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

[IvyBirds]

Imagine turning up to see Hans Zimmer live in concert, and when the curtain opens Hans is sitting at a laptop running Zebra --------and "10%" something else!

I saw Hans Zimmer play twice in the fall of last year, once in New York City and the other in Baltimore MD

I don't need to imagine him paying Zebra 90% of the time because all he played was software Synths

Screenshot_20250712-172438.jpg

You will notice two NI Controllers and 3 Computer Screens, you will also notice the total lack of anything analog, and not even a Rompler

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

I saw him play on back to back nights in front of tens of thousands of people once at Madison Square Garden, and the other time at the Baltimore Arena and no one gave two shits that he was playing software synths

I wish I knew what software his live rig was based around that was hosting his plugins. He most certainly did not use any Hardware Synths of any kind

Edit: Sould add, I would go see him again anytime and would encourage anyone to, phenomenal music and light show

Also his performance and seeing Toto was what caused me to seek to fully abandon using my hardware synths live, and stop hauling my Montage around

[dellboy]

Imagine turning up to see Hans Zimmer live in concert, and when the curtain opens Hans is sitting at a laptop running Zebra --------and "10%" something else!

I saw Hans Zimmer play twice in the fall of last year, once in New York City and the other in Baltimore MD

I don't need to imagine him paying Zebra 90% of the time because all he played was software Synths

Screenshot_20250712-172438.jpg

You will notice two NI Controllers and 3 Computer Screens, you will also notice the total lack of anything analog, and not even a Rompler

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

I saw him play on back to back nights in front of tens of thousands of people once at Madison Square Garden, and the other time at the Baltimore Arena and no one gave two shits that he was playing software synths

I wish I knew what software his live rig was based around that was hosting his plugins. He most certainly did not use any Hardware Synths of any kind

Edit: Sould add, I would go see him again anytime and would encourage anyone to, phenomenal music and light show

Also his performance and seeing Toto was what caused me to seek to fully abandon using my hardware synths live, and stop hauling my Montage around

Good spot on the software screens!

So what’s all the huge orchestra, choirs, etc for?

[enCiphered]

So what’s all the huge orchestra, choirs, etc for?

Oh, those? Just for aesthetic latency compensation. You know, to visually offset the 2ms buffer Hans gets running Zebra through 14 layers of Kontakt and Omnisphere. Every time the French horn section breathes in unison, it triggers an LFO modulating Zebra's filter cutoff.
The choir is purely decorative. Think of them as animated VST splash screens but in 3D meatspace.
That's just Hans Zimmer's way of making the audience think something epic is happening while he noodles on Zebra. It's all smoke and violins.
Think of it like garnish on a plate. The steak is Zebra. The orchestra is parsley. Very expensive, very loud parsley.

[IvyBirds]

So what’s all the huge orchestra, choirs, etc for?

Oh, those? Just for aesthetic latency compensation. You know, to visually offset the 2ms buffer Hans gets running Zebra through 14 layers of Kontakt and Omnisphere. Every time the French horn section breathes in unison, it triggers an LFO modulating Zebra's filter cutoff.
The choir is purely decorative. Think of them as animated VST splash screens but in 3D meatspace.
That's just Hans Zimmer's way of making the audience think something epic is happening while he noodles on Zebra. It's all smoke and violins.
Think of it like garnish on a plate. The steak is Zebra. The orchestra is parsley. Very expensive, very loud parsley.

Nope they are there for the same reasons they would be there if he was playing a collection of vintage analog synths, the purists in this thread would cream in the jeans over

If you want the sound of an actual choir or and actual orchestra and can afford to, you use one

You most certainly don't use a Minimoog, Moog One, a Juno or a 3rd Wave

However using software instruments like Kontact could get you a lot closer to those sounds than a Prophet 5

[IvyBirds]

Imagine turning up to see Hans Zimmer live in concert, and when the curtain opens Hans is sitting at a laptop running Zebra --------and "10%" something else!

