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

[zerocrossing]

I'm not sure you 100% get what I meant by that? I meant that digital and soft synths tend to have areas they just don't excel at. Whereas I just got a Dreadbox Hades, and everything out of it sounds thick no dirt areas. I'm sure there are analog synths that have dull spots, but digital and software in general have areas where it sounds bad in general.

In terms of soft synths, I don't own Vital but Hive is dead easy for me to build patches in. That difference is more about taste.

I understood that you find more sweet spots on hardware while you easier find digital poo on software.
That might be the case as there are so many poo and uninspiring sounding softsynths.
Synths that some people use to great sonic success.
But my experiences with hardware are not the ones that give me fuel for what you said. Different yes! Generally better? More or wider sweet spots? Not per se.
Again: A Prophet 5 can easily sound boring and not good. When you do it that way.
The tool makes it for what YOU like. Then totally yes.
Check this video of Tonepusher who is a totally cool dude, cool videos with interesting infos.
What he is doing with that synth and calls it great is eh.... Not so great in my book.
I got WAY more interesting sounds outta Diva with the MS20 modules. Taste.

One of the things that were not talking about here is that if you go into any random hardware synth thread, you will find a few people who say it sucks. A Jupiter 8 thread will have someone who prefers the Prophet 5. MS20 sucks to people who prefer the ARP 2600. The entire modern range of Curtis chip based synths from DSI/Sequential is frequently used as examples of terrible sounding synthesizers. I’ve seen people trash my beloved Melbourne Instruments Nina. Pretty much the only thing that you can rely on in this site is that someone is going to tell you that the thing you like is crap.

[vitocorleone123]

TBF, with software like Serum 2, Dune 3, Diva, etc... sounding so good, I don't know why anyone would want more than just hardware knobs.

It’s very simple: Because not all sounds in hardware are available in software (and vice versa).

Also, for people who perform live (not me) a hardware synth can be a lot easier and reliable than something with a laptop or tether to something else.

[IvyBirds]

Also, for people who perform live (not me) a hardware synth can be a lot easier and reliable than something with a laptop or tether to something else.

As someone that gigs multiple times a week every week with a laptop who used to gig multiple times a week with hardware that simply is not true anymore

I have now done several hundred gigs with just a laptop and it's been 100% reliable in every way possible

As far as easier if I am playing a band gig we use DANTE for our FOH Mix and in ears. My entire setup is just plug my 3 controllers into a USB hub, then that hub into a laptop, and run a CAT5e cable from my laptop into our stage box

If I am playing a solo gig which is I often do I bring a pair of powers speakers, they are also DANTE so all I need is a CAT5

All my presets and plugins for the entire show are preprogrammed into Gig Performer and I use a MIDI foot controller to switch between presets

I can mix everything on the fly using faders on a MIDI controller.

As someone who has gigged for decades NOTHING has been more reliable or easier to deal with, absolutely nothing

[whassup]

One of the things that were not talking about here is that if you go into any random hardware synth thread, you will find a few people who say it sucks. A Jupiter 8 thread will have someone who prefers the Prophet 5. MS20 sucks to people who prefer the ARP 2600. The entire modern range of Curtis chip based synths from DSI/Sequential is frequently used as examples of terrible sounding synthesizers. I’ve seen people trash my beloved Melbourne Instruments Nina. Pretty much the only thing that you can rely on in this site is that someone is going to tell you that the thing you like is crap.

Then we can agree on these: I like Nina too.
And sure you will find somebody who has a different taste than you. Normal.
In German we have this proverb that goes like:
It's all personal preference said the monkey and chews his soap.

[ghettosynth]

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.

Hmmm.. where did I say I was talking about the patch in that video (never saw that video before).

I did look up the patch, and it is the FATSYNTH 01 patch that you can find in most (if not all) DX7 patch libraries that are floating around the internet.

I just did a quick setup with a tiny bit of EQ, a random chorus (not a bi-mode like I did back then), and some delay and reverb to get a little closer to the original (again, not closely matched):

https://whyp.it/tracks/289848/dx7-jump?token=yPMU1

Yeah, no. It definitely sounds like a DX7. It's not about it being matched, you won't be able to match it. I've spent a lot of time with FM, I've built FM synths in Reaktor, I've talked about it here, I've talked about Bazille and its limitations with respect to classic waveforms.

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

[crimsonwarlock]

Yeah, no. It definitely sounds like a DX7.

Of course it sounds like a DX7 because that's what it is. That characteristic FM sound will always be there. I didn't say I can make a DX7 sound like not-a-DX7

It's not about it being matched, you won't be able to match it.

