Hardware-Software Hybrid Users Poll

[zerocrossing]

I'm software-centric, but I've always had a few hardware synths for their sound. I prefer synths which have a VST plugin editor option so they can be integrated into a software workflow. I feel integration is undervalued by hardware manufacturers.

Same. A software editor makes the workflow a lot easier, and also allows for synth placement that might not be optimized for hands on editing, but allows you to have something tucked away on a shelf, but still useful.

[KBSoundSmith]

I'm decidedly oriented toward software: comparitively inexpensive, sounds great, frictionless workflow, reliable recall.

I do have a few HW synths around to provide a change of pace and a different way of thinking -- it's good to have something to keep you from falling into too habitual a manner of working. They check the boxes for different types (analog mono, digitial poly, groovebox, etc), but I think longterm some synths which interact more meaningfully may be interesting; each of them is currently an island unto themselves. Maybe I'll offload some of them, dunno yet.

Agreed on editor integration for HW, the Modal App/VST for my Argon8 is very nice (I primarily use it as a compact MIDI controller, but it's pretty effortless to use for sound as well). That said, I also don't like relying on an editor if it's something that may hamper using the hardware if the company folds, so I do think companies especially need to make a means of uploading/downloading patches to and from a synth so that you can continue using your sounds if their app/vst goes caput.

[zerocrossing]

I do find the whole software vs hardware issue to be ridiculous. I haven’t always been synthesizer oriented, but I’ve always had a huge interest in electronic music. I loved how people like George Martin played the studio as if it was just another instrument. Later found Brian Eno taking it further.

When I felt like I’d explored every effect that I could put on a guitar, mic or organ, I turned to synthesizers. When software became available, I began using them as well. I honestly feel bad for the ideologues who feel that there is only one way. Hardware is great, software is great. Have fun and try not to take it all so seriously.

[Uncle E]

People just have a knee jerk reaction to argue. It's fight or flight for the computer age. I once met an internet foe in person and my adrenaline shot through the roof (this was decades ago, I no longer possess adrenaline).

Let's see how long it takes for someone to say I'm wrong.

[foosnark]

People just have a knee jerk reaction to argue. It's fight or flight for the computer age. I once met an internet foe in person and my adrenaline shot through the roof (this was decades ago, I no longer possess adrenaline).

Let's see how long it takes for someone to say I'm wrong.

It's the fuel that keeps KVR burning...

[ghettosynth]

I'm software-centric, but I've always had a few hardware synths for their sound. I prefer synths which have a VST plugin editor option so they can be integrated into a software workflow. I feel integration is undervalued by hardware manufacturers.

Same. A software editor makes the workflow a lot easier, and also allows for synth placement that might not be optimized for hands on editing, but allows you to have something tucked away on a shelf, but still useful.

In some cases, sure, but not always. I would like a really good editor for some of the gear that I don't want to play in real time but want to use for sound design. However, one of the reasons that I'm mostly OTB these days is because it makes the workflow easier. I can grab the filter on a synth and some control on an effect at the same time, and then nearly instantly grab another synth and something else. To make this work in software you need to map controls and know what you want mapped up front, or, you have to have automapping but, you still need to move between the units via your UI.

Having multiple touch screens can help some, but again, not completely, it's not the same as knobs.

For the synths in my new studio arrangement, I don't really have any desire for an editor. There wouldn't be anything that I would do that would make the extra complexity of having them permanently connected via USB worthwhile.

[justin3am]

I use my studio. It's got a bunch of stuff in it. I don't really care if it's software, hardware or somewhere in between.

[cryophonik]

FTR, my vote was mostly hardware/some software. That said, I still occasionally finish songs with the instruments completely ITB and even more rarely completely OTB, although my typical song ends up with most of the instruments being from hardware and the rest from soft synths (assuming that all drums are considered one instrument).

I'm software-centric, but I've always had a few hardware synths for their sound. I prefer synths which have a VST plugin editor option so they can be integrated into a software workflow. I feel integration is undervalued by hardware manufacturers.

Agreed, and having a software editor and/or (especially) a librarian is always a selling point for me when it comes to hardware synths. I actually use librarians more often than editors, but I do like editors that are available as software instruments because it often makes automation easier. I rarely use editors for sound design, though, because I tend to buy hardware that has a WYSIWYG interface and I'd rather have my grubby little hands on my synth than on my mouse.

[pdxindy]

In the last couple years it has been going more and more hw since the software doesn’t really excite me anymore. Still 60-40 since I use drum synth VSTs and old favorites.

I'm kinda the opposite...

I consistently get more satisfying results using hardware for Drums/Percussion. For synths, both hardware and software can give me satisfying results.

[pdxindy]

I'm software-centric, but I've always had a few hardware synths for their sound. I prefer synths which have a VST plugin editor option so they can be integrated into a software workflow. I feel integration is undervalued by hardware manufacturers.

