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

[zerocrossing]

I have not heard software that sounds like the FM'd 2040 filter on my Octave Cat, or, in reference to Erica Synths, the Polyvoks filter. I don't care about arguing about it, and I don't care about proving it or not.

Part of the problem with these threads is that we start arguing over misinterpretations of posts. Is anyone arguing that software can fully mimic another synth at all settings? If so, those people are wrong. Even hardware reissues exhibit differences. It’s been reported that differences between instances of the same model used to be pretty common.

Starsky Carr has done extensive comparisons, and I don’t recall him ever finding an emulation that was perfectly matched to his hardware.

That’s literally why I have a room full of hardware. Well, at least one of the reasons. There are plenty of hardware synths that have unique characteristics. There are plenty of plugins that have unique characteristics. Someone might argue that Repro doesn’t sound like their Prophet 5, but the inverse is also true. By combining different aspects of different emulations of different instruments, you could make a Prophet 5 style sound that quite possibly hasn’t been heard, and that’s even before you hit the mod matrix. Hell, if you have Bitwig, you could use the CLAP version and have a Prophet 5 style sound that has two… or maybe three or four, per-voice LFOs and still use two detuned oscillators at audio rate.

Of course, you may not be interested in such malarkey, but I am. I’m getting results that I love, and that’s what we all want.

[IvyBirds]

I have not heard software that sounds like the FM'd 2040 filter on my Octave Cat, or, in reference to Erica Synths, the Polyvoks filter. I don't care about arguing about it, and I don't care about proving it or not.

Part of the problem with these threads is that we start arguing over misinterpretations of posts. Is anyone arguing that software can fully mimic another synth at all settings? If so, those people are wrong. Even hardware reissues exhibit differences.

I think the challenge is people post a hardware synth video and then say "see software doesn't sound exactly like this" but also fail to mention there are thousands of hardware synths that also don't sound exactly like that. If you post an analog synth example of a Minimoog Reissue, it will sound different than a vintage Minimoog, which will sound different than another vintage Minimoog, which will sound different than a grandmother, which will sound different than a Voyager, which will sound different than a Little Phatty, yet they are all analog monosynths, sold under the Moog brand name with the same ladder filter design

So are we talking about generalities of hardware -vs- software or are we going to reduce it down to very very specific sounds coming from very very specific instruments and say see software sucks because it can't sound exactly like this hardware synth?

We can all post examples of hardware that can't be exactly reproduced with software and software that can't be reproduced with hardware

That means we are at parity so we should all just use the tools that we think will do the best job for our own music

[ghettosynth]

I have not heard software that sounds like the FM'd 2040 filter on my Octave Cat, or, in reference to Erica Synths, the Polyvoks filter. I don't care about arguing about it, and I don't care about proving it or not.

Part of the problem with these threads is that we start arguing over misinterpretations of posts. Is anyone arguing that software can fully mimic another synth at all settings? If so, those people are wrong. Even hardware reissues exhibit differences. It’s been reported that differences between instances of the same model used to be pretty common.

Starsky Carr has done extensive comparisons, and I don’t recall him ever finding an emulation that was perfectly matched to his hardware.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. I'm not talking about being "perfectly matched." That's a fool's errand that is a function of many things that are not necessarily related to the differences between analog synthesis and the modeling of analog syntheis.

So, let's start there and put a fine point on it. The question is asking software vs analog, has the balance shifted? To me, this is asking whether DSP modeling of analog circuits has come close enough that the differences are in the noise. Let's be clear, an analog circuit is a thing, a DSP model of that thing is a model, not the thing. If I may paraphrase George Box, all models are wrong, some models are useful.

So, I'm being very specific here. I'm not talking about tit for tat or subtle differences that might be better here or better there. I'm saying, quite specifically, that FM modulation of an SSM 2040 or a Polyvoks filter in any attempt that I've heard falls outside of the richness that can be accomplished with analog. That is, the model is insufficient. This isn't the only example, but it's the one that comes immediately to mind.

When you compare Repro to a Prophet and say that it can do things that the Prophet can't, you are talking about features, not technical abilities that are a function of analog modeling that elevate it above actual analog. There are such features, e.g., thru-zero FM is a pain in the ass in analog hardware.

I'm not disagreeing BTW, I'm just not impressed with the distinction. There are things that are much easier to do in the digital realm, e.g., hundreds of oscillators, extremely complex polyphonic modulation. Moreover, for many styles I still much prefer working ITB.

However, when discussing the limitations of analog vs modeling, I couldn't give a rats ass about specific product limitations, e.g., the P5 V3 doesn't have a 2040 filter. If that's what you want, then yes, digital is going to be a much easier way to achieve that goal than modding a V3 poly. However, if Dave Smith decided to build one, then all bets are off. I'm only talking about the value of analog in general. For the most part, in 2025, that means modular, semi-modular, or quasi-modular, e.g., combining other sources and process with modular synths in useful ways. It doesn't mean, for me, the value of vintage recreations. For the most part, I'll take the digital counterparts if I'm not planning to play them live. Not because I think that they sound better, but because in that context they do sound mostly good enough and what differences that one can discern are not that important to me.

[zerocrossing]

I'm saying, quite specifically, that FM modulation of an SSM 2040 or a Polyvoks filter in any attempt that I've heard falls outside of the richness that can be accomplished with analog. That is, the model is insufficient. This isn't the only example, but it's the one that comes immediately to mind.

Right, I agree with you on most of your points, but I'll differ with you as to whether it can't be done as well, or just hasn't been done as well on the models you listed. Maybe there is something about the topology of those filters that is extra difficult to model. I don't know, but I don't think there is an emulation of either of those filters that is very good either. Does the Arturia Prophet model the SSM2040? I'm not even sure. If it does, it probably does fall short. I like the Arturia stuff, but I don't rate them particularly high for accuracy... but sometimes they seem to nail it, as in the Prophet VS.

