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

[whassup]

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.

I totally get that and I like that!
Workflow is big!

[SoftSynthLover99]

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:

His viewpoint makes sense as his company is Cherry Audio who specialize in creating software synths. It’s literally his job to convince you that software is the better option or the only real option to consider.

Funny thing that I realized though is plugin developers like Cherry Audio will build an entire company around emulating hardware because they know people want that sound, and in the marketing they will tell you P-10 exactingly reproduces all that is exceptional in this legendary classic and also Cherry Audio P-10 is based on one of the most desirable flagship analog polysynths ever created.

So ok then is the hardware no longer exceptional and one of the most desirable analog poly synths ever created just because they made a plugin emulation?

These companies sell you on the plugin by telling you how great the hardware is and how the hardware has all of this analog magic happening, but also insist you don’t need the hardware anymore because plugins are better…

[IvyBirds]

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.

And yet you don't have to "mouse around" with software and can easily setup controllers to make using them vastly superior and more fun than using the limited controls on most hardware synths that are predefined for you in a layout you have no control over

[IvyBirds]

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.

I do get it, but find it silly as you are just dropping $3600 in this case to mimic what a free plugin synth can do, I would also be concerned with the fact that drone motors are not designed for precision and optical sensors fail so how reliable and accurate are they going to be in patch recall long term? If I dropped $3600 on a synth with motors and after 5 years of use those motors are turning the knobs to the wrong places that's an issue even if they are only off by a percent or two that can have a major impact on the sound

[SoftSynthLover99]

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

This increases capability, but makes the sweet spots smaller..

100% this is one of the biggest differences I found with hardware vs software. Takes quite a bit more tweaking to get to the sweet spots of certain software synths.

With some hardware it’s almost impossible to make a bad sounding patch because with just a few moves everything can come together rather quickly.

I don’t get that with most software but Omnisphere 2 and Serum 2 are the closest I’ve come to quick patch design like that lately. The Arturia stuff has never been my cup of tea as they just sound thin compared to other developers like u-he, GForce and TAL.

[zerocrossing]

That synth is a computerized Minimoog clone, where they dropped one of the analog VCOs and replaced it with a computer playing back Wavetables you can import from software Synths, and for some reason feel the need to have motors turn knobs that once again are computers running software. The SOS review talks about how it involves heavy menu diving which means it's a computer in a box

This is patently ridiculous. The list of differences between Nina and a Model D is longer than the list of similarities.

Not sure why ANYONE would think that is going beyond what plugins can do

It can give you pure, artifact free analog style sound, or hybrid sound, without using any of your computer's resources. It also has a very unique sound, which is very different than a Model D.

[zerocrossing]

And yet from the review

"A single screen, cutely labelled ‘Computer’, sits to the top left of the panel, with a data encoder for navigating various menus. The Nina can get a little menu‑heavy,"

There are menus for various things, but no menu diving. Everything is on a single level. It's quite intuitive. The only thing that initially tripped me up a little bit was that when you want to assign a modulation source to a parameter, you have to press "MOD," which turns all the knobs into "amount" controls. If you forget to press it again to get out of that mode, you can easily start assigning unintended modulation. After a day or two I was so used to it that it never happened again.

[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.

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

First off, there's a world of difference between what you get from saturating a synth at its outputs and per voice, internal saturation. You know this.

Second, it you want to do electronic music on a budget, that's fine, and software is obviously the way to go, but I don't look at it that way. I mean, I do consider the price of something before I buy it, of course, but I mostly decouple the idea of cost and value. I really value some sorts of sounds. A lot. Enough that I'm fine with plunking down $3,500 on a 12 voice analog/hybrid... if it has a character that is exciting, and a feature set that fits how I like to work. The differences may be subtle, but to me they're important. Again, I've been through almost every plugin in an attempt to match what I'm getting from Nina, and I have failed. I did the same thing with the 3rd Wave, and I succeeded, so the 3rd Wave is gone. In that case, I actually found I could get better results from software. So, I'm not some ideologue who has a fixed belief system.

[D-Fusion]

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.

For me it is a mixed bag.
Sometimes I prefer the sound of my vst's when I try to create the same sound on both HW and SW and Sometimes the sound is better on the HW and sometimes they are so close that it doesn't matter which of them I choose to use.

There are so many great options these days in both SW and HW so it doesn't matter what you choose to make music with.
Some people do still prefer HW over SW and other Choose SW only or a mix of both so there is no right or wrong answer.
Use what is important to you and close your ears or screen when someone is trying to tell you that your music setup or instruments sucks and that you should only use what they tell you to use.

