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

[crimsonwarlock]

If you can't hear the difference between the demos e.g. the repro and prophet 5, then can't help you. Sorry.

The obvious difference I can hear is that the Prophet-5 video contains very processed and produced tracks, while the Repro demo is clearly the direct output of the synthesizer. So I call bogus on that comparison.

Here's a demo of an unprocessed Prophet-5, I don't hear anything in this video, that cannot be accomplished with any moderately capable software synthesizer.

[_leras]

If you can't hear the difference between the demos e.g. the repro and prophet 5, then can't help you. Sorry.

The obvious difference I can hear is that the Prophet-5 video contains very processed and produced tracks, while the Repro demo is clearly the direct output of the synthesizer. So I call bogus on that comparison.

Here's a demo of an unprocessed Prophet-5, I don't hear anything in this video, that cannot be accomplished with any moderately capable software synthesizer.

The rimela one for sure has great patch design, playing and arrangement. Not sure how much processing he'd add beyond maybe reverb.

That doctor mix thing is actually quite remarkable. How can someone make that synth sound so pinky plunky. He really does make it sound very average.

[Gamma-UT]

I always love these manoeuvres.

"Hardware is the greatest. It will always be better, listen to this. Get one and you'll find the same".

...

"How does this guy make it sound so average when hardware is so obviously great?"

Yes, it's a mystery. It foxes everyone.

[crimsonwarlock]

Not sure how much processing he'd add beyond maybe reverb.

That's my point. Posting a demo of a synth that is obviously processed (if maybe only with reverb) is not representative of the actual quality (or lack thereof) of said synthesizer.

That doctor mix thing is actually quite remarkable. How can someone make that synth sound so pinky plunky. He really does make it sound very average.

It is not remarkable at all. He plays the actual presets the original came with. It shows that a Prophet-5, although very innovative when first released, is nothing special in comparison to what we have available today. This is what an unprocessed Prophet-5 sounds like.

Many big synthesizers from the eighties have a mythical status that has nothing to do with their actual capabilities. Most of the famous polysynths sound so much the same, that the actual artists using them back then can't even remember which one they used on a certain track. Signature sounds aside, it is almost impossible to discern the difference between, say, an oberheim OB and a Jupiter-8, in a well produced and mixed final track. For example, the brass-patch on Toto's Africa sound very Oberheim-ish, but was done on a CS80. Same with Van Halen's Jump, which actually used an OB-Xa, but sounds much more like a Jupiter-8 tmo. Even a DX-7, running through a good chorus (I used an Ibanez Bi-mode chorus, back then), has a default patch that comes very close to the Jump-patch.

[crimsonwarlock]

double post

[dellboy]

We keep hearing in this thread to close your eyes and just listen with your ears. Why? Does anyone go into a very expensive restaurant and close their eyes and just taste? A large part of a trip to an expensive restaurant is the entire experience. The trip in a nice car, the area, the ambience in the restaurant, and the visual treat to the eyes of the gourmet food.

Its the same for a wine testing trip to a French Chateau. Its not just the tasting, its the entire experience. For some of us, its the whole experience of using hardware instead of software. I own Softube Model 80, and it does a great emulation of a Prophet 5. But I would much rather have a real Prophet 5 in front of me for the whole experience, ambience. Visual, touch, and sound. I just love analogue hardware, no need to give a reason.

Owning hardware is not to the detriment of software developers, because most people who own the hardware will almost certainly buy the software version as well.

[El°HYM]

Why not just be honest here; once you put the original hw directly next to your most beloved sw version of it (which almost nailed it for years) the software will lose. Once you put a real Model D next to your most beloved Behringer clone, the latter will lose. Also the busy mix, everyone will listen on earbuds anyway Argument is more than lame on an Audio related forum. Is that how Quincy Jones made Thriller: "Hey Michael lets just leave it as it is, people will listen to it on some crappy Loudspeaker at home anyway."

[crimsonwarlock]

Why not just be honest here; once you put the original hw directly next to your most beloved sw version of it (which almost nailed it for years) the software will lose.

Without stating in what way it will lose, your argument is moot.

Once you put a real Model D next to your most beloved Behringer clone, the latter will lose.