All I'm saying is, I am able to get the "richness" of other filters being modulated at audio rates in a level of quality that I think does match their hardware equivalents.

[_leras]

Hard disagree, though obviously the Softube demo was not meant to sound like the Leipzig, it was just supposed to show how analog it can sound. In my opinion, you're listening with your eyes, not your ears. If you feel like it, download the demo and compare for yourself.

The Leipzig, that softube and the Erica synths aren't trying to sound the same for sure, that's just the progression of audio examples.

To me it's pretty clear the softube doesn't have the same presence, and certainly lacks the life on the noise and resonant type sounds both the others have.

There are so many easy to find good examples of hardware synths these days. It's harder to hear such good demos of the cats, and I never can find something that is as good from software.

That's not to say software can't sound good and be used, just that hardware synths are still more unique and present sounding.

[_leras]

When you compare Repro to a Prophet and say that it can do things that the Prophet can't, you are talking about features, not technical abilities that are a function of analog modeling that elevate it above actual analog. There are such features, e.g., thru-zero FM is a pain in the ass in analog hardware.

Definitely not intended to throw shade at Repro, and it's a synth I've used pretty extensively on some projects.

Repro sounds good but overall the hardware still has more life an character (to me). I think this still holds for an emulations out there, great and getting better, but not there yet.


here is a video of the hardware:


And this is the best I could find from Repro

[_leras]

I'm sure we can keep going of examples where software can't match.

Here's the very cheap behringer crave



And the neutron


So it's clearly not just expensive hardware synths that have great sound qualities.

[IvyBirds]

To me it's pretty clear the softube doesn't have the same presence,

Repro sounds good but overall the hardware still has more life an character (to me)

What are doing to measure life and presence other than just saying it's things you like so therefore it has it? Because if you can't measure and quantity something it doesn't exist. Synths in hardware and software are inanimate objects they don't have "life"

In the end your entire argument for hardware is that you personally like it, however that is really pointless as every human being likes it dislikes things differently than any other human being

I'm sure we can keep going of examples where software can't match.

I am still waiting for you to post a single example as those sounds are easily done with software

And again I ask what can't software match? Your personal tastes, likes, and dislikes since those can't be measured or quantified is irrelevant, they are just your personal tastes

[discombob]

This thread got huge, as always. But if it hasn't been said before (though I'd bet it has):

It all sounds good... Some better than others, and that is irregardless if it is a software or hardware based product.

Example: my OB-X8 clearly sounds better than my Oberheim VSTs and I have all of them (because of awesome engineering and low noise floor), but you know what often sounds even better than the zillion dollar OB? U-he Hive 2 and Synapse Dune 3, both of which simply impress and have no zero noise floor!

Then there's PolyBrute 12, which is a bit tricky on coaxing out the sound and often noisy enough to warrant using a gate, but can sound bewitchingly good while also having an interface that gets me lost in another world for hours. *Some but not all* of Arturia's software synths can accomplish the same.

Talk about spoiled for choice! I'm enjoying them all, so just demo stuff on a product by product (rather than developer) basis whether or not it is in the box, to find the sounds you love.

That is obviously easier with software these days without a lot of showroom floors around in many areas, so with hardware I consider more if the interface is likely to inspire me, firstly.

[El°HYM]

http://www.synth-project.de/diva.html

Dang! That brings back memories...

You got this thing?

No, way back when I was at U-He I was involved in building a prototype of a controller for Diva. At first glance I thought it was a pic of that one.

Man, that would have been super cool to see actually.

[El°HYM]

This thread got huge, as always. But if it hasn't been said before (though I'd bet it has):

It all sounds good... Some better than others, and that is irregardless if it is a software or hardware based product.

Example: my OB-X8 clearly sounds better than my Oberheim VSTs and I have all of them (because of awesome engineering and low noise floor), but you know what often sounds even better than the zillion dollar OB? U-he Hive 2 and Synapse Dune 3, both of which simply impress and have no zero noise floor!

Then there's PolyBrute 12, which is a bit tricky on coaxing out the sound and often noisy enough to warrant using a gate, but can sound bewitchingly good while also having an interface that gets me lost in another world for hours. *Some but not all* of Arturia's software synths can accomplish the same.

Talk about spoiled for choice! I'm enjoying them all, so just demo stuff on a product by product (rather than developer) basis whether or not it is in the box, to find the sounds you love.

That is obviously easier with software these days without a lot of showroom floors around in many areas, so with hardware I consider more if the interface is likely to inspire me, firstly.

The only thing that we have all learned from this thread so far is; that Software emulations sound almost indistinguishable from their Hardware counterpart, yet the new Behringer never sounds like the Original. Which is something to think about.

[pekbro]

I tend to prefer HW that there is no equivalent SW for. Though that’s not always easy to find.
That’s why I have a lot of boutique stuff.

For me it’s about design.

[El°HYM]

I tend to prefer HW that there is no equivalent SW for. Though that’s not always easy to find.
That’s why I have a lot of boutique stuff.

Why not list your boutique stuff for your fellow hw connoisseurs.

[pekbro]

I tend to prefer HW that there is no equivalent SW for. Though that’s not always easy to find.
That’s why I have a lot of boutique stuff.

Why not list your boutique stuff for your fellow hw connoisseurs.

It’s mostly eurorack, most of it is listed in this forum somewhere, I suppose I could do that,
I have plenty of SW too, more than HW actually.

Although, I’m not one to go out of my way just
for a stupid argument.

[El°HYM]

Me also has more software than hardware, yet no eurorack.