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

[IvyBirds]

You’re like a broken record, and you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Whatever, you guys believe what you want.

What exactly don't I know about? And if I sound like a broken record that's because people like yourself keep on posting things about software based Synths that are incorrect

[IvyBirds]

Maybe, or maybe more records utilize analog than you realize. Not every producer wants to reveal how they get the sounds that make them the most money

But if analog synths held any sonic advantages wouldn't it be obvious just by listening to them?

What you are saying is there is no difference between analog and software instruments that you can actually hear in the mix

Welcome to the club

But I agree analog synths don't create the hits. But more times than not the people who are creating the hits are utilizing analog synths.

Not according to what you just claimed. You would have no way of knowing

Maybe not every record but they are being used. People here want you to believe software is the only thing being used in the real world on all the big records, but that is just a KVR thing and not reflective of the truth.

No one is saying Analog Synths are not being used, we are simply stating the obvious that there is no real sonic advantages to doing so as even the most die hard supporters of analog synths with extreme confirmation bias like your self say you can't hear any difference in a mix

People like you make this discussion an absolute waste of time. You aren’t looking to gain insight into the way other people work or discuss the nuances between software and hardware honestly. You just cannot accept that “some” hardware synths do have a sonic advantage over software.

But believe whatever you want, I’m out of this discussion now

I would love to talk about the way people work and subtle nuances in an honest way

But to do that people like yourself need to actually be willing to do that, and not just declare hardware the victor because of "reasons" that can't be defined or measured

or make deliberately false information about software based workflows

If you prefer the subtle nuances of analog synths awesome, but why don't you talk about them and your workflow

[pekbro]

You’re like a broken record, and you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Whatever, you guys believe what you want.

What exactly don't I know about? And if I sound like a broken record that's because people like yourself keep on posting things about software based Synths that are incorrect

For one thing, Eurorack is only monophonic if you buy modules that are monophonic and not polyphonic. 'Digital modules are more interesting', a complete generalization based on your own warped perspective.

I only used 10 as an example. The only limits doing it that way would be time based, any other limits would depend on the module, how many outputs it has and whatnot.

[HTT]

I built my own racks by hand back in day.
https://modularsynthesis.com/paia/4700/4720A/4720a.htm
That stuff was fun at the time but I’ll take modern soft synths 99.99999999999% of the time now.

[IvyBirds]

You’re like a broken record, and you don’t really know what you’re talking about.

Whatever, you guys believe what you want.

What exactly don't I know about? And if I sound like a broken record that's because people like yourself keep on posting things about software based Synths that are incorrect

For one thing, Eurorack is only monophonic if you buy modules that are monophonic and not stereo.

Monophonic as in Monophonic Synths that just play one note at a time. I do realize that a few polyphonic modules exist but they are rather rare and expensive and not in use much. I highly doubt people have 10 of them and they are digital anyway

I would think however, that this would be obvious to anyone who has a clue about Synths especially as I talked about polyphony

'Digital modules are more interesting', a complete generalization based on your own warped perspective.

Awesome then you most certainly are taking about Monophonic Synths that can only play a note at a time, but many people find the digital modules in Eurorack to be very interesting and it's hardly a warped idea. In fact most large collections of Eurorack I have seen both in person and on the web have lots of digital modules

I only used 10 as an example. The only limits doing it that way would be time based, any other limits would depend on the module, how many outputs it has and whatnot.

Actually the limits would be the amount of modules needed to pull off ten voices in Eurorack

That's at least 10 Oscillators, and ten envelope generators to drive them, then you would need another ten envelope generators or mults for the filter if you wanted to drive them from the same envelope generator as the oscillators but that would be a pretty boring setup. Then if you want any kind of modulation you need something to generate those like LFO modules

You are easily at 40 or 50 different modules at this point and that is before you add any kind of mixer

Then of course you need to be able to drive all ten complete voices and that's quite the sequencer especially if you want to do it all in CV

Doing that in MIDI would be easier but would require some kind of MIDI to CV conversion and that's even more modules

