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

[zerocrossing]

My credo is to never having something in hardware that can be done as well or better in software

Is it possible for a copy to be better than the thing it is copying without becoming something else?

Sure, depending on your criteria. Is UAD's Model D "something else?" In a sense, yes, but it can also provide a result that's very similar to the results you'd get from the real thing. In a more general sense, it does provide the same result: a 3 oscillator mono synth sound. I'll go back to my trusty (crappy) car analogy. The Lamborghini will get you to work the same as the Honda Odyssey. The end result is the identical, but the experience is different.

We can't assume everyone would choose the Lamborghini, as maybe you have 2 kids to drop off at school on the way to work, or you just find that kind of car uncomfortable. When buying a car we passed over a BMW, because we carpool with 2 other kids and we realized the backpacks and kids just wouldn't easily fit in it, even though drive-wise, it was my favorite car. It was actually a bit cheaper than what we ended up with.

That's an exaggerated difference, but I think the point is clear. Maybe a better analogy would be the car we ended up with, which is sort of a copy of a Porsche Cayenne. (I've had several people ask me if it was a new version of it) Is my copy better? It's less expensive. It gets to 60 considerably quicker. It's all electric, though. Does it drive better? I can't say, I've never even tested a Cayenne, and honestly I've never actually played a Model D, come to think of it. Maybe I have and don't remember. Anyway, I think it's better, and in the end, that's all that matters. I'm sure there are many people who disagree.

[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?

It’s an opinion as part of a discussion. Like your opinions. What I hear is what I hear - if you don’t, then okay.

I think it’s only a matter of time before software can match or even exceed hardware across the board in all aspects of the sound. I just don’t hear that yet.

Why won't you answer my question?

[whassup]

My credo is to never having something in hardware that can be done as well or better in software

Is it possible for a copy to be better than the thing it is copying without becoming something else?

Sure, depending on your criteria. Is UAD's Model D "something else?" In a sense, yes, but it can also provide a result that's very similar to the results you'd get from the real thing. In a more general sense, it does provide the same result: a 3 oscillator mono synth sound. I'll go back to my trusty (crappy) car analogy. The Lamborghini will get you to work the same as the Honda Odyssey. The end result is the identical, but the experience is different.

We can't assume everyone would choose the Lamborghini, as maybe you have 2 kids to drop off at school on the way to work, or you just find that kind of car uncomfortable. When buying a car we passed over a BMW, because we carpool with 2 other kids and we realized the backpacks and kids just wouldn't easily fit in it, even though drive-wise, it was my favorite car. It was actually a bit cheaper than what we ended up with.

That's an exaggerated difference, but I think the point is clear. Maybe a better analogy would be the car we ended up with, which is sort of a copy of a Porsche Cayenne. (I've had several people ask me if it was a new version of it) Is my copy better? It's less expensive. It gets to 60 considerably quicker. It's all electric, though. Does it drive better? I can't say, I've never even tested a Cayenne, and honestly I've never actually played a Model D, come to think of it. Maybe I have and don't remember. Anyway, I think it's better, and in the end, that's all that matters. I'm sure there are many people who disagree.

Yeah, well said.
Practicability reasons are good ones for me.
I don't see myself buying hardware synths to get certain or subjectively better sounds because practicability outweighs the pros of hardware to me.
Maybe next time when I am working hardcore on an album.
To get the best possible whatever. Sounds. Experience. Feelgood situation that give the performers a better basis to perform. And all of that.
While I understand to a certain degree why people want the knobs and hands on and all the other good reasons for hardware I am just not intrigued at all.
Every time I hear people say in certain videos: "Who wouldn't want all those vintage synths in their studio?" I naturally respond: "I don't!" Where is that shrug emoji? There it is:

[zerocrossing]

Back when I was a young pup, my boss, a highly respected artist in electronic music, had me go fetch a bunch of microphones to audition. Once I got back, we spent the better part of a day comparing them. To my poor mindset, it seemed like an egregious waste of money. There seemed to be a couple that we all seemed to respond favorably to, right off the bat, but we seemed to go back and forth dozens of times. I suggested we bring a couple to the studio and do a recording session with them, and while she seemed in favor of the idea, we didn’t.

