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

[ghettosynth]

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!

It's a nonsense red herring. The only people with a bug up their ass over this are those that want to say that the emulation of the thing is as good as the thing. Better here simply means that the model is accurate with respect to what it's modeling in all ways that matter with respect to whatever is being discussed. It does not mean better in a subjective sense with respect to specific sounds. That is always a subjective creative aspect. One could say that there is no such thing as a bad sound, but, my disagreement is a function of my opinion. A Casio sounds great in some contexts, a Plague Bearer module almost always sounds like shit, see, that's my opinion, you may disagree.

A DX7 is not an analog synth, neither is an analog modeled plugin. They are both digital synthesizers, the DX7 is only viewed as an emulation in the context of academic marketing fluff, the latter is clearly viewed as an emulation.

All this distraction about whether there are effects or what "pro top hits" use are just that, distractions from the discussion of the relationship between digital models of analog synthesizers and actual analog synthesizers. That someone likes or dislikes certain sounds or even certain synths has no bearing here.

[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!

It's a nonsense red herring. The only people with a bug up their ass over this are those that want to say that the emulation of the thing is as good as the thing. Better here simply means that the model is accurate with respect to what it's modeling in all ways that matter with respect to whatever is being discussed. It does not mean better in a subjective sense with respect to specific sounds. That is always a subjective creative aspect. One could say that there is no such thing as a bad sound, but, my disagreement is a function of my opinion. A Casio sounds great in some contexts, a Plague Bearer module almost always sounds like shit, see, that's my opinion, you may disagree.

A DX7 is not an analog synth, neither is an analog modeled plugin. They are both digital synthesizers, the DX7 is only viewed as an emulation in the context of academic marketing fluff, the latter is clearly viewed as an emulation.

All this distraction about whether there are effects or what "pro top hits" use are just that, distractions from the discussion of the relationship between digital models of analog synthesizers and actual analog synthesizers. That someone likes or dislikes certain sounds or even certain synths has no bearing here.

I think that I understand your point.
This topic though is not explicitely about hardware originals vs their software emulations.
It is not even about analog vs VA.
No red herring.
Nina, Leipzig, Hive, Pigments.

Better is a subjective word.
Not fully measurable and quantifyable in this context.
If it would be so we would all agree after some showcases and reasonable explanations of why this is so.
We don't.
So carry on!

[IvyBirds]

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.

To recap

1.)You posted a bunch of videos of things you like from YouTube

2.) because you like them you claim they are superior.

3.)When asked to define that you claimed that the hardware had more "life" and "presence".

4.)when asked to define what that means and how you are measuring it, you refused

5.)You examples are drowning in effects especially reverb and compression, but also delay and chorus, done with software

6.)because they are drowning in effects anything you claim to hear which you can't define or measure, you can't make any judgment as to the underlying synth as you end up hearing software. Since compression changes the dynamics and transients which is why it's used, you can't make any judgements on the dynamics and transients of the underlying synth even more so once reverb is applied

7.)you posted several examples of synths you don't own and didn't make that have a saturated and/or distorted sound. We have no idea if that saturation or distortion is coming from the raw synth or something else either hardware or software in the unknown recording stage

8.)you posted examples that have had EQ applied. Since EQ cuts and boosts frequencies and greatly effects sound (which is why it's used) you can't make any judgements to the underlying tone of the synth itself as that tone has been deliberately altered to enhance it.

9.)we don't know how much low cut and high cut has been applied to the underlying recordings. Since so much of how human hearing works is the harmonics around the fundamental doing so has a pretty dramatic effect, likewise if the harmonics were boosted with EQ or synthesized with some kind of exciter, or were added by a tube stage in a preamp or compressor, or added with a FET, Vactrol, and/or transformer in some kind of outboard gear or plugin emulating them

10.lYou posted videos that had been clearly mastered which again changes the dynamics, transients, and frequencies

11.)You posted videos from YouTube that use data compression which also effects sound, especially if they were originally produced with certain codecs

12.)and finally you posted a bunch of videos that were made to sell commercial products, either from the synth manufacturer or someone selling presets. You also posted videos that were not intended to sell a commercial product, but we're on monetized channels looking for likes and views for the YouTube Algorithm. In all these cases the person making them would have attempted to make them sound as good as possible using every trick available to them, so any results are suspect

