Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[cryophonik]

For the most part, they have. Although, I'm never going to part with my Virus.

Same here

I did a dumb thing and sold my 61-key TI2 when I took a break from music production a few years ago and wanted to downsize my studio. Now I want to buy a TI2 desktop, but it still doesn't support Catalina or Big Sur and Access hasn't even bothered to tell its users if/when it will, even though they continue to sell them as Mac-compatible.

[recursive one]

I have 2 HW synths, Virus TI and Arturia Microbrute and I think they both sound really amazing, but I have noticed long ago that I'm far more productive (i.e. actually have chance to finish some tracks) when I use only softsynths. Basically, using hardware requires planning the track structure in advance while 100% ITB process is far more spontaneous and flexible.

That's exactly the problem I see with a hardware workflow. I like to stay flexible.

I thought about getting the Behringer Model D the other day, but, hell... I wouldn't really go along well with the complete inability to recall settings, or having to bounce it the whole time. For the 1% it would still give me over Monark, there's just too many trade offs.

I love the bass on your track BTW. Spot on.

I cherish the hope that when my production abilities become better that "planning a track in advance" thing will become a workflow enhancement rather than a limitation. Then I'll be able to let my hardware shine. Maybe.

As for now, I do think Virus and Microbrute have an edge, sonically, over softsynths doing similar things which I clearly hear when I play these synths in isolation but with my current mixing abilities this difference mostly disappears in an actual mix.

I use my hardware as a sort of sonic reference when I'm making sounds with my software synths, borrowing cetrain sound-design ideas I've learned or developed with the hardware and using external effects to get the kind of tone I want.

That bass is Sylenth btw

Now I want to buy a TI2 desktop, but it still doesn't support Catalina or Big Sur and Access hasn't even bothered to tell its users if/when it will, even though they continue to sell them as Mac-compatible.

That sucks...

Virus still works fine (if it ever worked fine) with my Win 7 tho

[BONES]

I have 2 HW synths, Virus TI and Arturia Microbrute and I think they both sound really amazing, but I have noticed long ago that I'm far more productive (i.e. actually have chance to finish some tracks) when I use only softsynths. Basically, using hardware requires planning the track structure in advance while 100% ITB process is far more spontaneous and flexible.

Why? How do you sequence your hardware. I'd have thought if you use your DAW for the sequencing bit, then hardware would be no less productive. It was always the sequencers in my workstation synths - M1, O1R/W, Trinity - that were the limiting factor for me.

[recursive one]

I have 2 HW synths, Virus TI and Arturia Microbrute and I think they both sound really amazing, but I have noticed long ago that I'm far more productive (i.e. actually have chance to finish some tracks) when I use only softsynths. Basically, using hardware requires planning the track structure in advance while 100% ITB process is far more spontaneous and flexible.

Why? How do you sequence your hardware. I'd have thought if you use your DAW for the sequencing bit, then hardware would be no less productive. It was always the sequencers in my workstation synths - M1, O1R/W, Trinity - that were the limiting factor for me.

I sequence it with a DAW, pretty much the same as the softsynths.

But the problem is that while I can change a softsynth part on the fly at any stage, a hardware part stays in audio once it's recorded. If I want to change some notes of filter settings or automation or anything I have to re-record the whole thing.

With no patch memory in the Brute this becomes pretty comlicated. I take photos with my phone as a workaround, then I have to match the knob settings by the photo.

I sequence the Virus with the vsti plugin, but here's another problem, when the project becomes big enough turning the Virus audio back into the plugin output becomes pretty much unreliable, it will crash the DAW every now and again.

[chk071]

That bass is Sylenth btw

Knew it!

Just kidding... I actually thought it was the Virus.

Sounds nice anyway, software or hardware.

[clipnotic]

I don't get why people, especially producers, are still using hardware, if they already need the DAW to control them? For the price of many "good" vintage or modern hardware, you'll get several of the best available VSTs on the market and if you can progam them, you'll never miss your hardware stuff. I started with and had many of the vintage and modern "popular" Hardware Synths, Drum Machines, Hardware Sequencers and so on, but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices, endless instances, endless synthesis, endless modulation possibilities, endless everything!

