Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[machinesworking]

What I mean is eventually everything we did in 2002 on the computer has to be carefully preserved on a dated machine, nobody really does that, we just move on.

The same is true of hardware. Every time I bought a new sequencer, and I owned a few over the years - TB303, QX-7, SQD-1, M1, O1/W, Trinity - I had to rebuild all the songs I wanted to preserve on the new sequencer. The last iteration of them is preserved in a box of Zip-Discs, which are in storage. But every time I upgraded there were songs that weren't worth porting over any longer, so by the time I moved to software, more than half the songs I'd ever performed were lost. I have recordings but I'd have to rebuild them from scratch today if I ever wanted to perform any of them.

OTOH, as long as I can keep installing Orion, I will be able to restore any song we've made ITB, all the way back to 2002 and beyond. In fact, one of the songs on our new album is something I wrote the music for in 2003 but was never quite happy with. In my hardware days that would have been long gone and forgotten.

Yeah same with DP, Songs I did in 2001 open up just fine, minus the Pluggo VSTs, and to your point a bit the EMU sampler files from hardware I sold. I have the samples though. It's mostly that companies like NI do not keep updating the same VST, they make new versions, then the older versions don't work well on modern versions of OS X and Windows.. Zebra 2 files open fine.

I never used hardware sequencers, we had an Ensoniq Mirage with a Mac+ the keyboard player owned plus a copy of Performer I got in a package deal with the Memorymoog in the late 80's. Hardware sequencers seemed awful to me.

The thing is though, the moog has outlasted dozens of plug ins, hell NI and Apple in conjunction with my urge to move on hardware wise, have shitcanned a few old songs. Compared, the moog is still capable of reproducing sounds I came up with in 1987.. I'm not sure if it's worth it though, especially seeing the prices people get for the dammed thing?

The thing for me is that there are no sounds I came up with in 1987 (or earlier) that I would want to use today. I have so many better choices with softsynths that I couldn't imagine going back to my hardware MonoPoly or Axxe or ESQ or any of those shitful things. I don't even get any joy from playing them because controlling a softsynth with my Roli is way more satisfying when you want to lose yourself in the moment.

I get plenty of great sounds out of the moog, I'm just shocked by it's resale value, and honestly I'm agnostic in terms of "new" sounds. IMO Throbbing Gristle in the 70's were doing things that sound more "new" to this day than most of what I hear out of people. But I get your point, I'm pretty impressed with soft synths in the last couple years, Lion, Pigments, Falcon, Diva, Hive2, and I'm certain Brian Clevinger the guy who developed Absynths new synth coming out in the next week or so. It's a great time to be into soft synths IMO.

The other elephant in the room for me is I'm about ready for a new laptop, and it really depends on the direction Apple goes with their new chips, so it's a wait and see game, if they turn out to not be so great for audio, then I'm aiming at the Zenbook Duo. I'm wanting something that lasts 8 years like this Macbook Pro has, so either way it's going to be expensive. I might end up selling the Xpander to cover the cost. Right in line with this thread really.

[machinesworking]

My line gets drawn at things like vintage synths that are maintenance issues waiting to happen yet fetch prices that would get you a nice used Civic.

The Memorymoog has in the past been a lot of maintenance work for sure, Getting it recapped and the Linntronics mod has it dead stable though.

On the other hand, the Oberheim Xpander I've owned for 12 years now, zero issues with it. Probably due to it drawing almost no power compared to the Moog, much weaker pre amp feeding the audio outs. I really wish someone would reissue it with modern updates though, it doesn't sync to anything except via an audio signal, and the only other real drawbacks are it's terrible cpu and slow digital ADSR. All these "modern" poly analogs that don't do the basic thing the Xpander can, which is to allow all 6 voices to have different MIDI channels and patch presets.
What with MPE coming up, this would make total sense, but nope.

Also, the modern analog polys sound great, but they're all slightly too clean sounding to me, not enough dirt in the sound, it's not the end of the world but...

[EnGee]

Sounds like you wasted a lot of money on your computer, then? Mind you, I rarely see my CPU usage going over 50% but music isn't the most taxing thing I use it for so it doesn't bother me.

On my computer? No. It's just an ordinary PC.
On my setup? Yes, relative to past years. But still not that much compared to one year of cigarettes and alcohol years back (no weed or drugs for me!).

However, I feel full! There is nothing really is tempting me. I feel I got all of it. I'm trying to make some music now that I really like, but I need to be patient and consistent (2 adjectives I lack ).

Anyway, I believe this hardware vs software is a stage that most of us experience, but then it's normal to have them both and feel them just like one thing in that they both can make acceptable music in this era

[Dencheg]

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

Hard to imagine, given that it's a Roland. Horrible sounding things.

I meant the control surface of System 8 in the first place. Nevertheless, did you really mean "horrible" or "sounding"? Perhaps you've had mixed up the understanding of these words. You know, like some people don't know how to pronounce certain words (or where to put the accent) for entire life till their friends correct them.

[BONES]

Also, YOU might find it ridiculous to think about the "brand" of a synth, but they all have certain characteristics and excel at some things more than others.

Actually, I pointed out that I prefer Korg to Roland because they generally sound more aggressive.

For example, getting Serum to sound like Repro-5 might be possible (or the other way around), but that's gonna take a hell of a lot more work on my part than just using Repro-5.

I don't think that's a valid way of looking at it. To use the spanner analogy again, that's like picking up a 14mm spanner and then looking for a 14mm nut to use it on when what you should be doing is finding the spanner than fits the nut you need to loosen. I don't think of an instrument as having a sound, beyond that very general characteristic of more or less aggressive. Anything I might want to do with Serum (if I owned it), I am sure I could do equally well with RePro-5 and vice versa (which is probably why I never even think to use RePro-5, even though I quite like it).

