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

[vurt]

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!

noob. tinted glasses.

[IvyBirds]

It would be true that the cpu in a modern pc would blow away the cpu in an Rytm if it only had to do as much as the chip does in the Rytm,
unfortunately, that’s not the case. The cpu in
a pc may be a lot faster, but it has exponentially
more to do when installed in a pc. Not to mention its bottlenecked at nearly every turn.

Modern computers have multiple cores, what is this bottleneck you speak of relative to the CPU in the Rytm?

The Rytm is using a single core CPU running at 300mHz. A modem PC is running a dozen or more cores at 3gHz to 6+ Ghz

[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!

noob. tinted glasses.

You're a genius, you should patent that!

[enCiphered]

It would be true that the cpu in a modern pc would blow away the cpu in an Rytm if it only had to do as much as the chip does in the Rytm,
unfortunately, that’s not the case. The cpu in
a pc may be a lot faster, but it has exponentially
more to do when installed in a pc. Not to mention its bottlenecked at nearly every turn.

Modern computers have multiple cores, what is this bottleneck you speak of relative to the CPU in the Rytm?

The Rytm is using a single core CPU running at 300mHz. A modem PC is running a dozen or more cores at 3gHz to 6+ Ghz

This is a classic spec sheet fallacy comparing GHz and core counts in isolation and ignoring what those CPUs are actually doing in context.

The Elektron Rytm’s CPU runs a bare-metal or real-time OS (or sometimes no OS at all). Executing only the code required to run the Rytm, nothing else. It has direct, predictable access to RAM, audio I/O, DACs, etc. All CPU cycles are reserved for running the synth engine and timing-critical tasks (sequencing, envelopes, CV control, etc.). No multitasking, no background apps, no operating system overhead.

A modern PC CPU (even 16-core at 5 GHz) has to run the operating system, the audio driver stack, the DAW, every plugin loaded in the session, background services, UI rendering, file I/O, networking, etc. It deals with interrupts, latency, scheduling delays and thread contention. It needs to distribute plugin processing across cores and that’s not always linear or efficient. Real-time performance is a battle against OS multitasking and DAW buffer constraints.
Even though a modern CPU is faster on paper, it's constantly fighting for real-time consistency. Many high-end analog-modeled plugins still crackle or spike CPU when oversampled or used in multiples. You still need to freeze/print tracks to manage CPU load in large sessions because bottlenecks do exist.

Meanwhile, the Rytm doesn’t have to worry about any of this. It’s running its entire engine at predictable clock cycles, in real time, without any scheduling overhead.
You are wrong again and completely ignoring context. You can't compare raw MHz or core counts without considering system architecture, OS complexity, and real-time constraints.
A modern PC could emulate the Rytm, yes. But not without significant CPU cost and it’s certainly not trivial given all the overhead that comes with plugin-based environments.
If it were really easy, we’d have multiple faithful Rytm clones in plugin form by now but we don’t. Not because of market disinterest, but because it’s a non-trivial task to recreate all of that behavior in software, in a DAW environment and make it feel and sound right.

Oh, you also wrote:

There is nothing remotely difficult in an Elektron Rytm that couldn't be done in a modern plugin with a modern CPU, why do you think 8 mediocre analog drum voices would be an impossibly difficult task to pull off?

That’s a strawman. No one claims it’s impossible but it’s not about raw voice count. The Rytm is not just 8 voices. It’s 8 complex, multi-mode analog voices. Some with layered sample playback, distortion circuits, analog overdrive, analog filters, complex modulation, etc.

Replicating that entire voicing chain with authenticity and NOT just functionality, would involve careful modeling of analog nonlinearities, which plugins usually skip or simplify to conserve CPU.

[D-Fusion]

Eurorack sound quality is astounding. Truly in a league of its own compared to software.

Little offtopic here but Will this be a great starter setup?

[pekbro]

It would be true that the cpu in a modern pc would blow away the cpu in an Rytm if it only had to do as much as the chip does in the Rytm,
unfortunately, that’s not the case. The cpu in
a pc may be a lot faster, but it has exponentially
more to do when installed in a pc. Not to mention its bottlenecked at nearly every turn.