In the end you would be talking about a pretty large system that would cost several thousand minimum especially once you figure in a case which would have to be pretty large, power supply(s), and patch cords and that's for a rather limited 10 voice system. You could easily approach 5-10 thousand or more for an advanced 10 voice system

Most people don't have a Eurorack system that large but maybe you do, I don't know

[pekbro]

There are more polyphonic modules than you realize, not all are expensive. Anyway, wtf does that have to do with anything, my system is way over 20 grand, so what. My plugins cost me way more than that... Are you factoring in the cost of your computer and all your crap, not to mention your fantom or whatever you said you had at one point.

Seriously, my software cost way more than my HW, that's not an argument you're going to get very far on.

Take my VST3 plugins, I have 1568 installed at the moment, some were cheap, but the bulk were not, even at an avg of say $30 that's $47k... in VST3 alone. (By far the majority are effects, I like effects)

[IvyBirds]

There are more polyphonic modules than you realize, not all are expensive. Anyway, wtf does that have to do with anything, my system is way over 20 grand, so what. My plugins cost me way more than that... Are you factoring in the cost of your computer and all your crap, not to mention your fantom or whatever you said you had at one point.

Seriously, my software cost way more than my HW, that's not an argument you're going to get very far on.

Take my VST3 plugins, I have 1568 installed at the moment, some were cheap, but the bulk were not, even at an avg of say $30 that's $47k... in VST3 alone. (By far the majority are effects, I like effects)

My main computer I built myself and it cost $1200, and I have three more DSP servers on my network that I built, each one costs less than a grand, but I built them over a period of 10+ years and using them as servers gives them extended lifespans

I have around $2000-$2500 total invested in software, because I only buy software during sales, with the exception of the Valhalla stuff that never goes on sale but only costs $50 anyway

Everything in my studio setup was a tax write-off

So my total investment in computers and software is maybe $7,000 but that is spread out over ten maybe 11 years now

I currently have around $2000 invested in various MIDI controllers, again spread out over a period of years, but I have another $1000 worth on preorder that should ship out by the end of the month

Along the way I sold about $40,000 worth of gear most of which was during the pandemic when people paid insane money for it. I had been collecting that gear since the 1980s. My total investment for all my hardware gear was probably around $15,000 as most of it was purchased used on the cheap and lots of it was broken that I repaired myself. I also bought and sold a bunch of gear over the years always flipping that cash back into other gear

I still own around another $5,000 in hardware synths most of that is my Montage M8 which I will probably sell in the next few months and take some of that cash and build another PC which will mean my current main PC will become another DSP Server

My net investment in my studio is zero dollars at this point because I made money selling gear, in fact I am pretty sure in the 40+ years of buying and selling gear, computers and software I have actually turned a profit

And since I gig multiple times a week a lot of that hardware has paid for itself many times over

[D-Fusion]

IME analog eurorack sounds better than digital counterparts, when they exist, which is not as often as you would think.

Also, there is a huge advantage, which we’ve gone over before, cpu boundaries…

Cpu limitations doesn't matter when it comes to a hardware vs software debate.

You can only use 1 instance of a hardware unit and you have to bounce to audio if you want to use another sound while you can use more instances on a Mac or pc before you need to freeze a track to audio.

What are you talking about? You can use as many instances as you happen to have on hand,
all at the same time. No cpu hit. Mix them, filter them, modulate and record them however you want, still no cpu hit.

You mean virtual copies, you can effectively do that too. It just depends on the limitations you
want to impose on that. You have 10 instances,
I have my one instance play 10 different parts at the same time, that kind of thing.

It is correct that You can use all of your hardware at the same time but you are still limited to 1 instance of each before you have to bounce to audio if you want to use a new sound on any of them unless you have multitimbral Hardware which is usually only seen on digital synths which is why i have a few of those so i can use more tracks in my daw.

So again. with software you can add as many as your cpu can handle of the same synth before you need to worry about freezing tracks and a song usually use around 6-16 synths depending on the song and layering so you will never encounter any issues running that on a modern PC or Mac.

