Software vs. Analog in 2025 – Has the Balance Shifted?

[zerocrossing]

Here is one I’ve had my eyes on since learning about few months ago from a fellow synth nerd. This is where you are going far beyond what plugins are able to sound like IMO. And motorized knobs for instant recall of every preset is a fantastic evolution for hardware synths. Much heftier price but worth it IMO

It's a basic 2 Osc Analog synth going into a Moog Style ladder filter with an additional Wavetable Oscillator for $3600

Not sure why you think that is territory that plugins can't go? I have multiple plugins that can do that, such as UVI Falcon, Pigments, or HALion7

and of course I can simply layer Serum 2, Massive X, , or one of several other Wavetable synth plugins I have with The Legend HZ and get 6 Oscillator Analog sounds running through a ladder filter

Any of the plugin options I mentioned can sonically blow away that and go into all kinds of sonic territory it can't for over $3000 less money

It is not something that translates to a list of specs. From a software standpoint, a plugin like multi/poly blows it away, but I've tried to get multi/poly to sound like it, and I've failed. There's something about how the analog components saturate that I've not been able to get in any plugin. I'm not exactly sure how to describe it, but it's a very distinct sound.

This is the demo that got my GAS attack going. I literally was ordering it as the demo was ending.

[zerocrossing]

Effects, my friend. Effects.

Brian May says that's not synthesis.

btw, as a fellow ATC-1 enjoyer, are you hearing what I'm hearing in that Bree6?

I didn't get a chance to listen on proper headphones, but I did like their first synth quite a lot. I'll try tomorrow. Today was crazy because I had to play camp counselor to 6 12 year old girls. Since I'm unemployed at the moment, I figured I'd host "summer camp" a few days a week, since we have a pool in our complex. They're good kids, but it was pretty exhausting.

[zerocrossing]

Ever heard of the saying you get what you pay for? That is true with synthesizers as well.

Well, then my copy of Falcon must have cost about $4,000, because the cost of the software, expansions, computer, interface and controller. Now you say, "it's not the same thing," and I say, "exactly." My point is, there is no such thing as software synthesizers without a computer, interface and controller. So when you buy a hardware synth, you're buying a computer (maybe analog, maybe digital, maybe hybrid, but still a computer in a sense) the circuitry to produce a line level A/C voltage, and an interface and maybe keyboard. So in a sense, it's a waste that you have to keep buying the same components over and over. But you get what you pay for.

Software synths are awesome but they are not the end all be all for synthesis. To suggest high end synthesizers are no different than cheap plugins is pretty wild.

But it's not really always about measurable "quality." I mean, the Virus was a very "high end" synthesizer, and now it runs on your PC for free, and it doesn't even sound as good as many plugins, though many still prefer it.

What I see in software is that many developers tend to go for "idealized" representations of components, unless they're going for emulations, and I think sometimes they tend to tighten things up a bit anyway. Urs has mentioned that when he was working on Diva, he made decisions to deviate from the OG when he thought he could make it sound better to him, but still have the vibe of the original. "Inspired by," not precisely emulated. I know Arturia likes to increase the range of parameters beyond the original spec of the synth they're emulating. This increases capability, but makes the sweet spots smaller.

Synths like Nina, are all about character in a way that most software isn't, though you can get it. It just takes a bit of work. One thing I like about Falcon and MSoundFactory is that by adding the right per-voice effects, you can really inject your sound with character, but it's not really there by default.

[Uncle E]

The Nina, Quantum, and Prologue spec out pretty similarly on paper, yet sound quite different from each other.

[IvyBirds]

Here is one I’ve had my eyes on since learning about few months ago from a fellow synth nerd. This is where you are going far beyond what plugins are able to sound like IMO. And motorized knobs for instant recall of every preset is a fantastic evolution for hardware synths. Much heftier price but worth it IMO

It's a basic 2 Osc Analog synth going into a Moog Style ladder filter with an additional Wavetable Oscillator for $3600

Not sure why you think that is territory that plugins can't go? I have multiple plugins that can do that, such as UVI Falcon, Pigments, or HALion7

and of course I can simply layer Serum 2, Massive X, , or one of several other Wavetable synth plugins I have with The Legend HZ and get 6 Oscillator Analog sounds running through a ladder filter

Any of the plugin options I mentioned can sonically blow away that and go into all kinds of sonic territory it can't for over $3000 less money

It is not something that translates to a list of specs. From a software standpoint, a plugin like multi/poly blows it away, but I've tried to get multi/poly to sound like it, and I've failed. There's something about how the analog components saturate that I've not been able to get in any plugin. I'm not exactly sure how to describe it, but it's a very distinct sound.

This is the demo that got my GAS attack going. I literally was ordering it as the demo was ending.

And again if you like the sound buy it, use it, love it, go make a platinum selling record with it

But it's not blowing away plugins or exploring any new sonic territory, which is my point, it's a 2 VCO synth with a Wavetable Oscillator and motorized knobs for some reason

it just distorts and saturates in a way you find pleasing and find useful for your music, which is awesome, so the only question is if that distortion and saturation is worth $3600. For me I get all the saturation and distortion I want by running Synths hot into my Mackie mixer that I paid $300 for, I can run plugins into it also

[machinesworking]

IMO it's always been the same, a dedicated synth with intuitive knobs and controls is just more fun to program sounds on. I'm not interested in the arguments about sound quality, digital synths can sound fantastic (though they aren't all sweet spots), but I get tied of mousing to adjust a sound. Then there's devices that are almost defined by the interaction with the interface.

