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

[Papuzzo]

I'm still trying to understand what "better" actually is concerning sound. Is there some bonafide metric behind "better" that is universally accepted and standardized? Will 10 random people all agree on what sounds "better?" Or is "better" just something for people to argue about on the Internet rather than actually making music?

Agreed. And basically the point I'm arguing (together with several others here). The things that some people state to be 'better', are never actually defined by those people, even though it has been asked by many. When someone posts videos about hardware and states that those videos demonstrate some kind of sound quality in analog hardware, seems to totally forget that those videos have rather badly compressed audio to begin with.

So the question, indeed, remains: in what way do these hardware boxes sound 'better'?

They don't. They might sound a little different, but what one likes is subjective, not objective. I learned a long time ago to just not pay attention to people who like to argue about gear. The gear is nowhere near as important to sounding "better" as talent is.

[Funky40]

can you create "real" morph controls in Logic ?
one HW control mapped to many parameters, across different plugins, with each parameter getting its own curvature/remapping vs. that specifc CC/parameter ?

Never tried in Logic, but sure I can do that in Bitwig.

Yeah, BUT: he sayed he can do everything in Logic

......., but sure I can do that in Bitwig.

i had this dicussion here already. With another guy iirc. Or was it you ? At the end i had the feel that Bitwig is not exactly there vs. that. I had the feel it´s a completly different approach, no free curvature drawing available.
BUT: Ivy says now same, Bitwig "can" do it. Okey......


can you folks show me please a screenshot of such a curvature, respectivly the editor ?
from which bitwig version on was this implemented ? (my BW is not newest)
Where in the manual can i read it up ? (i searched for it )

after i´ve seen it myself, i can tell ya if it would be anything feasable vs. my world, my tasks, my CC mapping workload (which is HUGE)....evyrthing powerful i do is based on that. It´s coming from there


and yes, show me where in logic can i do it ! ( i mean, where in the manual can i find it ?)
(i´m in need of multicore CPU processing. GP falls there short. i´d switch for some things out of GP)

[crimsonwarlock]

So the question, indeed, remains: in what way do these hardware boxes sound 'better'?

They don't. They might sound a little different, but what one likes is subjective, not objective. I learned a long time ago to just not pay attention to people who like to argue about gear. The gear is nowhere near as important to sounding "better" as talent is.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm agreeing with you. My post was a reaction to all those people here that DO think that hardware is somehow sounding 'better', without qualifying what that 'better' even means (even to themselves).

To me, most unprocessed hardware and software sounds pretty flat and uninspiring. It is the processing that brings out the qualities, again both for software and hardware.

[Papuzzo]

So the question, indeed, remains: in what way do these hardware boxes sound 'better'?

They don't. They might sound a little different, but what one likes is subjective, not objective. I learned a long time ago to just not pay attention to people who like to argue about gear. The gear is nowhere near as important to sounding "better" as talent is.

Maybe you missed it, but I'm agreeing with you. My post was a reaction to all those people here that DO think that hardware is somehow sounding 'better', without qualifying what that 'better' even means (even to themselves).

To me, most unprocessed hardware and software sounds pretty flat and uninspiring. It is the processing that brings out the qualities, again both for software and hardware.

I got it and I completely agree with you. Hardware has massive limitations than can be overcome in the digital world. Even hardware synth manufacturers realized this and started using digital oscillators. I personally think it is foolish and snobbish to think that a hardware Juno sounds better than a software Juno today. But hey, if someone wants to spend a couple thousand on a vintage Juno to get "better" sound, I say let them. I'm perfectly happy with TAL's Juno emulation and it cost me a whopping 50 bucks. I also think Surge XT is a much "better" synth than a Juno and it is free.

[zerocrossing]

Resonance is another area that plugins generally can’t equal yet.

Which plugins? What hardware synths are you comparing them to?

Finally, plugins even with drift and other things programmed in have to be programmed in and still don’t always match the “organic liveliness” of hardware that may not need that programming. This is the most squishy area I’ve listed. Clearly some analog hardware synths are less lively.

What do you mean by "have to be programmed?" What hardware synths have "organic liveliness" that can't be matched? Is organic liveliness better than conventional liveliness that's achieved with pesticides and nitrogen based fertilizer?

[zerocrossing]

I'm still trying to understand what "better" actually is concerning sound. Is there some bonafide metric behind "better" that is universally accepted and standardized? Will 10 random people all agree on what sounds "better?" Or is "better" just something for people to argue about on the Internet rather than actually making music?

