What hardware is replacable by vst and which isn't?

[BONES]

That's a specific, I'm talking more generally. I am not focused on one thing or another, I just want to do things the best possible way, for the best possible outcomes, so I am not going to waste time on things that clearly offer no useful advantage.

[roman.i]

I think hardware analog synths sound much more interesting than their emulations when taken to extremes.
I have the Behringer Neutron, and I don't think there is any modular emulation comes close to that sound.
But not many genres need these type of experimental sounds. My hardware synths are in the closet now,
the agility of software is much more important. So if you want some unique sounds, get a modular
or a semi modular fully analog synth.

[Burillo]

synths are perfectly reproducible by VST effects, this question is silly. there's nothing that prevents a good-enough model to perform the same way hardware can.

on the other hand, talkbox isn't doable as a VST FX. you can get close with a vocoder or a formant filter, but you're going to be limited in what you can do. this is because it relies on performer's mouth.

[chk071]

synths are perfectly reproducible by VST effects, this question is silly. there's nothing that prevents a good-enough model to perform the same way hardware can.

Define "good enough". There's still a lot of "analog modelled" plugins without audio rate modulation out there. And enough which don't behave the same as their analog counterparts when you push them with more extreme sounds. Actually, I'd even say that there is not a single analog emulation which behaves exactly the same as the analog synth it is based on. And there never will be.

Don't get me wrong, I don't say that stops anyone from doing good music with software. I'm just saying that there's a certain limit to what you can achieve when you emulate real world things. With everything. There is no racing simulation which behaves the same as a car behaves in the real world either. It's all an approximation. With 1/1000 of the variables going on in the real world. Close enough? Maybe. The same? No way.

[Burillo]

Define "good enough". There's still a lot of "analog modelled" plugins without audio rate modulation out there. And enough which don't behave the same as their analog counterparts when you push them with more extreme sounds.

whether it has (in your opinion) has been done successfully in the past is besides the point. there's still no fundamental magic in any hardware synth that cannot be replicated with software.

Actually, I'd even say that there is not a single analog emulation which behaves exactly the same as the analog synth it is based on. And there never will be.

that's a very strong claim. care to substantiate it?

Close enough? Maybe. The same? No way.

that's a distinction without a difference. "close enough for all practical purposes" is a thing. arguments like these remind me of that guy who told Urs that because a tape plugin doesn't model electrons in magnetic particles, that therefore a plugin can never ever be a faithful tape reproduction. that's just magical thinking.

[mcnoone]

I just realized that there are hardware synths replacing hardware synths.
That's a problem.
We must stop this.

[Scotty]

Sonically I don't think there are any synths that can't be modelled well. Pushing a mouse on a laptop screen will get you there but a really well thought out hardware synth with minimal menu diving (or easily accessible) is worth having in my opinion. It doesn't have to devolve into an analog verses digital conversation. My Hydrasynth is really well thought out, everything is accessible, the mod matrix is intuitive and sound design is enjoyable and fun. It is worth having that here for that reason alone. A VST version of it, ( unless paired with some kind of identical controller), could sound the same but the experience of working with it wouldn't do it justice. On the other hand something like Korg's new Wavestate is so parameter rich and knobbage so lacking relative to abundance of parameters, that a VST version of it with a tabbed interface and good overview of the parameters is almost necessary in order to get the most out of it. Yes, an editor would do it as well but you might as well just have the VST at that point and save on the hardware costs.

[pdxindy]

That's a specific, I'm talking more generally. I am not focused on one thing or another, I just want to do things the best possible way, for the best possible outcomes, so I am not going to waste time on things that clearly offer no useful advantage.

You are free to approach life in that manner. I would say that there is no single best possible way or best possible outcome. Certainly not that applies to all individuals and all circumstances. Life is beautiful in its diversity.

[pdxindy]

Define "good enough". There's still a lot of "analog modelled" plugins without audio rate modulation out there. And enough which don't behave the same as their analog counterparts when you push them with more extreme sounds.

whether it has (in your opinion) has been done successfully in the past is besides the point. there's still no fundamental magic in any hardware synth that cannot be replicated with software.

Are you talking theory or practice? In theory, hardware can be duplicated by software. In practice, it has not been done yet.

When I p-lock the analog distortion and compressor in my Analog Rytm, the tones that come out can be so grungy yet not a hint of harsh digital edge or aliasing. Nothing I have tried in software can match that result.

Same with analog modular and audio rate modulations. There is a crisp (infinite) resolution that is really pleasing to my ears.

But hey, if the software is fully satisfying for you, use it! It's great that we have all these tools, both software and hardware! No way I want to give up software synths and same for hardware ones.

[Scotty]

Are you talking theory or practice? In theory, hardware can be duplicated by software. In practice, it has not been done yet.

