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

[IvyBirds]

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

Sure back in the 1970s, but with modern VCAs that are very precise and driven by a computer there really is no need to pay attention as they are digital in nature

Now if you are talking about some Eurorack module that is a different story

Isn't every VCA in a synth with presets digitally controlled?

Yes, but modern CPUs are doing so with significantly greater precision as are the Voltage Generators they are controlling and the actual VCA chips themselves

You don't get the inherent sloppiness and imprecision that you got in the late 1970s on say a Prophet 5 which many people found pleasing

Sure you can, you just have to write the code that does it. You know, like the code the Prophet 5 mk4 is running.

Right how silly I am you can use even more software to make the analog hardware sound more like analog hardware

[zerocrossing]

Here's an alternate take on this whole debate. Analog gear was full of compromises and limitations. Digital gear can often go far beyond those compromises and limitations in a more cost effective manner. I wish these instrument companies would stop imitating those compromises and limitations and explore the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain.

Digital gear has always been full of compromises and limitations. From DAC resolution to memory size, processor speed, quality of algorithm, in particular, the quality of the digital filter algorithm.

All products are limited with respect to what the market is willing to pay for. And that, is what drives what products are produced. So, maybe your hot take is wrong, maybe "the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain" isn't interesting enough to sell to most people?

Once upon a time, I criticized Diva for having very tame and polite filter FM. Kind of dull sounding. The Urs Heckman fanboys attacked, as they do, and even Urs took a few swipes at me, but ultimately I was right, and I suggested everyone compare Diva to Repro in this respect, and at that point, Urs conceded that compromise was made to facilitate 16 voices of Diva on whatever their min-spec computer of the time was. Repro does a great job, but has fewer voices and was created at a time when processors were faster.

But Repro is not without compromises. It's per-voice distortion effect, not something that is a feature on a Prophet 5, sounds good... until you get up to the high notes. That's something actual analog distortion will never do. You can think of that two ways. You can say, "ah ha! Digital not sounding as good as analog!" or you can say, "look at this cool new feature that sounds great in most situations." I prefer the latter, and I find having Repro to be awesome, even though I also own a Prophet 6. Why? Mod matrix, plus a CLAP version that allows me to have a dual oscillator Prophet 5 and two per voice LFOs. Hell, I can add another EG... or two, or a perimeter step sequencer. I'm DRUNK WITH POWER! Also, the Prophet 6 has a resonance compensation feature in it, which is awesome, but definitely makes it not sound "authentic" when using resonance.

And as has been mentioned, the plugins that really get things like the Model D right, including feedback, are voice limited, as were the inspiration for them. I brought up how great Anthem sounds, and that is also monophonic or 4 voice paraphonic. I'm sure those design decisions were made to deal with the limitations of modern computers, which contrary to IvyLeague's claims, are not capable of "unlimited voices."

So yeah, there is no such thing as "no compromise." The venerated Nina and 3rd Wave both suck at audio rate modulation due to the low sample rate of their modulation matrices. (the 3rd Wave does have hard wired oscillator FM). I've yet to find a digital hardware synth that was better than a good modern plugin. Maybe they exist in modular land, but then you're dealing with monophonic sounds and no real full patch memory. I almost bought a Moog One at one point, but Moog couldn't be bothered to implement the full MIDI spec on their $8,000 instrument.

The only time that I upgraded my Arturia collection was when they included the digital classics. They could have my money again if they did a take on the Fizmo, or the K2000.

I've lost hope on them doing a FIZMO, but at least there's some Transwaves included in the SQ-80 emulation. Throw an instance of some Eventide plugins after it and pretend. At least I have access to every function. I think I stopped at v8. I'm just not interested in what they've done since, but if they do something else I'm interested in, I'll upgrade. I think their Synclavier II, Prophet VS, SQ-80 are fantastic, and actually a lot of their other synthesizers are pretty damn good as well. I used their OB-xa emulation on some game music to capture that 80s classic rock sound and it was perfect.

Here it is at 7:04:

https://soundcloud.com/zerocrossing-1/m ... al_sharing

[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

But the bigger question is why do things have to sound exactly the same in the first place to claim there is not any advantage in one or other?

They don’t have to sound the same I agree. I just find it quite funny how you’ll recognize how awesome the fixed filter bank in LegendHZ sounds, but then go on to say analog filters don’t really make a difference to the sound of a synth.

So to recap
1.)Digital filters in plugins sound awesome
2.)Analog Filters in hardware synths don't make a difference or hold any advantages

Not sure why you can't grasp that

Your 2.) statement is simply false. Analog Circuit Modeling wouldn’t even exist if analog filters have no advantages or make a difference. Why do you think software synths that skip the analog modeling of circuits and filters sound like shit in comparison to software synths that don’t? Everything you love about software has its roots in hardware. But you fail to give all those hardware engineers any credit even though 50-70 years later the designs they made are still being used to make hit records in 2025. So the difference between our perspectives?

You: LegendHZ (copy of various hardware moog components) sounds awesome! Hardware is now irrelevant because my software copy comes close!
Me: LegendHZ sounds awesome! But I bet the original hardware sounds even better especially that 914 filter bank!

