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

[IvyBirds]

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.

So if it's only the dry signal that interests you why do you want a comparison with a YouTube video that isn't a dry signal?

And you don't have to drown anything in effects to have them effect your sound.

You have made my point for me on how pointless it is to post videos of hardware synths with mystery signal chains where we don't know the signal chain, processing, effects, and mastering that was used and then proclaim "see the hardware is better" because of "reasons" that can't be measured, or quantified

[dellboy]

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.

So if it's only the dry signal that interests you why do you want a comparison with a YouTube video that isn't a dry signal?

And you don't have to drown anything in effects to have them effect your sound.

You have made my point for me on how pointless it is to post videos of hardware synths with mystery signal chains where we don't know the signal chain, processing, effects, and mastering that was used and then proclaim "see the hardware is better" because of "reasons" that can't be measured, or quantified

Yes, you make a good point.

[seafire]

I remember when I first started buying records with my own money. Me and my imaginary friends used to gather round and make notes on what instruments/fx/desks etc were used.

We had no interest in the music, all that mattered was the equipment they used.

The good old days.

[HAL76]

I remember when I first started buying records with my own money. Me and my imaginary friends used to gather round and make notes on what instruments/fx/desks etc were used.

We had no interest in the music, all that mattered was the equipment they used.

The good old days.

I lately discovered that some sounds I relly yliked in the 90s probably came from an Alpha Juno / MKS-50. I don´t mean what the but I mean what the ... !

[Funky40]

In SW, i deal with a full blown studio. Why should i take a single SW-synth and compare it to a single HW Synth ?
it does NOT reflect real live.

And: why should i try in SW to *exactly* mimic a analog HW synths sound, when SW has it´s very own strong points ?
I don´t get that point either.

Each platform, SW or HW has its own strong points.
If i´d use HW, i try to use it for its own strong points.
If i use SW, i use it vs. it´s own strong points.



SORRY, looong post, read or just skip, but do not blame me
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

If i compare very usecase specific vs. the following usecase:
- hand-playing by keyboard, poly-playing, No external sequenzing, ......synthetic soundengine, no further FXing exept of the normal stuff. Minimalistic: a reverb. ( NOT counting compression, EQ, saturation, preAmping as FX )
Lets say, the usecase is live-performing for production works or not, with just "the best sound possible" in mind. I´d record both, HW or SW, from it´s audio out at the tail. (cause i run plugins in a separate plugin-Host. GP, as Ivy does)

__Vs. that usecase scenario, comparing finished ITB patches with all the CC mappings donne vs. HW synths,
Do i prefer my ITB patch with it´s specific sound at any day over any HW-synth. I can create you ITB the better final sound vs. live-, poly- playing.

( the only HW-synth that i´d still find tempting is the Yamaha Montage. Ahh, and the C15. Both digital btw. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IF i add further FXing, creative FXing to the above deal as well, still: synthetic soundengine, poly-playing, but now with creative jaming-along in mind:
- is a HW-based setup even nolonger anything a competition nor a comparison .....=> in my world. It´s completly out of date. (reference: my world, not yours)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- if i take monophonic voices, sequenzed, things shift. Overall i´d prefer HW. And there probably a HW modular, but not only. Yet i have a ITB-based 303 patch that i take at ANY time over -even a real- HW 303. Here, it´d be a mixed bag.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

overall vs. poly-playing, no sequenzing, is my ITB sound just way better than anything HW.
But that´s only possible cause i patch ITB *not* within a DAW, but a realtime play Host, and i take advantage of the fact that i have a full fledged studio at hand. AND: i take advantage of the fact that some of the best studio tools ever built.....=> are Plugins.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My ITB sound sounds different than a analog HW synth does.
Why should i strive for a replication of old sounds ?
i do NOT get that point either !
....until it is a given requirement vs. a specific job. But otherwise...... ?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I can take it even further. This is for real, not kidding:
- offer me somebody 5 of the best ever built analog Synths on loan.
Lets say a private museum has to close, and i´m inline first, cause......let´s say.....i´m friend of the family.
5 synths, i can chose freely. On loan for 5 years.

NO, i´m NOT interested !

if the offer was otherwise, from non friends, would i even ask: what do you pay me per year to give these synths a storage ?
personally, i´d consider any time spent on such synths a waste of time.