Again, in what way will it lose?

Also the busy mix, everyone will listen on earbuds anyway Argument is more than lame on an Audio related forum.

I didn't say anything about earbuds. Not being able to discern specific things in a well-produced mix, is a simple, and well established, fact. Let's take your 'Thriller' example: if you replace every synthesizer in that track with software versions, nobody will notice, not even listening on high-end monitors. Because the final sound of that track is much more the result of the mixing and production, than it is of the synths used. And to that point, Alex Ball just released a video where he makes that point in spades:

[El°HYM]

Again, this is an Audio related forum. And thats the way your beloved software emulation, which 'almost' nailed it will lose. Same as it will lose against an Update or Upgrade of its own, or does Dune 1 sound better than Dune 3.

[El°HYM]

[Gamma-UT]

Again, this is an Audio related forum. And thats the way your beloved software emulation, which 'almost' nailed it will lose. Same as it will lose against an Update or Upgrade of its own, or does Dune 1 sound better than Dune 3.

I see where your problem is. You have this idea of inherent quality of sound being the champion in creativity, rather than subjective qualia.

I've seen some people keep Dune 1 around alongside Dune 2 or 3 - simply because it was faster to get to the destination or because of some subtle differences in sound that happen to work for them. A more extreme example is Sonic Academy's ANA vs ANA2. The former has comedically large amounts of aliasing at times. But I've found situations where that was exactly what the doctor ordered.

Analogue synths? These days I'd power one up if I need the sound of voltage starvation in the filter or because of the feedback interactions with resonance. Some plugins can simulate that. Some don't bother – but they happen to be great at delivering a nice squelchy bass anyway. But for a lot of the sonic spectrum, these things are practically now indistinguishable in any realistic use.

[IvyBirds]

Several examples of what? All you did was post a video of a hardware synth, one you didn't even make with no information on how it was recorded and just declared that it was superior, without any explanation as to why you just decided it as so.

That's like saying Pepsi is better than Coke because you like it better

Several examples of great synth demos where software can't match the realness/presence/life of the hardware version. And it's not really that close.

See there you go again, how do I measure and quantify what "realness" sounds like? We are using instruments called "synthesizers" that make "synthetic" electronic music. in your examples I am listening to recordings one is not more real then the other

How do we measure and quantify what "presence" is? Again in your examples you are just posting YouTube videos they both have exactly the same presence, and any fair comparison will be done in the same room with the same speakers and amps

And again how do we measure and quantify "life" on recodings of inanimate objects?

[IvyBirds]

Again, this is an Audio related forum. And thats the way your beloved software emulation, which 'almost' nailed it will lose. Same as it will lose against an Update or Upgrade of its own, or does Dune 1 sound better than Dune 3.

Again, this is an Audio related forum. And thats the way your beloved software emulation, which 'almost' nailed it will lose. Same as it will lose against an Update or Upgrade of its own, or does Dune 1 sound better than Dune 3.

What does "almost nailed it" mean? And how does one lose? Lose what exactly?

When I design a patch with a software instrument, I don't "almost nail" anything

Software Synths at least the ones I find "beloved" all have features that the original hardware doesn't. Take Repro since that seems to be the point of contention versus the Prophet 5. With Repro I get 8 voices of polyphony, with the hardware I would only get 5. So if I want to play a simple triad chord with any amount of sustain, and then play another one with Repro I can and it will sound amazing, with the hardware I will get note stealing and it will sound like crap

I can take those 8 voices of Repro and play them in unison for a huge sound, with the hardware if I want 8 voice unison I can't so again software wins

With Repro I get stereo outputs and can set the stereo pan of each voice, with the Prophet 5 hardware even the reissue, all I have is a single mono output with all 5 voices summed to mono, so once again software is the clear winner

Now when we move beyond 40-50 year old Synths with which Software is the clear winner in measurable and quantifiable ways, we get to modern plugins that have so many options to do so many things it's not even close

I have yet to see any hardware synths that can do what DIVA does, or Zebra, or HALion7, or Falcon, of a bunch of other software I own

[dellboy]

Several examples of what? All you did was post a video of a hardware synth, one you didn't even make with no information on how it was recorded and just declared that it was superior, without any explanation as to why you just decided it as so.

