Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[Captain]

I haven’t really touched hardware in 20 years. When Logic introduced its first built-in effect plug-ins and the ES-1 software synth, I realized that this is the future I want to live in: Hit save, and _everything_ is saved. Open a project and _everything_ opens with it. No more messing with presets on different synths and other devices, writing down mixer and patch bay settings, bouncing the masters to DAT, etc. I couldn’t wait for CPUs to get fast enough to be able to work 100% in the box.

Thinking about it now, the transition was pretty quick after all: In the late 90’s I already used a lot of ITB processing, and from early 2000’s onwards I was doing everything ITB. Don’t remember ever missing HW since then.

[gentleclockdivider]

To my knowledge, the king of FM synthesis at Yamaha was the SY series. There you had the combination of AWM and FM + quite good effects. There was also a rack version (at least for the SY77).
I started with a DX21 and finished my FM experience with a SY99... and I don't see any advantage to plugins at the moment.

Well, the new Montage/MODX are using FM-X (synthopia.com) which has 7 spectral forms instead of just the sine in DX7 and 8 operator, 88 algorithms, ...etc. The software in the MODX is exactly the same like in the Montage except Polyphony for the FM-x engine is 64 for MODX and 128 for Montage. The main difference is the hardware and number of controls, audio interface, keyboard ... etc.

To be honest, I can live only with the MODX as it has also excellent drums and of course AWM2 sounds covering all instruments with good quality sound (more than enough for me that I don't feel a need for samplers like Kontakt). So, it is a perfect all in one solution. I wished they have a VSTi editor for the FM-X! That would be amazing really, but it is not bad editing/designing sounds with it as you can use the touch screen to enter values (you can also double tap to enter the value by writing the number).

It is a great external instrument and I'm not seeing myself letting it go soon at all

The fs1r also has the spectral waveforms and wasn't called fm-x and it also has the an1x filters

[EnGee]

Yes, I think they did the FM-X after the fs1r as it has also 8 operators and 88 algorithms but I don't know exactly what are the differences. Anyway, 8 operators means a lot of modulations. I haven't used more than 6, but maybe in the future I might use the others.

[RobGee]

As much as I like Vsts like Reaktor Blocks and Repro etc I haven’t found any that are as much fun or sound as good as this...

80CA5FE8-F5D2-40B1-A39F-3BBF3FF31763.jpeg

[Etienne1973]

I wished they have a VSTi editor for the FM-X!

Also happy Yamaha MODX owner here.
I'm using John Melas Montage/MODX tools to edit my MODX performances remotely via computer.

[EnGee]

I wished they have a VSTi editor for the FM-X!

Also happy Yamaha MODX owner here.
I'm using John Melas Montage/MODX tools to edit my MODX performances remotely via computer.

I have them installed but didn't try them yet

If you can edit the parameters remotely, that would be great I can send midi msgs from my midi keyboard, so I can use it like a rack if I want to

But the editing is not that difficult really. The problem is the touch screen is not sensitive like our phones.

[BONES]

For years the big selling point of hardware synths was actual hands on controls

I have always felt the exact opposite. From the DX-7 onwards, hardware synths became progressively less easy to use and the really big attraction of moving ITB was that softsynths have everything much more to hand than hardware ever had. And I say "ever" because in the 70s you had synths with one control per parameter but no means of recalling settings, so you were much worse off as a performer and/or in the studio. That's why hardware started to lose all the front panel controls - because the market saw that as a more than acceptable trade-off for all the other goodies on offer from more modern synths.

[wagtunes]

For years the big selling point of hardware synths was actual hands on controls

I have always felt the exact opposite. From the DX-7 onwards, hardware synths became progressively less easy to use and the really big attraction of moving ITB was that softsynths have everything much more to hand than hardware ever had. And I say "ever" because in the 70s you had synths with one control per parameter but no means of recalling settings, so you were much worse off as a performer and/or in the studio. That's why hardware started to lose all the front panel controls - because the market saw that as a more than acceptable trade-off for all the other goodies on offer from more modern synths.

