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

[Cavey Arrgh]

It’s like my mom. She loves mint chocolate chip ice cream, so when she was visiting, we took her to this small-batch, all organic ice cream place in Berkeley, CA. Her response? “I like my ShopRite (a super market chain) brand better. This tastes too much like real mint.” Is she wrong?

I live in the bay area as well. I recently had that "real" mint chocolate chip ice cream, and I agree with your mom. Zerocrossing, I always knew you came from good breeding.

[ghettosynth]

Ah, there it is... Flashback

I was so hyped and thought synth focused midi controllers would definitely be a thing by now lol. Sadly the midi keyboard market has pretty much stagnated

They're really too expensive to make and full of risk. You have to include a big part of the cost of building a synth and link that to a soft-synth that has a limited market. It's a never ending quest to build a truly dynamic synth interface that is also tactile, and I ton' think that we have really succeeded, and I think that we're far away from anything that will for a while.

Even generic midi controllers have shaved costs down to the point that they often feel terrible.

[DrGonzo]

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.

Thanks - that was a really cool suggestion. I think she would be more interested in creating colours from scratch from pigments, but I could absolutely see her having fun making brushes. Thanks again!

[DrGonzo]

You really can't recreate that hardware workflow with a midi controller.

Sure you can

Two of my addictions in this field is/have been hardware sequencers and controllers, but I have never found a controller that could even come remotely close to the hands on experience you get with a dedicated hardware interface. Maybe the old Bitstream was the best so far.

For me, the benefits of a hardware interface is more about muscle memory and not always about the amount of sliders and knobs. I know people who could almost write songs on a Digitakt with their eyes closed.

The only times I've got somewhat close is when I use a generic controller and dedicate it entirely to one software.

I'm not talking about simple stuff like just having knobs for cutoff and resonance, but being able to program a sound in depth.

For recording automation for stuff, generic controllers are fine, but interfacing a software synthesizer through one, is at best not a fun experience.

/C

[IvyBirds]

3rd wave is 24 voice polyphony and the Waldorf Microwave 1 plugin you mentioned as an alternative is 8 voice polyphony and can't even do virtual analog. So where does software win in this particular case?

Stacking sounds or running multiple instances don't count because I can also have infinite polyphony by stacking the 3rd wave as many times as I want. So I mean as a 1v1 comparison how does the Microwave Plugin beat the 3rd wave?

Where does software win? If you want 32 voices of Polyphony available at the same time to play live how do you do that on the 3rd Wave? I can easily do that with the Microwave Plugin by setting a split with four instances. Software wins the polyphony game every time

I could sync it up with my Moog One 16 voice for a total of 40 voices instead of 32 if I truly needed more than 24 voices (which in a live setting I probably wouldn't). And that would be one hell of a synth stack I would prefer over anything in a laptop personally.

And yet you would still have less polyphony than you could have with software and wouldn't be spending $15,000 for it

But by all means tell me again why dropping $15 grand to get 40 voices of Polyphony and/or 8 part multi-timbrality is supposed to be impressive. Make sure however that you enjoy the voice stealing if you do that with 8 part multi-timbrality and want to play 7th chords with sustain on the release

But impressive how you want to move the goal posts now

Hell.... I may have just sold myself on buying a 3rd wave with that thought

1-2 solid hardware poly synths and a Nord Stage 4 73 compact would cover everything I need in a live keyboard rig. And I would be sacrificing absolutely nothing with that setup.

Awesome so you want to drop $20 grand and carry around 100 pounds of Synths to the gig

Have fun and remember 2/3 of that setup is all software, but at least with the Nord you would have some actual polyphony, amazing how you had to add a software synth with actual polyphony to not be sacrificing anything

Talk about moving the goal post lol you've moved to an entirely different football field. First it was software always wins the polyphony battle. Then you're shown a hardware synth that has more polyphony than the software synth you suggested as an alternative, so you move the goal post to running multiple instances in a live setting with gig performer. Ok fine. But when I show you I can sync 2 poly synths together for more polyphony you move the goal post again to the price so now 40 voices of polyphony is not impressive to you since it can be achieved with hardware (although before you suggested 32 voices was more impressive than 24).

I have always talked about price when you talk about the Moog One and the 3rd Wave, and I have always said that with software with the Microwave I can always have more Polyphony than with the 3rd Wave

But sure just make stuff up

You are indeed the master of moving the goal post sir I think you just enjoy being contrarian to anything related to hardware no matter how disingenuous you have to be to do so.

