Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[BONES]

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.

The more I use RePro 5, the more convinced I am that there is absolutely nothing at all special about it. And yet it is capable of making some amazing sounds. It kind of does my head in because it shouldn't be able to sound as good as it does - the oscillators are nothing special and the filter is actually quite poor. And yet...

It's weird.

[e-crooner]

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.

The P10 sounds nice here:

[fisherKing]

when i was a kid, my brother had a lot of hardware synths (my faves: the obx, which KILLED the ob-xa, and the jupiter 8; the juno 60, an arp odyssey, many others were great, too). i loved playing with those things... but wouldn't trade my software synths for anything. between modern synth capabilities, being able to use multiple instances of a synth, automating details, recalling settings, and the joy of carrying it all around on a laptop... i can't imagine wanting to go backwards.

so, 'yes'.

[e-crooner]

As good as modern synths may sound, they won't bring back good music, I'm afraid...

[BONES]

Which is why it's up to us to make good music of our own. The synths are just tools.

[EnGee]

I believe that "good" music or any kind of music is more available now! Just choose your favorite and listen.
The same applies on the tools and instruments. Frankly, I don't see any problem. Some things in the past are better, but some things are better now.

The only problem I see is some people don't want to understand different opinions. They can't see colors, but only black and white!

[BONES]

I can't think of anything from the past that's better. The further back you go, the worse it gets. I was working on a cover of Soft Cell's version of Tainted Love over the weekend and Marc Almond's voice sounds like it was recorded in a public toilet. The production on the rest of it is less than fabulous, too, which I am finding with pretty much all the covers I've been working on (42 as of last evening, with four more in the works). None of them have the clarity or punch of even my rough mixes. In fact it is amazing how really bad some of them are but until you listen to them with your producer's ears on, you tend not to notice because of your emotional connection with them.

[glokraw]

you tend not to notice because of your emotional connection with them.

Very true!

Watch the audience clips, you won't find emotional connection like that very often.
Cheers

[SneakyBeats]

Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

Not really.. They more like complement each others.

Only thing might be that Blofeld and Largo are almost the same, but still Blofeld sounds a bit different.. Most probably thanks to my mixer.

[Tj Shredder]

As good as modern synths may sound, they won't bring back good music, I'm afraid...

Oh, there is good music also very good new music. And why bring back? At least recorded music is never lost nowadays. The only problem is the amount of bad music is rising faster than the good music thanks to the affordability of tools and the ease of distribution. And money is in marketing and not in the quality of music... (corrupted playlists instead of curators with taste...)
Hardware can help to focus... I don’t believe in a difference in sound quality of HW vs. Software... Its easier to get an emotional connection to HW. That can help the musical expression... But that is all in the mind, not in the bits and bytes, and that is fine...

[recursive one]

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.

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.

There might be different variants of workflow, I developed the one which I think suits me best and it's actually manageable but the limitations of the hardware are still there, no matter how you look at it (only one instance per time being probably the main one, also other minor things that add up as the projects become bigger and more complicated).

If I had more time for making music I'd use my hardware more because I think the sound is still worth it but since it's just a little hobby for spare hours I cut corners where I can, otherwise I'll have my tracks finished by 2025 at best.

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.

Current softsynths can almost fully replace my Virus and Microbrute and while they sound somewhat different this is not what will make or break the track. But on the other hand there are some pecularities in their sound to whcih I'm really attached. It's something entirely emotional and personal but it's still there.

Basically this is why I'm mostly using softsynths but still keep my hardware till better days.

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.

Gotta check these out someday.

[chk071]

Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

Not really.. They more like complement each others.

Only thing might be that Blofeld and Largo are almost the same, but still Blofeld sounds a bit different.. Most probably thanks to my mixer.

I found that Largo sounds a bit brighter when I compared them side by side when I had the Blofeld here. The differences were so minimal, and the advantages of the softie so big that I sent back the Blofeld, as it just didn't make sense to me to keep them both.

Still, if I was in the hardware market, it would probably be my fav of the digital synths, because it's a great package for the money. Very few controls though and lots of menu diving. And "only" 25 voices compared to Largo's 256 with a single instance...

[SneakyBeats]

Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

Not really.. They more like complement each others.

Only thing might be that Blofeld and Largo are almost the same, but still Blofeld sounds a bit different.. Most probably thanks to my mixer.

I found that Largo sounds a bit brighter when I compared them side by side when I had the Blofeld here. The differences were so minimal, and the advantages of the softie so big that I sent back the Blofeld, as it just didn't make sense to me to keep them both.

Still, if I was in the hardware market, it would probably be my fav of the digital synths, because it's a great package for the money. Very few controls though and lots of menu diving. And "only" 25 voices compared to Largo's 256 with a single instance...

Might also be that Blo is a hint darker. Maybe.. Hard to tell

Still I haven't felt the urge to sell my Blo since I like it. Has a lovely Waldorf tone.

[chk071]

Yeah. I love Waldorf.

[AnX]

Marc Almond's voice sounds like it was recorded in a public toilet.

it may well have been