Any science to explain the “weight” or “3D depth” of hardware audio vs software that some people claim?

[zerocrossing]

Not necessarily. Without subjective with certain requirements for consistency and repeatability etc., psychology couldn't be evidential.

My point, precisely. If ever there was a hoax of a profession...

I believe the hw weight is real, but I don't certainly know what creates it.

Well, you will never be able to know because it isn't actually real.

You obviously don’t paint... or have ever seen a painting.

Not everyone paints with brushes. You won't see the canvas through a painting done with spatulas, for example. The paint itself creates the texture.

I should dig up some of your old posts where you make the same angry assertions about how you’d never need any synths beyond your SynthEdit creations, and now look at your little gear list.

[Haptix]

'A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.'

[Kongru]

The weight comes from the fact that analog waves weigh more than digital ones

[Acid Mitch]

^ That’s because no one has done a proper job coding virtual Higgs Bosons yet.

[Zaphod (giancarlo)]

'A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.'

A cognitive bias of those who do not believe in differences can also lead one to think that others have a cognitive bias. In general Dunning-Krugher can also work in a bidirectional way: talking about cognitive bias does not exclude that you have one.

[zerocrossing]

'A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from norm or rationality in judgment. Individuals create their own "subjective reality" from their perception of the input. An individual's construction of reality, not the objective input, may dictate their behaviour in the world. Thus, cognitive biases may sometimes lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality.'

That idea gets bandied about a lot, and it definitely is true and sometimes even true in this discussion, but there are also measurable differences between the emulations and the emulated. People will argue that those differences are too tiny to be observable, but look at one’s sense that someone is lying. How many times have you thought, “well that was a lie.” How do we know that? I think that our consciousness filters out a lot of sensory data, because if it didn’t we’d be overwhelmed, but our subconscious has access to that data and uses it. So if you play a 20 khz tone, I might not be able to say I hear it, but if you play me a sawtooth wave that’s truncated, I get the feeling that something’s missing. This is something I just went though with Sequential’s synthesizers. I was trying to downsize and I figured that there was too much overlap between the Prophet 12 and the two Tetras I had, so I ditched the Tetras. Don’t get me wrong, I really love the Prophet 12, but after a month of not having the Tetras, I started feeling like I was unable to really get those big buzzy pads that just pour out of the 08 architecture synths. They share the same filter, but there is something about the digital oscillators that... well it’s hard to put it into words, but they lack the same vibe of the Tetras. I bought a REV2, and as soon as I turned it on and started making a patch, I instantly knew I’d made the right move.

Anyway, I’m hardware-software agnostic. I use both for what I feel they’re best at, so it’s not like I’m some hardware synth zealot. I actually much prefer the ITB workflow and some of my hardware instruments are actually out of my reach and can only be edited by software. I can’t even see my 002r and ATC-X when I’m playing them. Don’t think that I haven’t tried to replace them with software. I’d love to have a nice clear desk with a computer keyboard and trackball on it with my keyboard controllers and a pair of monitors (LCD and audio) and nothing else. Anyway, one day I suspect that’s where I’ll end up. Hell, if my house burned down, the first thing I’d do is go buy a computer and a Rise 49 and be up and running in my hotel room. However, I have the space and money and I enjoy the sound of my hardware instruments, so that’s that. Maybe it’s in my head, but I’m looking for the best experience I can muster. It’s really a moot point in today’s world. If want a hardware synth, they’re cheap and abundant. If you don’t want one, the software world is amazing. You be you.

[zerocrossing]

The weight comes from the fact that analog waves weigh more than digital ones

I just lugged my all digital GEM S2 to the repair shop, and that sucker was pretty damn heavy.

[BONES]

I should dig up some of your old posts where you make the same angry assertions about how you’d never need any synths beyond your SynthEdit creations, and now look at your little gear list.

Feel free, all it shows is how good my SE synths were for what we do. I can't use them any more and I've had to spend more than a grand trying to replace them (and Wasp). That, my friend, is the simple truth of the matter.

[AnX]

you dont have to replace them if you keep using the latest version of Orion 32bit

[Haptix]

Punch of sh*tboxes.

[synthpark]

The weight comes from the fact that analog waves weigh more than digital ones

Regarding weight:

Some vintage synthesizers seem slightly pre-equed to have a little more bottom end. This is well justified given that the sound thins out with resonance. A VST like Repro 5 seems to reproduce that.

Regarding 3D:

Asymetric imperfections in the signal path between left and right channel can create the impression of wider sound.

[perpetual3]

Synth park has really drilled down into the essence of it, and it’s something I mentioned many posts back: non linear imperfections between the right and left channels. It’s really easy to set up in a daw.

[quikquak]

Just apply FBM noise to everything that repeats, like OSC, LFO, etc!
.... Add some chaos man!

[BONES]

you dont have to replace them if you keep using the latest version of Orion 32bit.

No longer a viable option, we have too many VST 3 only plugins now and Orion is no longer as stable on Win10 as it used to be on XP. Korg's Odyssey was the one that tipped it for me so the choice became to mire ourselves in the past like a pair of losers or get with the times. (I was all for the loser option but Craig is way too cool for that, he'd have happily left me behind.)

Some vintage synthesizers seem slightly pre-equed to have a little more bottom end. This is well justified given that the sound thins out with resonance.

Only if it's using a shitty ladder filter. Korg's filters, for example, work properly and boost the bass, when appropriate, along with everything else.

Synth park has really drilled down into the essence of it, and it’s something I mentioned many posts back: non linear imperfections between the right and left channels. It’s really easy to set up in a daw.

Except that the vast majority of revered hardware synths are mono, which sort of shoots that theory down.

[perpetual3]

you dont have to replace them if you keep using the latest version of Orion 32bit.

No longer a viable option, we have too many VST 3 only plugins now and Orion is no longer as stable on Win10 as it used to be on XP. Korg's Odyssey was the one that tipped it for me so the choice became to mire ourselves in the past like a pair of losers or get with the times. (I was all for the loser option but Craig is way too cool for that, he'd have happily left me behind.)

Some vintage synthesizers seem slightly pre-equed to have a little more bottom end. This is well justified given that the sound thins out with resonance.

Only if it's using a shitty ladder filter. Korg's filters, for example, work properly and boost the bass, when appropriate, along with everything else.

Synth park has really drilled down into the essence of it, and it’s something I mentioned many posts back: non linear imperfections between the right and left channels. It’s really easy to set up in a daw.

Except that the vast majority of revered hardware synths are mono, which sort of shoots that theory down.

We’re talking about ITB.

So, take whatever synth, software or hardware, mono or stereo, and route it’s audio to two separate tracks. Pan each right and left. Apply a little drive, saturation, whatever, EQ each side a little differently, and then adjust the volume between the channels to match. Sum both back to one channel. If you want it strictly mono, sum to mono. If I’m working on the bass / low end spectrum, I sum below 125hz.

Or, if you have the plugins, you can do something similar with and EQ that lets you EQ the left and right channels separately, and a plugin like Wavesfactory Specter, which allows you to add saturation to each channel, at different frequencies, separately. You can take it further with mid/side.

Just adding little differences can create a large impact.