Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[ReleaseCandidate]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

The quality of some instrument (or anything else used in the studio) has nothing to do with the result.
Quality matters when you're playing live - but the built quality and the 'user interface', less the sound. And the weight and size.

[e-crooner]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

The quality of some instrument (or anything else used in the studio) has nothing to do with the result.
Quality matters when you're playing live - but the built quality and the 'user interface', less the sound. And the weight and size.

I disagree. The Junos, the Jupiters etc. had a quality sound that one can hear on many songs from the 80's.

[e-crooner]

Perfect example of that is Korg's Prophecy. I would take one of those over any analogue synth you care to name. It's an absolute classic. An1x was also highly sought after and is still popular. The Alesis Micron was also a beast, although it came a bit later.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

No, they made great music with them because they were talented, creative artists unconcerned over such irrelevancies. It simply didn't matter to them what synth it was, they just used whatever they could afford or get their hands on. Remember, back then the Holy Grails of synths were all digital - Fairlight CMI, EMUlator, PPG Wave. Those are the instruments all those artists would have used if they could have got their hands on them. That they made such great music with such limited equipment is a testament to them, not to Roland.

I've used this example before but Talk Talk was a band who used synths because that's all they could afford. So their first two albums are synth classics but once they could afford to leave them behind, that's what they did and they went on to even greater critical and commercial success. This fixation on particular synths is very much a modern thing, nobody cared back in the day.

Many artists did have access to Fairlight, Synclavier etc. After all, most of them didn't record their music at home like today, but in studios, many of which had such expensive gear. Yet, they continued to use Rolands, Oberheims etc. as well. Why? Because despite their capabilities, those expensive systems didn't have the warm sound of a $2k analog synth. Quincy Jones' studio was full of expensive gear, yet they also used classic analog synths on albums such as Thriller.

What you write about Talk Talk is wrong, we have had that discussion before...
Plus, they didn't replace the Jupiters with more expensive synths, they simply moved away from synth-based music, which was appreciated by critics, but not by the general public.

[vurt]

@bones again...
fair enough! just hurry up and do some of the vocals!!

relax is a superb track! ftgh did some awesome "club" music.
bit i can imagine that, done by you.
that's why i picked the two i did, can't imagine them in that style.
talking heads for example, had you said psycho killer, while i love the track, i can imagine it in an ebm setting, so wouldn't have been as interested regarding what you had done with it.

i like seeing the progress though, or rather, seeing you excited about the next one!! there's obviously inspiration happening like wildfire!



with a bit of luck, you might get out to perform this year
probably lots of aus gigs rather than world travel for now.

[e-crooner]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

And no, some people kept using such synths alongside later digital synths, samplers, workstations...

true, but same can be said about software.
Use what you have and / or enjoy. Simple as that.
It's not the tools that prevent you form making potential hit songs, regardless of what you use. Even with some old VSTi from 2000, despite definetly not sounding exactly like a 303 or Minimoog.
If you are creative and don't insist something has to sound 100% exactly like this or that, you will make awesome stuff regardless of what you use.
A 808 doesn't convince anyone it's a real drum set, a 303 is a lousy acoustic bass replacement, same goes even for some holy grails like a Minimoog if you want it to replace your grand piano.

And regarding differences between some of the best current analog emulations and the analog originals the differences are so f**king small in most cases it's not even worth having persisting arguments anymore.
Yes, in some areas there might be still some differences here and there, but they will surely not hinder you in any way unless you only want to make the ultra bleepiest resonance kind of music imaginable, or the most distorted stuff with analog flavor from the 60's.
And even then there's often help from additional VSTs which imo do their job pretty well where at least i am satisfied enough that i'm not convinced i could reliably tell in blind listening sessions whether the source is actual analog, or “merely“ a digital emulation even in areas i generally think true analog might still have an edge over emulations.

And then there's also the possibility that sometimes even unashamedly digital (or modern) or just “flawed / not 100% accurate emulations“ might actually sound *gasp* better or cooler than some dusty stuff from half a century ago.
Like it has been mentioned before, at one point, “noone“ wanted analog anymore. And now even early VA which were once considered “crap“ are having a renaissance because even they seemingly didn't sound that crappy after all.
A lot of it is just current trends and fashion and not “superior vs inferior set in stone“

I don't see things like that. To me the sound quality does matter a lot.
If a synth does not sound great and pleasant to my ears, I don't feel like using it in the first place.

