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

[seafire]

Yes you are making a mountain out of a mole hill with your conspiracy theories against me

If you weren't you would just let it go

I asked a simple question. You are the one who keeps mentioning conspiracies and theories. I haven't used used any of those words in the previous posts.

Keep projecting.

[SoftSynthLover99]

The Waldorf M has analogue filters.

And? Just like with the 3rd Wave bolting analog filters on the end of signal chain on a 100% digital software based instrument isn't very exciting and most certainly doesn't really add anything to the sound

If Analog filters add nothing to the sound of a synth, why do plugin developers spend so much time trying to emulate various types of analog filters?

If Analog Filters add so much to the sound of the 3rd Wave why are you still unsure about the sound of it? Shouldn't they automatically make it a must buy for you?

I'm not sold on the sound of the 3rd Wave, but the user interface is great.

Yeah, not totally sold on 3rd wave either

Analog Filters don't add much because they have been modeled quite effectively with software as such they don't add much of anything, in and of themselves

Which is exactly why both the 3rd Wave and the Waldorf M have software filters

In Subtractive Synthesis you generate rich harmonic content in a variety of ways including using digital software based methods and then apply a filter to remove some of it to further sculpt the sound

You can do that with analog methods or digital ones but the end results are the same hence why you are still not sold on the 3rd Wave but do find the sound of its software based digital filters to sound good as did the guy in the video you shared of it

So again, why do the developers of synth plugins spend time modeling various analog filter types if analog filters don't really matter to the overall sound? What are they trying to capture by modeling analog filters?

In July of 2025 making this filter analog doesn't really matter much as you can accomplish the same thing with digital technology

You seem to be trying to say making the filter Analog matters, while also ignoring the fact that it's a filter

I mean again, if analog filters don't matter why do developers waste time modeling them? For example what is the purpose of synapse audio modeling Hans Zimmers vintage 914 filter bank for the LegendHZ? It's either all marketing BS and a waste of time, or perhaps analog filters in general have a certain sonic quality they are trying to capture. Which is it?

Synapse Audio: The Legend HZ even contains a fixed filter bank that was modeled after Hans Zimmer’s personal Vintage 914 Fixed Filter Bank, an exceptional and rare piece of hardware.

[zerocrossing]

We haven't had one in a long time, but maybe people need some reminding that whenever there has been an "analog vs. digital" blind test, we get results that are about what one would expect to get if everyone had just flipped a coin and never bothered to actually listen. Last time I posted one, no one on the "analog forever" camp bothered to guess at all, and the one guess I got said, "I really can't tell." I don't even bother anymore, because I know it will be ignored and if people guess wrong, they'll accuse me of somehow cheating.

All I know is that an awful lot of hardware synths have been rejected by me because I found nothing exciting about them that I wasn't getting from a plugin. Some have remained, but it's not necessarily because they did something better, though that has definitely happened, but because they just had a specific type of character that I found interesting. I can say the same thing about plugins. I think Opal is one of the best sounding synthesizers of its kind, including hardware.

[SoftSynthLover99]

We haven't had one in a long time, but maybe people need some reminding that whenever there has been an "analog vs. digital" blind test, we get results that are about what one would expect to get if everyone had just flipped a coin and never bothered to actually listen. Last time I posted one, no one on the "analog forever" camp bothered to guess at all, and the one guess I got said, "I really can't tell." I don't even bother anymore, because I know it will be ignored and if people guess wrong, they'll accuse me of somehow cheating.

All I know is that an awful lot of hardware synths have been rejected by me because I found nothing exciting about them that I wasn't getting from a plugin. Some have remained, but it's not necessarily because they did something better, though that has definitely happened, but because they just had a specific type of character that I found interesting. I can say the same thing about plugins. I think Opal is one of the best sounding synthesizers of its kind, including hardware.

Opal is one of my favorites also (highly underrated IMO) and indeed I would choose it over a good number of hardware. UADs synths in general including PolyMax are really great sounding. The only hardware I keep are key pieces that just have a certain mojo software doesn't have.

