Why even modern VST Synths can't sound like 20 year-old Hardware VA Synths?

[EvilDragon]

Whatever works for ya, I guess However I wouldnt call Korg's Mono/Poly plugin a "slavish recreation" considering the stuff they added to it (expanded modulation, effects, much more polyphony...)

[BONES]

I think that's the problem, they made it too complicated and then stuck it on a GUI you couldn't read. The new GUI is better but still quite unattractive. I like the way Mono/Fury hides away all the non-standard features so you don't have to deal with them until/unless you need to, sort of like Synapse does with Legend and OBSesssion.

[clipnotic]

I used hardware many years and had many of the "most popular" analog and digital synths and I also was a long time active in a hardware forum. The problem of many hardware users seems to be, that they constantly need rationalizations, why they still pay much money especially for old vintage gear and then they sell it and buy the next one. Another problem is, that such guys are thinking they're elite, because they're a diving through endless menus in mini displays or put endless cables together and so on. But the reality since years is, that VSTs have much more features and synthese possibilities and also are often sounding much better. Meanwhile more and more current hardware toys are trying to sound like VSTs, too. So finally the thread title is nonsense and I wouldn't use hardware for free again, because I don't miss any of them! Let the shitstorm begin!

[adammonroe]

You can get closer to analog sound by:

*Simulating nonlinearities present in analog circuits, attributable to things like transformers and vacuum tubes. This is becoming increasingly possibly with DSP and things like SPICE tube simulations, but it might be more work than the average developer is willing to put in. This kind of thing is probably responsible for perhaps 99% of the perceived difference in sound you are hearing.
*Generating waveforms by additive sine waves/harmonics. This tends to create a more "analog" looking square wave, triangle, ect (in DSP you can create perfect square, triangle, ect with simple math).
*Emulating popular algorithms in DSP, for example, the famous Juno Chorus.
*Frequency drift do to things like aging capacitors, easily simulated in DSP.

Digital synths can sound just as good as analog synths. If you want to mimic the "analog" sound, it's mostly about simulating imperfections and nonlinearities. The imperfections and nonlinearities are what you are interpreting as "analog." Also, playing an analog synth through a tube amplifier will impart even more nonlinearities, and having that amp in a room will impart further room coloration - most soft synths are played directly in a DAW. Having a good EE background also helps because then you will understand what you are trying to emulate. Having a good EE background and a solid DSP background? Those developers are going to be more rare but they do exist.

[zerocrossing]

I used hardware many years and had many of the "most popular" analog and digital synths and I also was a long time active in a hardware forum. The problem of many hardware users seems to be, that they constantly need rationalizations, why they still pay much money especially for old vintage gear and then they sell it and buy the next one. Another problem is, that such guys are thinking they're elite, because they're a diving through endless menus in mini displays or put endless cables together and so on. But the reality since years is, that VSTs have much more features and synthese possibilities and also are often sounding much better. Meanwhile more and more current hardware toys are trying to sound like VSTs, too. So finally the thread title is nonsense and I wouldn't use hardware for free again, because I don't miss any of them! Let the shitstorm begin!

I’m not going to defend anyone, but the truth is always a bit more muddy than your description. The truth is, those vintage classics often just sound great. It’s why they’re classics. More features don’t always mean a better synth. I get why those people like those synths. They sound fantastic.

But you won’t catch me buying one. The sound, however great, isn’t worth the lottery payout sized amounts they fetch. There are some modern alternatives that have some useful features and still provide a sound that’s harder to get to in software. Believe me, when Repro came out, I thought, “ah, maybe I should ditch my Prophet 6,” but as brilliant as it is, the hardware stayed. I’m no hardware zealot, but there’s definitely a bit of wool that the software can’t quite get to, and it is easy on the CPU and fun to use. The on board distortion sounds especially nice, and does not alias like Repro’s does. If I was broke and I needed money desperately, I could let it go, but I’m glad I can have it. I wouldn’t say that it’s better quality than Repro, but it definitely has a sort of character that I really like.

