Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[pekbro]

If I didn't buy hardware that interests me, I'd only spend my money on weed.
One can only buy so much weed...

[ghettosynth]

If I didn't buy hardware that interests me, I'd only spend my money on weed.
One can only buy so much weed...

This is totally a fair point.

[pekbro]

If I didn't buy hardware that interests me, I'd only spend my money on weed.
One can only buy so much weed...

This is totally a fair point.

[Sound Mechanics]

It's a progression... sooner or later the love of synthesis and curiosity will take a hardware or software user to the other side I have used soft synths since the early days (think Steinberg Neon) and like the organisation and ease of having umpteen synths running, synchronised and saved together for perfect recall. Eventually though, I had to buy a few hardware synths to see what they were like for myself. I've bought and sold software and hardware over the years but still use both now. I think it's true that the hardware experience adds another dimension to creating music even if the sound can be replicated in a computer... they're just fun to play around with. That being said when it comes down to knocking out a new track, software makes life a lot easier - just different ways of going about the creative process. So to answer the question its a no... I like both!

[foosnark]

I used to noodle on hardware synths but make music -- sporadic and not very polished -- on computers. VST synths were mostly a refinement of that, and I got more serious, put in more practice and got a lot better, though not more focused. And I lost all interest in hardware for a while.

Then on a whim, I got a Microbrute to replace a dead MIDI controller, and found I really loved it. In hindsight, it was the combination of simplicity and immediacy, the dedicated controls. The more I used it, the better I knew it and the more I could get out of it. Other hardware that I tried at the time was just kind of irritating, because it wasn't like that... I might as well use software.

Then I got into Eurorack, and it was a revelation. It felt like that was what I was supposed to be using. I found my voice!

But mixing in the DAW and software FX are important to me -- if I had to go DAWless I would probably just never record anything.

[jancivil]

In 2003 I got some back payment that was due, so my first efforts at making a DAW were sort of possible. I bought a DX7 at the pawn shop, wasn't a lot of money, and Absynth [my first soft instrument period] that summer. the DX7 was not a good controller for other instruments particularly and my halcyon days with it were not getting recaptured, and the possibilities with Absynth 2, NI's first version were practically infinite (and generally speaking the FM (ratio/FM index/yadda) was more powerful). There is no Absynth, or Reaktor et al in a box that isn't a computer, so...
oh, also not really convinced by software anything in '03 I bought a Roland rack thingy, one of the XV line. which had a couple of ok patches but really wasn't getting me off at all. So I left that whole concept behind 18 yrs ago.

Before the modern DAW, if I wanted to hear my ideas I was reliant on other people's money and to get other people to work for me, or it was these more-or-less-from-tape music constructivist modi operandi on a 4-track tape and practically everything is committed to right away. You did it live and if it was recording you did it first take, maybe take two/false start. Now I realize all my ideas right there and can edit them til I die. Oh, sorry, there was some tape editing on the block on the face of the Otari mastering deck, actual physical scrub/grease pencil/razor blade/scotch tape. Loop points in hex on a display the size of my thumb for samples to get any sustain portion at all in lovely 8-bit resolution. good times.
there is no comparison for me.

[pdxindy]

I used to noodle on hardware synths but make music -- sporadic and not very polished -- on computers. VST synths were mostly a refinement of that, and I got more serious, put in more practice and got a lot better, though not more focused. And I lost all interest in hardware for a while.

Then on a whim, I got a Microbrute to replace a dead MIDI controller, and found I really loved it. In hindsight, it was the combination of simplicity and immediacy, the dedicated controls. The more I used it, the better I knew it and the more I could get out of it.

Then I got into Eurorack, and it was a revelation. It felt like that was what I was supposed to be using. I found my voice!

But mixing in the DAW and software FX are important to me -- if I had to go DAWless I would probably just never record anything.

I love hardware... but when I say hardware, I am very particular about the hardware I buy/use.

Years ago I used to have a few workstation type hardware synths. I think the workflow is horrible with endless layers of menu diving. Softsynths are like 100x's better for easy fast sound design. I would never buy something like that again.

But 1:1 (or nearly) control to parameter interfaces on hardware is an entirely different thing. My Moog Matriarch is a joy to use. Also, analog offers something digital does not in terms of sound. Some people would disagree with that statement, but to my ears, the difference is distinct.

I also love my Analog Rytm... the functions, analog circuits and hardware interface lead to outcomes I would never get with software tools even if in theory it were possible. A mouse and screen is a poor way to control a sequencer.

And in the past few months, I have gotten into Eurorack. Like you, I love it. The sound quality is astounding!

I would never want to go DAWless... I find a lot of productive pleasure in using the DAW and it is unmatched for ease of recording and manipulating tracks, midi editing, etc. I really enjoy turning on audio recording and playing with one of my hardware synths. Then I chop that audio into useful pieces to play back via Sampler or comp into grooves and so on.

I'm glad to have all these tools at hand!

[jancivil]

:But 1:1 (or nearly) control to parameter interfaces on hardware is an entirely different thing.:

very true, and we see people endlessly chase after it trying to make a more generic key controller into that. fortunately I don't particularly need it

[SLiC]

I just picked up a Roland TR-6S for £269- I think its a cheaper way to get the ACB (circuit model) 808, 909, 606 etc the using the Roland VSTs (Cloud subscription!) so in some cases a hardware synth has replaced modern VST Instruments

[BONES]

First, being able to use it live with both hands easily. The single touch nature of mouse driven software is a limitation here.