I could get a lot closer if I wanted, but that's not what I'm going to spend my time on. So, just to put this into perspective, this took me about 5 minutes to coble together, which shows it is not to hard to get this close with a DX7 preset. My point is, if you can get this close, even with an FM-based synthesizer, it is child-play to make the jump-sound with any software synthesizer that emulates the analog-synth structure.

Let's be honest here. The jump-patch is a pretty generic synthesizer sound. It is not that special in any way. It is, of course, the riff that made it famous (and the band that did it), not the patch used. This goes for most of the 'iconic' sounds we remember from popular tracks. They are only iconic because of the context they were used in.

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure

Yep, and that is my point. In the end, you only have to get somewhat close to the original, and nobody will notice. All the small and esoteric differences that are being discussed here, don't mean a thing in the end-result.

[zerocrossing]

One of the things that were not talking about here is that if you go into any random hardware synth thread, you will find a few people who say it sucks. A Jupiter 8 thread will have someone who prefers the Prophet 5. MS20 sucks to people who prefer the ARP 2600. The entire modern range of Curtis chip based synths from DSI/Sequential is frequently used as examples of terrible sounding synthesizers. I’ve seen people trash my beloved Melbourne Instruments Nina. Pretty much the only thing that you can rely on in this site is that someone is going to tell you that the thing you like is crap.

Then we can agree on these: I like Nina too.
And sure you will find somebody who has a different taste than you. Normal.
In German we have this proverb that goes like:
It's all personal preference said the monkey and chews his soap.

My point is a little different, though. A lot of people don’t know the difference between, “I don’t like it,” and, “it sucks.” There are a lot of things that don’t like, but I don’t think they suck. They’re just not for me, and that can be for a wide variety of reasons, from lacking a certain feature that I require, to overlap with something else, to just not sounding in a way that I find interesting.

[IvyBirds]

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

As someone who has seen Van Halen live at least 75 times but probably closer to 100 times going back to the early 1980s I can tell you with certainty that patch is good enough for Van Halen itself. They have played that with a myriad of Synths over the years including with a D50

Eddie Van Halen himself cared so little about that synth sound that most of the time it's played off stage by a session player or especially in later years and tours was probably a recorded track

[crimsonwarlock]

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

As someone who has seen Van Halen live at least 75 times but probably closer to 100 times going back to the early 1980s I can tell you with certainty that patch is good enough for Van Halen itself.

I totally agree. Especially because a big PA-system certainly does not sound like a pair of studio monitors, besides the fact that the acoustics of most live venues have really bad acoustics

As I said, the actual riff makes it into what it is, not the synth patch (which, again, is pretty generic and nothing special). This is why I don't see the merit in focusing on the tiny esoteric differences between this or that synth, being it hardware or software. In the end, it really doesn't matter.

[ghettosynth]

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

As someone who has seen Van Halen live at least 75 times but probably closer to 100 times going back to the early 1980s I can tell you with certainty that patch is good enough for Van Halen itself. They have played that with a myriad of Synths over the years including with a D50

Eddie Van Halen himself cared so little about that synth sound that most of the time it's played off stage by a session player or especially in later years and tours was probably a recorded track

That's neither here nor there. I've made this point earlier, but I'll make it again. Whether the difference matters is a function of your detailed comfort with the sound. Everyone in this thread is expressing this in different ways and with a different perspective. Pxindy and I are saying that from a detailed analog perspective with audio rate modulations that it isn't quite there. Those arguing that a DX7 can replace an analog poly are coming from a different perspective. Those are perspectives reflect a different set of tastes and expectations. In particular, they are also both context driven.

The example I gave earlier, that should be understandable by anyone, is whether or not samples can replace a concert piano. As far as I'm concerned, sure. A concert pianist will probably see this differently.

The key point here though, is that you cannot have the QED without convincing the concert pianist. You can absolutely say that software has come a long way and for most people in most contexts it's probably adequate. However, just like the concert pianist, there are going to be contexts where the sound is naked and the differences subtle, and not everyone can be convinced.

These threads will continue until either everyone is convinced, they get locked, or people get bored. They always have, and they always will.

For me, the balance (mostly) shifted for polys when Diva came out. I have never been a superfan of vintage polys. I say mostly, because I think that modern synths are able to do more and that changes the mix a bit. Still, the only analog polys that I regularly use these days are my pair of Pro800s and my pair of B.Solinas. That's because there is something to using them in stereo, sometimes with M/S processing, that is more work to get out of software. The subtle differences, either innate or created by patch variation, are amplified by the stereo field.

