Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[BONES]

Cant exactly replicate my Moog Sub 37. Ive tried.

So what? I couldn't exactly replicate 90% of my VSTi in hardware, either. That's not the point of anything. My bandmate has a Subsequent 37 and after three months of rehearsals we still haven't found a single use for it in our live set. It's a really good synth, no doubt at all, but it's all stuff we can do so much more easily in software. On top of that, it doesn't sound any better than my Uno Synth, which was one-sixth of the price and is a lot less effort to get up and running on stage.

Its very different in many ways and the sound is more like a living entity and very open , like i can hear through all the layers of modulations.

Ha! Go and download the Krotos Concept 2 demo and tell me it how much more alive the default preset sounds than anything you could ever hope to get our of your overpriced Moog. Seriously, the Subsequent 37 is a lovely synth, beautifully made and very capable, but not sonically better than dozens of VSTi you can buy for under $100.

The sound just feels better. And the circuit interactions are smoother and cleaner. Its like having a guitar from a synth replicate my real guitar.

That is all, 100%, in your head. In a blind test you wouldn't have a clue what was your Sub37 and what was something like The Legend or Monark.

My Arturia minibrute is the same. No automating this bad boy. Fully analog, took me a little to wrap my head around how to use it but now it’s very freeing. I like figuring a performance out and recording passes of parameters changes. They are never the same and sometimes you get something very unexpected.

If you don't bother saving your patches on a VSTI, it can be like that, too. But who would be that stupid? When you create a great patch, you want to save it so you can get it back any time you need it.

[BONES]

Heavy gear is the music-vanity equivalent of fussy clothing. My 212 Marshall cabinet and rack mount tube amp from an earlier band is what led me to my one-hand one-trip rule. No gear that couldn't be carried in one hand could be used for my stage setup, and no more gear than could be carried in the venue in one trip could be used for a gig.

I love it! One of the proudest moments of my career was the time I caught the bus to a gig, with all my gear. Or last time we played in Germany, when my (admittedly stripped-back) set-up fitted into my carry-on luggage.

[BONES]

Lots of people buy a guitar and never learn how to play it cause they have a fantasy but aren't prepared to put in the work.

You are clutching at straws and you have to know it. Your ad hominem attack on me, that I am not going to dignify with a response, is proof of that. We're not talking about random people on the street, we're talking about respected, highly experienced people like Nick Batt (in his AK review, if you want to look it up).

Or if you want another example, when NI put a very similar type of sequencer into TRK-01, it was so popular that, at first, they made it optional and, ultimately, they removed the sequencer altogether and turned it into two simpler synths.

I started with VST Instruments and then got into hardware and the real time hands on control is awesome for music making

Which one are you talking about? Both software and hardware feature " real time hands on control". Actually, that's not true, it is only a very small percentage of hardware that is like that, whereas most softsynths have great real-time, hands-on control. e.g. Of the 16 hardware synths I have owned since we moved full-time to software sequencers, only one has had what I'd call real-time, hands-on control - my Waldorf Rocket - and that's because it has no patch memory. That is a massive compromise that, I imagine, the vast majority of us would see as unacceptable.

I posted an example of improvisational realtime performance on a hardware drum machine and made the statement that something similar cannot be done with a VST thus demonstrating that software cannot replace all aspects of hardware... the topic of the thread.

Yeah, but what you posted was something awful, not something that anyone can see any point in even wanting to replicate. In most of our minds, it proves the opposite point to the one you were trying to support.

Rather than take the challenge of posting an example of someone doing the same/similar using a VST, or acknowledging that yes, in some cases hardware can do stuff that software cannot, you resort to name calling.

Oh, is that all you wanted? How about this -

You'll notice how much less effort this guy has to put into what he's doing, so he can concentrate on his playing/performance. In the video you showed us, there is pretty much no actual "performance", just lots of scooting over knobs and buttons. It was impressive how well that guy knows his equipment but it wasn't at all entertaining.
Here's another. Less interesting but in a similar vein -

If you disagree, please post a video of a someone using a VST drum machine to create a similar realtime improvisational performance made from INIT.

