U-he repro vs phase plant

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Pragmatics rules my world, not myths from either side. An example: Above half of a tune of ours is based on emulating accoustic instruments. So that is a must. Now what to use? Hardware or Software? Answer: What friggin ever gets the job done.....and preferably as much of it to choose from as your wallet and living room can cope with. Thus, we have hardware physical modeling synths, Technics WSA-1, Korg Prophecy, Yahama MU100/VL70 with BC1, and we have software too, like Reason Studios Friktion + RE Sampleplayers + Refills. Who would be the clown of the day to suggest we should skip some of it because it ain't hardware or software? Interesting stand, but it ain't gonna happen.

[ghettosynth]

Yes, the hardware is always better than software argument is dead, but so is the software can replace all hardware argument. Neither are true, absolutely.

I'm not sure that argument was made by anyone, but in a project/recording studio where lots of musicians come and go hardware certainly has a lot of advantages on a purely practical basis...I don't want people on my computer!

Agreed, I wasn't suggesting that anyone had actually made that argument, only that the arguments being made were perceived that way.

Contextually there can be advantages to either. To argue, however, that controllers + software are equivalent to any hardware that creates similar sound glosses over the differences.

I think that the only time that this would be true is when the controller is, in effect, just the hardware controls of the instrument exported to a separate box. Even then, however, it loses something.

The old Roland controllers PG300, PG200, PG800 used to be the only way to get your hands physically on the controls of the synth. They are, in essence, pre-historic dedicated midi controllers. While there is no direct comparison as those synths were never made with full panels, they are not "as good" as having a properly designed front panel. They are small and cramped, they move about when you use them. They are movable with respect to the controls that are on the instrument. Is that an advantage, sure! Is it also a disadvantage, yes.

[SLiC]

I think people just like arguing, and any thread that opens 'all synths sound the same' was click bait for an argument That said, there has actually been some interesting stuff in this thread and I have learned a lot (guest appearance by UHE always helps!)

We live in interesting times, the birth of MPE and Midi2, super cheap 'analogue' hardware, software companies putting their software 'in' hardware (M+ etc) or building hardware synths (IK, Arturia etc). Then of course we have the big 'hardware' manufacturers like Roland and Korg producing plug ins! It's all blurring together, but it definitely doesn't all look, sound or feel the same to me!

[pdxindy]

but so is the software can replace all hardware argument. Neither are true, absolutely.

As @Bones suggested, you can equally find software that cannot be replaced with hardware, so unless someone is foolish enough to let this be a question of amount of irreplaceable gear, no side has reason to suffer more than the other, especially since you just can buy both if you feel you need to. Who has ever told you to choose one above the other?

Which is an irrelevant argument when Bones claims software is superior in every way. To refute that, one only has to demonstrate a single instance where it is not true. That is not saying anything about all cases.

You are entering into a discussion in the middle and perhaps assuming some things. Nobody has been saying software sucks, hardware is superior, and so on.

I've said more than once that I love my software synths. They do stuff I cannot do in hardware. I also love my hardware synths and they do stuff that cannot be done in software. For example, the previously mentioned Pulsar-23... also my Voltage Research Lab is fairly unique. IMO, analog distortion is also still not equaled in sound quality by digital emulations (at least to my satisfaction). Go check out the euro-module 100 Grit ( ). I also get wonderful results from the analog distortion and analog compressor in my Rytm... so gritty and grungy without a hint of digital harshness. So I am glad to have both!

[pdxindy]

No, but you generally act like you are defending universals and myths about hardware instead of just inform people of your own preferences, so they can compare them to their own and others themselves.

In otherwords, you are reinterpreting my literal meanings based on your own likes and dislikes and then arguing with yourself. Better just leave me out of it then and just write comments from both 'sides' of your internal argument.

[ghettosynth]

but so is the software can replace all hardware argument. Neither are true, absolutely.

As @Bones suggested, you can equally find software that cannot be replaced with hardware, so unless someone is foolish enough to let this be a question of amount of irreplaceable gear, no side has reason to suffer more than the other, especially since you just can buy both if you feel you need to. Who has ever told you to choose one above the other?

Which is an irrelevant argument when Bones claims software is superior in every way. To refute that, one only has to demonstrate a single instance where it is not true. That is not saying anything about all cases.

Ah, that's right, BONES was making the absolute argument. So I amend what I said, "almost nobody here is making that argument."

BONES is a bit of an extremist around here. If you want to know what your opinion is on something, just ask BONES, he'll tell you. I like having him around TBH, by contrast, he helps me appear more reflective, careful, and flexible.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

In otherwords, you are reinterpreting my literal meanings based on your own likes and dislikes and then arguing with yourself. Better just leave me out of it then and just write comments from both 'sides' of your internal argument.

Nope. No interpretation needed. Either you refer to your own preferences as such or try to put them forward backed up by myths about superiority of hardware. To me, it surely seem to be the latter, given the trivial arguments by which you try to convince Bones.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Which is an irrelevant argument when Bones claims software is superior in every way.