I never use the plugin editors for the hardware which has them. With my Elektron boxes for example, I don't use Overbridge or the plugins.

I mean in terms of composition. Librarian functions can certainly be helpful.

[pdxindy]

50/50 chosen here... that doesn't mean every project is split like that, but more of an overall estimate.

I generally treat hardware the same way I do a guitar or my voice... recording to audio and I don't try to integrate everything into an ITB workflow.

I prefer being OTB as much as possible

[cryophonik]

I generally treat hardware the same way I do a guitar or my voice... recording to audio and I don't try to integrate everything into an ITB workflow.

Same here and I've actually toyed with the idea of starting a thread asking how important "total recall" is for synth users. That seems to be a deal maker/breaker for many synth users. Personally, I like it for soft synths, but it's not a high priority for me for hardware synths because I typically use them exactly as you've stated above. I usually just play and record the parts live to both audio and MIDI, or sometimes I'll just record the MIDI, tighten it up and/or do some additional MIDI passes to tweak and automate some more parameters, then bounce it to audio and call it good. I almost never need to go back to it after that, unless perhaps I need to change the key to better match a singer's range or something (hence the reason I also record the MIDI and automation). I'm not someone who wants (or is patient enough) to tweak parts endlessly.

[kritikon]

Ditto. Patch recall is a pleasant thing to have but not essential for me at all. Mostly couldn't care less about going back to redo tracks and recall exact sounds. In fact the majority of my recent purchases have been memoryless, which would have horrified me once upon a time in the past. I think I prefer them that way - no preconceived ideas/sounds and I enjoy patching new sounds - having the same old presets on hand tends to make me far less creative or experimental .

As regards VST editors...depends on the synth. Complicated digital synths such as Wavestate and Opsix are definitely a shitload easier with editors and/or the native version. I have to admit I probably wouldn't have got into them anywhere near as much without the native VSTs - just not intuitive or easy to patch those bastards on the hw versions. Generalised analogue synths with far less submenus and endless depth, then not so much - I use analogues equally because of sound and ease of use, so if it has pages and pages of depth/editing/submenus then I'm far less likely to actually buy it in the first place. For example I might buy Korg MultiPoly at some point but def not the hw. A digital hw synth that sounds obvs digital and has character because of that, then I'll buy hw no issues. A digital synth that tries to sound analogue...kinda pointless IMO.

[zerocrossing]

I'm software-centric, but I've always had a few hardware synths for their sound. I prefer synths which have a VST plugin editor option so they can be integrated into a software workflow. I feel integration is undervalued by hardware manufacturers.

Same. A software editor makes the workflow a lot easier, and also allows for synth placement that might not be optimized for hands on editing, but allows you to have something tucked away on a shelf, but still useful.

In some cases, sure, but not always. I would like a really good editor for some of the gear that I don't want to play in real time but want to use for sound design. However, one of the reasons that I'm mostly OTB these days is because it makes the workflow easier. I can grab the filter on a synth and some control on an effect at the same time, and then nearly instantly grab another synth and something else. To make this work in software you need to map controls and know what you want mapped up front, or, you have to have automapping but, you still need to move between the units via your UI.

Having multiple touch screens can help some, but again, not completely, it's not the same as knobs.

For the synths in my new studio arrangement, I don't really have any desire for an editor. There wouldn't be anything that I would do that would make the extra complexity of having them permanently connected via USB worthwhile.

Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t check with you before I posted my opinion. Won’t happen again.

I liked you a lot more when you were mostly software oriented, and not an insufferable snob.

[pdxindy]

I generally treat hardware the same way I do a guitar or my voice... recording to audio and I don't try to integrate everything into an ITB workflow.

Same here and I've actually toyed with the idea of starting a thread asking how important "total recall" is for synth users. That seems to be a deal maker/breaker for many synth users. Personally, I like it for soft synths, but it's not a high priority for me for hardware synths because I typically use them exactly as you've stated above. I usually just play and record the parts live to both audio and MIDI, or sometimes I'll just record the MIDI, tighten it up and/or do some additional MIDI passes to tweak and automate some more parameters, then bounce it to audio and call it good. I almost never need to go back to it after that, unless perhaps I need to change the key to better match a singer's range or something (hence the reason I also record the MIDI and automation). I'm not someone who wants (or is patient enough) to tweak parts endlessly.

I understand the value of total recall for someone doing production work with clients... anyone who has been in that position knows that clients have a superpower for changing their mind at the last minute!

Personally, I don't care about total recall. Fresh creativity in this moment interests me much more than recreating the past.

I have the patience to tweak parts, but much of the time it does not lead me to better results. That is why I mostly re-record rather than edit. Tweaking one errant note is fine obviously.