The only bonus for me when it comes to Hardware is that it doesn't need endless updates or use various nasty copy protection schemes that are not customer friendly.

[dellboy]

Did the thread title change?
I thought it was software vs hardware. and I couldn't figure out how anyone has one without the other.
If the title changed - shouldn't it be analog hardware vs digital hardware? Software still needs hardware to run it.

The 1988 Korg M1 was hardware and software, and definitely not analog, digital all through, which is why the Software version can be identical. An analog synth uses smooth electrical voltage, and has to housed in a hardware box of some sort.

[dellboy]

IME analog eurorack sounds better than digital counterparts, when they exist, which is not as often as you would think.

Also, there is a huge advantage, which we’ve gone over before, cpu boundaries…

Cpu limitations doesn't matter when it comes to a hardware vs software debate.

You can only use 1 instance of a hardware unit and you have to bounce to audio if you want to use another sound while you can use more instances on a Mac or pc before you need to freeze a track to audio.

What are you talking about? You can use as many instances as you happen to have on hand,
all at the same time. No cpu hit. Mix them, filter them, modulate and record them however you want, still no cpu hit.

You mean virtual copies, you can effectively do that too. It just depends on the limitations you
want to impose on that. You have 10 instances,
I have my one instance play 10 different parts at the same time, that kind of thing.

It is correct that You can use all of your hardware at the same time but you are still limited to 1 instance of each before you have to bounce to audio if you want to use a new sound on any of them unless you have multitimbral Hardware which is usually only seen on digital synths which is why i have a few of those so i can use more tracks in my daw.

So again. with software you can add as many as your cpu can handle of the same synth before you need to worry about freezing tracks and a song usually use around 6-16 synths depending on the song and layering so you will never encounter any issues running that on a modern PC or Mac.

The only bonus for me when it comes to Hardware is that it doesn't need endless updates or use various nasty copy protection schemes that are not customer friendly.

I have always recorded my analog synths directly to audio, and so there is very little cpu hit. I currently have a Kurzweil K2700 workstation, and did have a go at setting up in multitimbral mode, and I guess using it like that there is practically zero cpu hit. At the end of the day though, its easier to just record it to wave, or ignore it altogether and use VST's instead.

[D-Fusion]

IME analog eurorack sounds better than digital counterparts, when they exist, which is not as often as you would think.

Also, there is a huge advantage, which we’ve gone over before, cpu boundaries…

Cpu limitations doesn't matter when it comes to a hardware vs software debate.

You can only use 1 instance of a hardware unit and you have to bounce to audio if you want to use another sound while you can use more instances on a Mac or pc before you need to freeze a track to audio.

What are you talking about? You can use as many instances as you happen to have on hand,
all at the same time. No cpu hit. Mix them, filter them, modulate and record them however you want, still no cpu hit.

You mean virtual copies, you can effectively do that too. It just depends on the limitations you
want to impose on that. You have 10 instances,
I have my one instance play 10 different parts at the same time, that kind of thing.

It is correct that You can use all of your hardware at the same time but you are still limited to 1 instance of each before you have to bounce to audio if you want to use a new sound on any of them unless you have multitimbral Hardware which is usually only seen on digital synths which is why i have a few of those so i can use more tracks in my daw.

So again. with software you can add as many as your cpu can handle of the same synth before you need to worry about freezing tracks and a song usually use around 6-16 synths depending on the song and layering so you will never encounter any issues running that on a modern PC or Mac.

The only bonus for me when it comes to Hardware is that it doesn't need endless updates or use various nasty copy protection schemes that are not customer friendly.

I have always recorded my analog synths directly to audio, and so there is very little cpu hit. I currently have a Kurzweil K2700 workstation, and did have a go at setting up in multitimbral mode, and I guess using it like that there is practically zero cpu hit. At the end of the day though, its easier to just record it to wave, or ignore it altogether and use VST's instead.