Why? I like the sound of them better, and nothing I have in software sounds the same.

This is where it sounds like a religion to me. I can't hear anything in the sound of any of my hardware that I'd say I "like" more than my software. My two main hardware synths - Ultranova and Analog Keys, are far and away the best sounding hardware synths I have ever owned, but there is nothing at all they can do that I can't do at least as well ITB.

If there was software, I would've bought or used it instead. Example: my OB-6. I was prepared to spend up to $500 on software that sound as good or better. There wasn't anything anywhere close. I had hoped oberhausen would (I still have it), and it does share some of the characteristics, but it's a different sound. When I want something in the ballpark of the OB-6 but with more than 6 voices, I turn to oberhausen. Otherwise, almost never. Because, to my ears, it's different in a way that sounds worse (not bad, just not near as good).

This is definitely a religious outlook. bx_oberhausen is an absolute beast of a thing. I have less than no interest in how much it sounds like a SEM or an OB-X or your OB-6, I use it for what it brings to our music. I also have zero interest in something like an OB-6 - what a complete waste of money trying to recapture something from 40 years ago when you could have a modern instrument like Analog Keys that isn't trying to slavishly emulate something from the past and is therefore able to offer so much more. I wouldn't swap my Ultranova for an OB-6, either - it's a better synth again than either because it doesn't have to bother with all the analogue bullshit and is free to be the absolute best synth it can possibly be. And it is, it won't run out of polyphony before you run out of fingers and it has performance controls that Tom Oberheim never even dreamed of.

[e-crooner]

That Oberhausen thingy is 249 bucks?! Must be one of the most expensive synth plugins out there, but it does sound very good judging from the audios on their site
I assume it would crush my CPU, so I won't even try it

[chk071]

Shame you missed the $29 sales...

[e-crooner]

How did that company, which is not a synth company, manage to soundwise basically overtake the competition with their first(?) synth?!

[FapFilter]

In my opinion: they didn't
still very good sounding though

but extremely limited

[e-crooner]

Yes, in terms of features it is a bit limited. Like the original, but that didn't keep it from becoming a classic
And I think it is not exactly made for the EDM crowd. Oberhausen with its effects seems perfect for more "traditional" music such as pop, rock, r&b, etc.
Maybe I will give it a try, anyway, I am curious now

[AnX]

How did that company, which is not a synth company, manage to soundwise basically overtake the competition with their first(?) synth?!

$29 sale prices

nobody would buy it at full price.....

[e-crooner]

I see, like with Waves

[4damind]

Partially. But with digital hardware it might be easier than with analogue hardware. I hardly use my Virus anymore, plugins can do that (for me) better. I don't use my Yamaha SY99 anymore, especially since I was never a big fan of FM synthesis.
I will not replace the Nord Lead, I would rather buy a current Nord Lead

[chk071]

How did that company, which is not a synth company, manage to soundwise basically overtake the competition with their first(?) synth?!

I don't know if it's the best sounding synth, but, it sounds really good. They also have a lot of experience with other audio plugins.

[BONES]

Some people feel that way, but some people just think of analog synths as another flavor of synthesis and maybe they just want the best representation of that sound that they can get.

To me, and I think objectively, it's like the difference between buying your petrol at BP or at Shell and thinking you're getting something better than the other guy using a different brand of fuel, or like thinking that Cubase sounds better than Logic. The difference is in your head. Analogue, real or virtual, it's the architecture that makes it, not the materials used to manufacture it. A great engineer - electrical, electronic or software - will make great instruments. End of story.

Or even look at it this way, every synth, even emulations, are different. If one speaks to you, why wouldn’t you use it?

Absolutely, so why do people try and justify themselves by telling everyone that one is better than the other? I spend a lot more money on hardware than I do on software but I am under no illusion that I am doing it for any valid, objective reason. I buy hardware because I like having it.

To me, Repro and my Prophet 6 are equally good instruments... I did buy Repro as soon as the pre-release was announced, but I’ve never once thought it was a replacement.

Whereas I think that, with enough effort, any synth can replace any other synth. The arrangement and the mix are way, way more important to me than the instrument sounds themselves.

Also, the modern analog polys sound great, but they're all slightly too clean sounding to me, not enough dirt in the sound, it's not the end of the world but...

What does "dirty" mean? My Uno has a decent drive in the filter, Trueno's filter is absolutely filthy when you drive it hard and Analog Keys has great overdrive/distortion. They all sound much "dirtier" to me than any of my old analogues from the '80s.

Anyway, I believe this hardware vs software is a stage that most of us experience, but then it's normal to have them both and feel them just like one thing in that they both can make acceptable music in this era

I honestly don't think I could make music with hardware to anywhere near the standard I do in software. It's way harder, takes way longer and, even then, it wouldn't sound as good. I've certainly got enough hardware that I could do it if I wanted but I reckon you'd have to have rocks in your f**king head to even think about it.

Nevertheless, did you really mean "horrible" or "sounding"? Perhaps you've had mixed up the understanding of these words. You know, like some people don't know how to pronounce certain words (or where to put the accent) for entire life till their friends correct them.

I mean Roland synths don't sound very good at all, D-50 being the one exception I'd make. I've owned several - SH1000, TB303, SH101, RS09 and then, recently JP08 and JU06 - and they just don't measure up. The Korg Delta I bought in 1984 sounded better than any of them. Roland don't do anything bad, their oscillators are OK and their filters do the job, although usually only just, but the sum of the parts is never anything more than average. They lack character, they sound bland and generic. Life's too short and music is too important to put up with that sort of mediocrity.

In my opinion: they didn't
still very good sounding though but extremely limited

Are you f**king kidding me? It is an amazingly versatile synth. It has everything you need to do whatever you want.