Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[zerocrossing]

...but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices,

Not unless you’re into endless freezing.

endless instances,

See above.

endless synthesis,

Wut?

endless modulation possibilities,

Until you reach the end.

endless everything!

Plugins are great, but unless you’re using stuff from 2005, a lot of the better stuff is going to tax your CPU no matter how good it is, especially if you’re doing live recording and want to run at a decently low buffer size. Of course you can freeze tracks and other stuff, but I’ve made patches in Reaktor Blocks that bring my CPU to its knees. (Running at at 96 kHz so the audio rate modulation sounds smooth.) Then, when you start running effects on top of your plugins... well, you get the idea.

Software is great, but let’s not pretend it is without flaws. Today I was playing with Knifonium and I kept thinking of how well it held up next to actual analogs. Of course, I was running it as a mono synth, because with any polyphony it just created a lot of buffer overruns. Having a Prophet 6 near by to create a pad bed so that I don’t need another high quality analog emulation is handy.

[BONES]

...but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices,

Not unless you’re into endless freezing.

endless instances,

See above.

You'll run out of hardware voices way, way sooner than you'll run out of CPU power, guaranteed, and unless your hardware is multi-timbral, you'll only be able to use a single instance. i.e. It will only play one patch at a time.

The good thing about using multiple instances of the same synth in a host application is that, after you add the first one and the engine is running, adding extra instances usually doesn't add a whole heap of extra strain to your resources. e.g. If I add one instance of Knifonium, choose a CPU-hungry patch and play a short pattern, it shows 50% CPU usage. But I can add two more instances, with different settings and different patterns and the CPU usage doesn't change at all. So using multiple instances of the same synth is a really good way to make the most of whatever CPU power you have available.

OTOH, when your hardware runs out of voices, that's it, you're done.

Software is great, but let’s not pretend it is without flaws.

Well, I'm straining my brain and I can't even think of one. It gives me far more power in a far more portable form than any hardware could ever hope to have done. Even if I factor in the cost of my laptop, I/O device and MIDI controller, on top of the cost of the software I use, the whole bundle is still only around half the price of a Prophet 6.

Today I was playing with Knifonium and I kept thinking of how well it held up next to actual analogs. Of course, I was running it as a mono synth, because with any polyphony it just created a lot of buffer overruns.

Not here. Using the preset Bowed Analog, I get 38% from a single voice and it goes up to 43% by the time I increase that to four voices. That means it can match the polyphony of my Analog Keys for one-tenth of the price and still leave plenty of CPU for the rest of the arrangement. Better still, where Analog Keys just stops dead at four voices, I can add a second instance of Knifonium and get more voices when/if I run out. And that is the no. 1 most CPU intensive VSTi I own. WIth somethign like ArcSyn, not only can I do things your Prophet 6 can't do, like stack 384 sawtooth waves, doing that and then playing a four note chords barely uses 10% of my available CPU.

Having a Prophet 6 near by to create a pad bed so that I don’t need another high quality analog emulation is handy.

But if you'd spent that money on a better computer, you'd be better off again. Imagine how expensive software could be if every voice of polyphony available cost you $500!?!

At the end of the day, use what you want, what makes you happy and productive, but don't for a minute pretend that there is any objective reasoning behind it if you choose to use hardware.

[EnGee]

...just curious ...If Largo is very similar to Blofeld -

what would be 2nd best VSTi - the closest to Waldorf Blofeld - spec/modulation/multi-timb.. wise ??

Very similar when you match feature for feature, but Largo doesn’t have all the features of a Blofeld. If memory serves, Largo is missing the sample import abilities and the PPG filter emulation. The effects on Largo are a bit better as well. Someone once posted a side by side and frankly I felt like Largo sounded a touch better, but very close. Also, they never got LFO MIDI sync right on the Blofeld, but it’s fine on Largo.

The sample import is only for the keyboard version as I remember. Anyway, Largo is the closest synth to blofeld. The most noticeable difference is the presets! The presets of blofeld are really nice and usable. They cover a wide range, while most of the presets in Largo are hit or miss. The browser and how to find a sound is also a main difference. In Blofeld I could find the sound in seconds, while Largo is not that easy!

Programming both is very similar and I could actually control Largo from the hardware Even the wavetables order are the same! Except there is just a difference in numbering (just "one" literally like No. 23 in Largo and it is No.24, something like that). Oh and Blofeld has one layer but in Largo 4 and Blofeld has a limited polyphony of 24 (might be 16, I don't remember now).

The Blofeld keyboard is really a nice synth. Sometimes I regret selling it. It has a very good keyboard (keybed) and I could programmed my own presets with not much effort. But at that time I felt Largo is enough especially I also liked the original Massive (and still), so I felt Blofeld is not necessary.

I have now just one hardware synth (Yamaha MODX 6). It is more than a blofeld as it has also great samples of Pianos ..etc. It also has 128 polyphony (64 for FM X). However, Blofeld has a better physical build quality (it built like a tank!).