Only I don't, Uneven told you to buy a hardware synth the Behringer Wave. But if we are going to talk about polyphony or multi-timbrality software wins every single time

You'll figure out a way to make an 8 voice software synth like the Microwave 1 seem superior to a 24 voice hybrid analog synth with lots of extra features.

Because it is from a polyphony standpoint and a multi-timbral standpoint when you want to emulate the PPG as suggested. If you want to do VA awesome you can use the 3rd Wave or one of hundreds of software synths that offer far more options and filter models. But sure just run your software based synth on the 3rd Wave and enjoy the software modeled SEM filter if you think it's awesome

You'll figure out a way to trivialize extremely cool features on hardware just to reinforce your ideology that software is always better. I saw you earlier in the thread talk about how cool it was to use the Softube Model 84 (great sounding soft synth) even though it has 1 oscillator and is super simple with 6 voice polyphony.

What cool features? Every feature of the 3rd Wave is outdone by software

As for the Softube 84, I have unlimited polyphony with that in modular blocks of 6 voices and each block can be a different timbre if I want

Yet you will completely rip apart hardware with far superior sound and specs as if they are ancient devices with 2 note polyphony and half an oscillator.

What's the dar superior sound you ware referring to? Not in the 3rd Wave not even close

But yet you want to be perceived as honest only fighting back against hardware evangelist as you say? Please. You are the most biased of any hardware or software enthusiast in the thread.

Only I am not I just push back on your BS based on my first hand experience

I don't care what you use, but just think bragging about a hard limit of 24 voices of polyphony on a totally digital synth that's running software and costs $5 grand is silly.

So to recap use what you want for your music, but be honest about it.

[IvyBirds]

You really can't recreate that hardware workflow with a midi controller.

Sure you can

Two of my addictions in this field is/have been hardware sequencers and controllers, but I have never found a controller that could even come remotely close to the hands on experience you get with a dedicated hardware interface. Maybe the old Bitstream was the best so far.

For me, the benefits of a hardware interface is more about muscle memory and not always about the amount of sliders and knobs. I know people who could almost write songs on a Digitakt with their eyes closed.

The only times I've got somewhat close is when I use a generic controller and dedicate it entirely to one software.

I'm not talking about simple stuff like just having knobs for cutoff and resonance, but being able to program a sound in depth.

For recording automation for stuff, generic controllers are fine, but interfacing a software synthesizer through one, is at best not a fun experience.

/C

I am not taking about simple stuff either. I am taking about deep stuff like having every parameter of a DX7 programmed to dedicated controllers. It's not difficult because each control ends up being duplicated 6x, one for each operator

For analog style Synths each oscillator has the same basic controls from synth to synth, envelopes are envelopes etc

Basically you make a template for what you want to do and then make your Synths conform to that template

[DrGonzo]

I am not taking about simple stuff either. I am taking about deep stuff like having every parameter of a DX7 programmed to dedicated controllers. It's not difficult because each control ends up being duplicated 6x, one for each operator

For analog style Synths each oscillator has the same basic controls from synth to synth, envelopes are envelopes etc

Basically you make a template for what you want to do and then make your Synths conform to that template

Mapping up stuff like envelopes is something I definitely regard falling into the "simple stuff" box, just as with cutoff and resonance. For most that's enough though.

I'd rather program a typical MiniMoog software emulation with the mouse than doing it from a generic controller, any day. On the hardware, controls are clustered and grouped according to the unique functionality of the synth. With a generic controller you have a matrix of sliders and knobs and in order to fully use the controls you often need to map things in places not logical at all.

I'm happy you feel a generic controller is 1:1 on par with a dedicated hardware interface. But I really don't. It's not even in the same universe.

[ghettosynth]

I am not taking about simple stuff either. I am taking about deep stuff like having every parameter of a DX7 programmed to dedicated controllers. It's not difficult because each control ends up being duplicated 6x, one for each operator

For analog style Synths each oscillator has the same basic controls from synth to synth, envelopes are envelopes etc

Basically you make a template for what you want to do and then make your Synths conform to that template

Mapping up stuff like envelopes is something I definitely regard falling into the "simple stuff" box, just as with cutoff and resonance. For most that's enough though.

I'd rather program a typical MiniMoog software emulation with the mouse than doing it from a generic controller, any day. On the hardware, controls are clustered and grouped according to the unique functionality of the synth. With a generic controller you have a matrix of sliders and knobs and in order to fully use the controls you often need to map things in places not logical at all.

I'm happy you feel a generic controller is 1:1 on par with a dedicated hardware interface. But I really don't. It's not even in the same universe.