However, for modular and some monosynths, we're not there yet. So, if you want to argue that the balance has shifted in terms of analog technology emulation for most people most of the time, ok, but that is because most people aren't creating specific kinds of work where it still matters.

Mad respect to pdxindy for coming in to the thread, stating his position and bailing. I think that I'm going to do the same, only in a "few" more words. I have a drone on the modular at the moment with the B.Cat at the core with VCO1->VCO2->Filter and it sounds glorious. It's calling me to ignore this thread and go play with it. Try it yourself, find those odd oscillator sync moments that interact with the resonance and then duplicate it in software. Post your results, I'll check it out.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Also, for people who perform live (not me) a hardware synth can be a lot easier and reliable than something with a laptop or tether to something else.

As someone that gigs multiple times a week every week with a laptop who used to gig multiple times a week with hardware that simply is not true anymore

I have now done several hundred gigs with just a laptop and it's been 100% reliable in every way possible

As far as easier if I am playing a band gig we use DANTE for our FOH Mix and in ears. My entire setup is just plug my 3 controllers into a USB hub, then that hub into a laptop, and run a CAT5e cable from my laptop into our stage box

If I am playing a solo gig which is I often do I bring a pair of powers speakers, they are also DANTE so all I need is a CAT5

All my presets and plugins for the entire show are preprogrammed into Gig Performer and I use a MIDI foot controller to switch between presets

I can mix everything on the fly using faders on a MIDI controller.

As someone who has gigged for decades NOTHING has been more reliable or easier to deal with, absolutely nothing

Everything you described can also be done with an iPhone running Logic Pro or GarageBand. Pianoteq 8 works on iOS + tons of great synths and would be very easy to just do gigs with an iPhone, midi controller and interface these days instead of a laptop.

But where do we stop with this "race to the bottom" sort of thinking? Do we disregard sound, performance and real instruments all in favor of convenience? Should doing things the cheapest easiest most convenient way really be the end goal of a musician?

Who'd want to go see their favorite artist perform live if you knew they couldn't give two shits about the way the music sounded?

[IvyBirds]

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

As someone who has seen Van Halen live at least 75 times but probably closer to 100 times going back to the early 1980s I can tell you with certainty that patch is good enough for Van Halen itself.

I totally agree. Especially because a big PA-system certainly does not sound like a pair of studio monitors, besides the fact that the acoustics of most live venues have really bad acoustics

As I said, the actual riff makes it into what it is, not the synth patch (which, again, is pretty generic and nothing special). This is why I don't see the merit in focusing on the tiny esoteric differences between this or that synth, being it hardware or software. In the end, it really doesn't matter.

back in the early 1990s I was in a hard rock/hair metal cover band, we did a cover of Jump. I used a lowly Roland D20 for the synth part. There is a factory preset on the D20 called "Jump Lead" that sounds amazing, Everytime we did that song and I would start playing that riff with that preset and all of the 20 people in the bar would go nuts My other shining moment of glory in that band was playing the opening riff to "The Final Countdown" using a DX7II layered with the D20

[IvyBirds]

Also, for people who perform live (not me) a hardware synth can be a lot easier and reliable than something with a laptop or tether to something else.

As someone that gigs multiple times a week every week with a laptop who used to gig multiple times a week with hardware that simply is not true anymore

I have now done several hundred gigs with just a laptop and it's been 100% reliable in every way possible

As far as easier if I am playing a band gig we use DANTE for our FOH Mix and in ears. My entire setup is just plug my 3 controllers into a USB hub, then that hub into a laptop, and run a CAT5e cable from my laptop into our stage box

If I am playing a solo gig which is I often do I bring a pair of powers speakers, they are also DANTE so all I need is a CAT5

All my presets and plugins for the entire show are preprogrammed into Gig Performer and I use a MIDI foot controller to switch between presets

I can mix everything on the fly using faders on a MIDI controller.

As someone who has gigged for decades NOTHING has been more reliable or easier to deal with, absolutely nothing

Everything you described can also be done with an iPhone running Logic Pro or GarageBand. Pianoteq 8 works on iOS + tons of great synths and would be very easy to just do gigs with an iPhone, midi controller and interface these days instead of a laptop.

But where do we stop with this "race to the bottom" sort of thinking? Do we disregard sound, performance and real instruments all in favor of convenience? Should doing things the cheapest easiest most convenient way really be the end goal of a musician?

Only it can't , even Apple who makes Logic Pro for its Macs, and makes the iPhone doesn't agree with you which is why they make mainstage

Only someone who doesn't gig and who is totally ignorant to the realities of playing live would think that

And it's hardly a race to the bottom. If I was racing to the bottom and wanted to disregard sound, and performance I would use hardware only, as by using Software I am able to bring with me so many different Synths that can make so many different sounds it would require a semi truck to haul them around and even bands selling out stadiums in 2025 are not doing that.

