Software vs Hardware Synth (better investment for beginners?)

[pdxindy]

Yes, that is what I said... hardware never runs out of CPU in a way I have to think about.

Except you do have to think about it, you just think about it at a different time. OTOH, I never have to think about it when I'm working ITB. It was one of the first big advantages I appreciated when I started dabbling in software - the freedom to be able to use as much of everything as I needed with virtually no limits, after years of having to carefully ration the polyphony of my workstations - M1 (32 voices across 8 parts), O1R/W (32 voices across 16 parts) and Trinity (35 voices across 18 parts) - to make sure there were enough for all the parts I needed, which included drums for the Trinity.

Right... you are describing your experiences and I am describing mine. They are different and that is just fine.

I really liked the software drum machine Tremor. I thought it sounded great and I was very satisfied with it. One instance of it brought the machine I had to its knees. Depending on the settings/sounds, I sometimes couldn't use all 8 pads/engines. It was a constant dance with CPU crackles. My Analog Rytm on the other hand, I have never once had to be concerned about that. I can use all 8 voices in any way and there is never an issue. I don't have to think about it at all. Plus the analog distortion and compressor on the Rytm makes tones not available in software.

So we each have different tools, interests, aesthetics, etc. There is no one right answer that fits all people.

I've read hundreds of your posts over the years. What I consistently notice is that you have this underlying idea that if someone is smart and practical that they would eventually come to the same conclusions as you and if they don't then you consider them stupid in some way. Nearly every post of yours is shouting that assumption. It colors everything you say.

I have a friend who is an amazing artist. A natural talent! They use paper and various pens and pencils. Someone could argue why not use a tablet and stylus? You have unlimited undo, as many layers as you want, selection tools, ability to move and or edit stuff in ways never possible. The computer simply doesn't interest them for their art. There just is no one right answer. That is a good thing!

And of course you are free to keep thinking others are idiots for finding value and enjoyment in using hardware synths. The world is big enough for Bones to be Bones

[BONES]

I just downloaded the Tremor demo and tried it out. I filled the grid with notes - 8 pads x 16 notes for a bar and CPU use in Task Manager was between 10% and 10.5%. Trying a range of presets, CPU was between 1.5% and 3.5%. Hardly the end of the world. I didn't think I'd like it but it actually sounds quite nice. I'm not sure you can buy it any more, though, but you can still run it in demo mode.

[revvy]

I'd also point out that in 20 years of working ITB, I have never come close to running out of CPU

but...

Sorry, I'm not ready for Hexeract to be relegated to page 2 of my feed so I'm going to have to give it a boost. I'm thinking of using it to replace some of my more CPU heavy synths, in an effort to be able to use my Core i5 Surface Pro 2 on stage, instead of my big laptop.

Maybe you could use HW to replace some of your more heavy CPU SW synths? You know, to stop you running out of CPU in your Windows 'box'.

[JCJR]

I don't dislike analog synths but plumbed the palette deep enough to get "blah" about it long ago. So a computer plugin emulating an analoig synth would have no more attractiveness to me than hardware analog synth. I mean, analog hardware synths are OK but I mostly use digital hardware synths.

I've always viewed computer/sequencer program, or hardware sequencer, controlling a bunch of hardware synths as practical distributed processing. Even back in the 1980's era with C64 or Mac Toaster sequencers, or crude sequencers built-in to Ensoniq keyboards.

[johnwoo]

I like and use a lot software , crazy sounds I get from my vst synths ... But my joy is my Korg M3 with Radias exb inside and my Yamaha EX7 ... Karma from Korg M3 still amaze me every time I use it .

How so? How, for example, is it more powerful/useful than probablity sequencing like you get in Pigments or Studio One?


Play some notes and move a slider on Karma . That notes transform from a cocoon to a beautiful butterfly ... Multiply that x4 and from a band you will have after some changes an full orchestra .
Do that with pigments , please

[pdxindy]

I like and use a lot software , crazy sounds I get from my vst synths ... But my joy is my Korg M3 with Radias exb inside and my Yamaha EX7 ... Karma from Korg M3 still amaze me every time I use it .

How so? How, for example, is it more powerful/useful than probablity sequencing like you get in Pigments or Studio One?

Karma is way more sophisticated. It is a kind of smart arpeggiator that responds to your playing through a sophisticated set of algorithms. It is interactive in a way nothing else quite is. Users can make their own setups. However, I doubt many users ever figured out to make their own. It is on the complicated side. Can be very impressive though. A street performer who knew how to use it could do amazing spontaneous stuff with it.