100% This is also the Octave Cat is a nice design. Knobs where they make sense, sliders where they make sense. Interestingly, or not, depending on your POV. I got very fast programming the DX21. I actually liked the button plus slider interface. An important advantage over the DX7 was the fact that the buttons were tactile. I don't think that knob per function is that useful for complex FM synths. The single slider wasn't very good for real time manipulation, but it was fast for programming.

All of the subtle elements of the U/I matter. The grouping, the choice of controls, the tactile feedback, the panel graphics and labeling. It was something that I didn't like about the Nord Modular and something that they addressed in the G2. You need labels on knobs if the functions of the knobs are changing.

I have an old RS7000 sampler that sends out some standard midi CCs for the front panel. For earlier versions of the Arturia synths, they defaulted to respond to these CCs. This wasn't that good for programming, but it was decent for real time manipulation. Later versions changed and they stopped working; which was ok, since I stopped using the RS7000.

I could go on. I've also been through many experimental attempts to mitigate this problem and I find that software works well for some aspects but robs you of a certain immediacy in others. I've built reasonably complex setups and at the end of the day I still prefer hardware for a certain kind of live composition.

[machinesworking]

I could go on. I've also been through many experimental attempts to mitigate this problem and I find that software works well for some aspects but robs you of a certain immediacy in others. I've built reasonably complex setups and at the end of the day I still prefer hardware for a certain kind of live composition.

Sums it up nicely. IMO anything with menu diving hardware wise isn't any better than software, but a well laid out hardware synth is fast and fun to use. Caveat is super complex synths and samplers like Falcon, way easier to implement and use that on a computer.

[SoftSynthLover99]

3rd wave is 24 voice polyphony and the Waldorf Microwave 1 plugin you mentioned as an alternative is 8 voice polyphony and can't even do virtual analog. So where does software win in this particular case?

Stacking sounds or running multiple instances don't count because I can also have infinite polyphony by stacking the 3rd wave as many times as I want. So I mean as a 1v1 comparison how does the Microwave Plugin beat the 3rd wave?

Where does software win? If you want 32 voices of Polyphony available at the same time to play live how do you do that on the 3rd Wave? I can easily do that with the Microwave Plugin by setting a split with four instances. Software wins the polyphony game every time

I could sync it up with my Moog One 16 voice for a total of 40 voices instead of 32 if I truly needed more than 24 voices (which in a live setting I probably wouldn't). And that would be one hell of a synth stack I would prefer over anything in a laptop personally.

And yet you would still have less polyphony than you could have with software and wouldn't be spending $15,000 for it

But by all means tell me again why dropping $15 grand to get 40 voices of Polyphony and/or 8 part multi-timbrality is supposed to be impressive. Make sure however that you enjoy the voice stealing if you do that with 8 part multi-timbrality and want to play 7th chords with sustain on the release

But impressive how you want to move the goal posts now

Hell.... I may have just sold myself on buying a 3rd wave with that thought

1-2 solid hardware poly synths and a Nord Stage 4 73 compact would cover everything I need in a live keyboard rig. And I would be sacrificing absolutely nothing with that setup.

Awesome so you want to drop $20 grand and carry around 100 pounds of Synths to the gig

Have fun and remember 2/3 of that setup is all software, but at least with the Nord you would have some actual polyphony, amazing how you had to add a software synth with actual polyphony to not be sacrificing anything

Talk about moving the goal post lol you've moved to an entirely different football field. First it was software always wins the polyphony battle. Then you're shown a hardware synth that has more polyphony than the software synth you suggested as an alternative, so you move the goal post to running multiple instances in a live setting with gig performer. Ok fine. But when I show you I can sync 2 poly synths together for more polyphony you move the goal post again to the price so now 40 voices of polyphony is not impressive to you since it can be achieved with hardware (although before you suggested 32 voices was more impressive than 24).

I have always talked about price when you talk about the Moog One and the 3rd Wave, and I have always said that with software with the Microwave I can always have more Polyphony than with the 3rd Wave

But sure just make stuff up

You are indeed the master of moving the goal post sir I think you just enjoy being contrarian to anything related to hardware no matter how disingenuous you have to be to do so.

Only I don't, Uneven told you to buy a hardware synth the Behringer Wave. But if we are going to talk about polyphony or multi-timbrality software wins every single time

You'll figure out a way to make an 8 voice software synth like the Microwave 1 seem superior to a 24 voice hybrid analog synth with lots of extra features.