Regarding A/B test why not go for a null test instead? Completely remove human error from the equation. If any differences exist in software vs hardware that may be the most scientific way to get to the bottom of things. But usually software centered people will claim hardware units vary in sound from unit to unit so that's why they don't null

[ghettosynth]

All I know is that an awful lot of hardware synths have been rejected by me because I found nothing exciting about them that I wasn't getting from a plugin.

This gets to the heart of the matter. I agree. I've said the same thing in the past. For me, Diva replaced pretty much all of the low cost 80s polysynths that analog lovers on a budget rave about, e.g, the Matrix1000. I don't particularly like the late model CEM filter sound and DCOs, to me, only sound good in limited contexts where the alignment of the oscillator phase with the note-on event contributes to the sound.

However, it's a very different thing to say that there are a lot of mediocre hardware synths than it is to say that hardware doesn't still have advantages. Of course all of those budget DCO based and datasheet designed VCF/VCA synths of the 80s are mid, they were not designed to be analog monsters, they were designed to be "keyboards" that fit a minimum product spec and a price point.

I think that modern polys are a different thing altogether. I agree that the M is marvelous. I also really like Nina, and the Super-6 and friends. While I've never been a Moog fan, the Matriarch sounds great and I respect them for sticking to their MO. Modern synth designers have the knowledge of the past, the knowledge of the present and the flexibility to choose whether to save money by implementing filters in digital, or not. Fully their choice. Their reasons for choosing analog are certainly fed, in part, by demand, which need not be rational. However, that is not the entire story and I think that when it's done correctly, the refusal to compromise is based on a genuine desire to create the best instrument.

[stoopicus]

It doesn’t matter if the filters are analog or digital as long as they sound good.

But there are absolutely, definitely *differences* in the sound because of the mathematical differences between sampled, discrete time systems and analog continuous-time systems.

You don’t have to get very deep in to signal processing to understand this.

But in the end, yes there are differences, but all that really matters is:

Does the filter sound good?
Does it behave well when you modulate it?
and for some of us:
Can it self-oscillate nicely?

If those are all true of your software filter then you are good to go, but the analog folks are right in that there will be differences. Whether or not you can hear them is a separate question.

[stoopicus]

Also: digital oscillators into analog filters sound awesome and anyone disagreeing with that is simply overlooking some truly killer instruments.

[IvyBirds]

And? Just like with the 3rd Wave bolting analog filters on the end of signal chain on a 100% digital software based instrument isn't very exciting and most certainly doesn't really add anything to the sound

If Analog filters add nothing to the sound of a synth, why do plugin developers spend so much time trying to emulate various types of analog filters?

If Analog Filters add so much to the sound of the 3rd Wave why are you still unsure about the sound of it? Shouldn't they automatically make it a must buy for you?

I'm not sold on the sound of the 3rd Wave, but the user interface is great.

Yeah, not totally sold on 3rd wave either

Analog Filters don't add much because they have been modeled quite effectively with software as such they don't add much of anything, in and of themselves

Which is exactly why both the 3rd Wave and the Waldorf M have software filters

In Subtractive Synthesis you generate rich harmonic content in a variety of ways including using digital software based methods and then apply a filter to remove some of it to further sculpt the sound

You can do that with analog methods or digital ones but the end results are the same hence why you are still not sold on the 3rd Wave but do find the sound of its software based digital filters to sound good as did the guy in the video you shared of it

So again, why do the developers of synth plugins spend time modeling various analog filter types if analog filters don't really matter to the overall sound? What are they trying to capture by modeling analog filters?

In July of 2025 making this filter analog doesn't really matter much as you can accomplish the same thing with digital technology

You seem to be trying to say making the filter Analog matters, while also ignoring the fact that it's a filter

I mean again, if analog filters don't matter why do developers waste time modeling them? For example what is the purpose of synapse audio modeling Hans Zimmers vintage 914 filter bank for the LegendHZ? It's either all marketing BS and a waste of time, or perhaps analog filters in general have a certain sonic quality they are trying to capture. Which is it?