[whyterabbyt]

I don't get....

Okay.

you'll never miss your hardware stuff.

But I would. Dont try and interpret what you've just admitted you dont understand. Or speak for other people who do understand it.

[recursive one]

I don't get why people, especially producers, are still using hardware, if they already need the DAW to control them? For the price of many "good" vintage or modern hardware, you'll get several of the best available VSTs on the market and if you can progam them, you'll never miss your hardware stuff. I started with and had many of the vintage and modern "popular" Hardware Synths, Drum Machines, Hardware Sequencers and so on, but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices, endless instances, endless synthesis, endless modulation possibilities, endless everything!

Some pieces of hardware have their own sound which is not replicated, or not replicated well enough, by current software.

Also

Endless voices, endless instances, endless synthesis, endless modulation possibilities, endless everything!

More doesn't always means better and endless possibilities may actually mean much longer way to an actually good sound. I wish current softsynth deleopers vere more focused on making synths that would have pleasing tone and interesting sound character rather than packing each and every imaginable feature into one synth.

[BONES]

But the problem is that while I can change a softsynth part on the fly at any stage, a hardware part stays in audio once it's recorded. If I want to change some notes of filter settings or automation or anything I have to re-record the whole thing.

OK, so you record the part early on? Why not leave it until the very last thing? That way it remains as flexible as anything else for the duration of the process.

With no patch memory in the Brute this becomes pretty comlicated. I take photos with my phone as a workaround, then I have to match the knob settings by the photo.

Yes, precisely why I would never own a synth without patch memory, except Rocket, which is so stupidly simple it doesn't really need it.

I sequence the Virus with the vsti plugin, but here's another problem, when the project becomes big enough turning the Virus audio back into the plugin output becomes pretty much unreliable, it will crash the DAW every now and again.

Not good. I only use my hardware live, so I never render anything, and it works really well with my laptop. I'd like to incorporate the hardware more than I have in the past but it's tricky when we don't record with it and I want to make sure the songs sound close to the same on stage as on Spotify.

I don't get why people, especially producers, are still using hardware, if they already need the DAW to control them? For the price of many "good" vintage or modern hardware, you'll get several of the best available VSTs on the market and if you can progam them, you'll never miss your hardware stuff.

You're assuming money is a motivator but that's not the case for everyone. And hardware is nowhere near as expensive as it used to be.

I started with and had many of the vintage and modern "popular" Hardware Synths, Drum Machines, Hardware Sequencers and so on, but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices, endless instances, endless synthesis, endless modulation possibilities, endless everything!

I'm the same but I still like to have hardware. It's nice to sit on the couch with Uno or Rocket on my lap and just play around. If all I ever did was production then, sure, I wouldn't need or want any hardware but I am not just a producer, I am also a songwriter, a musician and a performer and for those three things, hardware definitely has its place.

Some pieces of hardware have their own sound which is not replicated, or not replicated well enough, by current software.

I see that as an excuse more than anything. Or, at the very least, a strange way of looking at things. It is certainly not something I would say about any hardware synth I have ever owned. I consider it mostly interchangeable and I've never owned any hardware synth I thought sounded so unique that I'd never be able to replace it with something else.

I wish current softsynth deleopers vere more focused on making synths that would have pleasing tone and interesting sound character rather than packing each and every imaginable feature into one synth.

This is something I totally agree with. That's why I love bx_oberhausen so much - it sounds great. I have no idea if it sounds like a real SEM, AFAIK I've never seen or heard a real one, but it just oozes character. I'm a bit the same way about Union - it gets a hard time from a lot of people but to me it has a fantastic sound that always gives me what I need from it. With just those two synths and some drums I could happily make music for the rest of my life.

[cryophonik]

I don't get why people, especially producers, are still using hardware, if they already need the DAW to control them? For the price of many "good" vintage or modern hardware, you'll get several of the best available VSTs on the market and if you can progam them, you'll never miss your hardware stuff.

I still own hardware synths for the same reason I still own basses, and guitars, and a violin, and a duduk, and percussion instruments, and,...... If you still don’t get it, maybe there’s an app on your phone that can help you understand why many people enjoy owning and using an actual musical instrument.