IF i had the synths here anyway, yes, i might spend several times a year some 20-30 mins playing with these. 2-3-4 times a year. Doubtful more than 5 times a year. Very doubtful.


NOT INTERESTED

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

cause what i can create ITB, patching in the node based host, is so so much more interesting, performs quantum leaps better, and has even the better final sound at the exhaust pipe.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now back to point 1:
I DO have a full studio available ITB. Why should i not take advantage of that ?
comparing "one synth" vs. "one synth", SW vs. HW, makes to me just NO sense !

it has nothing to do with real live. Not in my book

[zerocrossing]

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.

We need to leave Diva out of this conversation for several reasons.

Diva is old. It was made to offer 16 voices of analog emulation that would comfortably run on an average computer of the time. Shortcuts were made to make it possible.

Diva is not a 1:1 emulation of anything, but instead a series of components that could be mixed and matched that were inspired by classic synthesizers. Urs has mentioned that parameter ranges were changed to allow this to work.

Lastly, Urs has mentioned that he made changes to modules based on his own aesthetics, when he felt it would be better, at the expense of accuracy.

Don’t get me wrong. Diva is fantastic at many things, but doesn’t hold up to being pushed. If you want a lush, detuned PWM pad, it’s excellent, and has a lot of features that classic synths don’t.

If you want to make comparisons with your analog hardware, look at:

Softube. Pretty much everything they do is great.

U-he’s Repro

GForce. Their Oberheim emulations are brilliant. Oddity ain’t too shabby either.

Korg. Their new 2600 is fantastic. Their other new stuff is great too. I hope they bring their whole collection to the same level.

NI still holds its own in terms of their Blocks. Super 8 is also very good. Make sure you set Reaktor to run at 2 or 4x your sample rate for the best results.

Synapse’s analog stuff is pretty great. Any deviation from a Model D is more than made up by the generous voice counts. Please direct all criticism of Legend HZ to Hans Zimmer.

Arturia… sometimes. Their digital and hybrid emulsions are really their strongest weapons, but their newer versions are not bad, and offer more than other emulations.

[zerocrossing]

In SW, i deal with a full blown studio. Why should i take a single SW-synth and compare it to a single HW Synth ?
it does NOT reflect real live.

Well, when you name your emulation some clever variation of a hardware version, or literally use the same name, you’re opening yourself to comparisons.

it has nothing to do with real live. Not in my book [/b]

We all live different lives. We all have different priorities. I think it’s useful to scrutinize technology, if for nothing else, finding the strengths or weaknesses. What I don’t find useful is when people use language like, “life,” to describe things that are clearly not alive.

We all know that modern hardware reissues, like the Prophet 5 and 10 mk4 are using software to make modern analog components sound more analog. Some may even say, “more lively.” The same algorithms have been used in software as well. Even the much criticized Prophet 6 and ‘08 variants have benefited from this. Software helping analog hardware. Will wonders never cease?

The good news is, software doesn’t have to emulate analog devices perfectly, because human hearing isn’t perfect.

[ROTMetro]

I think the fact this this discussion is so in the weeds shows there's pretty close parity.

Again I go back to The Weeknd's After Hours album, a pretty well received synth music album. The songs are mixed between soft synths (Alone Again, After Hours,
Escape From LA, Heartless) and unknown what's softsynth/hardware for the others, and they don't audibly stand out from the rest of the songs. That Diva bass in After Hours around 3:07 sounds pretty sick.

[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.

We need to leave Diva out of this conversation for several reasons.

Diva is old. It was made to offer 16 voices of analog emulation that would comfortably run on an average computer of the time. Shortcuts were made to make it possible.

Diva is not a 1:1 emulation of anything, but instead a series of components that could be mixed and matched that were inspired by classic synthesizers. Urs has mentioned that parameter ranges were changed to allow this to work.

Lastly, Urs has mentioned that he made changes to modules based on his own aesthetics, when he felt it would be better, at the expense of accuracy.

Don’t get me wrong. Diva is fantastic at many things, but doesn’t hold up to being pushed. If you want a lush, detuned PWM pad, it’s excellent, and has a lot of features that classic synths don’t.