Does he? So one side say that the other side say that hardware or software is superior. If asked, however, none of them say so. Remember what wrote about attacking own strawmen instead of each other? Such discussions are of no practical value to me other than realizing how different people's needs can be and maybe also their lack of ability to help themselves from generalizing from themselves to 9 billions people on Earth.

[plexuss]

Just came in to catch up... uh... *backs away slowly*

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

is also still not equaled in sound quality by digital emulations (at least to my satisfaction).

"At least to my satisfaction" is the key here. You do not need further to justify yourself, certainly not universals about whether all software in the world can compete. You hardly have time to try it all anyway.

Think of it this way: If you counter someone who openly claims that all software in the world are superior to any hardware with exceptions, you kind of accept the premise that such a discussion makes sense in the first place, and your counter examples will as easily be taken as arguments for the opposite, namely that hardware is superior. Better stay out of it and just move ahead then. I do not put my head that much into it, but surely the tactile aspect of controllers have reached a point, where it works instantly and simultanous to other hardware for me. Not for you, maybe, and even nobody else. That is all I really can say and then just compare with your preferences to get a wiser on other contexts and views than my own.

[pdxindy]

In otherwords, you are reinterpreting my literal meanings based on your own likes and dislikes and then arguing with yourself. Better just leave me out of it then and just write comments from both 'sides' of your internal argument.

Nope. No interpretatin needed. Either you refer to your own preferences as such or try to put them forward backed up by myths about superiority of hardware. To me, it surely seem to be the latter, given the trivial arguments by which you try to convince Bones.

Your own words say otherwise... words like "you generally act like" and " it surely seems to be" - those are interpretations and not just directly quoting my written words. And it is obviously intepretation on your part cause you are claiming I am saying something I don't agree with

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Correct interpretations then, given what you say. Your statements take form of generalizations, Hardware is X, software cannot do Y, and not; I prefer hardware because my needs are Z. Now read my last post above instead to get some honest advice on this pointless dichotomy.

[pdxindy]

is also still not equaled in sound quality by digital emulations (at least to my satisfaction).

"At least to my satisfaction" is the key here. You do not need further to justify yourself, certainly not universals about whether all software in the world can compete. You hardly have time to try it all anyway.

Some things are measurable and still subjective. RePro 5 is a more accurate emulation of a Prophet 5 than some previous Prophet 5 emulations. There is no question about that, but even taking this as a fact, a particular individual might have found an older emulation entirely satisfactory, and may even prefer the older synth.

Digital emulations of analog circuits have come a long way in recent years. In various regards they are pretty close these days. Distortion is one of the areas where the emulation still falls significantly short (meaning they don't sound the same). Take that as a fact and still someone might prefer digital distortion. That is why I said "At least to my satisfaction". There is a difference but whether that difference matters to each individual is subjective.

Hardware synths have some advantages. For example, the hardware synth doesn't use up my computer CPU. Whether those advantages are outweighed by the advantages of software synths, or whether those advantages aren't applicable or meaningful to a particular person based on their interests/needs/workflow is all subjective.

You are quite new the KVR. I am fairly certain that within 6 months or so, you will be worn out trying to interpret and manage other peoples words.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Since anything related to software synths goes in this thread, I can confirm that I bought Hive today. After 6 years away from software in returning, there is a jump in evolution to me. Instant mapping by Panorama P4 and HUUUGE sound with no more heavy CPU use than other cool VSTis. It is all just WOW to me. I am not going to sell my hardware synths, they will just be more related to jamming and a few recording jobs occasionally.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Some things are measurable and still subjective. RePro 5 is a more accurate emulation of a Prophet 5 than some previous Prophet 5 emulations.

Does not matter if the sound of the RePro is not your thing. It is pseudo objectivity. The brain has to process, classify and value any stimulation, so there is no subjective sound pleasure build into such stimulation nor universal practical value. Depends on upbringning, preference and culture.

Hardware synths have some advantages. For example, the hardware synth doesn't use up my computer CPU. Whether those advantages are outweighed by the advantages of software synths, or whether those advantages aren't applicable or meaningful to a particular person based on their interests/needs/workflow is all subjective.

Yes, subjective. Therefore you cannot count features and claim they are superior to people, just whether there are more or few of them, which really says nothing.

You are quite new the KVR. I am fairly certain that within 6 months or so, you will be worn out trying to interpret and manage other peoples words.

Yeah whatever you need to say to yourself. However, point is that to me that your venture is hopeless if you continue to make universals of value of gear this way. On one hand, you line up objective features, on the other, you agree it is all subjective. Why not stay with the subjective then? What is it you want to say to whom? What difference does it make to you or anyone else? I am picky about basses and have for many years preferred analogs. Why would I need to discuss this with anyone in the first place, even if he said that all analog basses can be emulated to perfection? What would I gain from that? What do you gain by discussing such with Bones by using universal expressions yourself? To me it is all like