Hardware synths that blew away your expectations

[tha_man]

If that's true, you must be pretty bad at what you do. Give us some examples.

I haven't released any of my hardware-made tracks into public yet, since they're not yet finished. But you can check out live performance I did on just MC-707. Recorded direct to video, so not really properly mixed or mastered, but for a jam I think it sounds ok: https://www.facebook.com/bojanpas/video ... 287088815/

Here are a few of my old tracks, made mostly in Reason (1-2.5) and Renoise:
https://soundcloud.com/kalskee/sets/g-netic-bits

[chk071]

I've been using Prophet 5 "emulations" for 20 years. Started with Pro-52, then 53, then Re-pro. They were my go-to synths for a dozen albums at least. Last year I treated myself to a real life rev 4 Prophet 5. Completely blew me away.

Not a great example, none of those emulations do much to exceed the original. How many unison voices can you have in those VSTi? None of those instruments are worth shit to me, they don't have a fraction of the punch of my best softsynths.

I guess you simply value features more than sound then. Which is understandable. I don't think we have to argue that plugins are - easier to use; have more features for the most part; have more voices; allow things you can only dream of in hardware.

If your focus is sound though, I'm sure you'll still get more mileage out of of hardware. I had to dig really hard to find soft synths which inspire me, and put a smile on my face when I tweak them. Soft synths with a sweet spot. They're rare, but, there are some. I'm sure most hardware has a much bigger sweet spot.

[stk]

I've been using Prophet 5 "emulations" for 20 years. Started with Pro-52, then 53, then Re-pro. They were my go-to synths for a dozen albums at least. Last year I treated myself to a real life rev 4 Prophet 5. Completely blew me away.

Not a great example, none of those emulations do much to exceed the original. How many unison voices can you have in those VSTi? None of those instruments are worth shit to me, they don't have a fraction of the punch of my best softsynths.

I don't use unison. Never have, can't stand it. So can't answer that question.

Two of those plugins are very old indeed. I made them sound pretty good for what they are, for quite a few years, as evidenced on many released records.

Other than that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here mate, apart from some kind of aggro shitpost maybe?

[Uncle E]

But you can check out live performance I did on just MC-707. Recorded direct to video, so not really properly mixed or mastered, but for a jam I think it sounds ok: https://www.facebook.com/bojanpas/video ... 287088815/

Those synth sounds are great! Pretty surprising, actually.

[Scotty]

Sitting nicely in a mix and putting a smile on your face is a pretty solid reason for me try the Monopoly out. Great comments.

Behringer Monopoly is getting very regular use and surpassed my expectations. I use it in almost everything and in different ways and I just can't seem to tire of it. It's got probably the weakest filter out of all my analogues but somehow it manages to sound good all the time. And I simply love its arp - I have other synths with arps but often don't use them as that kind of style doesn't often grab me (was never really an arp afficionado), but Monopoly cycling voices in arp mode makes me just play for hours every time and puts a smile on my face - which is what I hope for with any synth.

[BONES]

FBM's MonoFury sounds at least as good to my ears and it's free. It also allows you to save and recall patches, which puts it head and shoulders over the hardware. Why companies like Behringer insist on issuing these things without patch memory beggars belief. IF they have MIDI they should be able to store patches easily. It's almost as if Behringer have realised that people want to f**k themselves over for no benefit and are happy to oblige them.

I guess you simply value features more than sound then.

Why woudl you guess that? Is it because I said that hardware can't possibly hope to match the sound I get from my software synths? Because, to my way of thinking, it says the exact opposite.

I don't think we have to argue that plugins are - easier to use; have more features for the most part

Can have more features, don't have to have. GR-8, for example, doesn't have any more features than Uno Pro Desktop, yet it blows the Uno Pro out of the water when it comes to the sheer size of its sound. Ditto for JP6K or Union, and those are just about my three most used softsynths. Analog Keys is at least as complicated as any softsynth I own but it can't match teh sound of my softsynths, either. Of course, Ultranova can pretty much go toe to toe with my softsynths but that's because it's a softsynth running on dedicated hardware, which gives it a huge advantage over analogue hardware.

If your focus is sound though, I'm sure you'll still get more mileage out of of hardware.

Sure, but that's because you have no f**king idea what you are talking about. How many hardware synths have you owned? I currently own six and, over the past 40-odd years I've probably owned 40 or 50 others, which gives me a much better basis for making a comparison.

I had to dig really hard to find soft synths which inspire me, and put a smile on my face when I tweak them. Soft synths with a sweet spot. They're rare, but, there are some. I'm sure most hardware has a much bigger sweet spot.

You mean you think, you don't really know anything at all about it. My actual, real-world experience is that one is not more or less inspiring than the other, although hardware definitely puts more roadblocks in your path when it comes to making anything from that inspiration. The path from inspiration to finished song is much smoother ITB.

I don't use unison. Never have, can't stand it. So can't answer that question.

Happy to enlighten you, then. I assume if you don't like unison that you never detune your oscillators against one-another, either, given that it has the same effect. That must make for some painfully thin ,boring sounds.

Two of those plugins are very old indeed. I made them sound pretty good for what they are, for quite a few years, as evidenced on many released records.