If you want to make comparisons with your analog hardware, look at:

"I" don't. I truly do think that this is a fool's errand. That said, if you can't get at least close with Diva then it might not be the synths. I recommended it because it should take you a few minutes to get the right modules in place and a bit longer to get a patch. If you want to spend more time you could, as you say, use Softube, or even Reaktor Blocks.

[ghettosynth]

I think the fact this this discussion is so in the weeds shows there's pretty close parity.

Again I go back to The Weeknd's After Hours album, a pretty well received synth music album. The songs are mixed between soft synths (Alone Again, After Hours,
Escape From LA, Heartless) and unknown what's softsynth/hardware for the others, and they don't audibly stand out from the rest of the songs. That Diva bass in After Hours around 3:07 sounds pretty sick.

Not really, these discussions are always in the weeds and it always comes down to who defines "pretty close." Each person seems to want to neutralize someone else's definition of "pretty close" in order to stamp QED and close the thread. So, yes, they are pretty close, except when they're not.

[ROTMetro]

I think the fact this this discussion is so in the weeds shows there's pretty close parity.

Again I go back to The Weeknd's After Hours album, a pretty well received synth music album. The songs are mixed between soft synths (Alone Again, After Hours,
Escape From LA, Heartless) and unknown what's softsynth/hardware for the others, and they don't audibly stand out from the rest of the songs. That Diva bass in After Hours around 3:07 sounds pretty sick.

Not really, these discussions are always in the weeds and it always comes down to who defines "pretty close." Each person seems to want to neutralize someone else's definition of "pretty close" in order to stamp QED and close the thread. So, yes, they are pretty close, except when they're not.

When it comes down to 'this is vaguely superior because of some personal preference I like about a sound' we might as well be discussing guitar models and which is better. And that that is the level of discussion shows that it's pretty close to parity.

[_leras]

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

Not what I said. And still no software examples from you to match any of the many synth demos I've posted.... <shrug>

It's clear from the prophet 5 demos, that it sounds better than any of the emulations. (doesn't mean the emulations are bad).

re: mono evolver, it's just from the same family of synths. and they all sound better than software. here are some more sounds software can't make - enjoy


Mopho


Tetra


Mono Evolver


Prophet 8


Take 5

[_leras]

GForce. Their Oberheim emulations are brilliant. Oddity ain’t too shabby either.

you mentioned G Force earlier in the thread I think, so lets explore how they hold up.

It's by no means bad sounding, but doesn't have the life of the hardware...

G Force


Arp Odyssey



Berhringer Odyssey

[IvyBirds]

Not what I said. And still no software examples from you to match any of the many synth demos I've posted.... <shrug>

What am I supposed to match? I have asked you multiple times to define why you think those are superior with measurable and quantifiable metrics, as soon as you do that I will be be happy to post examples, until you define exactly how I measure and quantify "life" and "presence" how can't I post examples of what you are looking for?

It's clear from the prophet 5 demos, that it sounds better than any of the emulations. (doesn't mean the emulations are bad).

So if it's clear, define what exactly is so clear. You keep on saying that but don't offer anything that quantifies it with measurable data. The fact you personally prefer it is not relevant

As far as measurable things the hardware only has a Mono Audio Output and only has 5 voices so you can't play triads with release. Repro allows you to play triads and pan the voices in stereo, so obviously the software sounds better, and yes you can measure, define, and quantify that it's not an opinion

Or I can play ambient washes with Repro that have 8 notes going at the same time all panned in stereo, since you can't do that on the hardware once again the Software is the clear winner in a measurable, quantifiable way

re: mono evolver, it's just from the same family of synths. and they all sound better than software. here are some more sounds software can't make - enjoy

You do realize that the Evolver is software based right? And that software is making those sounds right? I had an Evolver I know it well. Without a computer running software that doesn't exist or make a single sound wave

And thanks for posting more useless videos, again please define why you think those are better than software, well except for the Mono Evolver video since that is software as you know

[IvyBirds]

GForce. Their Oberheim emulations are brilliant. Oddity ain’t too shabby either.

you mentioned G Force earlier in the thread I think, so lets explore how they hold up.

It's by no means bad sounding, but doesn't have the life of the hardware...

Again since you keep on saying that please define how we measure "Life". You say it doesn't have the life that the hardware has so you must be measuring that with something and if so what