Not really. If you are playing it live, you will have at least one hand on the keys anyway, only leaving one had free to do anything else. That free hand can just as easily work a mouse as a slider or a knob. Then there are MIDI controllers, which allow you to interact with softsynths in pretty much exactly the same way you interact with hardware, even better than hardware if it's an MPE controller. And well-programmed macros will allow you to affect multiple parameters at once with your softsynths anyway. Finally, most hardware isn't knob per function, so often softsynths are easier to use. In fact, the only hardware synth I have owned in the last 30-odd years that I would consider easier to work with than softsynths is my Waldorf Rocket. Beyond that, I'd have to go all the way back to my Korg Delta, SH-101 or ARP Axxe in the mid-80s. Everything after that was just a pain in the arse.

Related, multitouch isn't really a solution because the physical nature of knobs has some advantage in some cases. Again, I'm talking about live performance, not programming.

I dunno, things like a big X-Y pad on your touchscreen could be very useful, even without multitouch.

All in all, I'm over most live hardware. I like the maschine hardware and I combine it with a simple mixer controller that gives me level+ control over eight channels. I use that effectively for live stuff.

Really? The last thing I want to be doing on stage is f**king about with levels. I make sure that all that stuff is taken care of by the sequencer, even if I need to automate levels here and there. Any minor tweaks I might need to do I will do with the volume knob on the hardware itself or, as a last resort, with a compressor/limiter.

If I didn't buy hardware that interests me, I'd only spend my money on weed.
One can only buy so much weed...

This is totally a fair point.

Really? I find it rather pathetic.

I think it's true that the hardware experience adds another dimension to creating music even if the sound can be replicated in a computer... they're just fun to play around with.

Yeah, nah. The most "fun to play around with" I have experienced is using my Seaboard to play Equator. It shades absolutely any experience I have ever had with hardware.

[BONES]

But 1:1 (or nearly) control to parameter interfaces on hardware is an entirely different thing. My Moog Matriarch is a joy to use. Also, analog offers something digital does not in terms of sound. Some people would disagree with that statement, but to my ears, the difference is distinct.

Then you ears are lying to you because what you're saying is just bullshit. Could I get any of my software to exactly replicate the sounds I get from my Analog Keys or Uno Pro? 95% of the time, of course I can. Easily. The other 5% is because of the analogue distortion built into those hardware synths. I know there are people around here who cling onto that fact for dear life, using it justify every extravagance, but the reality is that for what I use that distortion for, I can do so much better with software. The reality is that my hardware desperately needs that distortion to cover for it's glaring shortcomings in the face of a softsynth that can summon 384 saw waves to make thick, moving timbres. So for every one of those sounds that my software cannot precisely replicate, it offers me 1,000 much better sounds that don't need to rely on that distortion to sound good.

I also love my Analog Rytm... the functions, analog circuits and hardware interface lead to outcomes I would never get with software tools even if in theory it were possible. A mouse and screen is a poor way to control a sequencer.

Really? The sequencer in my AK, which I imagine is very similar, is the most convoluted, unintuitive pile of shit I've ever come across and pretty much every review I've seen or read complains about its impenetrability. I honestly cannot get my head around the mindset that would see that thing as useful, much less as good as you find it. The only advantage I can see in it is that being able to change patches per note allows you to use your limited voicing in very useful ways but when you compare it to the virtually unlimited voicing we enjoy in software, it definitely seems like a massive kludge - a clever way of getting around the severe limitations of the hardware.

[ghettosynth]

First, being able to use it live with both hands easily. The single touch nature of mouse driven software is a limitation here.

Not really. If you are playing it live, you will have at least one hand on the keys anyway

Nope. That is a very narrow and outdated perspective on what it means to play an electronic instrument live. There are numerous electronic instruments that don't even have keyboards and are "played live" all the time.

Also, we can extend the argument to being able to work more than one control with a single hand. I have talked about this before with respect to the SH-101.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Thread TLDR so far, so I will just jump in and answer the OP. It is not hard to guess what your discussions are about anyway.

No, my softies have not replaced all my hardware, but my use of both have been more and more divided and specialized during the years. Basically, my band mate and I jam and improvise with hardware to get ideas. I play the synths, he plays classical guitar. However, when we start producing, 95% will be replaced with software unless we already sampled a good deal of riffs (Valkyrie is our most hardware ridden tune for that Reason). I do not mind this division of labour at all. There is a time for hardware and one for software why the competetion between them is at minimum. All is good

[pekbro]

If I didn't buy hardware that interests me, I'd only spend my money on weed.
One can only buy so much weed...

This is totally a fair point.

Really? I find it rather pathetic.

Well of course "you" would think that.

[pdxindy]

I also love my Analog Rytm... the functions, analog circuits and hardware interface lead to outcomes I would never get with software tools even if in theory it were possible. A mouse and screen is a poor way to control a sequencer.

Really? The sequencer in my AK, which I imagine is very similar, is the most convoluted, unintuitive pile of shit I've ever come across and pretty much every review I've seen or read complains about its impenetrability.

I find the Rytm sequencer (yes, it is very similar to the AK) easy to use and understand. You saying you cannot use it and so it sucks is no different than you saying a guitar sucks simply cause you are unable to play it. That is a comment on your own lack of skill and dedication to learn, not the instrument. And the Rytm is a freakin awesome instrument. One of the best, most expressive electronic instruments ever made.

Here is a spontaneous 25 minute realtime performance demonstration on the Rytm. Nothing pre planned and entirely from INIT with all sound design on the fly. Go ahead and show me a VST drum machine doing something like this from INIT. Not a f**king chance... doesn't matter how many times you repeat your empty talk. There is no VST that can do this... the raw untamed tonality, the expressive playability.

In the hands of a skilled artist, using an actual hardware instrument, it has an improvisational performance capability software cannot touch.