Do some blind listening test and you'd be far less confident in your comments. I have 3 Moogs here for example (each slightly different than the other) and the Monark would fit in their place with no problem at all. Universal Audio's modelling of the Avalon 737s right to the inputs are indistinguishable to my 737s SPs as are their LA2As and 1176 models. I also have Neumann Microphones and I used Townsend Lab Sphere's now. They are near perfect and superior in some ways given what can be done in post. EQ algorithms were at parity at least 10 years ago. I have my share of original gear - tubes and transformers here. I don't let the expensive gear and lineage convince my ears that the software hasn't arrived. It most certainly has. I still like the hardware but I won't lie to myself to justify their expense. That kid with the laptop has access to the tools I have and I think that is just great.

[pdxindy]

Are you talking theory or practice? In theory, hardware can be duplicated by software. In practice, it has not been done yet.

Do some blind listening test and you'd be far less confident in your comments. I have 3 Moogs here for example (each slightly different than the other) and the Monark would fit in their place with no problem at all.

Ahh.. I didn't communicate my point clearly... I didn't mean at all, but rather in all cases. There are plenty of use cases where emulations are as good in a practical sense... and various cases not. When you push things to the extreme, there is still a distinct difference.

And of course in the practical sense, the closer an emulation gets, the more cpu is needed to do so and then that is its own problem.

I have the Moog Matriarch. Nothing in software matches it. Monark cannot do all the different modulations possible with all the many patch points. Monark cannot just patch in some external audio into the mixer, or then make a feedback loop with it and ringmod it, or route the output of the delays back into the mixer, etc., etc. Adding all that capability would increase cpu significantly and make it impractical.

Then there is the immediacy and hands on nature of the physical interface. No midi controller is near as good as the 1:1 interface with big controls like the Matriarch. That is an important part of emulation too, cause in realworld use, being able to easily control stuff in realtime affects the sonic results.

[Ploki]

as far as signal processing and synths go, imo all hw is replaceable

[Scotty]

Are you talking theory or practice? In theory, hardware can be duplicated by software. In practice, it has not been done yet.

Do some blind listening test and you'd be far less confident in your comments. I have 3 Moogs here for example (each slightly different than the other) and the Monark would fit in their place with no problem at all.

Ahh.. I didn't communicate my point clearly... I didn't mean at all, but rather in all cases. There are plenty of use cases where emulations are as good in a practical sense... and various cases not. When you push things to the extreme, there is still a distinct difference.

OK , understood, thanks for clarifying. Yes I agree with the hardware patching aspects and the hands-on advantages of hardware . In terms of Matriarch not being equalled, it has been emulated yet. So you are citing as evidence something which hasn't been attempted. Regarding not sounding the same at the extremes... that is also no longer true. I have done stupid comparisons with my hardware compressors and EQs and the the earlier models couldn't do it convincingly. Not true now. The latest models that attempt to perfectly represent the classics are up to it.

Also I would point out that sonic nirvana wasn't realized in hardware. Software can do the emulations but when they are unfettered by arcane historical references they easily surpass what came before in workflow and sonics. I'll leave it there. Respectfully you might want to demo some of the latest emulations of the original hardware. It sounds to me that you made up your mind in 2007. Things have evolved.

[pdxindy]

Regarding not sounding the same at the extremes... that is also no longer true. I have done stupid comparisons with my hardware compressors and EQs and the the earlier models couldn't do it convincingly. Not true now. The latest models that attempt to perfectly represent the classics are up to it.

Ahh... yeah, I am mainly talking about (and experienced with) synths. And by extremes, I mean audio rate modulations, feedback loops and distortion, plus combinations of.

Respectfully you might want to demo some of the latest emulations of the original hardware. It sounds to me that you made up your mind in 2007. Things have evolved.

My mind is open and flexible. My profession was photography (retired from paid work) and I started with film. IMO, digital has surpassed film in every meaningful way. That is what I would say based on my experience in the field. Maybe someone who does lots of darkroom work would say otherwise.

I've tried most of the latest synth emulations and I have a variety of analog hardware. I don't live in past conclusions. I still hear a difference... today. If I stop hearing a difference, I will say so. I'm neither nostalgic nor sentimental on the subject. Also, to clarify, I don't care that much if an emulation is a perfect tweak by tweak match to the original as much as I care that the spirit of the medium is captured.

I'm very glad to have both hardware and software. Purism doesn't interest me.

[EvilDragon]

I have the Moog Matriarch. Nothing in software matches it. Monark cannot do all the different modulations possible with all the many patch points. Monark cannot just patch in some external audio into the mixer, or then make a feedback loop with it and ringmod it, or route the output of the delays back into the mixer, etc., etc. Adding all that capability would increase cpu significantly and make it impractical.

But Monark Blocks can do a whole lot more.