I don’t remember what we finally decided on, but I do know that it didn’t really matter. Many days were spent doing similar things, striving for something perfect. I don’t believe in perfection. That experience cemented my mindset. For me, that initial impression seals the deal. Everything after that, that isn’t making music, is just sapping the life out of the process. Years of poverty made me good at extracting something good out of things that others have cast aside. Now that I have the means to buy pretty much anything, I haven’t lost my ability to find the charm of imperfection. Some software is less “perfect” than others, but I can almost always find something can be exploited. The reason I pass on most software and hardware has more to do with sounding too similar, and having too similar a feature set. How many versions of the 24 db ladder filter does one need?

[SoftSynthLover99]

My credo is to never having something in hardware that can be done as well or better in software

Is it possible for a copy to be better than the thing it is copying without becoming something else?

Anyway, I think it's better, and in the end, that's all that matters.

The truth should matter though shouldn't it? My final thoughts on this topic here and anywhere else online is that the vast majority who comment on these threads are speaking from a place of inexperience. Because either 1) they don't actively use hardware alongside software on a daily basis and 2) have zero quality hardware to even compare with software or 3) lack any perspective to judge something they've never experienced themselves (watching YouTube is not the same as owning and playing hardware).

The most "high end" hardware synth I own is the Moog One 16-Voice. I also own pretty much every Moog plugin from UA (Minimoog) to Synapse Audio (LegendHZ) to the official Moog plugins on MacOS (Animoog, Model-D and Model 15) and the Arturia collection. So I'm speaking from experience as I compare all the time the differences between hardware and software. So when I hear things like "software sounds the same as hardware" it lets me know most of those people have no clue what they are talking about.

Another common phrase you hear repeated is "well you can't tell in a mix"...Umm yes the hell you can! You will have a naturally wider stereo image for your synths that sound more 3D (radio ready if you like) and the synths will have a sort of natural weight that plugins do not have. All without muddying your overall mix.

If you are happy with just software synths that is awesome! They are 100% useful for modern production. But just know hardware and software have pretty clear differences in sound and function. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is either lying to you, trying to sell you something (looking at your Mr Zimmer) or purposefully feeding you bad information so they maintain their status and everyone else stays ITB sounding the same.

Don't be fooled by marketing! the people you think are 100% ITB are actually using tons of hardware but they don't want you to know it

Edit: Also this post is not directed at you ZeroCrossing that phrase I quoted from you just sparked an internal rant

Edit 2: And remember the placebo effect works both ways. And ignorance is bliss!

That's about all the mental energy I'm gonna spend on this topic lol. Happy music making everyone!

[IvyBirds]

The most "high end" hardware synth I own is the Moog One 16-Voice. I also own pretty much every Moog plugin from UA (Minimoog) to Synapse Audio (LegendHZ) to the official Moog plugins on MacOS (Animoog, Model-D and Model 15) and the Arturia collection. So I'm speaking from experience as I compare all the time the differences between hardware and software. So when I hear things like "software sounds the same as hardware" it lets me know most of those people have no clue what they are talking about.

can you point to a single example of anyone who has said that a software synth sounds the same as a Moog One?

That's the issue with you and the church of hardware folks. Awesome you have a Moog One and since Minimoog Emulation Software doesn't emulate the Moog One Polysynth you are saying that hardware is always better and that's garbage for several reasons

1.)A hardware Minimoog doesn't sound like a Moog One either, even if you ignore the difference in polyphony, so why are you demanding a plugin emulation of a Minimoog sound exactly like a Moog One? That's just silly

2.)hardware Minimoogs don't sound like other hardware Minimoogs, and the reissue doesn't sound like vintage units, so you are you demanding a plugin emulation sound exactly like a very specific example of a single piece of hardware Minimoog? That's just silly

3.)the case has never been made that sounding different is the same as sounding better, and that's the biggest issue.