Carry on

[D-Fusion]

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

But the bigger question is why do things have to sound exactly the same in the first place to claim there is not any advantage in one or other?

They don’t have to sound the same I agree. I just find it quite funny how you’ll recognize how awesome the fixed filter bank in LegendHZ sounds, but then go on to say analog filters don’t really make a difference to the sound of a synth.

So to recap
1.)Digital filters in plugins sound awesome
2.)Analog Filters in hardware synths don't make a difference or hold any advantages

Not sure why you can't grasp that

Your 2.) statement is simply false. Analog Circuit Modeling wouldn’t even exist if analog filters have no advantages or make a difference. Why do you think software synths that skip the analog modeling of circuits and filters sound like shit in comparison to software synths that don’t? Everything you love about software has its roots in hardware. But you fail to give all those hardware engineers any credit even though 50-70 years later the designs they made are still being used to make hit records in 2025. So the difference between our perspectives?

You: LegendHZ (copy of various hardware moog components) sounds awesome! Hardware is now irrelevant because my software copy comes close!
Me: LegendHZ sounds awesome! But I bet the original hardware sounds even better especially that 914 filter bank!

Carry on

Who is making hit songs with old synths or analog instead of software or digital synths these days?

[El°HYM]

So lets test the XT digital filters against the M ones, shall we? (14:09 Filters)



Or how about comparing the original MW with the M?


Can you spot the Difference.

[vurt]

one is blue.

[seafire]

They're both electric

[IvyBirds]

Your 2.) statement is simply false. Analog Circuit Modeling wouldn’t even exist if analog filters have no advantages or make a difference.

It's amazing how some people can't see the forest for the trees

Thing is it's 2025 not 1975, and we live in a world where we now have really good Analog Circuit Modeling and inexpensive DSP to run them

So once again in 2025 having actual analog circuits doesn't matter and has no advantage because we have good analog circuit models that accomplish the same thing

Why do you think software synths that skip the analog modeling of circuits and filters sound like shit in comparison to software synths that don’t?

So what you are saying is that even you think software based filters sound good and as a result actual analog filters are not necessary.

Thanks for the admission

Everything you love about software has its roots in hardware. But you fail to give all those hardware engineers any credit even though 50-70 years later the designs they made are still being used to make hit records in 2025. So the difference between our perspectives?

Why are you misrepresenting what I am saying? I fully acknowledge the fantastic work that great engineers did 50-70 years ago when it comes to Synthesis. I am forever grateful for the work of people like Bob Moog, Tom Oberheim and Dave Smith. Just like I am forever grateful for the work of people like Cameron Jones, John Chowning, Peter Vogel and Kim Ryrie

But again I live in 2025 not 1975 and if I want the sound of a Bob Moog Ladder filter I can easily get that in software, there is no need to actually have the actual analog circuitry as it holds no advantages but comes with significant disadvantages

You: LegendHZ (copy of various hardware moog components) sounds awesome! Hardware is now irrelevant because my software copy comes close!
Me: LegendHZ sounds awesome! But I bet the original hardware sounds even better especially that 914 filter bank!

Carry on

Once again you misrepresent what I am saying, which is pretty typical with you because you refuse to live in any reality that challenges your confirmation bias

I love the sound of the Minimoog. As I have mentioned before I actually own a hardware clone of the Minimoog

But the Minimoog comes with significant limitations most notably the fact it's a Monosynth, and has very limited modulation capabilities and doesn't even have ADSR envelopes

What Hans Zimmer wanted was to make a Polyphonic Moog with 6 Oscillators instead of 3, one that had MSEG instead of ASR envelopes, had a mod matrix, and had his Moog Filterbank in addition to a regular ladder filter

He could have easily commissioned some hardware builder to do exactly that in analog hardware but instead he realized that was not necessary and held no advantages so he had it done with software

[El°HYM]

So why dont the Moogerfooger plugins sound exactly like their hardware counterpart. They should pretty much have nailed it already, right.

[SoftSynthLover99]

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

But the bigger question is why do things have to sound exactly the same in the first place to claim there is not any advantage in one or other?

They don’t have to sound the same I agree. I just find it quite funny how you’ll recognize how awesome the fixed filter bank in LegendHZ sounds, but then go on to say analog filters don’t really make a difference to the sound of a synth.

So to recap
1.)Digital filters in plugins sound awesome
2.)Analog Filters in hardware synths don't make a difference or hold any advantages

Not sure why you can't grasp that

Your 2.) statement is simply false. Analog Circuit Modeling wouldn’t even exist if analog filters have no advantages or make a difference. Why do you think software synths that skip the analog modeling of circuits and filters sound like shit in comparison to software synths that don’t? Everything you love about software has its roots in hardware. But you fail to give all those hardware engineers any credit even though 50-70 years later the designs they made are still being used to make hit records in 2025. So the difference between our perspectives?

You: LegendHZ (copy of various hardware moog components) sounds awesome! Hardware is now irrelevant because my software copy comes close!
Me: LegendHZ sounds awesome! But I bet the original hardware sounds even better especially that 914 filter bank!