That's like saying Pepsi is better than Coke because you like it better

Several examples of great synth demos where software can't match the realness/presence/life of the hardware version. And it's not really that close.

See there you go again, how do I measure and quantify what "realness" sounds like? We are using instruments called "synthesizers" that make "synthetic" electronic music. in your examples I am listening to recordings one is not more real then the other

How do we measure and quantify what "presence" is? Again in your examples you are just posting YouTube videos they both have exactly the same presence, and any fair comparison will be done in the same room with the same speakers and amps

And again how do we measure and quantify "life" on recodings of inanimate objects?

It would be helpful to the discussion if you were to suggest a software synth that you believe is the equivalent of the Leipzig 3. And maybe put a short clip that shows off its similar capabilities. For me Leipzig sort of bought to mind "Voltage" in Halion 7, but on testing that sounds a bit flat in comparison. And of course there is always the problem of latency using computers.

[IvyBirds]

Several examples of what? All you did was post a video of a hardware synth, one you didn't even make with no information on how it was recorded and just declared that it was superior, without any explanation as to why you just decided it as so.

That's like saying Pepsi is better than Coke because you like it better

Several examples of great synth demos where software can't match the realness/presence/life of the hardware version. And it's not really that close.

See there you go again, how do I measure and quantify what "realness" sounds like? We are using instruments called "synthesizers" that make "synthetic" electronic music. in your examples I am listening to recordings one is not more real then the other

How do we measure and quantify what "presence" is? Again in your examples you are just posting YouTube videos they both have exactly the same presence, and any fair comparison will be done in the same room with the same speakers and amps

And again how do we measure and quantify "life" on recodings of inanimate objects?

It would be helpful to the discussion if you were to suggest a software synth that you believe is the equivalent of the Leipzig 3. And maybe put a short clip that shows off its similar capabilities. For me Leipzig sort of bought to mind "Voltage" in Halion 7, but on testing that sounds a bit flat in comparison. And of course there is always the problem of latency using computers.

Define what "flat in comparison" means and how do I measure it?

You are asking people to spend time making and posting "short clips" but are not defining what are the measurable and quantifiable qualities you are looking for in those short clips

I don't have a Leipzig so I can't make comparison clips. I can't use the YouTube videos as a reference because I don't know how it was recorded, what was the signal chain, the gain staging, what EQ and compression was applied, how it was mastered and with what tools etc

I don't know about you, but I don't ever listen to records other people have made where all it is, is a recording of a synth played dry with zero effects or processing that was recorded direct to digital on a transparent Interface with plenty of headroom and where there was no mastering of any kind . Yet if I am asked to make software synth demos that is exactly what I am asked to do with the software synth, record it dry with no effects, processing, or mastering directly to digital

When I record synths, either hardware or software I am going to use a preamp or channel strip of some kind either in hardware form or virtually with plugins. What type I use and how hot I am running into it will have a direct effect on the sound

I am also going to apply an EQ of some kind, and the type of EQ I use, and how I use it, will have an effect on the final product

I am also going to use a compressor of some kind and again what compressor I use and how I use it will have a direct impact on the final sound

I might also use a chorus and again what type of chorus and how I use it, will have a direct impact on the sound, same for delay and reverb.

Then I might use an SPL Vitalizer in hardware or software, or an Apex Aural Exciter in hardware or software, maybe I use some kind of transient designer in hardware or software, or some kind of stereo field processor/expander

Finally I might use some kind of tape sim, or my actual tape machines

All of that will then get sent to a bus, where it will often by layered with other things, where again I will probably have things inserted across that bus that will have a direct impact on the sound

Finally that will get mixed down to the main L+R Stereo Bus where again I will have some kind of audio processing happening

After all of that I will render everything out, and either record it digitally or to tape

Finally before anyone hears it I would master it using a tool like Izotope Ozone which once again will have an impact on the sound

Any perceived differences between hardware synth A and Software Synth B that can only be heard when played and recorded dry with proper gain staging and headroom on transparent interfaces are irrelevant because that is not how we record or listen to music