Many of use here could easily drop $10 Grand on a Moog One. As for me I never would because I have seen way to many first hand accounts of firmware issues, tuning stability issues, build quality issues, and poor QC issues. Then you have the buy out and and massive layoffs and significant downsizing and closing of Moog's Asheville NC facility. That would scare me to death

The reality is, I get all the polyphonic Moog Sound I want from "The Legend HZ". Does it sound exactly the same as the Moog One? Nope. Does the Moog One Sound better? Nope. Does the Legend HZ sound better? Yes because it can make sounds that the Moog One can't and those sounds are important to me, and if it's good enough for Hanz Z, it's certainly good enough for me

Oh and I also saved over $9800 when I bought it

I am glad you enjoy your $10,000 synth. Maybe it even makes up for other inadequacies in your life I don't know

What I do know is that if I am ever going to drop 10 grand on a synth it needs to do more and have better build quality and support than what inMusic offers.

[seafire]

I wouldn't say moog were a great place to start if you want to say hardware sounds 'better' than software.

[vurt]

my computer has carked it and my audio interface went "pop", so im definitely in the hardware camp this week. just me the modular and a pair of headphones

[SoftSynthLover99]

The most "high end" hardware synth I own is the Moog One 16-Voice. I also own pretty much every Moog plugin from UA (Minimoog) to Synapse Audio (LegendHZ) to the official Moog plugins on MacOS (Animoog, Model-D and Model 15) and the Arturia collection. So I'm speaking from experience as I compare all the time the differences between hardware and software. So when I hear things like "software sounds the same as hardware" it lets me know most of those people have no clue what they are talking about.

can you point to a single example of anyone who has said that a software synth sounds the same as a Moog One?

Does the Moog One Sound better? Nope. Does the Legend HZ sound better? Yes because it can make sounds that the Moog One can't and those sounds are important to me

Forget sounding the same you said the LegendHZ sounds better than the Moog One? statements like that are just so far detached from the reality of sound and music it makes these threads completely pointless and just a minefield for misinformation to spread.

Plugin developers are smart and use social proof of professionals using plugins to manipulate you into adopting a way of working they benefit from financially. And to be fair I have fell for it and I've made purchases based on that. However when you start trusting your ears and your own experiences and intellect instead of repeating marketing materials (everything I read online cautioned against purchasing the Moog One) you begin to see, hear and experience things quite differently than the internet would have you believe.

But we do live in a world were a significant number of people believe the world is flat lol so convincing someone a hardware analog synth will sound better than a plugin is likely a futile endeavor

[SoftSynthLover99]

I wouldn't say moog were a great place to start if you want to say hardware sounds 'better' than software.

Moog One and the Moog Muse do sound significantly better than software Moogs. The Moog Grandmother and Matriarch are also pretty great sounding. But I agree some modern synth manufacturers do have better sounding synths than Moog right now. Not by much though!

[IvyBirds]

Forget sounding the same you said the LegendHZ sounds better than the Moog One? statements like that are just so far detached from the reality of sound and music it makes these threads completely pointless and just a minefield for misinformation to spread.

Of course it sounds better because it can make sounds the Moog One can't. Which is what I said.

I want the sound of 6 Oscillators bring run through a ladder filter, I want the sound of using MSEG with them, and I want MPE

The Moog One can't do that so the Legend HZ is clearly the superior choice that sounds better.

