Why you left VSTs?

[foosnark]

There's been a thread over at MuffWiggler for a few days now titled "why do you prefer modular hardware to software?" It's an interesting mirror image to this one.

For a lot of people the answer is that they associate computers with work and would rather not use them to make music. There's a definite "I don't hate computers, but I do like hardware" contingent though.

I've pretty much said the same things there that I did here, but I'll quote myself a little bit.

Hardware often seems more intentionally and thoughtfully designed than software does. A module is more limited and fixed in a lot of ways than software, but that means it's more focused. You can't just tack features on willy-nilly or add another three pages of knobs. There are of course some exceptionally well designed software synths, but many of those take their cues from imitating hardware synths.

I don't want to overstate that one too much. There are some excellently designed software synths. Some are lean and mean, and immediately feel great to use. Some are a bit more inclusive but still designed in a tight and focused way (hello ArcSyn). Still, it's rare for a software synth to be as laser-focused as something like the 0-Coast or Lyra-8, and more common to give in to market demand and provide 1500+ presets and 37 filter types and 14 assignable LFOs.

The software-based synth community has massive blind spots about methods of synthesis and composition. When you try to point them out, it's like trying to explain rock climbing to a 2-dimensional being from Flatland. I think you have to get into modular for a while to really see what's missing.

I will stand by this assertion, regardless of how woke some people believe they are. And I will gladly paint myself with the same brush, because of how much my universe opened up when I got into modular and it made me feel like a beginner again for a while.

When I first started messing with hardware after a long period of 100% in the box music, it was an adjunct to using software synths in the same way as before... except that I had to bounce to audio or just render the whole thing live. Worth it, because of that Microbrute sound that "just happened" as a result of turning knobs. But then I found a lot of the other hardware I tried really wasn't worth it. I hadn't quite figured out what I liked, yet, and it was a process that took a while.

Then when I got into modular, I thought "I can't even do some of this in any software that I've tried." At that point, I could have taken a year or more off of actually making music to get extremely cozy with Reaktor or Max. Instead, I got deeper into modular hardware because it immediately inspired me to make sounds and music every day.

And then as I got deeper still, over the course of about 18 months, my workflow was less "DAW-ish" as I thought of it, and more modular (with the DAW acting as mixer, effects host, recorder, and occasional supplementary synths and samples).

There's a lot that goes in in hardware that isn't modeled (or at least, not often or not well) in software -- supposedly undesirable side effects, or less common behaviors that are simply ignored, or because of technical limitations. Those add up to a lot of character. People will speculate about "analog warmth" and oscillator drift and so on and they just run in circles with it.

Just all the weird quirks and crosstalk and noise and saturation and signal loss and whatever else... touch plates that depend on skin resistance, noisy PT delay chips, funky DACs, and so on. Things that "just happen" but take a huge effort from genius developers to emulate in software, if they bother to. Look at the heroic efforts Plogue have been putting into emulating old FM chips for instance.

I'm not going to argue that hardware universally is better than software because of this stuff. Software's f**king cool too. But there's a lot of gear that is just very special to me, for which a software equivalent is nonexistent and unlikely to ever exist.

I'd really rather software developers continued to innovate in new directions, and to forge closer integration with hardware instruments, than try to emulate hardware. Best of both worlds.

[foosnark]

And, sorry, after some further thoughts:

regardless of how woke some people believe they are

I could've said that better, but I was thinking of a certain Very Opinionated person here whose opinions seem to not be based on experience.

Of course if 100% in the box is working for you, great! Maybe that's the medium where you shine. It's not mine. I guarantee some of you write funkier basslines, more compelling hooks and better beats than me, and you do it in a piano roll with VST plugins.

My point is, working with hardware is DIFFERENT, and that difference is of vital importance to some of us.

I'd really rather software developers continued to innovate in new directions, and to forge closer integration with hardware instruments, than try to emulate hardware.

I do want to acknowledge that hardware emulation is really useful at times, and translating it to the software world brings lots of advantages. Wavesfactory Cassette for instance, is a fantastic tool that means I don't have to collect a bunch of tape decks and types of tape, find room in my budget and my studio for it, and power them. It applies effects live in real time without having to record and then play back, and I can have multiple simultaneous instances, and individual control over noise vs. saturation vs. warble etc.