^^^THIS

Control over hardware synths in the early days was HORRIBLE. I know. I was there. Ever try to do any kind of substantial control over an ARP Odyssey when playing a gig in real time while at the same time playing fast runs? Good luck with that. And no patch saving AT ALL.

And then, when they finally made it so that you could actually call up a patch, like with the DX 7, well forget it. That interface for real time control was a joke. Forget about even trying to program that thing with any ease at all.

And by the time the big workstations came around (M1, Triton, etc) the menu systems were so convoluted you needed an engineering degree to figure them out. Real time control? Sure, if you were a f**king octopus.

Never again would I go back to that hell for all the tea in China.

[machinesworking]

For years the big selling point of hardware synths was actual hands on controls

I have always felt the exact opposite. From the DX-7 onwards, hardware synths became progressively less easy to use and the really big attraction of moving ITB was that softsynths have everything much more to hand than hardware ever had. And I say "ever" because in the 70s you had synths with one control per parameter but no means of recalling settings, so you were much worse off as a performer and/or in the studio. That's why hardware started to lose all the front panel controls - because the market saw that as a more than acceptable trade-off for all the other goodies on offer from more modern synths.

^^^THIS

Control over hardware synths in the early days was HORRIBLE. I know. I was there. Ever try to do any kind of substantial control over an ARP Odyssey when playing a gig in real time while at the same time playing fast runs? Good luck with that. And no patch saving AT ALL.

And then, when they finally made it so that you could actually call up a patch, like with the DX 7, well forget it. That interface for real time control was a joke. Forget about even trying to program that thing with any ease at all.

And by the time the big workstations came around (M1, Triton, etc) the menu systems were so convoluted you needed an engineering degree to figure them out. Real time control? Sure, if you were a f**king octopus.

Never again would I go back to that hell for all the tea in China.

I guess I'm biased because I've owned a Memorymoog since I was 18, bought it with the $1200 I got when my grandmother died. Patch saving, no hidden controls you would want to control anyway.

I agree with both of your points though, DXY's etc. and the late 80's 90's were terrible for hands on control, and the lack of patch saving is a big turn off to me in the 70's synths. I've only been kind of interested in modular synths, but mostly I liked the MM, the OB series etc. poly synths with patch saving.

Even the Xpander, I'm getting a bit sick of it, I've been attempting to use it with the Linnstrument and MPE, theoretically possible, all six voices can be set up to recieve pitch, plus a CC or two, but it's super touchy.

I'm going through a "cut the BS" phase where if something isn't integrating into my studio perfectly, I'm ready to sell it. MPC Live and Maschine Studio are both boxed, the Rise 49 as well. The Xpander is probably next.

[BONES]

OK, then, your MM has patch memory and lots of controls. How does that go when you change patches and all of your controls are in the wrong position? How is that not even worse than having to go menu diving to find parameters? That's a big part of why I got rid of my Minilogue and Monologue.

[AnX]

OK, then, your MM has patch memory and lots of controls. How does that go when you change patches and all of your controls are in the wrong position? How is that not even worse than having to go menu diving to find parameters? That's a big part of why I got rid of my Minilogue and Monologue.

if you create a sound and save it to use in a performance, why would it matter where the controls are? if you are using it live, you prob only use PB and MW anyway....

[BONES]

What if you want to rip the resonance up/down for effect and you can't assign it to the mod wheel? It's far too clunky, even when you are just trying to find a sound and tweak while writing/arranging/mixing.

[AnX]

then you just rip it up and down, it's not difficult

when you are doing it in a writing situation, it matters even less

[BONES]

The problem is that if the knob is at the extreme right but the patch has almost no resonance on it to start with, it will suddenly jump up to full res as soon as you touch it or it wont' do anything until you get the knob in the right spot and you'll miss your cue.

[zzz00m]

Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

Yes.