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

[HAL76]

The differences sum up btw. You often don´t hear that much of a difference if you play just a single sound. So if you ask yourself once again when something is wrong with your mix which plugin does the trick better think twice and don´t go on feeding the VST cheaters.

Yep. I recall a thread on some forum, maybe a mailing list. Someone was asking about how to the general vibe of a Boards of Canada sound and the response was "a room full of analog hardware." Yes it was a bit flippant, but, we shouldn't dismiss it so quickly in the same way that we don't dismiss the sound of analog consoles and outboard vintage gear. In isolation emulations are very convincing. However, if that were all there is to it, then why do we need plugins to simulate subtle channel differences?

From a sales perrspctive: because we need arguments and USPs to convince customers. A sales manager knows that he just needs to convince the people. The potential customers. Not the scientific audience or the pope. Just people who are willing to pay for the advantages of the product over others.

I don´t know if you see the same you tube advertisements where you live but here in germany we frequently hear "read this book and get rich", "I can show you how to loose kilos without changing your eating habits" or "this tablet will clean your toilet and you don´t have to do anything".

The VST companys usually don´t promise too much, they just say "modelled after" and their peergroups exaggerate it for them ("Sounds just like the hardware!"). But the behaviour seems just as suspicious to me as the behaviour of the people behind the mentioned advertisements.

But I definitely shouldn´t generalize too much. There are good plugins and even if it´s just because they are so easy to use in comparison, take no room and don´t eat cables

Of course, and get rich quick sells like hotcakes here as well, but, you have to see the other side. Dave Grohl and others of the same mind are convinced that the hardware, taken as a whole, is better. He made a movie about it even.

You don´t need to tell me. I grew up in an audiophile household and the whole world back then just sounded better.

But the "use cases" have diversified over the time, different "flavours" have come up and as we all know even the hardcore audiophiles back then bought a CD player somewhen. That´s were the fall starts.

First track I´ve heard from CD. Probably lots of analog gear behind it.



But lots stop this sentimentalism and occupy a more pragmatic point of view: you can´t even make these punchy percussions, warm leads and pads with software. It always sounds thin, cold and sterile. I suppose it had a massive impact on what people call music today.

[justin3am]

I posted a thought a while ago but it should be repeated. Imagine you could take your existing ITB setup back in time to 1985. Imagine showing them that one person in their bedroom could produce, mix and master a complete album.

I imagine it would be less appealing than you think. Back then people still liked to be out in the world and collaborate with other humans. Everyone hadn't yet started hiding out in their bedroom living vicariously through the internet.

I would have LOVED to own back then what I own now and take for granted.
And I'm not even the most introvert person on this planet. En contrair.
Back then I had access to (all not my own) JX8P, some 8 track reel to reel, SPX90. A poor little mixer. Rockman. Drumulator.
That was high tech back then.
Today I wouldn't even want all of this to eat up space if I was offered all this for free.

That's a funny thought experiment. I actually was offered a bunch of '90s music gear for free.
I already had a lot of late '80s through '90s studio equipment in storage, 2x 24 track hard disk recorders, a 24 channel 8-bus split console, MIDI interfaces to sync hardware sequencers to tape. From the storage space I pulled Alesis sequencers, romplers, effects units, analog and digital rack synths, a DAT recorder, tape duplicator... all that you'd want to write an album in 1996. I set everything as I had a similar setup around 2006.
It has been an interesting experience, the process of syncing the sequencers to the hard disk recorders, tracking to tape and bouncing down all felt like second nature. Like I had done all of that stuff yesterday. Though I was certainly more limited in someways, I was having fun.
Then the wait times started. I needed to wait for something to bootup, to load it's OS and then to load a sample from a disk which was in a pile of other disks. I had to play a whole song through to bounce grouped tracks or print FX. Swithching to a different projects was much more involved than just loading a project and required detailed notes.

I actually enjoyed programming the Matrix 6r, the Wavestation and even the EX8000. I think I may be using those instruments in an upcoming project. The thing I missed the most was having a big overview on a single screen, where I can see instrument parameters, the sequencer timeline, the mixer levels, all that in one place and easy to read at a glance.

Still, I don't think I would have trouble working that way, I might even enjoy it... IF I chose to work that way every day. If I decided to work like that occasionally for a laugh, it would be a pain. If I made a decision to focus on that way of working, I think it would just become muscle memory, like anything else.

After that experience, I have gone back to using my DAW but with a feeling that things which annoyed me before are slightly more annoying now. I hate dealing with modern computer maintenance and working with the HD recorders reminded me, that a device can be unchanged for 30 years and it's core functions are still relevant. If I had a HD recorder that had modern editing features and fast modern SSDs, I might consider working like that more often.