It's been about 30 years now, and computers have more than proven they can produce great music, it's just that the process is akin to using Excel on some level. Basically anything with menu diving or mice is not as fun to use as knobs buttons and sliders IMO.

[StartMenu]

I notice that with modern plugins and DAW's the closest analogy between analog and digital is the difference between expensive paints, resins, woods, metals and plastic materials and different degrees of cheaper ones.

Cheap generic chinese plastics have a different appeal in commercial goods than the classic industrial grade materials. Recordings demonstrate it. I have the strangest problem in my hardware that I tested. I tested a Korg Wavestate SE module and also the Waldof Iridium Core and strangely the hardware sounded weaker than any software.

I couldn't understand it I thought my goods were remanufactured with bad DAC's or something in New York and then redistributed and personally shipped.

[dellboy]

I am not sure if human hearing has been mentioned in this thread? When I was boy I could hear the sound that bats make. I am not sure when I lost that function. The fact is that as we get older we gradually lose the top end of our hearing. Some in this thread are under thirty, while others are probably over 60. Could some of the differences described be age related? A younger person can hear detail that an older person has lost.

[StartMenu]

I am not sure if human hearing has been mentioned in this thread? When I was boy I could hear the sound that bats make. I am not sure when I lost that function. The fact is that as we get older we gradually lose the top end of our hearing. Some in this thread are under thirty, while others are probably over 60. Could some of the differences described be age related? A younger person can hear detail that an older person has lost.

Human hearing has to be one of the factors of what engineers call the "air" in sound. I never could hear the air in recordings but in some of the best vocal/plucked string/chromatic instrument recordings the transients I can notice are delicious on a good sound interface. I never capture those transients.

[crimsonwarlock]

I don’t think you realize how truly ridiculous that sounds to people that have real experience with hardware and software.

Let's hear it from someone who has serious experience with both hardware and software:

[El°HYM]

I notice that with modern plugins and DAW's the closest analogy between analog and digital is the difference between expensive paints, resins, woods, metals and plastic materials and different degrees of cheaper ones.

Cheap generic chinese plastics have a different appeal in commercial goods than the classic industrial grade materials. Recordings demonstrate it. I have the strangest problem in my hardware that I tested. I tested a Korg Wavestate SE module and also the Waldof Iridium Core and strangely the hardware sounded weaker than any software.

I couldn't understand it I thought my goods were remanufactured with bad DAC's or something in New York and then redistributed and personally shipped.

Exactly! Thats why Moog has moved their production to China, as they already outplayed all their own Hardware with the Mariana. Much more flexible, cheaper and sonically what a perfect Moog should sound like, period. Behringer is a bit more clever and building software synths into a box (which is the place you should stay too!) basically a VST built into some kind of case. There is no hw synthesizer that can sound better than your favorite sw instrument, as your DACs are already much better in these Days (even the very cheap ones) we all know this! Its Time to ditch that old wooden Furniture and move on into the Future, boys.

[dellboy]

And again if you like the sound buy it, use it, love it, go make a platinum selling record with it

But it's not blowing away plugins or exploring any new sonic territory, which is my point, it's a 2 VCO synth with a Wavetable Oscillator and motorized knobs for some reason

it just distorts and saturates in a way you find pleasing and find useful for your music, which is awesome, so the only question is if that distortion and saturation is worth $3600. For me I get all the saturation and distortion I want by running Synths hot into my Mackie mixer that I paid $300 for, I can run plugins into it also

I am surprised that you ask the reason for motorized knobs? I have a hardware Juno and a Deepmind 12. The hardware Juno is a slider per function,so at a glance you see where everything is. The Deepmind faders do not indicate where they are and have to be moved to get a real world reading. Its much nicer to have a knob\slider per function, and motorized knobs\faders are a great compromise to achieve this. But I guess you already knew that? One of the advantages of digital synths is that the knobs\sliders reflect their real world position.

[_leras]

Double blind listening tests would sort this out in a hurry.

Im not sure that usually helps much. Just playing an oscillator or some simple sounds doesn't compare properly.

Just find any YouTube page of people selling patches that have both software and hardware synth patches and the difference is usually clear. There are tons of hardware examples out there that analog doesn't really cover.

Just listen to Sami Rabia or Audiotent who have both software and hardware synths and you can hear the difference for yourself.

[Erik_Lucas]

Something to be said about how you get to a sound you like, and hardware and software are completely different in that regard. Putting the technical sonics aside, 'workflow' is a major reason I find myself using hardware. If I want something fast I'll go with software. If I want to be more creative I personally use hardware. You may start out with the same patch idea in mind when deciding between software and hardware, but the end results are often different. At least for me.

[whassup]

I don’t think you realize how truly ridiculous that sounds to people that have real experience with hardware and software.

Let's hear it from someone who has serious experience with both hardware and software:

That video pretty much sums it up.
Funny though that we feel the need for somebody else to make our points.
I get the point. But in the end it is "just my opinion" and you got yours! Fine!

"You know, back then when Prince played this lick on that Michael Jackson song with the preset that was programmed by Georgio Moroder. But he was only using a digital emulation. Still sounds good though after all those years..."