub partly because of it's value and the hand's-on factor, though I should spend as much (if not more) time finally coming to terms with, for example Bazille. Which I will someday. It comes down to the emotional attachment to the gear. If Bazille was hardware I'd be losing sleep knowing it's in the other room. But I doubt I'd care much about the sonic differences were there an analog version.

I feel the same way about (most) guitar effects - the emulations of caught up to the point where it's not often justified. But something about putting you're own analog chain together is satisfying, and, like with synths, you may eek something a little more special out of the hardware. But it's not likely going to make or break anything you do.

I actually miss my Blofeld. But not for practical reasons (although for live purposes, one may find it's way back!). And I've even thought of picking up a used Virus of some sort, though I have no good reason to. But different workflow, aesthetic inspiration. Now I'm looking at a Digitakt to satisfy some hands'on sampling and groove-making, and (again) for live use.

F*cking GAS! And a great time to be alive for electronic musicians and producers, unless you're trying not to go broke...

[vurt]

I do think however that some knob love is a bit of a fetish.

i do not have a knob fetish!
a patch cable fetish on the other hand...

hot pink ones

[JoeCat]

I do think however that some knob love is a bit of a fetish.

i do not have a knob fetish!
a patch cable fetish on the other hand...

hot pink ones

I prefer knobs to sliders. But I'm open-minded about one or the other, or even both at the same time.

Joysticks, on the other hand...that's just freaky.