Carry on

Who is making hit songs with old synths or analog instead of software or digital synths these days?

These are huge modern records and feature the old Juno 106, Minimoog Prophet 5 Linn Drum real violin players acoustic drums and lots of real played instruments. So all the big artist like Taylor Swift Sabrina Carpernter Olivia Rodrigo Chappel Roan and even Billie Eillish. All of them have some pretty hefty hits right now and all have at least 1 record with analog synths.

[stoopicus]

I've lost hope on them doing a FIZMO, but at least there's some Transwaves included in the SQ-80 emulation. Throw an instance of some Eventide plugins after it and pretend. At least I have access to every function. I think I stopped at v8. I'm just not interested in what they've done since, but if they do something else I'm interested in, I'll upgrade. I think their Synclavier II, Prophet VS, SQ-80 are fantastic, and actually a lot of their other synthesizers are pretty damn good as well. I used their OB-xa emulation on some game music to capture that 80s classic rock sound and it was perfect.

I would love a Fizmo so much. And yeah, SQ-80V is nearly perfect. I can't tell a meaningful difference between it and my old ESQ-1. Sure, the differences are there, but I can't tell them.

cEvin Key has been doing synth retrospectives on his Patreon and recently did the ESQ-1. Reminds me of why I bought one in the first place. (I literally did buy one in '89 because of him, Skinny Puppy has always been my favorite band).

[D-Fusion]

Taylor Swift uses VST plugins in her music production process. She utilizes a variety of VSTs, including Serum by Xfer and Kickstart 2 by Nicky Romero.

Chappell Roan uses VST plugins in her music production, as evidenced by a YouTube tutorial that references specific VST plugins. The tutorial, a remake of her song "The Giver," specifically mentions Xfer's Serum, Native Instruments Kontakt, OTT, and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 as required VST.

Olivia Rodrigo uses VST plugins in her music production. Specifically, her team utilizes plugins like Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart for tracks like "Good 4 U" and "bad idea right".

Sabrina Carpenter utilizes VST plugins, specifically in the creation of her music. For instance, an Ableton Live remake of her song "Espresso" used Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 VST plugins. Additionally, the lead synth in "Espresso" has been recreated using various software synthesizers like Serum, Vital, and Pigments, as well as hardware synthesizers.

Some of them might use a Hardware synth here and there but it is not a analog Synth that makes the song a hit and they use vst's more than Hardware

https://musictech.com/news/gear/tycho-c ... ever-made/

[seafire]

Taylor Swift uses VST plugins in her music production process. She utilizes a variety of VSTs, including Serum by Xfer and Kickstart 2 by Nicky Romero.

Chappell Roan uses VST plugins in her music production, as evidenced by a YouTube tutorial that references specific VST plugins. The tutorial, a remake of her song "The Giver," specifically mentions Xfer's Serum, Native Instruments Kontakt, OTT, and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 as required VST.

Olivia Rodrigo uses VST plugins in her music production. Specifically, her team utilizes plugins like Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart for tracks like "Good 4 U" and "bad idea right".

Sabrina Carpenter utilizes VST plugins, specifically in the creation of her music. For instance, an Ableton Live remake of her song "Espresso" used Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 VST plugins. Additionally, the lead synth in "Espresso" has been recreated using various software synthesizers like Serum, Vital, and Pigments, as well as hardware synthesizers.

Some of them might use a Hardware synth here and there but it is not a analog Synth that makes the song a hit and they use vst's more than Hardware

https://musictech.com/news/gear/tycho-c ... ever-made/

Someone doing a remake isn't proof of anything.

[D-Fusion]

Taylor Swift uses VST plugins in her music production process. She utilizes a variety of VSTs, including Serum by Xfer and Kickstart 2 by Nicky Romero.

Chappell Roan uses VST plugins in her music production, as evidenced by a YouTube tutorial that references specific VST plugins. The tutorial, a remake of her song "The Giver," specifically mentions Xfer's Serum, Native Instruments Kontakt, OTT, and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 as required VST.

Olivia Rodrigo uses VST plugins in her music production. Specifically, her team utilizes plugins like Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart for tracks like "Good 4 U" and "bad idea right".

Sabrina Carpenter utilizes VST plugins, specifically in the creation of her music. For instance, an Ableton Live remake of her song "Espresso" used Xfer's Serum and Nicky Romero's Kickstart 2 VST plugins. Additionally, the lead synth in "Espresso" has been recreated using various software synthesizers like Serum, Vital, and Pigments, as well as hardware synthesizers.

Some of them might use a Hardware synth here and there but it is not a analog Synth that makes the song a hit and they use vst's more than Hardware

https://musictech.com/news/gear/tycho-c ... ever-made/

Someone doing a remake isn't proof of anything.

Oooh. did you find 1 flaw in my post to support your analog daydream even when they managed to recreate a remake of a song with vst.
Well done Sherlock.

[seafire]

He could have easily commissioned some hardware builder to do exactly that in analog hardware but instead he realized that was not necessary and held no advantages so he had it done with software

The fact it didn't cost him a penny wasn't a factor of course