Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[buzz1]

I see the "using same sounds as everyone else" as if comparing it to paintings: everyone is using BLUE for ocean so every painting will look the same! Nope, it is the way you use it. You can use totally unique sounds, but who cares about those "unique" sounds if your songs aren't good (or if you don't get anything finished since you can't get any unique sounds since usually ALL sounds are already made).

You remember the famous Faithless pizz sound? That was used in sooooo many songs back then, and those songs still sounded different even they had that very very in your face famous sound. Sure they had the same feeling/vibe, but then again that was exactly what listener was hoping for: to hear something familiar but same time something new.

Agreed. Mozart and Schoenberg used the same sounds but the results were very different!

[chk071]

The moment I got DUNE 3 I stopped missing my Virus C.

I'm glad for you. Even though Dune sounds absolutely nothing like a Virus. And vice versa, of course (disclaimer for the ones I stepped on their shoes again).

I really wonder how many people ever said that their Minimoog replaced their Oberheim OB-X.

[exmatproton]

yes

[chk071]

Probably.

I would say the least though. It rather seems to be a software user thing to replace this with that (while this sounds nothing like that).

[nachenko]

The moment I got DUNE 3 I stopped missing my Virus C.

I'm glad for you. Even though Dune sounds absolutely nothing like a Virus. And vice versa, of course (disclaimer for the ones I stepped on their shoes again).

No, you're right, it doesn't. I actually found more similarities between Spire and the Virus. The thing is, while I loved my Virus, I wanted the same quality in software, but a different sound. And after trying many plugins, that different sound I was looking for happened to be DUNE.

[chk071]

[clipnotic]

Dune 3, one of my favorite synths, can sound really different, it replaced my Korg Radias for example, because it can have a very similar sound, but with much more power and endless voices. I often had to use all voices from the Radias for just one sound, because that thing has way to few voices, like also many current hardware from Korg. If you want "voice stealing crap deluxe", just buy Korg hardware!

I also have the Korg Triton VST and that VST shows the differences between hardware and software very good, I have to use a Wave Shaper, because they just made a "puristic clone" of the original hardware. The same with the Korg Wavestation plugin ...

My DAW replaced every hardware sampler I ever had and can do much more, also Elektron stuff with the right plugins!

If I want Virus sounds, I use Nexus expansions.

If I want tons of really good quality vintage analog and digital synth samples, I use Omnisphere. It replaced for example my JD990 hardware

If I want a simple, but good standard synth, I use Sylenth

If I want ACID stuff, I use Phoscyon

If I want a fast wavetable layer synth, I use Rapid

If I want to collect millions and terabytes of samples or presets, I use my PC


The list is long ....

[foosnark]

In the early 2000s, VSTs replaced the feeble collection of hardware I had at the time which I only noodled with, and allowed me to get more serious about making music.

In the mid 2010s, with a better personal financial situation and a new wave of cheaper hardware and Eurorack, I got back into hardware. I only use software synths as an occasional supplement to hardware synths now, and software sequencing as an occasional supplement to hardware sequencing. I do have a few hardware FX modules, but I rely on a DAW heavily for FX, mixing, recording, and as an expander to my modular hardware.

I would rather go back to 100% software than to try to go DAWless. Thankfully I don't have to make either of those choices and can keep using the hybrid approach that's working really well for me.

I've said it before, but for me the big deal with hardware is the approach and the inspiration, not some undefinable quantum physics fairy dust sound quality thing. (But it's true that software hasn't caught up with feedback loops, and is still a bit behind with audio rate modulation.)

[zvenx]

Yep (assuming you not counting my basses or guitars), I stopped using hardware synths years ago. Strictly software.

(I still use real preamps, compressors in my record chain,and guitar effects)
rsp

[Psuper]

Last hardware synth I bought was the Kurzweil K2000 in the mid 90s, and only because I wanted a Kurzweil in the 80s and couldn't afford it.

[SoundHunterrr]

I did try some hardware synths. But I feel more comfortable using software synths. 1. They don’t need physical space! 2. They usually give good demo to try 3. No so expensive

[JackScale]

I would say so

[Dencheg]

There is no reason and no advantage still buying and using hardware and of course it's possible to use a PC / Mac on stage and more and more live musicians are doing this, except those, which are still thinking they're "elite", because they can create sounds like decades before or cover musicians, which still living in the past and want still sound like in the 80s / 90s.

There is a reason. The control surface of Roland System-8 is simply the best (for many). And the synth itself is the best (at least for me), despite being VA. Well, I shouldn’t say “despite”, cause good VA in good hands (relying not only on presets) sounds not less uniquely then A or a unique wavetable engine

[chk071]

On the topic: I'm sure they did for a lot of people who used to use hardware. That's about it really. The ease of use, and better workflow way outweigh the maybe here and there better sound.

[vurt]

has one set of useful tools replaced another set of useful tools?
no, i now have more useful tools.