The only true test if you want to compare hardware with software is to do a true A/B comparison with the same patch in the same room, with no effects, with the same signal chain, and same monitors. That however is pointless as nobody listens to music that way

The reality however beyond all of this is none of this actually matters. No one is agonizing over if they should buy a hardware CS80 or just use a plugin, or if they should buy a hardware vintage Minimoog or just use a plugin

I don't own a CS80 and never will, so it's pointless to worry if my CS80 plugin has some kind of mythical and mystical quality you claim exists that you can't define or measure.

So please stop pretending you have done anything but share examples of things you like.

[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.

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

Yes, I agree, owning hardware is always a risk, its one of the cons. I have a broken Roland SH101 that I either have to pay to mend or sell it off broken.

[_leras]

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.

Literally can't find a serum 2 example without fx... But who doesn't use any FX?

Modern softsynth sound



Modern softsynth demo no talking lots of FX

[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 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.

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.

I can't remember, but running a calibration is always the first thing I do when I buy any analog synth, if it has such a feature. I remember having to manually calibrate my Dominion 1, which was a monumental pain in the ass.

Anyway, I had a lot of synths at the time, and something Juno-esque wasn't really a huge priority, so I just continued using what I had and did the unique thing the Deepmind does with plugins, which were actually higher quality effects than what comes with the Deepmind, though they're decent. My credo is to never having something in hardware that can be done as well or better in software, and to me, that was the Deepmind in a nutshell. I'd only recommend it to someone who wanted an analog poly with a lot of voices on a budget.

[zerocrossing]

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?

Is English your first language? It seems like maybe this is the problem, or that maybe you have never properly learned to read. Head trauma? I don't believe anyone had said "software is better," at least in a blanket statement sort of way. I did mention that I get oscillator bleed through in several of my hardware instruments, and I definitely do not get that on software, but I still love those instruments.

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

Again, no one here has said anything critical about the sound of those instruments. You're fighting some imaginary villain, using nonsensical arguments. I have hardware instruments that I feel sound as good and have more functionality than the TEO 5 or the Dreadbox synths, but I imagine to someone with more simple needs, they'd be great.

But you keep just showing some good sounding synth demo and making a grand statement that sounds like a child declaring his dad can beat up my dad. This is pointless. Surely you must understand that. The only way you can make a statement is to compare like to like. So, since you brought up the Oberheim sound, I present this to you:



I wish it didn't have reverb on it, but this is at least a good representation of what you'd hear in a track anyway. My guesses were all over the place. Sometimes I got it right, other times I guessed wrong. At no time did I think either was worse than the other, or so different that it couldn't be from two hardware versions that were slightly out of calibration. Sadly, I don't trust you to actually report an accurate result to a blind test like this, and the answer is in the comments, but oh well.

[zerocrossing]

The only true test if you want to compare hardware with software is to do a true A/B comparison with the same patch in the same room, with no effects, with the same signal chain, and same monitors. That however is pointless as nobody listens to music that way

I don't think they're pointless. Sometimes you can uncover good information this way. Places where the instrument doesn't do as well, and that goes for software or hardware. I've had many times where I thought the software did better in some respects, worse than others. It's nice to go into a forensic analysis to get a real idea of what your instrument can do.

[whassup]

I wish it didn't have reverb on it, but this is at least a good representation of what you'd hear in a track anyway. My guesses were all over the place. Sometimes I got it right, other times I guessed wrong. At no time did I think either was worse than the other, or so different that it couldn't be from two hardware versions that were slightly out of calibration.

Thanx a lot for this one!
That is a very interesting video.
I played the game and actually expected the hardware to be better (me, a hardcore soft synth guy). Sometimes I preferred the software, sometimes the hardware.
Sometimes I thought that I can discern what makes it softwareish or hardwareish and couldn't tell it clearly.
I just couldn't tell.
My hope now is that GForce doesn't use stuff like ilok or similar "u have to b online" calling home bs.

P.S. Marius is amazing!
I listened to him many times with the Marcus Miller band. They make fantastic remakes and medleys. All of the guys i nthat band and their guests excel at great musicianship with awesome tones and feel.