I saw Hans Zimmer play twice in the fall of last year, once in New York City and the other in Baltimore MD

I don't need to imagine him paying Zebra 90% of the time because all he played was software Synths

Screenshot_20250712-172438.jpg

You will notice two NI Controllers and 3 Computer Screens, you will also notice the total lack of anything analog, and not even a Rompler

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

I saw him play on back to back nights in front of tens of thousands of people once at Madison Square Garden, and the other time at the Baltimore Arena and no one gave two shits that he was playing software synths

I wish I knew what software his live rig was based around that was hosting his plugins. He most certainly did not use any Hardware Synths of any kind

Edit: Sould add, I would go see him again anytime and would encourage anyone to, phenomenal music and light show

Also his performance and seeing Toto was what caused me to seek to fully abandon using my hardware synths live, and stop hauling my Montage around

Good spot on the software screens!

So what’s all the huge orchestra, choirs, etc for?

This tour featured his many TV and film scores. Those often use real orchestras and choirs as he is a composer first

The synth parts used software instruments

[vurt]

So what’s all the huge orchestra, choirs, etc for?

Oh, those? Just for aesthetic latency compensation. You know, to visually offset the 2ms buffer Hans gets running Zebra through 14 layers of Kontakt and Omnisphere. Every time the French horn section breathes in unison, it triggers an LFO modulating Zebra's filter cutoff.
The choir is purely decorative. Think of them as animated VST splash screens but in 3D meatspace.
That's just Hans Zimmer's way of making the audience think something epic is happening while he noodles on Zebra. It's all smoke and violins.
Think of it like garnish on a plate. The steak is Zebra. The orchestra is parsley. Very expensive, very loud parsley.

whether i agree or disagree with the whole statement is irrelevant, but that last bit is a great track title!

[vurt]

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

not really.
just in some cases yes, it matters.
its part of the show. as ghettosynth says, we are not talking mainstream stuff.(probably looking at/for some different stuff, but less mainstream[perhaps some crossover?])
yes, its a niche scene, but its there.

[stoopicus]

I get that people love their hardware synths and that's great. At the same time, in 2025, avoiding use of virtual instruments in making electronic music seems pretty self defeating too - *unless* your whole theme is something like the live modular subgenre like Look Mum No Computer etc.

[ghettosynth]

I get that people love their hardware synths and that's great. At the same time, in 2025, avoiding use of virtual instruments in making electronic music seems pretty self defeating too - *unless* your whole theme is something like the live modular subgenre like Look Mum No Computer etc.

This is a narrow perspective. I don't avoid virtual instruments in general, but for some compositional styles I do. It's hardly self-defeating, it's precisely what creates the context in which I'm most productive. I don't have to do everything or take on an entire hardware persona in order to be productive. It's possible that doesn't work for you, but, it's also possible that you haven't realized that it could when done in the right way.

For other compositional styles, BTW, I use only software. I think that your perspective lacks nuance on how equipment can have an impact on how you work. If I have anything that I'm a purist about, it's not forcing myself to endure irritation in music making based on what other people like or don't like, or, in particular, thinks is necessary to create profeshionall music.

[stoopicus]

I think that your perspective lacks nuance on how equipment can have an impact on how you work.

(Just quoting that as it's a pretty good summary sentence of the post in general)

That's fair but actually I do get that and understand completely. A related concept is that gear limitations can spur creativity and I agree with both ideas.

But you're misreading a bit of what I was trying to say. I simply meant avoiding software simply out of a stance of purity to hardware is self-defeating. In essence you and I are saying the same thing - taking a purist stance lacking nuance to the context of what you are doing can be self-defeating.

[IvyBirds]

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

not really.
just in some cases yes, it matters.
its part of the show. as ghettosynth says, we are not talking mainstream stuff.(probably looking at/for some different stuff, but less mainstream[perhaps some crossover?])
yes, its a niche scene, but its there.