Analog filters did matter before digital technology became able to model them, in 2025 they no longer do

For example the Hans Zimmer filter bank sounds awesome and when it was built they could only pull that off with analog circuits

But that is not the case now so they were able to do the same thing in the digital domain

So to recap once again filters matter but if they are analog or digital really doesn't matter

Now if having the filter on a synth be actual analog circuits mattered why did Hans Zimmer ask that they be modeled? Why didn't he just use the analog filter he already has? Or why didn't he just hire someone to make a polyphonic version for him? He has enough money?

If having filters be actual analog circuits mattered why does the 3rd Wave and the Waldorf M have digital filters?

[IvyBirds]

Also: digital oscillators into analog filters sound awesome and anyone disagreeing with that is simply overlooking some truly killer instruments.

I don't think anyone is saying they don't sound awesome, but digital oscillators going into a digital filter sounds awesome too and anyone disagreeing with that is simply overlooking some truly killer instruments.

[pdxindy]

I like both digital and analog osc's. I have lots of both in hardware and modular hardware. Both are amazing in their own ways and if I could only pick one type, it would have to be digital.

When it comes to filters though, analog filters are just flat out better to my ears.

Yeah I'd agree with that. I feel like analog VCAs and Filters are where a lot of the magic happens when it comes to the way synths sound.

Yeah, I think far too little attention is paid to analog VCA's when all the various analysis happens.

[IvyBirds]

Regarding A/B test why not go for a null test instead? Completely remove human error from the equation. If any differences exist in software vs hardware that may be the most scientific way to get to the bottom of things. But usually software centered people will claim hardware units vary in sound from unit to unit so that's why they don't null

You have already indicated just pressing a key is not a good test so why would being able to make something null be the ultimate test?

No one is saying that differences don't exist, the point being made is that any perceived differences are not really important

[zerocrossing]

It doesn’t matter if the filters are analog or digital as long as they sound good.

But there are absolutely, definitely *differences* in the sound because of the mathematical differences between sampled, discrete time systems and analog continuous-time systems.

You don’t have to get very deep in to signal processing to understand this.

I don't think you understand this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

[ghettosynth]

It doesn’t matter if the filters are analog or digital as long as they sound good.

But there are absolutely, definitely *differences* in the sound because of the mathematical differences between sampled, discrete time systems and analog continuous-time systems.

You don’t have to get very deep in to signal processing to understand this.

I don't think you understand this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_filter

I'm almost certain that he's not talking about the reconstruction filter. There are differences between discrete time system and continuous time systems. You approximate the continuous time system by, wait for it, discretizing the system. There are a number of ways to do this, but, make no mistake they are a model of the continuous time system with assumptions being made. This has nothing to do with the reconstruction filter and the tired arguments about how digital "steps."

Are you sure that you understand?

Will Pirkle's books are pretty approachable if you don't have an engineering background.

[stoopicus]

I'm almost certain that he's not talking about the reconstruction filter. There are differences between discrete time system and continuous time systems. You approximate the continuous time system by, wait for it, discretizing the system. There are a number of ways to do this, but, make no mistake they are a model of the continuous time system with assumptions being made. This has nothing to do with the reconstruction filter and the tired arguments about how digital "steps."

Are you sure that you understand?

Will Pirkle's books are pretty approachable if you don't have an engineering background.

Yes, this exactly. And yeah I like Pirkle’s books too, very approachable writing style.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Regarding A/B test why not go for a null test instead? Completely remove human error from the equation. If any differences exist in software vs hardware that may be the most scientific way to get to the bottom of things. But usually software centered people will claim hardware units vary in sound from unit to unit so that's why they don't null

You have already indicated just pressing a key is not a good test so why would being able to make something null be the ultimate test?

No one is saying that differences don't exist, the point being made is that any perceived differences are not really important

Null test remove human bias and show if something is indeed identical or not. A/B test can be misleading or intentionally biased to fool people to one side or the other. If you are confident software synths sound the same as hardware, a Null test setup properly would be the ultimate way to prove that no?

So now you admit differences exist? I can’t believe it! You’ve been saying in this thread and others that software sounds the same as hardware. Glad you’re being honest