Why? It would prove nothing. The fact it is a drum machine is irrelevant. It's $2000 worth of hardware. The first video above shows what you can do with $2000 worth of laptop. You have to show people something they find relevant. e.g. When I look at that guy on his laptop, I think "maybe I need to have another look at Bitwig, because that's pretty impressive". OTOH, I look at the video you posted and think "what's the point of all that faffing around, beyond that guy showing us all how much effort he has put into learning that box and, subsequently, how hard it is to do something relatively simple with that thing?" My guy makes it look really easy, your guy makes it look impossibly hard. Again, it reinforces the opposite side of the argument to the one you are on.

I love that track I posted. I think it sounds great and I'm impressed with the skill of the fellow who made it.

I quite like the sound, too, which is why I used to go and see Scattered Order in 1981, but the problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere or do anything. It's boring and repetitive and that's because of the limitations of the box he's using. OTOH, my guy with the laptop shows the versatility of the way he works in software, although his result is ultimately also pretty boring. But that's the nature of improvising with electronics - it always has to loop back to the start at some point so it lacks that "journey" aspect of a proper song. Nice for creating a backing but not complete in and of itself.

Don't take it personally, we get that you like it, it's just not technically very challenging, unless you put artificial restrictions on it like "drum machine" and "start from init", which are as pointless as "while standing on your head" or "while juggling three cats".

Seems to me a serious person is someone who would be interested to discuss the actual tools and would be happy to post videos showing those tools being used in different use cases.

I don't see that as being necessary, given that we all know most of what's possible on each side of the divide. e.g. When I watched the video you posted, nothing in the music he made surprised me. It's the kind of thing I'd expect hardware like that to be able to do. The impressive part of it was the way his hands/fingers danced across it in a blur but, as I've said, that really just underscored how much more effort hardware is than software. I watched him and thought that if I put as much effort into practicing my keyboard skills as he's put into learning how to do that, I could probably be a half-decent musician again. And, given the choice, I'd rather be a better musician than a better programmer.

Please don't think I am picking on you. I am not. I have got a lot out of our discussion in the last couple of days and I appreciate your input. It has been a great help in clarifying things in my own mind so, after replying to you yesterday, I realised the futility, the utter pointlessness, of trying to find things for my Analog Keys to do live and I spent several hours afterwards going through the set and putting VSTi into the parts I will play on stage, with a couple of exceptions for my two Uno Synths. I may have wasted a week on the AK but, thanks to this discussion, I will not waste another minute. So thank you for your valuable input.

[zerocrossing]

One thing I think gets overlooked in these discussions is that some people have horrible taste. I mean, look at the world full of crap that people listen to. If you don’t see it, it’s because you’re who I’m talking about. So, when someone says, “this sounds as good as that,” there’s a good chance that they don’t have any idea of what good is and never will.

[pdxindy]

Lots of people buy a guitar and never learn how to play it cause they have a fantasy but aren't prepared to put in the work.

We're not talking about random people on the street, we're talking about respected, highly experienced people like Nick Batt (in his AK review, if you want to look it up).

Within an hour of first using the Elektron sequencer on the AK I was making sequences. Yes it takes some work to learn all the deeper intricacies of it, but it isn't hard. 1 week of focused effort and anyone could do it.

[pdxindy]

The impressive part of it was the way his hands/fingers danced across it in a blur but, as I've said, that really just underscored how much more effort hardware is than software.

The difference between your examples (thanks for posting something to discuss) and the one I posted is not just hardware vs software.

In the example I posted, he did all the sound design on the spot. He did not start with presets or any ready made modulation. The examples you posted look much simpler cause they do not show the sound design or the time spent setting things up to get to the point where the video starts.

If I pre-load 12 sounds into the Rytm and prepare the machine with the performance pads setup and fill set up (modulation equivalent), then a video from that point would look much simpler too.

I love that track I posted. I think it sounds great and I'm impressed with the skill of the fellow who made it.

I quite like the sound, too, which is why I used to go and see Scattered Order in 1981, but the problem is that it doesn't really go anywhere or do anything. It's boring and repetitive and that's because of the limitations of the box he's using.

It is a demonstration and towards that end it shows a variety of features and some basics of how to use them. It is not my impression that it was intended to go somewhere or be a complete composition.