But I bet if you ask someone who really specializes in tape -- Marcus Fisher or William Basinski or Hainbach or blankfor.ms for instance -- if they'd give up their real tape for such a plugin, you'd get a very firm no.

[electro]

Roland had the right idea with System 8. A version 2 with MIDI 2.0 would work.

[Robmobius]

For me, I think the "magic bass" going on with hardware is saturation. The Microbrute and 0-Coast both had what I felt like was really nice solid bass, just from saturated triangles. But there's plenty of good saturation plugins! The difference is, those synths just did it without me thinking about it or setting it up intentionally, and I (maybe?) figured out why later.

Same for me... being very good sound right off the bat.

Quality saturation that's a big part of it!.... and good production, etc. The mini brute 2 and the virus have great saturation built in.

The saturation on most soft synths isn't great - some being better than others. There are some great saturation plugins that have that 'mojo' but in general they are usually just 'okay'.

[zerocrossing]

There's been a thread over at MuffWiggler for a few days now titled "why do you prefer modular hardware to software?" It's an interesting mirror image to this one.

For a lot of people the answer is that they associate computers with work and would rather not use them to make music. There's a definite "I don't hate computers, but I do like hardware" contingent though.

I've pretty much said the same things there that I did here, but I'll quote myself a little bit.

Hardware often seems more intentionally and thoughtfully designed than software does. A module is more limited and fixed in a lot of ways than software, but that means it's more focused. You can't just tack features on willy-nilly or add another three pages of knobs. There are of course some exceptionally well designed software synths, but many of those take their cues from imitating hardware synths.

I don't want to overstate that one too much. There are some excellently designed software synths. Some are lean and mean, and immediately feel great to use. Some are a bit more inclusive but still designed in a tight and focused way (hello ArcSyn). Still, it's rare for a software synth to be as laser-focused as something like the 0-Coast or Lyra-8, and more common to give in to market demand and provide 1500+ presets and 37 filter types and 14 assignable LFOs.

The software-based synth community has massive blind spots about methods of synthesis and composition. When you try to point them out, it's like trying to explain rock climbing to a 2-dimensional being from Flatland. I think you have to get into modular for a while to really see what's missing.

I will stand by this assertion, regardless of how woke some people believe they are. And I will gladly paint myself with the same brush, because of how much my universe opened up when I got into modular and it made me feel like a beginner again for a while.

When I first started messing with hardware after a long period of 100% in the box music, it was an adjunct to using software synths in the same way as before... except that I had to bounce to audio or just render the whole thing live. Worth it, because of that Microbrute sound that "just happened" as a result of turning knobs. But then I found a lot of the other hardware I tried really wasn't worth it. I hadn't quite figured out what I liked, yet, and it was a process that took a while.

Then when I got into modular, I thought "I can't even do some of this in any software that I've tried." At that point, I could have taken a year or more off of actually making music to get extremely cozy with Reaktor or Max. Instead, I got deeper into modular hardware because it immediately inspired me to make sounds and music every day.

And then as I got deeper still, over the course of about 18 months, my workflow was less "DAW-ish" as I thought of it, and more modular (with the DAW acting as mixer, effects host, recorder, and occasional supplementary synths and samples).

There's a lot that goes in in hardware that isn't modeled (or at least, not often or not well) in software -- supposedly undesirable side effects, or less common behaviors that are simply ignored, or because of technical limitations. Those add up to a lot of character. People will speculate about "analog warmth" and oscillator drift and so on and they just run in circles with it.

Just all the weird quirks and crosstalk and noise and saturation and signal loss and whatever else... touch plates that depend on skin resistance, noisy PT delay chips, funky DACs, and so on. Things that "just happen" but take a huge effort from genius developers to emulate in software, if they bother to. Look at the heroic efforts Plogue have been putting into emulating old FM chips for instance.

I'm not going to argue that hardware universally is better than software because of this stuff. Software's f**king cool too. But there's a lot of gear that is just very special to me, for which a software equivalent is nonexistent and unlikely to ever exist.