[THE INTRANCER]

I wasn't expecting when had made this thread that I'd actually have Dune 3 this year, but it did get me thinking about how far I could possibly replicate the sounds on my own hardware synths to its unique signature patches. That would be quite interesting I would think. I could cheat this as one of my synths does have sampling/SD loading from SD card functionality, which does actually open a new door to the hardware / software debate... As for making music, I did spend over 3 and half years making music with a Playstation control pad from 1997 to 2000. It was fun but very inhibitive at the same time, so really one had to approach it like programming a machine rather than having an integral spiritual expressive connection that one has by playing an instrument like a keyboard for example. Using a mouse to program and control how a VST operates isn't too dissimilar from that sort of way of working today, so what felt natural then prior to 2000, isn't like a foreign language in which to find difficult in transposing to.

I guess it depends on how your brain has been wired.

[_leras]

But Repro 5 is not an emulation of the Prophet 6.
Does the Prophet 6 sound exactly like the old Prophet 8?

It's not the P6, but you just have to watch some videos of the new P5 and you can hear it has an edge over Repro.

I used Repro A LOT this year with some outstanding results, but felt I could hear the difference. It's small.. but I think still material.

[_leras]

I don't get why people, especially producers, are still using hardware, if they already need the DAW to control them? For the price of many "good" vintage or modern hardware, you'll get several of the best available VSTs on the market and if you can progam them, you'll never miss your hardware stuff. I started with and had many of the vintage and modern "popular" Hardware Synths, Drum Machines, Hardware Sequencers and so on, but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices, endless instances, endless synthesis, endless modulation possibilities, endless everything!

Endless everything except better sound...?

Software is undoubtedly easier to program in some ways, but real synths can have advantages too.

Hands on control can make it much easier to learn an instruments range and explore new sounds, and can also lead to better 'performance' of parts, or expression of parts. Recording several takes to get modulation changes can be much better than programming curves in a saw, even though that has its place.

And then regarding the sound, for me there is still a difference, especially for lead or exposed parts. E.g. a quite cheap second hand Waldorf Pulse can make some real ripping leads that I honestly haven't heard anything like in the box. It can't do everything, but it does some things excellently.

[_leras]

I sequence it with a DAW, pretty much the same as the softsynths.

But the problem is that while I can change a softsynth part on the fly at any stage, a hardware part stays in audio once it's recorded. If I want to change some notes of filter settings or automation or anything I have to re-record the whole thing.

With no patch memory in the Brute this becomes pretty comlicated. I take photos with my phone as a workaround, then I have to match the knob settings by the photo.

I sequence the Virus with the vsti plugin, but here's another problem, when the project becomes big enough turning the Virus audio back into the plugin output becomes pretty much unreliable, it will crash the DAW every now and again.

You have to commit to the final part you want at some point whichever way you do it. So just a bit more focus on getting a part right while you're creating it, or leaving the synth with that patch until you finish enough of the track might help. Need a different approach than software though.

I'm sure I can't be alone in thinking that it's worthwhile practising some parts before playing and recording them?

And surely you can dial the brute back in, at least close enough, fairly quickly?

Separately, i think quite a few people bounce TI out via the audio, that might fix your problem, even if a bounce takes a bit longer.

[gentleclockdivider]

I wasn't expecting when had made this thread that I'd actually have Dune 3 this year, but it did get me thinking about how far I could possibly replicate the sounds on my own hardware synths to its unique signature patches. That would be quite interesting I would think. I could cheat this as one of my synths does have sampling/SD loading from SD card functionality, which does actually open a new door to the hardware / software debate... As for making music, I did spend over 3 and half years making music with a Playstation control pad from 1997 to 2000. It was fun but very inhibitive at the same time, so really one had to approach it like programming a machine rather than having an integral spiritual expressive connection that one has by playing an instrument like a keyboard for example. Using a mouse to program and control how a VST operates isn't too dissimilar from that sort of way of working today, so what felt natural then prior to 2000, isn't like a foreign language in which to find difficult in transposing to.

I guess it depends on how your brain has been wired.

If casio arranger keyboards and playstations are your only reference of hardware
Seriously , what else you've got ?