Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[machinesworking]

When I hear the sounds in that video, I think to myself that I don't really want analog sound to begin with That unison sound for instance, what am I supposed to do with such an aggressive sound in a song?!

+1 that's how I feel....I have little use for those sounds in my songs.

because FM8 is used heavily in Dubstep, it's useless for other genres. It must be true.

[THE INTRANCER]

This was my second keyboard synth I had bought back in what would have been in late 1995 from a second hand store for 50 quid, much cheaper than anything else that was available in another other shop a few doors down. It had midi sized keys but with not having any keyboard at that time before I picked up a Yamaha PSR 330, it was really my first venture into carving out FM synthesis sounds since accidentally cooking my Casio SK1 with a multi-volt switch adaptor.

For some reason the PSS 680 sounded monophonic, but I wasn't sure at that time if that was by design or not. With that I ended up opening it up and losing the screws some months later I remember.With no panning feature, I wasn't sure what had happened, but I do remember that ta modern looking silver Hitachi amplifier my bother had bought back in 1985, did have fuses which protected the circuit board did have fuses and would obviously blow, cutting out the L&R speaker output.

Incidently I do remember plugging the Casio SK1 into that amp and rocked the house due to the four massive 8inch" speakers my bro had assembled in wooden cabinets. It wouldn't be the 80's without having your own disco lights all set up to go along with all that which he also built, to entertain friends and liven up parties. With my bro Kenny being in the RAF heading off to foreign lands, music in the 80's and early to mid 1990's, chilling out was just as much a visual experience as an audial one...

A 14" CRT monitor with an Amiga visualisation demo, were really the limits until I had bought a Playstation 1 in 1997. Going back to the Yamaha PSS 680 though, my thoughts were, that I simply had to buy it, because I wanted to design and build sounds as I once did, but probably more than that, actually learn to play the keyboard, because it's what's I had been playing since I was just two years of age... Never felt the need to sight-read music though but it's both something that both my sister and niece who's 20 now can do whilst playing the piano.

Play by ear and creating my own music was really the goal and it was really with Octamed Sound Studio on the Amiga that fully opened the doors to that of bridging the gap between outside midi hardware, but not before being exclusively in the box of creating tracks several minutes long with just samples and recording it straight to tape as a digital to physical creation. The first creation started purely by programming on the Amiga 1200 qwerty keyboard, and unlike recording on previous keyboard hardware with volatile memory, I could recall, edit it and call it my own.

Octamed Soundstudio really was like the Presonus Studio One I use today in essence. In fact there are some things it can do that Studio One specifically can't do even today like saving and recalling bulk dumps from external synths, the likes of which I did regularly between the Yamaha 330 and Yamaha DJX, in order to recall the patches required to enable the midi recorded performances I had created in Octamed Sound Studio between 1996 and 1998. Admittedly modern hardware has moved on since those days, but you are still in similar territory in saving patches to your outboard gear if you have that facility. If my beige wedge computer had some sort of artificial intelligence, something that we were as young people led to believe was to have back in the 1980's, or at least hoped to have, my Amiga 1200 would be shouting at me with evil eyes...it's been so long.

Synthesis of the PSS 680 I mentioned, and oh, drum pads.. why don't modern keyboards have them like this any more... so much fun.

Sounds like the guy from CIT'Vs Children's show 'Art Attack' .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8M8iv-6WK8

[GRUMP]

Can you name me another synth, software or hardware, that sounds exactly like the OB-6? No? Exactly. So if I loved the sound and want to have the sound (and have the money), why is it a problem to buy the source of that sound?

Give us sound examples then. What you said is totally untrue, imo. In fact, I am sure that most freeware vsts and any good EQ can be enough to replicate any of your 3k euro synth sounds.

If you´re listening via BoomBox - yes. In a Techno-Mix, too probably. Try HQ Headphones - the Differences between VSTs are quiet big already. Freeware is usually Plastic - and Hardware an other Dimension. Those Roland Guys e. g. know how to push the Bass and make it stable - and HW-DSPs are still faster

[zerocrossing]

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...

Yeah, they are a bit clean, but usually I’m making so much noise with my guitar that you’d never notice, and for times that I’m not, I picked up an Analog Heat which can give everything from a subtle coloration to full on fuzz-o-rama. I’ve also been experimenting with the UAD Unison preamps with great results. I know I’m not getting anything like a perfect vintage sound, but I’m OK with that. I’m so happy with all the extra things I am getting that I don’t notice.