Which ones? The random bits I chose were drenched in guitar and the synth parts sounded like they came from a ROMpler of some type.

Other than that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here mate, apart from some kind of aggro shitpost maybe?

The point I'm making is that hardware is a waste of money, that it doesn't sprinkle fairy dust all over your music and it absolutely does not have any advantages at all over working 100% ITB. That using hardware is nothing more than a personal choice that will complicate, not simplify, your process and your life for no actual benefit. Pretty straightforward, I'd have thought.

[kritikon]

Nah, patch saving really isn't important to me, though I get why it is for many people. Couldn't care less if I never use the exact same sound ever again. As usual it entirely depends on what your aims and methods are. Bones, you've mentioned time and again how the actual process for making music is not much fun for you - that is just not the case for some of us so our "must-haves" are entirely different. TBH I much more enjoy the whole process of it than the end result - the end result is pretty unimportant to me, though that sounds weird.

[BONES]

What I get from this is that music, itself, is not really important to you, it's more of an opportunity to muck about with expensive technology. Is that about the size of it? Because for me it is 100% about music. If you don't have a great piece of music when you're done, then you have wasted your time as far as I'm concerned. It would be like joining a band because you like rehearsing but never getting up and performing. I find it extremely weird.

[imrae]

Never been to a jam/improv session?

It's still music even if you don't record it...

[PieBerger]

Other than that, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here mate, apart from some kind of aggro shitpost maybe?

Quelle surprise

[Scotty]

Jesus Mr. Grrrrrrr can you stop crapping In the punch bowl? This particular thread is a hardware party and you’ve come dressed as a plugin. We are here to discuss hardware not to entertain your insatiable appetite for insult. Some of us use hardware and software and don’t need a tired and endlessly repetitive dialog on how stupid we all are for enjoying our instruments of choice. You’ve made your point countless times. We don’t need another replay. Let us enjoy this little corner of the KVR universe. Can you live with that?

[whyterabbyt]

Why companies like Behringer insist on issuing these things without patch memory beggars belief. I

Replacing all the analog control signals in an entire synth with digitally-generated signals (including an independent stage of analog to digital and digital to analog conversion for every control, scaled for the unique electronic behaviour of each control) is a far more complex change than adding MIDI note control, being the difference between an entire redesign of the entire circuit for each and every synth, versus the inclusion of a very standardised single additional change.

Im not sure whether you know, or whether you'll accept, that the variable controls on an analog synth are resistors which modify a voltage within the circuit, and that digital control systems generally generate voltages, not resistances, or what the difference between those two things means for embedding them in a circuit.

However it is most definitely means something, ie that it requires an entire redesign of an existing circuit to achieve, and that ensuring that the many resultant digitally-controlled subsystems match the behaviour of all of those in the original circuit is decidedly non-trivial, and far from easy, or inexpensive to implement retroactively to an existing design. Especially an existing design where you're trying to build and sell as cheaply as possible, as Behringer clearly are.

Obviously ground-up implementations of the same signal/control architecture as an existing synth could be done far more easily, as long as you're not concerned that it will ultimately probably not actually sound or behave the same, and not be doable without the more significant development costs of designing rather than copying.

I'm not aware of any example of a legacy all-analog synth circuit which has been retroconverted for full digital control with patch memory (ie not a ground-up design) for minimal cost. In fact StudioElectronics are the only company I can think of who have done anything like that, and no-one in their right mind would call their systems cheap.

If it was as trivial as suggested, there would be countless examples. But there arent; the patch-storable analog synths on the market, historic and new, were invariably designed that way from the outset, which is a completely different proposition.

Ultimately, though, it comes down to whether Behringer thinks they can more profitably sell an MS-20 clone for £300, or a patch-based MS-20 styled synth, that sounds and behaves mostly similarly, for £500.
But if it were trivial, ie it didnt impact cost, sound, behaviour, they would already be doing it.

[Scotty]

In 2022 I bit the bullet and built a modular rig . It is keeping me interested. Basically it is 6 voice true stereo setup based mostly on System 100 (Roland style) modules with three pairs of Roland, moog and wasp style filters. 6 pairs of envelopes. I added a pair of fixed filter banks as well. I’m planning to add some wave folding modules. I have integrated an iPad with a 4 x 4 interface and some external pedals. It drives a midi muso cv stack for modulation and sequencing and captures the audio into Cubasis. I can then export that into my main DAW. I essentially keep it patched up for several weeks at a time but alter the filter choices and the knob and dial settings. I am really enjoying the journey and love the tactile nature of it. I wouldn’t say I am blown away but I am enjoying the process of making music on this rig. I keep Cubasis in record mode and take photographs of settings if I come up with something that inspired me,

[chk071]

Why companies like Behringer insist on issuing these things without patch memory beggars belief.

tl;dr: It's a price thing.

[imrae]

Why companies like Behringer insist on issuing these things without patch memory beggars belief. IF they have MIDI they should be able to store patches easily.

Sure, but that's because you have no f**king idea what you are talking about.

I assume if you don't like unison that you never detune your oscillators against one-another, either, given that it has the same effect. That must make for some painfully thin ,boring sounds.