The Rytm has chain and song modes and so one can put together complex compositions that evolve or go somewhere. While I use it, I find the song mode a bit cumbersome. So sometimes I record parts/patterns into Bitwig and build a composition on a nice big screen with a visual timeline. This works especially well with Bitwig 4 (currently in beta) cause it adds audio comping.

I get satisfying results faster for making drums/percussion using hardware than I do with software.

I would be fine without the AK, but I would never get rid of the Rytm. For me the Rytm is a magical machine that just does it for me... sound-wise and workflow-wise. Nothing in software has come close to giving the results I get with the Rytm. It sounds so organic and beautiful. It lends itself to results that don't sound like the typical mechanical drum machine.

Anyway, I'm 'talked' out on the subject.

[EnGee]

After listening to some of the videos posted. I think I like pdxindy's example more than the others. I can feel the music more and it is more interesting to me. I didn't like the noisy parts a lot, but they are necessary to feel the simple parts.

For the workflow, it's amazing. The sounds? I don't know! Can't Maschine sound like this? Anyway, the best sounding software drum machine (sound engine) I have ever listened to, is Hearbeat by Softube. Damn! I have the etch now to install it in spite my dislike for iLok! But I like Softube as a company. Pitty it can't be installed in Linux.

[christian f.]

One thing I think gets overlooked in these discussions is that some people have horrible taste. I mean, look at the world full of crap that people listen to. If you don’t see it, it’s because you’re who I’m talking about. So, when someone says, “this sounds as good as that,” there’s a good chance that they don’t have any idea of what good is and never will.

This.

I always prefer the analog original over the digital emulation, BUT digital becomes (more) interesting when you approach it as something else and appreciate it for what it is.

I own a lot of top of the line vintage analogs such as 808, 909, memorymoog, SH5, MonoPoly, Jupiter 4, CS 50 etc. and a whole wall of modular and I think in 2021 the most interesting things happen in software and all that hardware can't beat the power and undiscovered sonic territories I have in my computer.
It's very much the sound of the 2020's and future anyway.

I'm seriously considering putting everything in storage and just keep my Pro3 as masterKB and Maschine for some drum sequencing.

[pekbro]

I like software and have a ton of it, I really can't see anything new coming out in software that is going to be significantly better than what I already have. I do not really need any more software (though I still buy stuff occasionally). I am interested in hardware, so I have a very nice hardware setup going and yeah I spent a fair amount of money on it. Still, I am getting to the point where I have enough hardware and am not really interested in acquiring much more. I am interested in hardware effects and processing, so I will very likely get a nice but small setup going in that area. That space too, will fill quickly. After that I suppose it's back to guitars and classical acoustic instruments. I would like to have a cello, violin and maybe some wind instruments etc. And absolutely, I will have no trouble learning to play them, because I can do that for whatever reason. 

To me they are all fun and worthwhile, none of them are bad choices, for me. Sure some are a pain, tbh I don't see software as much less of a pain than the hardware. If you can't imagine that, than perhaps you don't understand how much software I have. My software collection completely dwarfs my hardware collection in both cost and quantity and it always will.

I am not a professional musician, so many of the problems discussed here will never be significant for me. It's just a hobby and something I enjoy very much. And that's it pretty much. I still use the software and I use the hardware, nothing has replaced anything for me really, though a new practice of using them together has arisen.

*btw it's mostly about effects for me, I don't have every softsynth or even an above average
number of those, with the possible exception of drum machines, as I really like drum machines.
I can't use them like that guy in the video, though I am intrigued (not sure I could do the finger
drumming thing with a straight face however ).

[Tj Shredder]

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

Wow a single video created 6 pages of discussion…
But there is a wrong assumption on the above quote. Especially in this box all is about controllers and workflow which is given in that box. But behind the scenes there is pure software in a comparatively weak computer, its just covered in the box and has a really tiny screen which would make it for visually impaired unusable. The video BONES posted later with the Bitwig setup and a touchscreen as controller shows that that sort of workflow of course is possible in the box.
I love the Boiler Room performance of Stephan Bodzin. There everything is also around controllers and workflow. His set is hybrid as he has a Moog on stage as well. The only way to replace the Moog would be to have a keyboard controller a VST and the same amount of knobs arranged a bit like on the Moog. But why bother to setup/program it if there is that hardware which has everything prepared already.
The Elektron simply offers a specific workflow which in this case resonated with a musician. No need to judge the musical outcome, obviously it got him into his personal flow…
In the end it is not about hardware wins or looses against software. The topic just wanted to ask if software replaced hardware. And we see, we can’t avoid hardware, at least the computer and the speakers are hardware…
I bet you could create a workflow like it was shown in that video with Bitwig and a controller like a Beatstep fairly easy, add a LinnStrument and the options explode, but this would come with the necessity not only to program your setup, but also to design your workflow. That might take too much away from your limited musicians resources compared to just learning a predefined workflow like in the Elektron…
Actually insisting to “from INIT” is pointless. A real from init is designing the hardware as well, like in the Toaster project…