[D-Fusion]

The differences sum up btw. You often don´t hear that much of a difference if you play just a single sound. So if you ask yourself once again when something is wrong with your mix which plugin does the trick better think twice and don´t go on feeding the VST cheaters.

Yep. I recall a thread on some forum, maybe a mailing list. Someone was asking about how to the general vibe of a Boards of Canada sound and the response was "a room full of analog hardware." Yes it was a bit flippant, but, we shouldn't dismiss it so quickly in the same way that we don't dismiss the sound of analog consoles and outboard vintage gear. In isolation emulations are very convincing. However, if that were all there is to it, then why do we need plugins to simulate subtle channel differences?

From a sales perrspctive: because we need arguments and USPs to convince customers. A sales manager knows that he just needs to convince the people. The potential customers. Not the scientific audience or the pope. Just people who are willing to pay for the advantages of the product over others.

I don´t know if you see the same you tube advertisements where you live but here in germany we frequently hear "read this book and get rich", "I can show you how to loose kilos without changing your eating habits" or "this tablet will clean your toilet and you don´t have to do anything".

The VST companys usually don´t promise too much, they just say "modelled after" and their peergroups exaggerate it for them ("Sounds just like the hardware!"). But the behaviour seems just as suspicious to me as the behaviour of the people behind the mentioned advertisements.

But I definitely shouldn´t generalize too much. There are good plugins and even if it´s just because they are so easy to use in comparison, take no room and don´t eat cables

Of course, and get rich quick sells like hotcakes here as well, but, you have to see the other side. Dave Grohl and others of the same mind are convinced that the hardware, taken as a whole, is better. He made a movie about it even.

You don´t need to tell me. I grew up in an audiophile household and the whole world back then just sounded better.

But the "use cases" have diversified over the time, different "flavours" have come up and as we all know even the hardcore audiophiles back then bought a CD player somewhen. That´s were the fall starts.

First track I´ve heard from CD. Probably lots of analog gear behind it.



But lots stop this sentimentalism and occupy a more pragmatic point of view: you can´t even make these punchy percussions, warm leads and pads with software. It always sounds thin, cold and sterile. I suppose it had a massive impact on what people call music today.

Jennifer rush destiny used mostly digital synths for the sounds + a Juno 106

[Ah_Dziz]

That weird pop song seems like a very poor example of "thing you need hardware to do". Aside from having top notch engineers to mix and master (which makes a big difference) that song has very little about it that stands out at all. Seems more like an argument for hiring real musicians to play a track (to my ears anyway).

[DrGonzo]

In what sense does that even matter? If you replace any hardware synth in a track, with a software emulation, nobody listening to the track would mind it one way or another, or even notice it.

Back in the eighties I replaced a Korg Delta with an ESQ-1, in every song we played, and nobody ever came to me asking why the Delta was missing in a song

You are absolutely correct. But do you make art only for the audience? Is every piece of sound / music you make only created for the entertainment of others?

To be clear, I actually respect that way of thinking. It's pragmatic and focused on results.

But for some (most likely a minority) there are other dimensions to making art, like your own personal enjoyment. My wife for example, who does lots of visual art is very particular with the selection of her brushes. Does the buyers of her art see that selection? Of course not.

Take Youtube Florian/Bad Gear for example. He loves the Roland TB3 so much he bought two. He makes great music and ideas and his audience loves what he does with them.

Me, on the other hand, I want to smash that damn thing with a hammer. I think the TB3 is an insult to humanity and the sound of a legendary synth.

/C

[zerocrossing]

In what sense does that even matter? If you replace any hardware synth in a track, with a software emulation, nobody listening to the track would mind it one way or another, or even notice it.

Back in the eighties I replaced a Korg Delta with an ESQ-1, in every song we played, and nobody ever came to me asking why the Delta was missing in a song

You are absolutely correct. But do you make art only for the audience? Is every piece of sound / music you make only created for the entertainment of others?

To be clear, I actually respect that way of thinking. It's pragmatic and focused on results.

But for some (most likely a minority) there are other dimensions to making art, like your own personal enjoyment. My wife for example, who does lots of visual art is very particular with the selection of her brushes. Does the buyers of her art see that selection? Of course not.

Take Youtube Florian/Bad Gear for example. He loves the Roland TB3 so much he bought two. He makes great music and ideas and his audience loves what he does with them.

Me, on the other hand, I want to smash that damn thing with a hammer. I think the TB3 is an insult to humanity and the sound of a legendary synth.

