Does analog gear really sound different than software plugins?

[cryophonik]

The root of analog is anal.

The root of digital is dig it.

[Constructed Identity]

The root of analog is anal.

The root of digital is dig it.

To properly understand this I think that we need to wrestle with the etymology. The root of analog is anal. The remainder is left as an exercise for the reader.

You're both wrong. Now take a needle and prick your finger.
Do you feel pain - No you imagine it! We are all just holograms in a hologram Universe.
Your perception is just ego. Your free will is an illusion.
This thread will reach a 100 pages because people have nothing better to do.

[audiojunkie]

I get that this is a b.s. thread, but one thing I notice is that a lot of times people are so focused on the differences between hardware and software that they often miss the part where the software, despite not sounding the same, sounds as good, and in some ways, better. For instance, on some of my analogs or hybrids, the filters are never perfectly calibrated across all voices, so they can sound off when going into self resonance. Sometimes the effect can be pretty pronounced. This can sound great, otherwise, as each cutoff being different can be great for pads.

Agreed. Even if the OP is gone, others need to be aware.

Another thing (for people debating this topic) to think about in the hardware vs software debate, is that many (most these days?) music production hardware devices are nothing more than a Linux computer, running plugin-equivalent software, in a synth-shaped container. The only real difference comes when true analog circuitry is used. Otherwise, it's not any different than using a computer.

[kritikon]

Aha, so they're all digital unless they're analogue. Mmmmmhmmmmm....never knew that.

[audiojunkie]

Aha, so they're all digital unless they're analogue. Mmmmmhmmmmm....never knew that.

Even some analog are really just digital with "modeled" analog in a lot of cases, so.....yes.