Modern computers have multiple cores, what is this bottleneck you speak of relative to the CPU in the Rytm?

The Rytm is using a single core CPU running at 300mHz. A modem PC is running a dozen or more cores at 3gHz to 6+ Ghz

Quote AI:

Even though CPUs have become incredibly fast, the overall speed of modern computers isn't solely determined by the CPU. Several other factors contribute to performance, and limitations in these areas can create bottlenecks, preventing you from experiencing the full potential of a powerful CPU.
Here's why computers aren't faster despite fast CPUs:
The "Memory Wall" and Data Movement:
CPUs process data rapidly, but they need to constantly fetch that data from RAM (Random Access Memory) and send it back.
RAM, while faster than storage, is still significantly slower than the CPU itself.
This disparity in speed creates a bottleneck, where the CPU is often waiting for data from RAM, limiting overall performance.
Even with faster RAM speeds (measured in MHz), the latency (the delay in accessing data) can still be a limiting factor, according to Quora.
One way to mitigate this is using CPU cache, a small amount of extremely fast memory built directly into the CPU, but even with this, a "cache miss" can lead to the CPU having to wait for data from slower RAM.
Power and Heat Limitations:
Faster CPUs generate more heat, and heat dissipation is a significant engineering challenge, according to MIT Technology Review.
To prevent overheating and damage, CPUs are designed with thermal limits, meaning they will slow down (thermal throttling) if they get too hot, according to Pure Storage.
Manufacturers have shifted focus from solely increasing clock speed to finding more efficient ways to improve performance within thermal constraints, such as adding more processing cores.
Software Inefficiency:
While hardware advances, software development sometimes lags behind in terms of optimization and efficiency.
Modern software often includes layers of abstraction and relies on extensive libraries, which can introduce overhead and reduce performance, says a user on Quora.
Poorly optimized software, including operating systems themselves, can create bottlenecks and prevent the CPU from reaching its full potential.
Storage Speed:
While not directly impacting CPU speed, slow storage (traditional hard drives) can significantly impact the overall responsiveness of a computer system, especially during startup or when loading large files or applications.
SSDs (Solid-State Drives) offer a significant speed improvement over HDDs, which can make the whole system feel faster, but even with SSDs, latency in accessing data can still be a factor.
Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) and Bottlenecks:
In many modern applications, especially gaming and tasks involving heavy graphics or parallel processing, the GPU plays a crucial role.
If the CPU can't provide data to the GPU fast enough, or vice versa, a bottleneck can occur, limiting the frames per second in games or the speed of other GPU-intensive tasks.
The "Good Enough" Plateau:
For many mainstream users, the processing power of modern CPUs is already "good enough" for everyday tasks like web browsing and office work.
This reduces the pressure on manufacturers to relentlessly pursue higher clock speeds and encourages them to focus on other aspects like power efficiency and integration of specialized processing units.
In summary, a fast CPU is certainly a crucial element for a speedy computer. However, other factors like memory access speed, storage speed, efficient software, effective cooling, and even GPU performance all play a vital role in determining the overall speed and responsiveness of your system. Addressing these potential bottlenecks is essential to fully leverage the power of modern CPUs

End quote…

Anyway, you seem to lack some fundamental knowledge as to how computers work, explaining it in detail would be difficult and beyond the scope of this thread.

Not to mention if the chip in the Rytm is a AD sharc or something (probably, but I don’t know off hand what it is), it may very well be better at processing audio than your cpu simply because it’s specifically designed to do that, instruction sets are built directly into the chip for audio processing operations.

[HAL76]

"Help making softsynths sound analogue " - a trending topic not only on gearspace.

https://gearspace.com/board/electronic- ... logue.html

I think that despite of different opinions on possible solutions the fact that this question arises again and again it´s time to ask what that is so. Why do people call for help with something that seeems soo easy for not just a few of us?

I have just spent two evenings on running the MKS-80 through the Sherman Filterbank ( :/ ) and I think to know that he´s lost somehow. But I know as well that reality is polycontextural. I think I´ll also ask gemini about that tomorrow.