[whassup]

Small side note: Good music that I actually like helped a lot in this video by Marius. Dragging me in with Weather Report followed by Lyle Mays. That made it for me. The other examples, I didn't know one of them. But very good stuff, too.

[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?

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

Carry on!

It's a nonsense red herring. The only people with a bug up their ass over this are those that want to say that the emulation of the thing is as good as the thing. Better here simply means that the model is accurate with respect to what it's modeling in all ways that matter with respect to whatever is being discussed. It does not mean better in a subjective sense with respect to specific sounds. That is always a subjective creative aspect. One could say that there is no such thing as a bad sound, but, my disagreement is a function of my opinion. A Casio sounds great in some contexts, a Plague Bearer module almost always sounds like shit, see, that's my opinion, you may disagree.

A DX7 is not an analog synth, neither is an analog modeled plugin. They are both digital synthesizers, the DX7 is only viewed as an emulation in the context of academic marketing fluff, the latter is clearly viewed as an emulation.

All this distraction about whether there are effects or what "pro top hits" use are just that, distractions from the discussion of the relationship between digital models of analog synthesizers and actual analog synthesizers. That someone likes or dislikes certain sounds or even certain synths has no bearing here.

You may be making the argument that analog vs emulation is only based on realism and therefore the emulation can't be better and only aspires to be more realistic. But we have seen the same two argument a million times that hardware SOUNDS BETTER than emulations and analog SOUNDS BETTER than digital and critical thinkers want to know what BETTER implies. Moreover, for your argument solely based on realism, I'll introduce another criterium to consider: Is an emulation "Good Enough" or not? That is for the individual to decide and there is no right or wrong answer.

[legendCNCD]

Even if hardware still had some edge over the sound (in some situations it does) - in full mix you would not know if it is hardware or not - usually

[_leras]

I wish it didn't have reverb on it, but this is at least a good representation of what you'd hear in a track anyway. My guesses were all over the place. Sometimes I got it right, other times I guessed wrong. At no time did I think either was worse than the other, or so different that it couldn't be from two hardware versions that were slightly out of calibration. Sadly, I don't trust you to actually report an accurate result to a blind test like this, and the answer is in the comments, but oh well.

They are definitely pretty close, but for some it was fairly clear which was the hardware though, like the second example at 2:24 which was clearly the analog.

I got 5/8. First and last wrong, which were less edgy/open sounds being compared, and the 6th one I also got wrong, but I think the SW had a slightly more open filter which maybe affected the choice. These three sounds were for sure all very close.

I think for the other 5 sounds with the filter open, or higher resonance it highlighted the differences a bit more, though 1-2 were still hard to hear. (I won't try and explain what the difference is again - I'll just get told my words are not descriptive or measurable enough. ).

(I might have done worse a week ago before I listened to so many hw synths demos )

However, I do also think some different, edgier sound choices - like some in this video, more open, with sync etc - could also highlight some of the sound differences more. (Not that I think everyone wants the more open, more sync based sounds - and clearly the software covers anything that is more mellow/ambient very well)

[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.

Literally can't find a serum 2 example without fx... But who doesn't use any FX?

No, you can't make this about Serum 2 (or any other software synthesizer specifically), you clearly stated 'ALL SOFTSYNTHS'. That statement is, again, provably false.

Do you even think about what you write before you post it?

[_leras]

Again, no one here has said anything critical about the sound of those instruments. You're fighting some imaginary villain, using nonsensical arguments. I have hardware instruments that I feel sound as good and have more functionality than the TEO 5 or the Dreadbox synths, but I imagine to someone with more simple needs, they'd be great.

But you keep just showing some good sounding synth demo and making a grand statement that sounds like a child declaring his dad can beat up my dad. This is pointless. Surely you must understand that.

I said the Teo 5 specifically as some of the sounds it makes are, to me incredibly, rich and detailed. It also does really nice softer sounds too. I don't think it's that limited, but sure it's not a Polybrute - not that it needs to be.

I kept putting examples up where I thought analog still has the edge. I quite enjoyed going down that rabbit hole and enthusiastically shared the nicest sounding things I found.