[zerocrossing]

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

I got it for $19 a few months ago. Some of the patches are pretty CPU hungry, but if you make your own and don’t lean on unison that much, it’s OK. Definitely wait for the next sale, though.

[Tendou]

not to forget there are romplers like omnisphere and they for sure transport the analog sound bc thats their purpose. however you are limited in the sound design but to me especially hand in hand with romplers soft synth have replaced hardware totally.

[zerocrossing]

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

This of course isn't a perfect shootout, but in almost every case the sound is bigger, less "stable", dirtier and the filter is just flat out better, from the OBXa. this is pretty much how it always plays out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtYpjUWujM

I don't in any way think every sound needs to be huge, it's just an observation that cleaner sounds, aren't as engaging when just played alone. In a mix, IMO a lot of the juice of that difference is lost, or even creates mix issues, but I think things like the filter resonance sweep at 2:05 are why people love old analogs. Not impossible in software, just not easy.

That’s a weird comparison because the OB-6 is based on the SEM, not the Curtis chip filter of the OB-Xa. Different animals altogether.

[zerocrossing]

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.

Ugh. I'll just have to agree to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.

For example, saying "this is definitely a religious outlook" over and over doesn't make it true. The OB-6 isn't trying to recapture the past (if it was, all the vintage lovers out there would be all over it instead of complaining that it's not vintage - it's bringing a sound last in production from the past into the current era), and I certainly didn't purchase it with that in mind - what an ignorant thing to say. It has a SOUND. I love the SOUND. I didn't care what made the SOUND, hardware or software. It turned out hardware made the SOUND. So I bought the tool that made the SOUND. How is this so hard to understand? I didn't buy the OB-6 because I wanted a clone or emulation or to relive the past. I didn't buy it because it was an OB-6. I didn't buy it because it was VCO instead of DCO or digital. Nothing else in software or hardware sounds like an OB-6 so I bought the OB-6. Because I liked the sound. Can you name me another synth, software or hardware, that sounds exactly like the OB-6? No? Exactly. So if I loved the sound and want to have the sound (and have the money), why is it a problem to buy the source of that sound?

I'm not saying that all software is better than analog. I'm not saying that all analog is better than software. You seem overly sensitive me describing why I chose a certain tool because I like the sound (should I tear into you for liking Korg better than Roland, or for having favorite synths as you mentioned?). I mean, I chose Hive 2 over Serum and Spire and others because, primarily, I liked the sound better. Yes, I make decisions based on primarily on how things sound. My brain thinks of them more as paints in a palette, not interchangeable ratchet tools or whatever. I like to have different paints.

Repro/Serum - I'll take you at your word that you can use them interchangeably. I can't. Your way of making music is your way of making music. I have my own. That doesn't make one right or wrong, just different. Did someone kill one of your loved ones with an analog synth? It wasn't me. I use software synths all the time and love them. I'm also using my hardware synths without a problem, pretty much just like software synths. 2 of them is plenty for me.

Oh, I also had an Ultranova. Replaced it with the OB-6.

BONES just likes to argue. I honestly don’t think he has any actual beliefs, except that it’s fun to contradict people.

One thing I do whenever I buy a synth, hardware or software, is to run it through a few tests. Simple things, but things that really sort of highlight an instrument’s nature. Things that really beat on it. To say that Repro can be replaced by Serum, or vise versa, tells me one thing: you don’t have the slightest ear for discerning synths’ character and you should probably just go back to your old Synthedit creations.

I just sold my Pro 2. Sad, but I needed the space to put the new PolyBrute. Before I let it go, I tried to get it to sound like a few plugins, and it was plain and simply impossible. Sure, I could do it on a very superficial level, but I couldn’t even get it to sound like my Prophet 12, which has nearly the same oscillator section. (I actually like the sound of the Pro 2 a bit more, but it’s huge compared to the little Prophet 12 module) I’ve even compared synths that were supposed to sound very similar (an older Moog clone vs. a modern Moog) and I could hear big differences.

Now, asking whether or not these differences make a difference... well that’s up to you. I think they do, even if they’re subtle. There’s a certain kind of dreamy wavetable sound that I’ve tried to get from my Peak that is just impossible. Easier to get from a plugin. OTOH, there’s a kind of sound the Peak can do that I’ve never really heard in software or other hardware. Ever. Sometimes it can sound like a rather boring plugin, though. Depends on how you tweak it.

