Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[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.

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.

haha well it is a rompler... however I didnt say its JUST a rompler... I talked about a combination of synth and rompler and what is omnisphere?


edit: one use for hardware over software came to my mind - playing live on stages. guess its far more easy to use the hardware controls of multiple synth than multiple softsynth

[machinesworking]

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.

Yeah, I mentioned that thinner sounds sit in mixes better. The point was and is, that the reason people will crave these old synths is because they have a more complex sound when just playing them alone. Even here. we're listening to two analog synths, if you tossed in a comparison to a digital it would be even more drastic. This isn't about usefulness in a song, but the human ear for the most part doesn't like sine waves, it would rather listen to a more complex sound. So, someone with a bedroom studio etc. will love their old analog, even though for practical use maybe, or especially in thicker mixes, it's going to take more work to make it sit well. Simply playing it is more enjoyable.

[BONES]

But even that's not true - no analogue synth could hope to match the hundreds of oscillators available in DUNE or ArcSyn or pretty much any softsynth with per oscillator unison. They couldn't even match the 18 voice unison I can bring to bear with my Ultranova so your point doesn't even hold for digital synths. My Skulpt, for example, can sound much fatter than my Uno, simply because it has four voices, as opposed to one, which is precisely the advantage digital has over analogue - you can cram a lot more in for the price and/or form factor. That said, I prefer playing Uno to Skulpt but that's down to Uno having a much more usable keyboard. If I play them through a controller, then it's going to go the other way. Even Craft Synth 2.0, which is also mono, can sound as big as Uno with the right wavetable.

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.

It can't be both dense and diffuse, but I think I see what you are getting at. For me that's the perfect sound - dense and broad. That's why most of our songs only have/need 4 or 5 synth parts - because I can create a wall of sound easily and efficiently without the need to layer anything or use f**king chords. (Have I mentioned how much I hate chords?)

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

Easily, and these days cables seem to be far less reliable than they were 30 years ago. e.g. I still have, and use, the cables that came with my SH-101 and my TB-303s in the early-mid 80s but half the Hosa brand cables I've bought in the last five years or so are busted (and they weren't cheap).

[revvy]

@@@

[Muziksculp]

I use both Hardware, and Software Synths. I love using both types.

Software Synths have come a long way, and have improved quite a bit sonically these days. Which is very good for all of us musicians.

[hcv242]

The problem with the local cave is that there are twenty thousand other dudes also with laptops all with the same software as you all making roughly the same sound with roughly the same presets.

I'm sorry but you are very wrong. Two people with the same two records will mix them in completely diffent ways. People with the same software ( and here there are hundreds of more variables) will produce even more different results. Sure, there is tons of music alike, but that doesnt mean that it was made with software. it means people are all going for the same sound using whatever tools to achieve it.

[machinesworking]

But even that's not true - no analogue synth could hope to match the hundreds of oscillators available in DUNE or ArcSyn or pretty much any softsynth with per oscillator unison. They couldn't even match the 18 voice unison I can bring to bear with my Ultranova so your point doesn't even hold for digital synths. My Skulpt, for example, can sound much fatter than my Uno, simply because it has four voices, as opposed to one, which is precisely the advantage digital has over analogue - you can cram a lot more in for the price and/or form factor. That said, I prefer playing Uno to Skulpt but that's down to Uno having a much more usable keyboard. If I play them through a controller, then it's going to go the other way. Even Craft Synth 2.0, which is also mono, can sound as big as Uno with the right wavetable.

A lot of this is us comparing apples and oranges. I do not think all analog synths sound bigger than digital, don't know how I got roped into that? My point was modern analogs are not as complex, big whatever, sounding to me as older ones. What I do notice is what people actually love about analog synths are two things, hardware controls usually laid out somewhat logically, and instability. I know you love the mouse, but a lot of people like a bank of controls. The other factor is why we're not hearing the same thing in the filter comparison, the OBx is much less stable than the OB-6, the oscillator and filter is swimming around, the OB-6 is more modern and stable. It's a more precise sound, but it's not as huge sounding to me. Now that's not true of every sound comparison in that demo, and of course none of this is relevant in terms of what is "better". All I'm saying is people like the seemingly more "complex" sound of the OBx, it's why people think hardware analogs are better etc. even though 99% of the time any of that subtle instability is going to get lost in a mix.

Plus, you can mimic most of this with a decent soft synth, I've done it. I did a job replacing Garage Band sounds with synths, and used Zebra for a Moog sound, because my Moog wasn't around, I had no need to replace the Zebra patch with the Moog when I could, the patch sounded more than good enough, and Zebra isn't an analog modeled synth, it's mostly a wavetable synth.

[VELLTONE MUSIC]

If sound still matters i would say it's character of the synth's that matter,not the shell

[machinesworking]

If sound still matters i would say it's character of the synth's that matter,not the shell

Agreed. I use 90% soft synths for a reason. Not because I'm cheap. Granted most of my hardware gets used all the time, if it doesn't, it gets sold, unlike the 30+ soft synths in my VST folder. ..

[THE INTRANCER]

Kinda funny how a one way back in the thread took my mention of a cave as an analogy, of something which I actually meant in the literal sense. I literally do have caves not far from where I live which I was referring to.. .

[legendCNCD]

Yes.

Actually since 2001 or so. I sold all my outboard away and moved to plugins completely.

[risome]

Most but not all.In particular my MODAL 008 , and my modular system.

[CausticPuppy]

It’s far easier to sneak a new VST past the S/O.

[ChamomileShark]

Hardware was the only option when I started. When that broke down in the mid/late 90s I stopped making music.

I started again with an all software set up in 2005 and since added a fair amount of hardware. For whatever reason (maybe the cost) I tend to form a better relationship with the hardware, get better results etc. But some software for me is still essential. I couldn't go back to multi-track tape. I can't imagine a hardware replacement for Kontakt + Orchestral libraries.

[machinesworking]

I can't imagine a hardware replacement for Kontakt + Orchestral libraries.

I bought an E6400 Ultra in 2000, and it's crazy to me to think about samplers being sold today. Computers 100% do it better. Pretty much anything digital computers do better.