[ReleaseCandidate]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

The quality of some instrument (or anything else used in the studio) has nothing to do with the result.
Quality matters when you're playing live - but the built quality and the 'user interface', less the sound. And the weight and size.

I disagree. The Junos, the Jupiters etc. had a quality sound that one can hear on many songs from the 80's.

My point is that that the sound 'quality' (almost) doesn't matter if the 'music' is good.
Great music is also great when played with a less quality instrument or badly recorded/mixed. Actually that is a sign of great music. If your music depends on the 'quality' of your sound, your music isn't what's good, but your instruments are

[e-crooner]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

The quality of some instrument (or anything else used in the studio) has nothing to do with the result.
Quality matters when you're playing live - but the built quality and the 'user interface', less the sound. And the weight and size.

I disagree. The Junos, the Jupiters etc. had a quality sound that one can hear on many songs from the 80's.

My point is that that the sound 'quality' (almost) doesn't matter if the 'music' is good.
Great music is also great when played with a less quality instrument or badly recorded/mixed. Actually that is a sign of great music. If your music depends on the 'quality' of your sound, your music isn't what's good, but your instruments are

I know what you mean, but I don't agree.
I don't want to eat a great pizza when I have to scrape and lick it from the floor
To me good music must have good musical content as well as good sound. Either one alone is not enough.

[FapFilter]

Yes, but what is “sound quality“?
It's like saying: only Alanis Morissette (which happens to be probably my favorite voice in popular music) can sound great.
But there are in fact a lot of other great singers.
And many songs i prefer over her's, despite often having some catchy choruses.
And of course even “bad singers“ can make a song good, particularly in something like punk, where an opera singer, who might actually have “the superior voice“ when you're talking about “sound quality“, might even be completely out of place, as long as this “bad singer“ does this “bad thing“ “good“.
This is just an extreme example, but there are so many things in between and most things that are commonly accepted as “de facto standards“ is that certain genres are expected to sound like something particular simply because some talented people once established this using “what they had / could afford / or simply thought “sounded good“
TL;DR: in the end, almost anything can sound good in the right hands, when someone knows what to do with certain sounds.
But just using “great“ sounds doesn't automatically make a song great.

[chk071]

Also about the same as an SH-09 or SH-101, just another in a long line of boring, unimaginative synths from Roland that people only bought in the 80s because they couldn't afford anything better. That's why everyone was happy to abandon that stuff for digital synths. It was very ordinary then and only looks even moreso today.

And yet they made great music with them because those were quality products, despite limited features.

The quality of some instrument (or anything else used in the studio) has nothing to do with the result.
Quality matters when you're playing live - but the built quality and the 'user interface', less the sound. And the weight and size.

I disagree. The Junos, the Jupiters etc. had a quality sound that one can hear on many songs from the 80's.

My point is that that the sound 'quality' (almost) doesn't matter if the 'music' is good.
Great music is also great when played with a less quality instrument or badly recorded/mixed. Actually that is a sign of great music. If your music depends on the 'quality' of your sound, your music isn't what's good, but your instruments are

I'm afraid that that is the same misconception I read so frequently here. The misconception that some people would think that only good sounding instruments would make their music sound good. I think it is more about software or hardware which sounds "right", which fits to my sound, which makes it easy to get good and inspiring sounds out of it. Which make the music creation process fun and easy.

Otherwise people wouldn't swear on Moog. Or Roland in this case. Many of my soft synths inspire me to work with them, instead of working and working and working, and not getting one inspiring tone out of them (I've been there, mostly with freeware). It's just an absolute waste of time.

[e-crooner]

I am very sensitive to sound, of both instruments and voices, but the two are rather different from each other, in my view.

Still, an irritating voice can ruin a song, Anita Baker is one such case. I strongly dislike her slurring, whining voice on higher notes, and the great music as such can't really compensate for that.

Likewise, a great voice can't compensate for a bad song.

'Anything goes' is not my motto. I have very clear views and won't shy away from judgment.

[AnX]

from my cold dead hands....

[AnX]

: in the end, almost anything can sound good

subjective

[vurt]

from my cold dead hands....

piece of shite. you can take it with you

[AnX]

from my cold dead hands....

piece of shite. you can take it with you

i waiting to get it back

[vurt]

do you use all the keys?
or just the fat ones?