If I was all hardware which I was for many years, I would have to make compromises as to the sounds I was able to use based on the Synths that I could actually bring to the gig, and that would actually fit on the stage. Gigging with more than 3 keyboards becomes quite the challenge gigging with more than 5 or 6 is impossible. I have the ability to have many dozens of synths in my show and switch between them instantly using a foot controller. Do I need a B3 sound? Awesome bam I have it. Do I need a Prophet 5 sound? Step on a trigger and instantly I have it, need to play a Minimoog style lead? Step on a trigger again and I have it l. Do I need to create a split just during the chorus or solo to play a different lead sound than during the bridge or verses? Not a problem. Step on a trigger and make it happen then step on the trigger again and it's right back to what I was using before. Since I care about performance the race to bottom would be using hardware that can't do that

It's hard enough to establish a difference between a "real" Minimoog and a Software one in a treated studio on good monitors when in a mix, now try to do so in a bar, club, theater, arena, outdoor amphitheatre, or stadium where the acoustic will be shit, as will the massive standing waves and other sonic issues large PAs introduce

But again if you had a clue you would know this, which is why you race the bottom and always default to the idea that hardware synths are always going to be the right choice and speak of things you have zero experience with

As for "real" instruments what is that? I can't fit or travel with a Steinway Model D in my car or a Hammond B3 with a Leslie, so I use synths which are synthetic instruments that synthesize those sounds

[ghettosynth]

Now, is that satisfactory for a cover band playing to a bar crowd in the 80s? Sure, just like an M1 with a bit of reverb was a satisfactory piano sound in the same context in the 90s.

As someone who has seen Van Halen live at least 75 times but probably closer to 100 times going back to the early 1980s I can tell you with certainty that patch is good enough for Van Halen itself.

I totally agree. Especially because a big PA-system certainly does not sound like a pair of studio monitors, besides the fact that the acoustics of most live venues have really bad acoustics

As I said, the actual riff makes it into what it is, not the synth patch (which, again, is pretty generic and nothing special). This is why I don't see the merit in focusing on the tiny esoteric differences between this or that synth, being it hardware or software. In the end, it really doesn't matter.

back in the early 1990s I was in a hard rock/hair metal cover band, we did a cover of Jump. I used a lowly Roland D20 for the synth part. There is a factory preset on the D20 called "Jump Lead" that sounds amazing, Everytime we did that song and I would start playing that riff with that preset and all of the 20 people in the bar would go nuts My other shining moment of glory in that band was playing the opening riff to "The Final Countdown" using a DX7II layered with the D20

Many of us have had similar experiences. I would never play Jump in any band, but, I did play "Black Magic Woman" in a cover band and I recall spending hours developing my tone for that guitar lead back in the 90s. I had the typical rack based processing setup where I was not satisfied with the digital distortion so I had a separate tube based preamp as well as a very damned heavy rack mount tube based amp and a Marshall 1936 2x12 cabinet. Multiple guitars, because one isn't enough, multiple stands, a midi foot controller, etc.

When I started that intro I would always get a reaction from the crowd.

At some point I just got fed up with carrying all of that in to every gig and I switched to my "one trip" rule. That is, everything that I needed to play guitar for the gig had go into the venue in one trip. I ditched the entire rack and the 2x12 cabinet. I ditched the fancy midi foot controller that orchestrated all of the patch switching. I went to a MusicMan 1x12 combo with a spring reverb, which I hate, but the audience doesn't care, and a tube screamer in my guitar case. I threw one of those small aluminum stands, which I still have, into the back of my amp. Amp in one hand, guitar case in the other, one trip.

When I started that intro with my simplified setup, I would still always get a reaction from the crowd.

They are mostly not discerning with respect to the sound and so it means nothing that in a sloppy, live, and quasi-professional context that the audience reacts to your approximation. What they are reacting to is the song and their familiarity with it. In fact, the biggest way to lose the crowd isn't about changing your sound, rather, it's about doing your own thing with songs that they like. Try playing a weird solo in a song with an iconic solo and see how they react.

This doesn't make the case that one should not spend time finding the right tone for a recording. That was certainly the case then and it's still the case now.

[crimsonwarlock]

This doesn't make the case that one should not spend time finding the right tone for a recording. That was certainly the case then and it's still the case now.

So, you might not be aware of the humongous amount of default synthesizer presets that winded up, completely unchanged, on as many hit records and albums.