[chk071]

Cant exactly replicate my Moog Sub 37. Ive tried.

So what? I couldn't exactly replicate 90% of my VSTi in hardware, either. That's not the point of anything.

It is, when you happen to love the sound of a particular instrument.

[vurt]

this thread inspired me to start playing with some feedback loops last night.

[jancivil]

One thing I think gets overlooked in these discussions is that some people have horrible taste. I mean, look at the world full of crap that people listen to. If you don’t see it, it’s because you’re who I’m talking about. So, when someone says, “this sounds as good as that,” there’s a good chance that they don’t have any idea of what good is and never will.

Dunning-Kruger Effect as pertains to the education or not of the ear.

I do try to not argue taste but here the high-flying claims of improvisation and hands-on immediacy were too ludicrous. It's a guy running a machine (there are toddlers who can play more drums than those pitiable sequences)... their efficiency at running a machine - and yes, it's software, it's a shitty little computer with a little bitty display, it's not an analog anything - is magically put on the same level as musicianship at_all, let alone use that lingo is too much.
I personally felt music was disrespected in an arrogant egoistic string of vacuous, thought-free gestures and was genuinely offended to see it. Not to mention the demand to prove otherwise.

But what generated pages of discussion was those extraordinary claims - the dishonesty of using this high-falutin not-at-all understood musical lingo - by an individual and a couple of people deciding to fight that, starting with one noticing it sounds like shit.

[trusampler]

Why would you even try and convince someone who doesn't believe in hardware over software? They clearly don't hear or appreciate the differences in the two.

I picked up a Sequential Prophet 10 and OB-6 this past year,because of the feel,and sound of these two instruments. Can I get sounds close to this in software, maybe,but from the Vsti's I've played with when it comes to the real thing, I'd rather have the hardware,to my ears it's not even close.

Why that's a problem to some here,is beyond me.Sure there's a place for software plugins, just like there's a place for hardware. But you won't convince many of us, that a software emulation is better then the real thing,when it comes to overall sound and feeling,hands on experience.

[jancivil]

I don't think you understand at all "the problem" in say this thread.

I don't understand why people leap so readily to conclusions and construct straw man arguments. "you won't convince many of us, that a software emulation is better then the real thing".
What's the goalpost there, as to "better"? for me using Monark is better than having to have a Minimoog. I've had two in my life, both are long dead.

"I'd rather have the hardware,to my ears it's not even close."
Who has a problem with that? You're the one being argumentative and making assumptions about what other people hear.
I can grasp how someone would prefer to have the thing physically, and were I the keyboard player for a live situation wanting that sound I would want the actual Moog. Do I think the model of it I use does a better Minimoog? No. But it does have features the original doesn't, it may be a better instrument in some ways to a certain disposition. I got it as a Minimoog that is housed in a smaller hardware and it doesn't sound inferior. Other things do (Arturia) sound inferior to me.

If you "believe" in something, that's your business. It's religious quality of thought.
I don't believe in hardware over software - or the converse - as a general overarching concept because that's too simple-minded. I have things in software nothing outside a computer will_ever_do. Specifically, and comparatively. There are qualities of - not hardware per se - analog instruments which may not be fully imparted in a modeling of. But, I doubt anyone has a better grasp of eg., the Minimoog than I, sonically, thru sheer experience, and I find it eminently replaceable for my purposes, and the experience of writing automation (and possibly liking another pitch wheel better) for_me is better than having the particular box taking up needed space; and since constructing my tracks is not a performance at all I have no desire for that albatross around my neck.

The failure of understanding is the problem as it always is.