These are all good things, because if differences didn’t exist, what... we’d all just buy the same instrument? Boring. Ultimately, I’d love to be 100% ITB. I actually don’t like having a ton of hardware synths around. My mind is very ITB orientated, but I’ve yet to find any software that has the character of some of my hardware synths, and I really appreciate it, so here I am. Maybe one day I’ll feel differently, but that’s where I am today.

[KVRaside]

I hate to admit that I use GG Blue3 Hammond more than my actual one - for convenience mostly. In a track, it's pretty hard to pick a difference.

[BONES]

OK, yeah, we're not hearing the same thing at all. The OBXa is very obviously a much much thicker more complex sound with the filter sweep. This is 100% one of those cases when descriptive terms like "thin" can be used. The Ob6 is thin thin thin in comparison.

Sounds close enough to the same to me that I wouldn't care. I think you are looking for differences but when I'm working I am looking for similarities. i.e. "This part needs a long filter sweep" and the first thing I think of that can do one will get the work. And in the context of a mix, a thinner sound will usually work better anyway. I want my basslines to be big, everything else has to find it's place and not encroach on anything else.

go back and listen, the undertones on the OBXa are almost a song in itself.

Which you are never going to hear in a mix. That said, I had another listen on my headphones and the significant difference I hear is that the OB-6 ends up "beating" - a regular oscillation like LFO modulation - probably because the detune interval is very regular, where the OB-Xa is all over the place so you don't get that. But in terms of bottom end and "thickness", there is little difference between them to my ears. The thing to take into account, too, is that we can't see the settings, so we don't know whether the cutoff frequencies match or whether one changes more than the other, because he seems to be constantly tweaking them, rather than switching to a preset that matches the settings and leaving it at that.

Plus a lot of bias based on hardware lust. Why anyone bothers with digital hardware I'll never figure out? <--- answering this for myself anyway, the E6400 I used to own had a bandpass filter that made some crazy sounds at certain setting I've never been able to replicate in anything else, so there's a reason..

I don't see any more reason to want an analogue synth than a digital one. In fact, if you just want hardware, a digital synth like Ultranova makes way more sense than something as limited as most analogue jobbies are. I got my two analogues for reasons that have nothing to do with them being analogue - Uno is a synth I can throw into my overnight bag for a weekend away. With Analog Keys, I like the idea of four monosynths or one polysynth or something in between, plus it includes a USB audio interface which means one less thing I have to take to a gig and set up. Analogue or digital, I think I'd have bought them anyway.

When I hear the sounds in that video, I think to myself that I don't really want analog sound to begin with That unison sound for instance, what am I supposed to do with such an aggressive sound in a song?!

What other kinds of sounds would you use in a song? Mind you, the only aggressive sounds I heard in that video were the Hard Sync patches, the unison stuff didn't sound particularly aggro.

[e-crooner]

What other kinds of sounds would you use in a song? Mind you, the only aggressive sounds I heard in that video were the Hard Sync patches, the unison stuff didn't sound particularly aggro.

Even the simple pad with the open filter is aggressive in terms of frequencies and mixing. It's too dense, too diffuse for my taste.
It sounds nice on its own, but not in a song.

[dionenoid]

software is certainly very convenient

it certainly saves on dusting

Yep. Dusting....and cables.

Through the years i've probably spent more money on cables than on my whole vst collection.

[electro]

GG-Audio Blue3, Pianoteq 6, IK's MODO line are a step beyond hardware IMO. The new Reason Friktion synth also looks nice. IK's B-3X sounds so spot on its shocking. Rolands ACB and plugout are probably the most relevant in 2020.

[pizzatime]

For me they have replaced hardware now..
like a bit of a saddo for my own personal interest as I wasn't convinced software was quite on a par I did a pretty full on test of a Behringer Pro-1 and Uhe Repro-1. I could literally match them so close that even on expensive headphones I couldn't tell which was which - apart from the Behringer sounded about 1% better to me with high resonance but it was miniscule..
I still gas for hardware synths occasionally though!

[zerocrossing]

not to forget there are romplers like omnisphere and they for sure transport the analog sound bc thats their purpose. however you are limited in the sound design but to me especially hand in hand with romplers soft synth have replaced hardware totally.

Is there some sort of rule here that someone has to come into every thread and misrepresent Omnisphere as a ROMpler? Please join us on Earth 1, where Omnisphere has never been only a ROMpler, and currently has many synthesis types and sample import.