There is no hardware synth that can do that, so Hans Zimmer who had a TON of actual hardware synths and can afford to buy and use whatever synth he wants to use asked Synapse to make it for him

Anyone who thinks someone with the legacy of Hans Zimmer is detached from the reality of sound and music is laughable

Your issue is you feel the need to be the sole arbiter of what "better" means. You think you are so important that what you deem to be better automatically becomes the universal truth that everyone needs to adhere to or they become detached from reality

The reality is even if the Legend HZ didn't exist, I have never heard anything from the Moog One special enough to justify buying it even if it cost just $500. Maybe if I found one at Goodwill for $25 I would buy one

And yes I have played it first hand. I have a ton of family in Indiana and multiple times a year I fly into Ft Wayne and always spend a least one if not two afternoons at Sweetwater in the synth showroom playing anything I want. Which is pretty easy when you go on a weekday in say March as it's dead and I have a long term customer relationship with them.

My experience with the Moog One has always left me walking away thinking there is nothing there I can't do in software. Will it sound exactly the same? Noz but it doesn't need to, and sounding exactly the same doesn't matter as software will sound better or just as good for thousands upon thousands less

If you like the sound of the Moog One awesome, if you think it's worth $10 Grand awesome. Based on all the units being sold in reverb at massive losses in the many thousands of dollars, many people who bought one don't think it's that special as they are losing their shirt selling it yet still want it gone

I also don't like the layout of the physical controls and with software I can create my own layout that works better

I am glad you seem to enjoy it.

[pdxindy]

Forget sounding the same you said the LegendHZ sounds better than the Moog One? statements like that are just so far detached from the reality of sound and music it makes these threads completely pointless and just a minefield for misinformation to spread.

I was one of the first owners of the Moog One 16v. I ended up returning it for a few reasons. It was terribly buggy on initial release, plus it wasn't quite what I wanted sonically. For me, the Moog One sounds too formal. I wanted a bit more bar fight and a little less chamber ensemble.

Nevertheless, there was no question at all, when I played it and/or compared it to software emulations, which one was the analog synth. The Moog One has an intrinsic presence and vitality to the sound.

[IvyBirds]

Moog One and the Moog Muse do sound significantly better than software Moogs. The Moog Grandmother and Matriarch are also pretty great sounding. But I agree some modern synth manufacturers do have better sounding synths than Moog right now. Not by much though!

But software is not trying to emulate those, when you say "Software Moogs" you are usually talking about Minimoog Emulations which don't try to emulate those

Why don't you also mention the many hardware Moog's that sound nothing like those on your list?

[zerocrossing]

My credo is to never having something in hardware that can be done as well or better in software

Is it possible for a copy to be better than the thing it is copying without becoming something else?

Anyway, I think it's better, and in the end, that's all that matters.

The truth should matter though shouldn't it?['/quote]

What are you talking about? What is truth when you're voicing an opinion? If you're making "I" statements, how can you say someone is lying? My parents like Maxwell House instant coffee over my freshly ground pour-over drip. Are they lying?

My final thoughts on this topic here and anywhere else online is that the vast majority who comment on these threads are speaking from a place of inexperience. Because either 1) they don't actively use hardware alongside software on a daily basis and 2) have zero quality hardware to even compare with software or 3) lack any perspective to judge something they've never experienced themselves (watching YouTube is not the same as owning and playing hardware).

Well, I've been using hardware synths since the 80s, and I own 9 generally well regarded hardware synths, each one either analog or hybrids, so I feel pretty well positioned to judge, and frankly, who cares what you think? Anyone can make a judgement. We're not talking about the law.

The most "high end" hardware synth I own is the Moog One 16-Voice. I also own pretty much every Moog plugin from UA (Minimoog) to Synapse Audio (LegendHZ) to the official Moog plugins on MacOS (Animoog, Model-D and Model 15) and the Arturia collection. So I'm speaking from experience as I compare all the time the differences between hardware and software. So when I hear things like "software sounds the same as hardware" it lets me know most of those people have no clue what they are talking about.

Excellent, you just compared a synth with other synths that are not emulations of it, and decided they're not the same. Guess what? I've compared those synths with my Nina and they also don't sound the same!