I agree. It depends on your workflow but bringing up cpu limitations as a Pro argument for using hardware like pekbro did is not correct in this day and age when modern pc or macs are powerfull enough to create full songs without any need for bouncing to audio until the song is finished

With Hardware we also encounter limitations like low polyphony compared to the same products in vst form.
-Zenology Pro gives you upto 128 voices for each instance you load in your Daw.
-Triton/Triton Extreme gives you 256 voices.
-Blofeld vst has a max limit of 512 voices of polyhony
-Korg Microkorg gives you 64 voices or 2X32 if you use dual mode compared to the 4 on the Hardware.
-The Legend/Legend HZ can do more than the Original synth it is emulating and it sounds good enough for me so i haven't bothered to set up my Model D since i find it annoying to have to retune it all the time in the summer heat.

In the end it is you that choose what to use when you want to be creative and no workflow or sound is any better than another persons setup

[seafire]

Well duh

[IvyBirds]

IME analog eurorack sounds better than digital counterparts, when they exist, which is not as often as you would think.

Also, there is a huge advantage, which we’ve gone over before, cpu boundaries…

Cpu limitations doesn't matter when it comes to a hardware vs software debate.

You can only use 1 instance of a hardware unit and you have to bounce to audio if you want to use another sound while you can use more instances on a Mac or pc before you need to freeze a track to audio.

What are you talking about? You can use as many instances as you happen to have on hand,
all at the same time. No cpu hit. Mix them, filter them, modulate and record them however you want, still no cpu hit.

You mean virtual copies, you can effectively do that too. It just depends on the limitations you
want to impose on that. You have 10 instances,
I have my one instance play 10 different parts at the same time, that kind of thing.

It is correct that You can use all of your hardware at the same time but you are still limited to 1 instance of each before you have to bounce to audio if you want to use a new sound on any of them unless you have multitimbral Hardware which is usually only seen on digital synths which is why i have a few of those so i can use more tracks in my daw.

So again. with software you can add as many as your cpu can handle of the same synth before you need to worry about freezing tracks and a song usually use around 6-16 synths depending on the song and layering so you will never encounter any issues running that on a modern PC or Mac.

The only bonus for me when it comes to Hardware is that it doesn't need endless updates or use various nasty copy protection schemes that are not customer friendly.

I have always recorded my analog synths directly to audio, and so there is very little cpu hit. I currently have a Kurzweil K2700 workstation, and did have a go at setting up in multitimbral mode, and I guess using it like that there is practically zero cpu hit. At the end of the day though, its easier to just record it to wave, or ignore it altogether and use VST's instead.

I agree. It depends on your workflow but bringing up cpu limitations as a Pro argument for using hardware like pekbro did is not correct in this day and age when modern pc or macs are powerfull enough to create full songs without any need for bouncing to audio until the song is finished

With Hardware we also encounter limitations like low polyphony compared to the same products in vst form.
-Zenology Pro gives you upto 128 voices for each instance you load in your Daw.
-Triton/Triton Extreme gives you 256 voices.
-Blofeld vst has a max limit of 512 voices of polyhony
-Korg Microkorg gives you 64 voices or 2X32 if you use dual mode compared to the 4 on the Hardware.
-The Legend/Legend HZ can do more than the Original synth it is emulating and it sounds good enough for me so i haven't bothered to set up my Model D since i find it annoying to have to retune it all the time in the summer heat.

In the end it is you that choose what to use when you want to be creative and no workflow or sound is any better than another persons setup

Beyond that if you want to render a VST to audio for whatever reason doing so is significantly faster than rendering a hardware synth to audio as that can only be done in real time

[seafire]

[ghettosynth]

Beyond that if you want to render a VST to audio for whatever reason doing so is significantly faster than rendering a hardware synth to audio as that can only be done in real time

Also, another advantage of software is that you can adjust the color temperature of the synths on the screen. You can't usually do this with hardware. If you don't like Nord red, you just have to deal with it unless you want to repaint the case.

So I don't know what the score is, but, point software!