Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[Cro-magnon]

I know it sounds better than any plugin for this kind of simple analog pads/polysynths.

If you think you know that, then you know nothing because I can guarantee you that in a blind test, neither you nor anyone else would pick it from a dozen low-end (sub-$50) VSTi, doing something similar.

Sure you know the absolute truth...

From a man who use a Uno synth and a Focusrite audio interface and who's claiming a CS-80 is crap,it is pretty hilarious.
You suffer from a superiority complex,I guess.
Man,you should change your pseudo for 'Mother of all Gods'.

[Cro-magnon]

And funny that you're saying you know the Alpha Juno when you just tried a few minutes in a shop,when I work every day with it.

[ScrLk]

Is there indeed a psycological element to all this?
I remember seeing my first Prophet 5 on a friend's table in 1982. It sounded wonderful. I couldn't imagine how much better it would sound if someone actually plugged it in and played a note or two.
Ther seems to be an expectation that something that looks like a musical instrument and also has impressive lights, knobs and switches in profusion is going to be superior to an anonymous black box.

The reason I believe there is this bias is because I also feel like hardware boxes sound better, even when it's a 90s digital rompler...

Plus, it doesn't sound as good anymore once it's an audio recording.

Yeah, you’re just taking crazy now. I’m with you if you’re saying that a perfect 1:1 emulation of an analog classic isn’t quite here yet, but of a 90s ROMpler? :lol: Hilarious. Also, if you’re recording doesn’t sound exactly the same as it did as it was being played, I’d suggest that you’re recording method sucks.

I also feel like it’s short sighted to look at all the progress software has made in the past 15 years and to not think that it’ll be perfect in the near future.

We're indeed talking about the psychological aspect here, or what you perceive between your ears. As far as I know no one is exempt from these kind of effects.

It's also the reason why Diva was made to look so red... it generally makes us feel it sounds warmer, subconsciously. Urs posted about this.

The term for this is psychoacoustics.

[dellboy]

In the past they abandonned analog because digital was something new,that's all.

Its hard to believe now but at the time every manufacturer of analogue synths was trying to make their synths sound like real world acoustic instruments. I well remember going into a music store in the late 70s and the salesman was going through presets saying stuff like " listen to the chiff on the flute - its so real". Of course we just call it analog white noise now.

The ultimate goal of analog synth emulation was the piano, so when the Yamaha DX7 came along it was game over for analog. A few years after that along came S+S (sample plus synthesis) in the form of the Korg M1 and Roland D50 and I sold my Roland Juno 106 for next to nothing because no one wanted them any more. We all wanted our romplers to be as close to real world instruments as possible. I had a friend who bought every new rompler that came out chasing the elusive goal of realism.

What has changed today is fashion. People now appreciate the unique sound that analog can do.

[ScrLk]

The M1 piano is appreciated for what is now too. It's a good way to look back on all this.

[chk071]

We're indeed talking about the psychological aspect here, or what you perceive between your ears. As far as I know no one is exempt from these kind of effects.

It's also the reason why Diva was made to look so red... it generally makes us feel it sounds warmer, subconsciously. Urs posted about this.

Seriously? Hive and Zebra gotta be cold then.

Really, I never perceived Diva any warmer just because the GUI is red... in fact, if not for the Moog osc's and filters, I would say that it's a tad on the cold side. Urs seems to dig that sound, Bazille and Hive are similar. AFAIK he likes Korg synths, which aren't the warmest synths on the planet.

[zvenx]

I actually think he likes the Roland sound, which is a huge part of why I love his synths so much.

For instance:

viewtopic.php?p=4201282#p4201282

viewtopic.php?p=3716150#p3716150

viewtopic.php?p=4738903#p4738903


and to yours (Korg)

viewtopic.php?p=5399361#p5399361

rsp

[dellboy]

The M1 piano is appreciated for what is now too. It's a good way to look back on all this.

I bought a Korg M1 in the early 90s and spent ages trying to improve the piano programming. It was pointless because you were stuck with the onboard samples.

I guess other people realized its limitations and invented the classic "house piano" sound instead.

[zerocrossing]

CS-80 sound bad too. Just use your ears and listen what did Jarre or Vangelis in the past with their vintage synths,and compare this music to the actual trap or EDM made with plugins.

That’s an unfair argument. While the technology changes, so does the fashion. Look at what Eric Clapton did in comparison to Jimi Hendrix with the same guitars. I imagine EDM made with hardware instruments would probably still sound much the same... but harder to produce. That is something that you can’t deny. Sitting down and being able to draw all sorts of crazy automation lanes is clearly in the realm of software. Of course MIDI has been around since the late 70s in one form or another, but the ease at which it can be manipulated has never been higher.

[zerocrossing]

I know it sounds better than any plugin for this kind of simple analog pads/polysynths.

If you think you know that, then you know nothing because I can guarantee you that in a blind test, neither you nor anyone else would pick it from a dozen low-end (sub-$50) VSTi, doing something similar.

Sure you know the absolute truth...

