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

[ghettosynth]

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.

It's two VCOs and a sub-osc driving a ladder filter with VCAs that can be overdriven. You should be able to setup an approximation of that in Diva without a level of effort that would prevent anyone who is interested from trying. Envelopes are ADSR, so the Mini EGs won't work, and that might be a bone of contention, but, you should be able to choose the Mini EG for a bass sound that gets you in the same neighborhood.

[vitocorleone123]

Diva can get you to the neighborhood, but can’t drop you off at the house.

[ghettosynth]

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.

To some extent, I agree, but, we have to be careful that we're not just saying that wooden end cheeks make a synth sound better. I'm reminded of Christine Ha (a blind chef) who won Master Chef in 2012. So, with high end food, we should be able to taste the difference. That's not to say that presentation doesn't have value, only that wooden end cheeks aren't what we're discussing.

Now, take that in context with this, and, IMSNHO, we're getting closer.

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.

I'm not quite as strict as Gamma-UT, but, this is the general region where the differences still lie. We already know that I like the obnoxious Neutron filter, so a lot of my stuff lives here.

Which, takes us to this post:

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.

Agreed, to some extent. I referenced this earlier. Many synths in the 80s used CEM chips and had a sameness to them. There were some meaningful differences on the more sophisticated synths, but, to my ears, the OBXa, for example, was never anything to write home about.

I have owned a Rev 3 P5 and sold it. If I had owned a Rev 1/2, I would probably still have it. There used to be some very nice comparison audio clips online somewhere that clearly demonstrated how much better the 2040 filter sounded.

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.

LOL, no it doesn't.

[ghettosynth]

Diva can get you to the neighborhood, but can’t drop you off at the house.

I wasn't arguing that they were the same one way or the other. I was only pointing out that if you want to make the software case that Diva should have enough flexibility and bona fides to allow you to produce a convincing software sound.

[seafire]

How about them synths eh... cor blimey

[crimsonwarlock]

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.

LOL, no it doesn't.

LOL, yes it does.


I can keep this up as long as you like

[_leras]

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.

Dude. That's very disrespectful. I'm just posting things that I think are great demos of hardware synths. Why would I search out 'processed' examples.

The point is there just aren't any software demos that sound the same as the hardware, or you'd have posted them.

re: prophet 5, even a quick search of the 'mini' version of this the take 5, is great sounding. Are you trying to say every person that loads a hardware synth demo is trying to game you?

(I have neither a prophet 5, or a take 5, but my mono evolver is enough to telle the hardware beats the software.)

[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.

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

I have never been interested in synths, either hardware or software, that smother everything in fx. The first thing I do when I try any synth demo is to look to see if the fx can be turned off. Its only the dry signal that interests me. Its the totally dry signal that I judge any synth on.

[ghettosynth]

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.

LOL, no it doesn't.

LOL, yes it does.


I can keep this up as long as you like

Go to about 20 seconds in to hear the "performance." Feel free to take the clip and apply a chorus of your choice. I'll wait.



No need to navigate on this one (Arturia)



While we're at it, here's an OBX (not OBXa)



I hate this patch and this track and I have zero interest in debating the subtleties of it, but, feel free to discuss the differences betwen a DX7 (again, ROFL), and the analog emu vs analog hardware.

[_leras]

I have had the FR777 since release. It's definitely considered a classic in some circles. There wouldn't be much point in trying to model that because it would push modeling limits and wouldn't drive many sales.

These people have no idea what you're talking about!?

Anyone whose used an FR777 against any softsynth wouldn't have an uncertain opinion on this topic. It's not the most versatile synth, but nothing matches it for the direct solidness of sound.

I don't even particularly like the sequencer, but that raw sound of this synth even just mono is so solid and alive. Brutal and fantastic sound.

[IvyBirds]

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.

Dude. That's very disrespectful. I'm just posting things that I think are great demos of hardware synths. Why would I search out 'processed' examples.

The point is there just aren't any software demos that sound the same as the hardware, or you'd have posted them.

re: prophet 5, even a quick search of the 'mini' version of this the take 5, is great sounding. Are you trying to say every person that loads a hardware synth demo is trying to game you?

(I have neither a prophet 5, or a take 5, but my mono evolver is enough to telle the hardware beats the software.)

So your mono digital synth that runs software to generate sound is enough to confirm your confirmation bias that the polyphonic hardware Prophet 5 which is radically different from your digital mono synth is better than another synth that runs software, when you don't have the hardware synth and just post random YouTube videos

Gotcha

[zerocrossing]

[zerocrossing]

[zerocrossing]

[zerocrossing]