I'd really rather software developers continued to innovate in new directions, and to forge closer integration with hardware instruments, than try to emulate hardware. Best of both worlds.

What the f is up with the idea that being “woke” has anything to do with anything? Was hardware kept from getting mortgages in good neighborhoods? The truth is, most people just want to make sounds from their favorite bands in the 80s and they could not care less about modular. They don’t even use their fixed architecture synths to their fullest.

I learned synthesis on old modular gear. It was awesome, and I’m glad I had that opportunity, but whatever magic it may contain in it’s noodelly appendages, is not worth it to me. But I’m all in on using hardware if it has a feature or character that I’m into. My “modular” is a Pro 2 hooked up to a Dominion 1, and that’s plenty. I’ll run Reaktor though the Pro 2 if I’m feeling saucy.

[revvy]

Bringing woke into this discussion is like adding a proviso of "please ignore everything I say"

[CrystalWizard]

“Hardware is better”, “No, software is better”, “No, hardware is better”, “No way, software is better.”

Walks away from it all, fires up the modulars, fires up the DAW with buncha VSTS, fires up a joint...

[zerocrossing]

“Hardware is better”, “No, software is better”, “No, hardware is better”, “No way, software is better.”

Walks away from it all, fires up the modulars, fires up the DAW with buncha VSTS, fires up a joint...

Exactly.

I’m constantly amazed at the people who are so insecure about what they do that they seem to have to prosthelytize their stance as though if they don’t they might start thinking about it and realize that they’re not sure about it. I can’t even imagine asking the “why you left..” question. Who cares why someone else did something? Have fun. Make music. Make weird sounds. Copy the sounds of your favorite Carpenter soundtrack.

Or don’t. Spend all your time thinking about the next hardware synth or module, or the plugin that’ll finally give you the sound of your dreams. It really doesn’t matter as long as you enjoy it. There’s a dude on GearSlutz that fully admits that he likes to collect things and when he finishes his collection he’s done with it. He loses interest and goes to something else. That’s not how I like to live, but he’s not hurting anyone, so who cares?

[johnwoo]

I still use computer and VST , but my main source for music is my Korg M3 with Radias expansion, my Yamaha EX7 and my old good friend , Korg Triton Rack with MOSS board . The Karma from M3 combined with the strange sound from Radias ( combination from Analog , FM and Digital sounds) , give me the craziest rhythmic sound and it not an arp, it a complex , evolving arp , Yamaha comes with with nice textures , and Korg Triton finish things with some good sounds from MOSS board . I record everything on computer , naturally , and if need it I insert some vst to enrich the sound.

What kind of stuff are you making with your Korg M3+Radias?

I have an M3 module (no keyboard) with the EXP-Radias. I bought it because I thought KARMA would be a creativity tool. A place to start.

I don’t use it much, mostly because it pissed me off needing to repair the touch screen (Korg should’ve had a class-action against them for that), the sounds don’t inspire me, and I don’t like that the performance of various patch parameters requires the missing keyboard (switch 1 & 2, and the ribbon), and mapping them to my own controls is extra effort just to play with the factory sounds.

I’ve used the pad chord feature a few times, since I’m not much for actually composing with chords, and I used KARMA a few times...

... but the overall experience is like I’m working with a less-capable PC, peering into it via a tiny low-resolution display, operating it at a great distance via a clunky GUI with a lousy touch panel. I already find computers clunky to work with when what I really want is hands-on controls. One control per parameter. MIDI controllers aren’t doing it for me either.

I’m curious to know what others do with their M3.

Electronic music mostly, I start with a combi or a program and I build up from there ( computer is only to polish or to enhance the sound) , I use Karma in everything because is the most complex arp I ever see (starts from an normal up and down arp, move the sliders and that become something else , in real time ). Radias completes with his sound and his Modulation Sequencers who works like normal arp , and after is the vocoder, pass something , everything thru this and you will instantly go back in the 80s , to that music with robotic character . And all this in a small package and now low price too. Was very time consuming to learn how to use it , but M3 offer all , very fast .