But they either do or they don't and if they do in the mainstream that means that they are used there is no nuance required

Now if you want to talk about a niche scene awesome, there are niche scenes in all sorts of things of music,

But again the purists have this delusional idea and we have seen in this thread that professionals don't use software instruments live and if they do somehow the audience will care and that is 100% incorrect there is no nuance required

[kritikon]

But you're misreading a bit of what I was trying to say. I simply meant avoiding software simply out of a stance of purity to hardware is self-defeating. In essence you and I are saying the same thing - taking a purist stance lacking nuance to the context of what you are doing can be self-defeating.

Not sure I've come across anyone here who avoids software out of a stance of purity to hardware. I vaguely remember one who only uses analogue stuff, but I'm pretty certain almost anyone using hw here also uses sw for various things. I certainly do, and use some sw synths when they sound good (though a great many don't sound good IMO). The only purists around here seem to be the odd software evangelist who are compelled to argue that anyone using hw is wrong...now that seems self-defeating IMO. These threads always seem to descend into absolutes - which is silly because I know of no absolutist hw users.

Let's do a hands-up here for anyone using only hw...I suspect you won't see any hands going up. Neither is it any kind of virtue using only sw. The evangelists seem to think it is though . It always seems to be an argument coming from one side in particular, as most of us hw users also use sw. For anyone using only sw, great have a good time doing it, but for the love of god stop trying to argue that it's the only right way to make music.

[zerocrossing]

I think this idea of a good show being the manipulation of gear is just what a bunch of us synth nerds think, and use to justify having and lugging a bunch of it out to shows.

Two anecdotes supported by your opinion that it was a great show doesn't make this case. I go out of my way to seek out performers who are actually live in the electronic music sense and, for me, it is not the same as a show where a famous performer is prancing around with a violin.

Laurie does not prance.

It doesn't all have to be "live" and what "live" means is context dependent. I don't expect techno artists to play notes in time, for example. Little comes close to me to the two/three person live techno acts of the early to mid 90s, e.g., prototype 909. Even in recent shows, however, e.g., Orbital, Kink, and some local acts, e.g., the late Chelsea Dolan, whom I only saw once and who died tragically in the Oakland Ghost Ship fire, the parts that were live instruments, particularly analog instruments, stood out.

Does it have to be, though? My kid went though a Taylor Swift phase and we were watching videos of her (I find her monumentally mediocre) and there's a point where she's sitting at a piano and someone off stage triggers the piano part as she's talking. She makes some flustered joke about it being haunted or something, but to those in the know, the piano is either empty and she's lip syncing and playing to a track, or it's a MIDI controller in a piano frame and someone started the MIDI. Regardless, the thousands of her fans still thought her performance was awesome. When I saw Thomas Dolby in the 00s, he was touring with a MIDI controller and two G5s, though I think he also had a Virus keyboard on stage for some things. Not a single bit of analog kit in the club, and he sounded great and the show was great.

I guess what I'm saying is that you like the live analog instruments for the same reason I like seeing them. Because we're synth nerds nerding out to other synth nerds.

I’ve gone to plenty of gear centric shows that sucked. There is no correlation between gear and a good show.

As have I, this isn't an indictment of gear, but skill. I don't think that there is any claim that gear implicitly means that a show will be better, one has to know what they're doing in context. By that I mean that how you play must function in the environment in which you play. Average concert goers are comfortable, and in fact, expect pauses between songs, DJ audiences do not.

I don't know that scene well at all, so I'll take your word for it, but I've seen some DJ sets and to me, they are monumentally boring. Paul Miller (DJ Spooky) did a performance for my college MIDI class that was amazing, but I'm talking about the output. He wasn't really that much fun to watch, though when he talked his intelligence and charm was evident and that part was great.

That said, a lot of shows don't actually tweak gear, it might sound like that's being done, but it's not really. So, I'm sure that pink floyd playing on a K2000 was alright. I'm also sure that it didnt' sound as good. You aren't going to get a decent filter sweep out of that shit digital filter.