I use the software synths but I love my MODX and use it as well. I can find nothing to replace it (FM X and the tons of instruments sounds) as one package. I don't care for how realistic sample libraries are in software as finding and loading the sound I want, takes few second with no CPU, space, or memory cost! Sequencing and producing the track however, are without a question done in my PC (Cubase or Live). I don't need any hardware for sequencing and recording.

The hardware is about convenience if you know how to choose it and set it up with your workflow. It doesn't matter if it is analogue or digital! The important thing is how connected you are with this piece of hardware and how much you like it and if course if it is useful, in your opinion, in your setup or not.

[buzz1]

...but since years I can do everything and much more with my VST and DAW setup. Endless voices,

Not unless you’re into endless freezing.

endless instances,

See above.

You'll run out of hardware voices way, way sooner than you'll run out of CPU power, guaranteed, and unless your hardware is multi-timbral, you'll only be able to use a single instance. i.e. It will only play one patch at a time.

The good thing about using multiple instances of the same synth in a host application is that, after you add the first one and the engine is running, adding extra instances usually doesn't add a whole heap of extra strain to your resources. e.g. If I add one instance of Knifonium, choose a CPU-hungry patch and play a short pattern, it shows 50% CPU usage. But I can add two more instances, with different settings and different patterns and the CPU usage doesn't change at all. So using multiple instances of the same synth is a really good way to make the most of whatever CPU power you have available.

OTOH, when your hardware runs out of voices, that's it, you're done.

Software is great, but let’s not pretend it is without flaws.

Well, I'm straining my brain and I can't even think of one. It gives me far more power in a far more portable form than any hardware could ever hope to have done. Even if I factor in the cost of my laptop, I/O device and MIDI controller, on top of the cost of the software I use, the whole bundle is still only around half the price of a Prophet 6.

Today I was playing with Knifonium and I kept thinking of how well it held up next to actual analogs. Of course, I was running it as a mono synth, because with any polyphony it just created a lot of buffer overruns.

Not here. Using the preset Bowed Analog, I get 38% from a single voice and it goes up to 43% by the time I increase that to four voices. That means it can match the polyphony of my Analog Keys for one-tenth of the price and still leave plenty of CPU for the rest of the arrangement. Better still, where Analog Keys just stops dead at four voices, I can add a second instance of Knifonium and get more voices when/if I run out. And that is the no. 1 most CPU intensive VSTi I own. WIth somethign like ArcSyn, not only can I do things your Prophet 6 can't do, like stack 384 sawtooth waves, doing that and then playing a four note chords barely uses 10% of my available CPU.

Having a Prophet 6 near by to create a pad bed so that I don’t need another high quality analog emulation is handy.

But if you'd spent that money on a better computer, you'd be better off again. Imagine how expensive software could be if every voice of polyphony available cost you $500!?!

At the end of the day, use what you want, what makes you happy and productive, but don't for a minute pretend that there is any objective reasoning behind it if you choose to use hardware.

Superb post Bones.

[whyterabbyt]

Today I was playing with Knifonium and I kept thinking of how well it held up next to actual analogs.... Having a Prophet 6 near by to create a pad bed so that I don’t need another high quality analog emulation is handy.

You misspelled 'costly.'

But if you want to spend £2K on a hardware synth in case you run out of softsynth CPU, that's definitely your perogative. Though actually I guess its an example of where modern VST instruments have replaced hardware synths, when that hardware is being relegated to the supporting roles.

[AcrossTheSky]

I guess largo would be quite a good learning tool then.Lets say ... knowing largo inside out would speed programming Blofeld I imagine. I pulled a trigger on Blofeld.{300£)
Should arrive in about 10days.
Looking forward to using it with my keystep Pro.I'll use the drum track with 12sounds loaded plus 3 sequences/arps.
Hope to have no sync issues.
Somewhere I read the black version has been improved ..if it ships with latest firmware .it'll be a good sign.... hopefully..

[S950]

Over the last year I sold about $10k worth of hardware synths and an MPC. Ergonomics became a problem and I found if things weren’t in arms’ reach I wouldn’t use it. I bought 4 VSTi in the NI U-He sale and they’re great. Some VSTi are as good as hardware, and arguably better in some aspects (same can be said for hardware). With a capable controller (in my case a Pro 2) the physical interface is mostly fine. I have some external gear that I route VSTi to sometimes. Adding a hardware filter is another option if it makes one feel better to run sounds through an analog filter.

One area where I don’t think this applies is modular. Midi control of soft modular isn’t great, but I think software versions do sound very good. Going forward I will likely not buy more hardware synths, and direct that to hardware modular. I would be 95% fine with using software and a good controller, because the fidelity of things these days is incredible, and most listeners (streaming on smart speakers, car audio, Apple headphones) won’t have a clue and/or don’t care. I know very few people with a hifi component system these days and that will continue to shrink.