[IvyBirds]

Anyway, you seem to lack some fundamental knowledge as to how computers work, explaining it in detail would be difficult and beyond the scope of this thread.

Not to mention if the chip in the Rytm is a AD sharc or something (probably, but I don’t know off hand what it is), it may very well be better at processing audio than your cpu simply because it’s specifically designed to do that, instruction sets are built directly into the chip for audio processing operations.

Wow thanks for your AI generated cut and paste

Thing is unlike you I actually know what I am taking about

And if you had actually bothered to read what I wrote instead of asking chat GPT you would know what CPU is in the Rytm and no it's not a SHARC it's a NXP ColdFire. That most certainly is not a SHARC it's a CPU made by a Dutch Semiconductor company based on the old Motorola 68000 series for use in embedded systems. The 6800 series is what was used in old Macs and the Atari ST, at the time of it's primary release by Motorola it was the main competitor for the Intel x86 and used for the same purpose

The idea that anyone with a clue would think a modern CPU in a Mac or PC is so bottlenecked that it can't emulate anything running on that chip is beyond ignorant

Or that it can't do that while also modeling an 8 voice analog Drum synth with extremely limited modulation options is laughable

But maybe you can ask Chat GPT why a modern CPU is so bottlenecked that it can't run equivalent software as what is running in the CPU in the Rytm based on the ancient CPU running at 300 mHz that was CPU in old Macs and competed with the Intel x86

[vurt]

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!

noob. tinted glasses.

You're a genius, you should patent that!

im selling tinted eye drops too.
for more serious warming.

[D-Fusion]

"Help making softsynths sound analogue " - a trending topic not only on gearspace.

https://gearspace.com/board/electronic- ... logue.html

I think that despite of different opinions on possible solutions the fact that this question arises again and again it´s time to ask what that is so. Why do people call for help with something that seeems soo easy for not just a few of us?

I have just spent two evenings on running the MKS-80 through the Sherman Filterbank ( :/ ) and I think to know that he´s lost somehow. But I know as well that reality is polycontextural. I think I´ll also ask gemini about that tomorrow.

From the first post
"I'm looking for recommendations for plugins to make some very old soft synths sound less digital and have more analogue character."

Most of the old Plugins where made to sound very digital since that was what was popular back then and plugin developers where more interested in Sounding closer to the VA synths than a Analog one..
So my answer to that person would be to get newer plugins that are made to emulate Analogue Sounding synths since it is nearly impossible to make very old plugins to sound Analog

[vurt]

Most of the old Plugins where made to sound very digital since that was what was popular back then

even the mini moog ones?

[IvyBirds]

Not according to Chowning. He claims that Yamaha had discussed legal action with him and that he requested that they do not take action as it came out of a university project and those were his friends.

Your post has so much incorrect information I don't know where to start, but regarding New England Digital's license agreement with Stanford that absolutely was a thing. They paid Yamaha a royalty for every Synclavier they sold, and that royalty payment was then added to the royalty that Yamaha then paid the University

John Chowning's own "Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics" at Stanford University has a really good public archive

If you look at that you will find this

Screenshot_20250716-154301.jpg

If no such agreement existed between New England Digital, Stanford, and Yamaha why was NED paying money to Yamaha and why does Stanford have that letter in its archive? And why is it stamped "Stanford Technology Licensing"?

[ghettosynth]

Not according to Chowning. He claims that Yamaha had discussed legal action with him and that he requested that they do not take action as it came out of a university project and those were his friends.

Your post has so much incorrect information I don't know where to start

Well, I can believe that you don't know where to start, but it's not because of my post.

If no such agreement existed between New England Digital, Stanford, and Yamaha why was NED paying money to Yamaha and why does Stanford have that letter in its archive? And why is it stamped "Stanford Technology Licensing"?

As I said, I was citing Chowning. That is what he said in an interview. Many explanations are possible. However, Chowning stated that he asked them not to initiate legal action.

[stoopicus]

What exactly don't I know about?

I think this is where the thread reached Peak KVR

[D-Fusion]

Most of the old Plugins where made to sound very digital since that was what was popular back then

even the mini moog ones?

Yep
Even the latest Arturia Model D are miles ahead of their older versions.