Another common phrase you hear repeated is "well you can't tell in a mix"...Umm yes the hell you can! You will have a naturally wider stereo image for your synths that sound more 3D (radio ready if you like) and the synths will have a sort of natural weight that plugins do not have. All without muddying your overall mix.

You evoke the truth and then lie about the ability of a synth to sound "3d." Unless you're taking more than two outputs and panning them to different speakers in a surround sound setup, you are not creating a "3d" sound. That is an indisputable fact.

If you are happy with just software synths that is awesome! They are 100% useful for modern production. But just know hardware and software have pretty clear differences in sound and function. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is either lying to you, trying to sell you something (looking at your Mr Zimmer) or purposefully feeding you bad information so they maintain their status and everyone else stays ITB sounding the same.

Don't be fooled by marketing! the people you think are 100% ITB are actually using tons of hardware but they don't want you to know it

Edit: Also this post is not directed at you ZeroCrossing that phrase I quoted from you just sparked an internal rant

Edit 2: And remember the placebo effect works both ways. And ignorance is bliss!

That's about all the mental energy I'm gonna spend on this topic lol. Happy music making everyone!

So, here's my "truth." A while back, I came into a windfall of about $6k, and with some savings I had enough for a 16 voice Moog One. No one had one in stock, but I listened to every damn demo, including Matt "I can make everything sounds amazing" Johnson's. (honestly, I think he cheats with post production sweetening, as I don't even think my Nina sounds as good as his does in the demo when I'm using his exact patches. ) I think it sounded great... but not that great. I did end up with the Nina at that point, which of course is a different synth with different capabilities, but IMO sounds "as good," in that Moog poly kind of way.

Now, I can't really make comparisons to anything actually Moog, because I've sold all my modern Moog hardware off,

because I didn't like it that much.

I do have a synth (ATC-X) that's also not a Moog, but is sold as having Model D oscillator and filter clones. So, that's the best that I can do. I think it sounds fantastic, and better than the Lil' Phatty or Sub Phatty I had, and on par with the Mother 32s I owned. (three! They sounded excellent, but I hate that workflow)

Since the closest thing to a Moog one is Minimonsta 2 (I guess) I just sparked them both up (brah) and I instantly hear that when everything is set up exactly the same, the ATC sounds darker, and you can see it on the spectrum analyzer. The ATC's filter isn't opening up all the way, and I know that. When I turn off all keyboard tracking, I can get them closer, but the ATC is sounding dirtier. Maybe noise or the VCA being driven... not sure. So I abandon my similar settings, and turn Minimonsta 2's oscillator volume all the way up. Woop, there is is, as the kids say. Now, all of the sudden, the Minimonsta went from sounding thinner to sounding beefier. I now officially like the naked sawtooth of the Minimonsta more. I bring it down a little and now I am closer to parity.

But who just listens to naked sawtooths?! (we evidently do! ) So I kick in the filter, turn up the resonance and set tracking to full and tune the filters identically. Now, evidently, "software can't do high resonance," as that dude said, but I'm getting a very similar sound out of the two, except for one thing. MInimonsta 2's filter is better calibrated and tracks all the way from C1 to C6 and only starts beating with the fundamental up a the higher notes. Zero aliasing, up to B4, but I am noticing some after that. Meanwhile, both sound really annoying. Done on the left, they sound identical, and in the middle, I might like Minimonsta a little more because of the dissonance. So I turn down the resonance so they're not self oscillating any more, and then I notice something. The resonance seems to track a bit on the ATC-X, meaning the higher up I go, the less resonance, while Minimonsta does not do this. I don't know what one is right, so let's look at another hardware 24 db ladder filter, shall we? To the Nina! According to the Nina, it's more like Minimonsta, so something is up with the ATC in this case, and Minimonsta sounds a lot more like the Nina. I am hearing differences, and maybe this is what people are talking about when they say, "presence," but the ATC and Nina are clearly noiser. I can't really match this, because the filter just kills the noise. Now I have 3 different sounds of a filter with some resonance that's right under the self oscillating mark that sound somewhat different... but is one better? I'm not hearing anything that I'd say was outstandingly better. The two hardware synths sound noisier and a bit darker. Maybe a bit more distorted? Minimonsta seems to have a really nice clarity. Depending on the vibe of what I was after, I'd have no problem going for it.