From a man who use a Uno synth and a Focusrite audio interface and who's claiming a CS-80 is crap,it is pretty hilarious.
You suffer from a superiority complex,I guess.
Man,you should change your pseudo for 'Mother of all Gods'.

I think the road we go down in these threads has a lot to do with not giving a sh!t about the sound of an analog synth, which is fine, but should not be confused with some idea that the sound is inferior or has been perfectly modeled in the digital realm. I’ve got a friend who loves Dunkin Donuts coffee. He really doesn’t actually like coffee. He likes cream and sugar. The quality of the coffee is irrelevant because he’s had so much sugar and half and half added to it that it would be impossible to really tell what the initial coffee was like, and I imagine the answer to that is, “bad.”

I get it. I used to be that guy. My first coffee was bad office coffee that was laden with cream and sugar and really only consumed because it was free and I wanted the caffeine. Over time, though, I got the chance to try different coffees and means of making coffee. Now I can appreciate the differences between the same bean variety with the same roast but grown in different places. Many would spit out the espresso shots (that they call “expresso.”) in horror and claim that their Caramel Macchiato is way superior. To them, it is. There’s no law that says you even have to like coffee of any kind, but if you said, “coffee is horrible,” you’d only be stating your opinion and nothing else. Even among coffee aficionados, there will be differences of opinion based on variety, climate, roast, etc.

So go ahead, and use plugins. I love them too, but I’m also flexible enough to realize that they are different animals.

[gentleclockdivider]

Both are made with software and digital samples running on dedicated hardware. It's just code, exactly like a VSTi. Any difference you think you hear is purely your imagination. That is especially true of the TG 77, which uses a highly compressed sample ROM that's not going to be a match for even free Kontakt instruments or Zampler soundsets. And as I've owned both a DX9 and a CS2x, I know exactly how the two engines in a TG 77 sound.

Once again this shows you are totally clueless (like most of the time ) .
I am not talking about the rom in the tg 77 , are you even aware how the operators and it's sine + variants are processed in the tg77 ( that goes for al yamaha fm synths ) ? .
The sines are not just code like any vst , its a quarter sine stored in a lookup table
You know how to operate a dx9 and a cs2x ( I dont question that ) , then you logically conclude you know the tg77 because it has an fm + rom engine
The tg77 is abit more complex then a dx9+cs2x combined , the feedback routings are out of this world and I am not just talking about the 3 available feedback loops or awm elements as modulators .
THer is a certain option in the awm engine : awm=Internal , this way an AWM element is replaced with the WHOLE fm strucuture in itself available as modulator , for feedback Mayhem
Combine this with loopable envelopes that go into audio rate , ZEro hertz operators with phase adjustment for waveshaping, good sounding filters etc..
You can pretend to know how it works but I am sure you don't have the slightest idea
In the meantime hang on to your ego

[e-crooner]

I don't even consider it a low-end synth, its minimalist exterior is deceiving. I would not mind having an Alpha 2, together with one of those optional programming units

Are you kidding me? It is just about as basic as it gets - a single oscillator synth, with a sub, a low-pass filter, one LFO and one envelope. At the time, you could get a multi-timbral, 3 osc per voice ESQ-1 for about the same money.

So what, "low-end" to me is about quality. The Alpha specs you listed are the same as those of the great classic Juno's.

[iPlogger]

I haven't read the entire 37 pages (just 1st page and last). I'm somewhat new to softsynths, having started a little over five years ago. I was all hardware before that (did try using the iPad for a few years), starting in 1986 with the ESQ-1. A lot of my goal was to simplify my live setup. I was carrying too much heavy equipment back and forth for too many years and was growing tired of it. I started buying lighter hardware keyboards (controllers around 15 to 16 lbs is half the weight of the Korg I had been using).

Moving to softsynths has been great for me and my needs. I can easily carry my entire setup under my arm (unless I'm using two keyboards). I can swap in/out different controllers and still have my same sounds available.

Also, my wife definitely does not like all the space hardware takes up. I told her the other day I was buying a new synth (Spire) and she was concerned how much space it would take in the house.

[chk071]

30 Megabyte.

[vurt]

I haven't read the entire 37 pages (just 1st page and last). I'm somewhat new to softsynths, having started a little over five years ago. I was all hardware before that (did try using the iPad for a few years), starting in 1986 with the ESQ-1. A lot of my goal was to simplify my live setup. I was carrying too much heavy equipment back and forth for too many years and was growing tired of it. I started buying lighter hardware keyboards (controllers around 15 to 16 lbs is half the weight of the Korg I had been using).

Moving to softsynths has been great for me and my needs. I can easily carry my entire setup under my arm (unless I'm using two keyboards). I can swap in/out different controllers and still have my same sounds available.

Also, my wife definitely does not like all the space hardware takes up. I told her the other day I was buying a new synth (Spire) and she was concerned how much space it would take in the house.

noob.
main benefit of software over hardware...
no need to tell the wife you are buying even more musical equipment!