I've never had the pleasure of seeing Pink Floyd perform, and after Waters left, I had no desire to, as I feel their music turned to crap. Even the Final Cut felt like some weird halfhearted and forced attempt at rekindling the magic of The Wall.

I should also probably say that I'm not really talking about pop, or even quasi-pop music for the most part. I wouldn't care about what Lauri Anderson plays on stage.

It's funny because when I worked on Home Of The Brave, the synthesizers, especially the Synclavier II were interesting to me, but I was REALLY interested in what Adrian Belew was doing with guitar stuff, because that was my world. He was also super approachable, totally gear nerd, so we got along well. I knew enough of his world to hang in a conversation with him, but at that point in my life, the Synclavier was far beyond my understanding of synthesis. At that point I had a Juno 106 and had taken a class in basic synthesis where we messed about with some modular stuff, but nothing really advanced. There wasn't really much synthesizer tweaking during her show, and the visual of the show was mostly projection and the performance of instruments. Some gimmicks, like she had a violin where the bridge was a tape head and the bow strung with a piece of tape of William S. Burroughs saying, "Listen to my heart beat." I saw her years later where she had male dancers with her that played "harpoons" that seemed to be MIDI controllers that were controlling some sort of granular sample playback system. She always loved the tech gimmick, but I wonder if I see it that way because, like her, I am a gear nerd. What does the civilian audience think of these things? Is Deadmau5 actually doing anything, or is the full set recorded or automated and he's just dancing around with a big stupid helmet on? I think the answer is irrelevant. I think as long as an audience perceives that something is purposefully being done that corresponds to what they're hearing, they're happy. I used to play shows where my MIDI guitar was triggering visuals, but no one could tell because picking strings is too subtle a gesture to notice unless you're focused on it, and people were watching the screens, because that was the show. I switched to using a drum trigger, and then people did know I was doing it, and a few... wait for it... gear nerds, would come up to me after the show to talk to me about it, but did the rest know or care? I used to play to cuts from movies and almost always have someone tell me that it was amazing how my music was perfectly synced to the movie. It wasn't. I couldn't even see the movie. Their brains made the connections. That ol' gestalt. It's a doozie.

One of the reasons I stopped performing was because I realized that I was a terrible performer. I mean, I could execute a song in a pretty flawless way, but I think I'm not that into people and people can pick up on that. I'm not going to look like I'm in a state of rapture as I'm playing a solo, though I did once win a karaoke contest doing Purple Rain where at the end I basically humped the floor in what can only be described as a simulated orgasm. I'd like to say it was my vocal skills, but we all knew that shit was hilarious because if you knew me... it definitely wasn't sexy.

(I won $100 and used it to buy a plugin )

[_leras]

The hardware purists have this delusional idea that working pros don't use laptops or computers on stage or that audiences care if they do

I have no idea what make you think that. I don't think anyone has said that in this thread.

Certainly in electronic music I would think most people assume most of the sound playing is prerecorded and probably in some looped format.


There are people who take out synths, even modular synths as part of their live performances. I've seen this work very well with some big names. It's also a great way to allow some form of improvisation, above live arranging, to happen. People can relate the standing at the synth to the sound changing.

It's not perfect, but it's something for when the music is very studio and production based and almost impossible to have a truly live performance of.

(One of the worst things I've seen with electronic music has been people trying to shoehorn in live singing, but not really having set it up and arranged very well for it. That can be a real train wreck)

[stoopicus]

For anyone using only sw, great have a good time doing it, but for the love of god stop trying to argue that it's the only right way to make music.

This is simply applicable to purism in general. Everyone loves to evangelize their own workflows, of course. Same as it ever was

I've gone entirely software but it's not because I dislike hardware - in fact at this time last year I had three hardware analog synths.

Now, they *did* remind me why I prefer software, but I still loved them, super fun to play with.

Crapping on other people's workflows is futile. If something is working for someone, telling them it isn't doesn't even make sense.