Now I'm going to filter FM, which is always where the rubber hits the road. To cut to the chase, the ATC is the clear winner... but the Nina is the clear loser, with only the digital oscillator being a mod source, and the modulation rate not high enough to provide good results. Minimonsta is still very good, though. It just sounds a bit harsh when you go over C5, and the ATC is still sounding kind of fat. To the UAD Minimoog!

Now here's where it gets fun, but at the expense of abandoning the Moog One functionality. The UAD Minimoog sounds exactly like my ATC-X with full resonance, though only in a small range because the filter doesn't track perfectly across the full keyboard. Is this a difference that matters? Maybe. I'm getting a better sound from the software, though. It's got all the grit and noise of the ATC but it's as if someone calibrated my ATC... which makes me think I should have my ATC calibrated. Beating aside, I think the software has a slightly better tone here, and holds up in the full range of the keyboard. Let's try filter FM, shall we? Excellent results from both on this. The ATC sounds a bit "smudgier?" while the Minimoog sounds a bit cleaner. Both sounds excellent, with maybe a nod to the UAD but that could be that the ATC needs a calibration. I had to detune the second oscillator on the ATC because no matter what I did, I couldn't get the UAD software as close, which is really only noticeable on very high notes where the beating frequency is high.

So... what's the point of all this nonsense? The point is, you're right... and wrong. You're right in the sense that everything sounds a bit different, and it was a huge pain in the ass getting everything close, because even a slight change in oscillator level could have huge downstream effects. At first the UAD didn't sound good to me when doing filter FM, but bringing the oscillator level down a little made a gigantic difference and went from "not as good" to "better." I could easily see someone not as certifiably crazy as I am giving up and saying, "well the ATC wins that round." Also, I'm assuming you could get good results on the One and have the audio rate mod sound great, but for that I'd have to go to Softube Modular and be limited in voice count to four. I'd also interject that the sound of what I was doing (no, not going to waste time posting it, been there, never results in anything good. Do it yourself if you feel like it) with filter FM would be great for an aggressive bass or lead, but not really lend itself for a polyphonic sound anyway. A new Moog One 16 seems to be selling for $10K (yipe!) on Reverb now, though there are used ones for $6,500. Because I'm a maniac, I'd spend that for one, no problem, but because they promised polyphonic aftertouch recognition and never delivered, it will never end up in my studio. For those kinds of beans, you'd better have polyphonic aftertouch and MPE.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Forget sounding the same you said the LegendHZ sounds better than the Moog One? statements like that are just so far detached from the reality of sound and music it makes these threads completely pointless and just a minefield for misinformation to spread.

There is no hardware synth that can do that, so Hans Zimmer who had a TON of actual hardware synths and can afford to buy and use whatever synth he wants to use asked Synapse to make it for him

Anyone who thinks someone with the legacy of Hans Zimmer is detached from the reality of sound and music is laughable

Hans Zimmer uses tons of hardware synths so of course I'm not talking about him. Why do you think he had AJHSYNTH rebuild a huge modular system last year? Just for fun? lol. https://ajhsynth.com/Hans_Zimmer_Interview.html
https://ajhsynth.com/Radiophonic.html

In his own words: What is it about AJHSynth that you find interesting and useful?

Really, honestly, it’s all about the sound … everybody has knobs and buttons but what not everybody has actually achieved is to go and create a brilliant and beautifully compelling sound.

Just because he incorporates software doesn't mean he doesn't use hardware anymore. In fact I'm interested to see how he scored the new F1 movie because from the sounds of it he didn't use any synths at all and relied on the orchestra for the most part.