[zerocrossing]

Today I was playing with Knifonium and I kept thinking of how well it held up next to actual analogs.... Having a Prophet 6 near by to create a pad bed so that I don’t need another high quality analog emulation is handy.

You misspelled 'costly.'

But if you want to spend £2K on a hardware synth in case you run out of softsynth CPU, that's definitely your perogative. Though actually I guess its an example of where modern VST instruments have replaced hardware synths, when that hardware is being relegated to the supporting roles.

I don’t view it like that, a lush pad might seem like a supporting roll, but only in the sense that mortar is a supporting role in a brick building. Take it away...

Anyway, I’m more than in the camp of people who think that analog is something that is, or can be, perfectly emulated. I’m not one of those purists, that’s for sure. However, even the exalted Repro doesn’t quite get there, and is missing things like a high pass filter that I find invaluable in the Prophet 6. It’s sound is good, in a certain context, but it’s a more narrow and constrained kind of sound, and I appreciate the more open and wooly sound of the hardware for some things, especially in a sparse mix. The distortion aliases a lot too, so unless you’re down on the low end of the keyboard it’ll sound shrill while the Prophet sounds rich and harmonic with the distortion cranked. I think in the future, CPUs will be able to handle that extra bit of detail in a model, but I think it puts the current crop (maybe not the new Apple processors, I hear they’re amazing) of processors in a situation where they just can’t quite get there. I hope they do. My wish is to sit down at a desk with a Rise 49 and my 61 key controller, some computer monitors and my near-fields, and be able to do what I do now, but I can’t. Trust me, I’ve tried. At the most latency I can deal with, my i7 3.4 ghz machine will choke and still not quite get me there, especially when audio rate stuff and distortion is in the mix. Very close, though. Is it worth the cost? To me, yeah, but I do OK. As my dad (usually broke, a school teacher) always said, “it’s only money.” Lots of people blow their cash on way stupider things than synthesizers. I see people with $100K cars driving around my neighborhood and I’m getting to the same places in about the same time with my Ford Focus.

[Cro-magnon]

I have a Prophet 6 since a few weeks and yeah,Repro is pale in comparison,as are all the software emulations.Even my cheap Roland Alpha Juno 1 makes incredible PWM pads that I can't match with Diva.

[Jkist]

I have a Prophet 6 since a few weeks and yeah,Repro is pale in comparison,as are all the software emulations.Even my cheap Roland Alpha Juno 1 makes incredible PWM pads that I can't match with Diva.

Fair, but Repro costs just over 6% of what an actual Prophet 6 costs so...I would certainly hope the original holds some sort of edge over an emulation that costs pennies next to it lol. Still, I think the software stuff more than holds its own, and will sound just as musical to all but the most discerning. Depends on who you make music for I guess, or maybe playing with synths is just a hobby for you (this isnt me talking down in some weird way, I plan on purchasing a hardware synth soon for the simple purpose of just playing with it lol).

[ScrLk]

I have a Prophet 6 since a few weeks and yeah,Repro is pale in comparison,as are all the software emulations.Even my cheap Roland Alpha Juno 1 makes incredible PWM pads that I can't match with Diva.

I know anything you own as a box is cooler to use... but no one seems to be able to prove that it's actually better using objective measurements.

[whyterabbyt]

I have a Prophet 6 since a few weeks and yeah,Repro is pale in comparison,as are all the software emulations.Even my cheap Roland Alpha Juno 1 makes incredible PWM pads that I can't match with Diva.

I know anything you own as a box is cooler to use... but no one seems to be able to prove that it's actually better using objective measurements.

You describe appropriate ones, and we'll do the measuring.

[chk071]

That's the point, I think. It's already difficult to find words to describe sound. It's even harder/impossible to find "objective" measurements for better or worse sound.

Although I would say that software tech is undeniably much better today than it was, like, 10 years ago. Is it perfect? I doubt it. I also doubt that it will ever be perfect. Too many variables in the real world.

That doesn't matter much for me though, as in the box undeniably gives you a lot of benefits which outweigh 3 or 4 % better sound.

[SebAV]

Third: muscle memory. The longer you work with a particular setup, the more you can just impulsively reach and grab a particular knob when you want a particular sound to change. It feels very different from clicking over to the track you need to open and clicking one parameter at a time.

This is a good point, but let me offer a counterpoint here. Most softsynths have midi-learn capability now, so you can very quickly map the filter cutoff to a knob on your midi controller. The nice thing about this is that, thought the synth may change, your muscle memory of your midi controller remains consistent. As long as you map the same things between different synths, you will develop an instinctive workflow the same way you would with a hardware synth.

However this is obviously limited in a few ways, but still.

Exactly. Nevertheless I’d like a kind of « Roland system 8 » but only controler, a good (like ni kk or novation sl mk3) 5 octave keyboard, mod wheels on the left and not green

[excuse me please]

This:
https://www.thispatchdoesnotexist.com/