[Robmobius]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQnq9wIHqdI

Speaking of good bass right off the bat :

In the sense it doesn't really mater what you use as long as you get the result (as I've said before).

[foosnark]

What the f is up with the idea that being “woke” has anything to do with anything?

Yeah, see where I said below that was a poor way to express it. I chose to make a new post rather than edit because it had been a while.

[zerocrossing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WQnq9wIHqdI

Speaking of good bass right off the bat :

In the sense it doesn't really mater what you use as long as you get the result (as I've said before).

I was working on a track a while ago and for bass I was using my ATC-X. It’s not a Minimoog but is has oscillators and a filter that are Minimoog clones. Anyway, I love that synth, but I got a bee in my bonnet to try something different. I’d already recorded the ATC and I didn’t want to abandon it before I had something else I liked better, so I thought Legend on there and got to work. Before too long I had exactly what I was looking for and it sounded perfect. My idea was I’d go back and re-record the ATC... but I never did. The bass sounded great and I just moved on. It would have just been more work for no sonic benefit. In mix down, I ended up being able to use Bitwig’s sidechain plugin to control the volume of Legend’s 3rd oscillator. Try that with your Boog.

Now, maybe if my track was a lot more aggressive and the mix a lot more sparse, going for the hardware would have made a difference. In this case, I was going for something different and the mix was pretty dense. In the grand scheme of things I don’t think there’s a human on this planet who could tell if I used the ATC, Legend, or even if I had an original Minimoog. Of course, there are people who would rather stab themselves in the eye than use a plugin, so good for them. There are plenty of great hardware synths out now, including the above demoed Behringer Model D. My track ended up having my 002 doing some chimes and some pads from a Prophet 6, so don’t get the idea that I’ve abandoned hardware synths either. I just go for the tool that I think will give me what I need. No need to be dogmatic about it.

[zerocrossing]

What the f is up with the idea that being “woke” has anything to do with anything?

Yeah, see where I said below that was a poor way to express it. I chose to make a new post rather than edit because it had been a while.

I see this type of implied superiority in a lot of these kinds of threads, and I think it just triggers my SJW side. It’s not exclusive of the never-pluginers, but I think it’s more common. My guess is, it stems from a few things:

• The exclusive club is now open to the public. In the 70s, getting a synth was for the wealthy or professionals. Now anyone can load up a free plugin. It’s no longer special like it once was.
• Envy. The people who can’t stand working using plugins are envious of the variety and value of software instruments. Rather than just acknowledge that they’ve found their preferred way of working and that means missing out on some things, they feel the need to convince themselves and others that the software tools are inferior.
• Ignorance. A lot of what I read from people sounds to me like they used SimSynth on their old Windows 95 machine and have based their entire opinion on that experience and they have no need to revise things.
• Insecurity. They’ve spent a lot of money on their instruments and they’re not sure they got their money’s worth. They’re worried that they wasted their money so they inflate the differences between what they bought and software or even modern clones.

Of course there are people who are using only hardware and are totally happy and good with their choices, and vise versa. You tend to not see them starting these kinds of threads, and when they do, they simply state why they chose their instruments and then they move on. You don’t see them trying to cut down what other people are doing. I personally feel like using a hybrid studio with a balance of hardware and software works best for me, but I’m not starting a thread that says, “Why you left being stuck in one way of working?” (Maybe I should )

I feel there are great instruments in both worlds and while I don’t get why you’d limit yourself, I don’t get a lot of things. I don’t get country music. I don’t get kimchi. Hell, or bring it closer to home, I don’t get keyboards that don’t have aftertouch. I don’t get step sequencers. You won’t find me starting threads that ask why people abandoned those things. I don’t get why anyone would care, and I sure don’t.

[vurt]

kimchi is lovely!

[foosnark]

they feel the need to convince themselves and others that the software tools are inferior.

A lot of what I read from people sounds to me like they used SimSynth on their old Windows 95 machine and have based their entire opinion on that experience and they have no need to revise things.

Yeah, I do see that a lot over on the other side. There's a lot of people who say "it sounds like a plugin" as an insult and that just tells me they really have no idea. It's kind of the mirror image of "why would you ever use hardware?" here.