Agreed. And basically the point I'm arguing (together with several others here). The things that some people state to be 'better', are never actually defined by those people, even though it has been asked by many. When someone posts videos about hardware and states that those videos demonstrate some kind of sound quality in analog hardware, seems to totally forget that those videos have rather badly compressed audio to begin with.

So the question, indeed, remains: in what way do these hardware boxes sound 'better'?

They don't. They might sound a little different, but what one likes is subjective, not objective. I learned a long time ago to just not pay attention to people who like to argue about gear. The gear is nowhere near as important to sounding "better" as talent is.

I picked up the Deepmind 12 when it came out, but quickly felt it wasn't the best sounding synth in my stable. I mainly wanted an analog with extensive effects that could be modulated in interesting ways, which is something I generally would normally use Zebra for.

It didn't last long in my world. Despite being analog, I found the resonance didn't sound great, and the PWM sounded terrible. I started experimenting using Roland's Juno 106 and various effects plugins, controlled with Bitwig's modulation system, and I achieved much better results, IMO, of course.

Speaking of effects, I tried a Dreadbox Hypnosis and returned it in a week. A string of U-He plugins gave me far better results. The "better" analog chorus and spring reverb sounded a lot worse to me. I've had similar results with guitar pedals. I keep a few around for fun, but they generally just have a slightly different sound, but aren't really better than various plugins.

[dellboy]

I picked up the Deepmind 12 when it came out, but quickly felt it wasn't the best sounding synth in my stable. I mainly wanted an analog with extensive effects that could be modulated in interesting ways, which is something I generally would normally use Zebra for.

It didn't last long in my world. Despite being analog, I found the resonance didn't sound great, and the PWM sounded terrible. I started experimenting using Roland's Juno 106 and various effects plugins, controlled with Bitwig's modulation system, and I achieved much better results, IMO, of course.

I have my Juno 6 and Deepmind 12 switched on and going through the same mixer and speakers, and there is not much between them. I have messed with the resonance and PWM on both and can pretty much match the sound. The resonance on the Deepmind is self oscillating and sounds great. Maybe you had a bad unit or early firmware?

[zerocrossing]

I picked up the Deepmind 12 when it came out, but quickly felt it wasn't the best sounding synth in my stable. I mainly wanted an analog with extensive effects that could be modulated in interesting ways, which is something I generally would normally use Zebra for.

It didn't last long in my world. Despite being analog, I found the resonance didn't sound great, and the PWM sounded terrible. I started experimenting using Roland's Juno 106 and various effects plugins, controlled with Bitwig's modulation system, and I achieved much better results, IMO, of course.

I have my Juno 6 and Deepmind 12 switched on and going through the same mixer and speakers, and there is not much between them. I have messed with the resonance and PWM on both and can pretty much match the sound. The resonance on the Deepmind is self oscillating and sounds great. Maybe you had a bad unit or early firmware?

I did buy it when it was released. Was there an issue? It seemed to go from “not quite enough resonance,” to “screeching.” Playing with amp levels didn’t seem to help. The PWM sounded muddy.

Maybe there was a problem with my unit. It wouldn’t have been the first time that happened to me. I got a bad Prophet 12 that was generating some weird enharmonic content. It made everything sound harsh and sour. I posted examples and spectrum graphs and sent them to DSI. They said, “by design.” I sold it because it was out of the return window. Years later, I saw someone had responded to my posts and their examples didn’t sound or look like mine. I bought a module and it is fine, though I do get oscillator bleed if I’m not careful with drive and distortion levels. That seems like a problem with all Prophet 12s, but I can live with that.

To be honest, I have artifacts like that on my Nina and ATC-X. Had that with my REV2 as well. While we’re talking about the small sweet spot of digital synthesizers, we also should talk about all the problems with analog synthesizers, many of which are quite expensive.

[dellboy]

I picked up the Deepmind 12 when it came out, but quickly felt it wasn't the best sounding synth in my stable. I mainly wanted an analog with extensive effects that could be modulated in interesting ways, which is something I generally would normally use Zebra for.

It didn't last long in my world. Despite being analog, I found the resonance didn't sound great, and the PWM sounded terrible. I started experimenting using Roland's Juno 106 and various effects plugins, controlled with Bitwig's modulation system, and I achieved much better results, IMO, of course.

I have my Juno 6 and Deepmind 12 switched on and going through the same mixer and speakers, and there is not much between them. I have messed with the resonance and PWM on both and can pretty much match the sound. The resonance on the Deepmind is self oscillating and sounds great. Maybe you had a bad unit or early firmware?

I did buy it when it was released. Was there an issue? It seemed to go from “not quite enough resonance,” to “screeching.” Playing with amp levels didn’t seem to help. The PWM sounded muddy.