[seafire]

I don't look at it as a 'vs', it's not a competition.

I use both, because I want to. I have no interest in what anyone else uses, or why.

Music is the goal, the tools help achieve that.

[crimsonwarlock]

His viewpoint makes sense as his company is Cherry Audio who specialize in creating software synths. It’s literally his job to convince you that software is the better option or the only real option to consider.

So, you missed his background and where he is coming from, and the fact that he actually owned a big Moog Modular system, and sold it because he didn't need it anymore as he determined that software is equally good now.

Besides, Cherry Audio is not HIS company, he works for them on a project basis.

[cryophonik]

I don't look at it as a 'vs', it's not a competition.

I use both, because I want to. I have no interest in what anyone else uses, or why.

Music is the goal, the tools help achieve that.

Exactly. I've been hybrid since the early 2000s and used hardware for 20 years prior. So although I still prefer a hardware workflow simply because I enjoy it, I also have a ton of soft synths and I love that they go places most of my hardware synths can only dream of, and I love a DAW-based workflow and have no desire to go back to multitrack hardware recorders, digital or tape. I can certainly see why a person might choose to be software-only in this day and age (cost, convenience, space savings, workflow, flexibility, etc.) and I can also see the appeal in going completely OTB/DAWless to go old school and eliminate the computer, but I've experimented with both and neither approach satisfies me the way using both has. And quite frankly, "sound" has almost nothing to with it in my case and I'll never be convinced that hardware has some inherent magical sound that sets it apart from software. Software sounds great and it caught up to hardware (yes, even analog) a long time ago and I'll be the first one to admit that, aside from maybe a few very identifiable sounds/synths, I would probably fail most blind tests or get lucky with my guesses, at best, with a good software emulation. And I sure as hell can't hear the difference in a mix - sometimes I go back and listen to my own songs from 10+ years ago and can't recall which synth I used for most of the parts or even which ones were hardware or software. So, my opinion is that everyone should use whatever works for you and get over yourself if you think your personal preference is superior for anybody other than yourself.

[Uncle E]

If I dropped $3600 on a synth with motors and after 5 years of use those motors are turning the knobs to the wrong places that's an issue even if they are only off by a percent or two that can have a major impact on the sound

You're right that anyone buying a Nina should consider the longterm maintenance. However, they're digital encoders and aren't going to change the sound if they fail or are out of calibration.

[Uncle E]

100% this is one of the biggest differences I found with hardware vs software. Takes quite a bit more tweaking to get to the sweet spots of certain software synths.

With some hardware it’s almost impossible to make a bad sounding patch because with just a few moves everything can come together rather quickly.

If you haven't already, try the Softube Models. Wiiiiiide sweet spots.

OTOH, the synths with narrow sweet spots tend to be better for making esoteric sounds. This goes for both software and hardware, such as the Moog Muse. Personally, I'm with you and prefer the wide sweet spots (that's what she said), but I get why some people would prefer a Muse over a Minimoog.

[zerocrossing]

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.

A while back, someone on GearSpace was complaining about how horrible Waldorf’s PPG 3 (a plugin that he owned) software sounded, compared to how great the Groove Synthesis 3rd Wave (a synth that he didn’t own) sounded. Since I owned both, I did a side by side comparison, which included basic things like naked oscillators, filter sweeps, etc, but I also replicated one of my custom PPG 3 patches on the 3rd Wave, to the best of my abilities.

He refused to take the bait. When pressed, he babbled about “naked oscillators,” showing that he clearly didn’t listen to the entire thing, or maybe much at all. My point is, if the raw materials are very close, the final product will be very close as well. Whenever I do my “forensic” analysis of a synth, I always get to a point where I stop comparing and begin constructing a sound that I’d use in a track, even if my initial findings aren’t that great. I can almost always make something that sounds great.

In the end, you could say that my test was rigged, and I purposely made the software sound better, but the truth was, I really wanted the hardware to win. I bought it because I was led to believe that it was a very faithful representation of the original PPG Wave 2, plus a lot more modern capabilities. It turned out that it did a poor job of mimicking the PPG wavetable sound, and it’s VA and high resolution waves were just OK. Loading up some free PPG wavetables that I found, into Dune or Icarus, gave me results that I thought were better in every aspect.

My point is, people have confirmation bias, and even when presented with evidence, they will reject what doesn’t fit their worldview. We’re talking about a species that developed something called religion to reject evidence that they experienced first hand. It’s not a stretch.