Because it is from a polyphony standpoint and a multi-timbral standpoint when you want to emulate the PPG as suggested. If you want to do VA awesome you can use the 3rd Wave or one of hundreds of software synths that offer far more options and filter models. But sure just run your software based synth on the 3rd Wave and enjoy the software modeled SEM filter if you think it's awesome

You'll figure out a way to trivialize extremely cool features on hardware just to reinforce your ideology that software is always better. I saw you earlier in the thread talk about how cool it was to use the Softube Model 84 (great sounding soft synth) even though it has 1 oscillator and is super simple with 6 voice polyphony.

What cool features? Every feature of the 3rd Wave is outdone by software

As for the Softube 84, I have unlimited polyphony with that in modular blocks of 6 voices and each block can be a different timbre if I want

Yet you will completely rip apart hardware with far superior sound and specs as if they are ancient devices with 2 note polyphony and half an oscillator.

What's the dar superior sound you ware referring to? Not in the 3rd Wave not even close

But yet you want to be perceived as honest only fighting back against hardware evangelist as you say? Please. You are the most biased of any hardware or software enthusiast in the thread.

Only I am not I just push back on your BS based on my first hand experience

I don't care what you use, but just think bragging about a hard limit of 24 voices of polyphony on a totally digital synth that's running software and costs $5 grand is silly.

So to recap use what you want for your music, but be honest about it.

Thanks for proving my point again lol. Weather or not it’s the 3rd wave, moog one, Melbourne instruments Nina, freakin God himself building a hardware synthesizer and putting it in your hands, you will find a way to trivialize and downplay every single aspect of hardware to make your POV correct. Which is that software is always better in every case no matter what. Hardware can never sound better than software, hardware can never be easier or faster to use, hardware is only good for posting photos on instagram and anyone who spends anything over Behringer prices is an idiot.

You said: I don't care what you use, but just think bragging about a hard limit of 24 voices of polyphony on a totally digital synth that's running software and costs $5 grand is silly.

Never bragged as I don’t even own the synth, but see how you have to downplay the synth just because it’s hardware? You say it’s “totally digital” when it’s a hybrid analog. Ignoring the analog components as if they are of no consequence to the sound or quality of the synth. And even though most of the best sounding software synths barely reach 16 voices, you downplay hardware achieving 24 voices.

I really am convinced a hardware synth can be built with 500 oscillators and 1000 note polyphony with dozens of analog filter types and VCAs and every synthesis type known to man on board, and you still would not be impressed! You’d find a way to say “software can do that eeeeeaaasssyy”

[pdxindy]

They're really too expensive to make and full of risk. You have to include a big part of the cost of building a synth and link that to a soft-synth that has a limited market. It's a never ending quest to build a truly dynamic synth interface that is also tactile, and I ton' think that we have really succeeded, and I think that we're far away from anything that will for a while.

Even generic midi controllers have shaved costs down to the point that they often feel terrible.

Basically, midi controllers suck for controlling software instruments.

[pdxindy]

I'd rather program a typical MiniMoog software emulation with the mouse than doing it from a generic controller, any day.

I've spent thousands of dollars on various midi controllers and I always end up back with the mouse and screen. The mouse is a magnitude or more faster.

[DrGonzo]

I'd rather program a typical MiniMoog software emulation with the mouse than doing it from a generic controller, any day.

I've spent thousands of dollars on various midi controllers and I always end up back with the mouse and screen. The mouse is a magnitude or more faster.

Yep - sounds like my adventures in controller land as well.

[dellboy]

Something that keeps coming up is the cost difference between analog/hardware versus software. Should this be a factor? If money was no object, would a billionaire choose software over hardware? If a billionaire had one big studio fully equipped with a large collection of hardware synths, along with a mixing desk and a professional audio engineer, and another studio with a Mac or PC running software, which studio would he choose?

[pdxindy]

Also you are incorrect. Both the Analog Four/Keys and the Digitone can be played with MPE.

When did they add Polyphonic Aftertouch or anything else MPE related to the Digitone or Analog keys? I can find zero information about either online, the only thing you can find is people lamenting that it doesn't have it even on the official Elektron forums from actual users

Set each of the tracks on the A4 to the same sound.
On the Linnstrument limit the midi channels to 4 and the same channels as you have the A4 configured to.
On the Linnstrument, set Timbre to CC#2 (breath) since the A4 doesn't support CC#74
In the A4 modulate the targets you want with AT and Breath.

It works well... Have fun!

One of my favorite things about the Linnstrument is that all configuration is done right on it and there is no need for a computer.