Maybe there was a problem with my unit. It wouldn’t have been the first time that happened to me. I got a bad Prophet 12 that was generating some weird enharmonic content. It made everything sound harsh and sour. I posted examples and spectrum graphs and sent them to DSI. They said, “by design.” I sold it because it was out of the return window. Years later, I saw someone had responded to my posts and their examples didn’t sound or look like mine. I bought a module and it is fine, though I do get oscillator bleed if I’m not careful with drive and distortion levels. That seems like a problem with all Prophet 12s, but I can live with that.

To be honest, I have artifacts like that on my Nina and ATC-X. Had that with my REV2 as well. While we’re talking about the small sweet spot of digital synthesizers, we also should talk about all the problems with analog synthesizers, many of which are quite expensive.

Did you ever run the calibration? If I remember it took a long time to finish. I have been messing some more and can get close results with the Deepmind. A while back I went through the Softube 84 presets and could pretty much match those as well. Mind you, I was grateful for Jorbs Deepmind patches which I downloaded and installed, as they got me in the right ballpark to the original Juno patches. But at the end of the day Softube 84 is really all that's needed for that authentic Juno sound.

[ROTMetro]

FYI, no need for calibration and no getting a bad unit when you go with software. Especially if you trailed it first and enjoyed the trial. It's really nice to be able to trial for free instantly and worry free. Chalk up a couple more pluses in the softsynth tally.

[dellboy]

FYI, no need for calibration and no getting a bad unit when you go with software. Especially if you trailed it first and enjoyed the trial. It's really nice to be able to trial for free instantly and worry free. Chalk up a couple more pluses in the softsynth tally.

Yes, software is great. So is hardware. There are Pros & Cons to either choice. My Juno 6 is 34 years old and still working fine. Software companies can fold and leave us without the ability to activate software. As it is I have Softube 84, Cherry Audio 106, Arturia June6v and others I forget.

[IvyBirds]

FYI, no need for calibration and no getting a bad unit when you go with software. Especially if you trailed it first and enjoyed the trial. It's really nice to be able to trial for free instantly and worry free. Chalk up a couple more pluses in the softsynth tally.

Yes, software is great. So is hardware. There are Pros & Cons to either choice. My Juno 6 is 34 years old and still working fine. Software companies can fold and leave us without the ability to activate software. As it is I have Softube 84, Cherry Audio 106, Arturia June6v and others I forget.

My Juno 6 had bad voice chips and the resell market of them at the time was total crap and not worth the expense and hassle to try find new parts so I could replace them. It was just one voice but it made playing it impossible as it would just happen unpredictably as you were playing

I ended up giving it away and don't regret it one bit

Yes software companies can fold but hardware can and does fail also, if it does and you repair it you will often be spending more than what software Synths costs. If Softube folds and I can't install 84 I am sure I will have other Juno plugins available to buy

[_leras]

I've just posted videos of hardware synths where they are making tones that software still can't match.

No you didn't you posted a bunch of videos with software based effects and when you listened to them you were hearing the sound of software

Unless you are showing an actual attempt, how the hell can you just declare something is not able to match something else? It's like a child's idea of an argument.

You're both nuts.

Ive done two things for examples in the thread

1. Shared examples of where I felt the analog sounded better than the software.
2. Shared examples of synth demos that I enjoyed hearing the tones and sounds from different synths.

One of you is saying an analog/hardware synth with a reverb added in a DAW makes it software. Or that a clearly analog synth is software because it happens to have a few basic FX included. It's just weird.

The other is suggesting I've gone out of my way to share demos that are misleading because some of them may have had some basic FX applied in the DAW. None of the demos had particularly over the top FX, and nothing beyond standard treatment.

But my gosh you both completely ignore that all softsynths, and most of their demos, have even more FX because adding FX to a software synth is standard. A modern softsynth patch would have distortion, reverb and a shit ton of OTT.

It's not even clear what points you're trying to get across. You think software is better? You think hardware sound terrible? You think hardware only sounda good with a bit of reverb?

I feel for you both. Especially if you can't appreciate some of those synths like the Teo 5, or the dreadbox stuff.

[crimsonwarlock]

But my gosh you both completely ignore that all softsynths, and most of their demos, have even more FX because adding FX to a software synth is standard. A modern softsynth patch would have distortion, reverb and a shit ton of OTT.

This is provably false.

[whassup]

I'm still trying to understand what "better" actually is concerning sound. Is there some bonafide metric behind "better" that is universally accepted and standardized? Will 10 random people all agree on what sounds "better?" Or is "better" just something for people to argue about on the Internet rather than actually making music?

Nonono! You can't make it that simple. That could kill this thread. Oh... it didn't.

Carry on!