/C

Obviously musicians are not a monolith. My tools mean a lot to me. My brother doesn’t have junk, but he doesn’t care that much, as long as something doesn’t sound bad. He’s had the same P-Bass, Les Paul studio and some old Yamaha ROMpler since forever. I’m sure he’s not chatting about them on forums. He’s a great musician and composer, and if it wasn’t for debilitating anxiety, he probably would’ve done really well.

I bet most musicians are like him. Find a few good pieces of gear and just make music. Presets are fine. Better, even. Less distractions. Meanwhile, we obsess over minutiae.

[ghettosynth]

Meanwhile, we obsess over minutiae.

No we don't. Take that back!

[El°HYM]

Yepp, take that back. Then take this!

[whassup]

Meanwhile, we obsess over minutiae.

No we don't. Take that back!

[zerocrossing]

But do you make art only for the audience? Is every piece of sound / music you make only created for the entertainment of others?

This is huge for me. Going from trying to be commercially successful to just being an artist for my own self enrichment was probably the best thing I ever did for myself. There is nothing in my studio that's there for the sake of being more popular, and if I started doing live shows again, I'd be totally pragmatic about it and build a rig that did the job as efficiently and effectively as possible. If anyone here thinks that the tiny variants between plugins and the real deal are audible in a live situation, they should have their brains scanned for damage.

That said, what I would be leaving behind is some functionality and specific sonic characteristics. Every bit of kit in my studio has either one of those or both, or else it was returned. One might ask, "does he need them?" The answer would be, "no, but I want them."

So that's me. I don't see any difference between hardware and software at all. To me, both are just different types of gear that either do something I find interesting for my art, or don't. I'm never asking questions like, "does Jup-8 V sound identical to a Jupiter 8?" That's ridiculous, because I'd never buy a Jupiter 8, or even keep one if someone gave it to me. It simply does not have a feature set that I find necessary to make music. So then the question becomes, "does this sound good?" Not all software does, or is that interesting. I personally don't give a crap about the sound of a Juno, so that whole conversation about Softube's emulation was lost on me. I never even demoed it. The Roland Cloud version seems fine. (the Juno 106 was my first synth) I had a Deepmind 12 that I thought sounded like crap, but people seem to like it, so good for them.

So let's talk about hardware that I've rejected because I found software that I thought sounded better, and worked better for what I do. Every modern Moog, including the mythical Moog One. No Waldorf hardware graces my doorstep, for various reasons, although I miss the M a bit. The 3rd Wave was a snooze fest, so bye bye. I could go on, but you get the idea. This myth that hardware automatically is more desirable to everyone is silly. I get the idea that people don't like working with software, but those who don't mind it but reject it because it's not a perfect copy of something are missing out on some amazing stuff.

[zerocrossing]

Yepp, take that back. Then take this!

Things I learned in this video:

• Confirmation that that dude's personality is like nails on a chalkboard.
• That dude is just learning about product marketing.
• That dude does not understand the economics behind producing software vs. hardware.

Thinks I did not learn in this video:

• Does this plugin sound like the hardware it's modeling.

[El°HYM]

Hallelujah!

[ROTMetro]

My wife for example, who does lots of visual art is very particular with the selection of her brushes. Does the buyers of her art see that selection? Of course not.

Totally off topic, but if she hasn't already done it, search for weekend workshops on making brushes. They have them around my small town every so often, I'm guessing they have them everywhere. It's a super fun date type thing to do with someone especially if they are an actual artist.

[ROTMetro]

This might be fun. Which is using analog which is using VSTs?





Breakdown reveals:

[zerocrossing]

Hallelujah!

Hainbach. He’s one of my favorite plugin developers.

It does prove a point, in that if you’re interested in doing some mad scientist sh!t, a room full of Cold War era stuff is probably the best way to go. This is akin to saying, the best way to experience driving a really fast car is to race Formula 1 cars. It is both true, and irrelevant to all but 20 people in the world.

But if the recordings of KVR that are posted are any indication of what people are doing in their studios, it’s generally not anything like Hainbach, and those who are doing similar things are using commercially available eurorack modules. No offense, but I’m sure you could do what he’s doing that way and likely do it better and have a much smarter electricity bill.

Could you possibly get there in software? Not the process, that we can all agree on. The process will lead you to different things that you might not find in a plugin. The inverse is also true. I can get in a flow state with software modular that is liberating in a different way. VCV Pro can give me polyphony, at the expense of sound quality at extreme settings. Softube Modular can too, but is very limited in module selection. Reaktor Blocks running at high sample rates is a good compromise for me. Toybox add-ons are great. Is it as good as hardware? Probably not, but considering I hate the modular work flow, it’s my only choice.