What I really don’t get is the OP’s premise that the Virus is some paramount of quality. I’ve owned two different models in my day, and while you may just love the sound of that synth, I couldn’t find a reason to keep one. Same goes for all the 90s and 00s era VA. It was amazing in it’s time, and I’m glad I could own some of it, but when I started using plugins I felt like I didn’t lose any sound quality at all. In some cases, the quality was better, and especially these days. If all your favorite music was made with a Virus, then I get it. You sort of imprint on things, but to say emphatically that it’s “better” quality is ridiculous.

[SneakyBeats]

https://www.stillwellaudio.com/plugins/olga/
Olga

[BONES]

Seriously? I kinda like Olga, although not enough to buy it, but it doesn't compete with newer VSTi, let alone old classics.

[BONES]

I get why those people like those synths. They sound fantastic.

I don't hear it, I'm afraid. They don't sound terrible but for what they cost, both then and now, they just don't offer anything over a $99 VSTi. I am hugely impressed with the sound of OBSession, for example, but I'd be very surprised if the UB-Xa impresses me as much. After the VSTi I think I'd find the hardware far too limited and I know it won't actually sound any better. I'm sure I'd have the same experience if I got a hardware Odyssey, too.

Same goes for all the 90s and 00s era VA. It was amazing in it’s time, and I’m glad I could own some of it, but when I started using plugins I felt like I didn’t lose any sound quality at all. In some cases, the quality was better, and especially these days.

I'd say all the same things about whatever I bought to replace my original analogue set-up. The DW8000 shat all over everything I had owned previously and as much as I hated my DX9, I kept it for years because it sounded so damned good. Then there were synths like the ESQ that sounded more amazing even than the DW8000 or DX9. Later came amazing instruments like Prophecy. My band mate still has a Prophecy and you only have to switch it on and press a key to go all weak at the knees. Now I have an Ultranova, which I can honestly say is the best hardware synth I have ever owned. I absolutely love it and I'd put it up against anything you care to name, for any style of music you want to make.

It hasn't always worked that way, though, I've made plenty of poor buying choices over the years. e.g. Sound wise, the CZ101 was not a decent substitute for the synths it replaced but it was four part multi-timbral so I got by OK. To be fair to the synth, it was probably more to do with my lack of ability to get the best from it than any inherent failing of the instrument itself. Similarly, the M1 revolutionised my process in every way but I had to compromise quite a bit on sound to make it work. $5600 later, a fully loaded Trinity fixed those problems (and several others) and Trinity remains by far my biggest ever purchase of musical equipment.

[IncarnateX]

Yeah, a hardware versus software debate with analog/digital sub-themes. Neverending story. Fortunately, I am not even going to pretend I have an objective answer, just a personal anecdote. In my first 10 years on software, there was but one bitch I couldn't tame; my preference for analog bass-synth sounds. I fought for years to make my VSTis come close, bought emulations and so forth, but no cigar to me. And I did not have analog synths arounds at that time. After aquiring the Boog, the Bassstation 2 and Deepmind 6, I could get what I want, no more tweaking till my mouse-arm was but a pain. Then I got the MPC One and found out that I did not really have to record my analog synths live to get them close; sampling the waveforms and treating them with MPC One's filters could do the job close enough. Recently I discovered that Reason's NNXT-sampler almost can do the filter treatment just as good, good enough at least. Besides, apart from bass sounds, I do not really think analogs are that exciting as far as every other instrumentation concern; pad, leads, chords, whatever. I buy the Wavetable synths in Reason instead because they sound modern to me and with loads of waveshaping options and connectivity that take me way beyond emulations. These softies have an identity on their own. I have no need of emulations or struggling for "hardware sound" if a silly old sampler like NNXT and some raw analog waveforms sampled to my preferences can do the job. I am certainly glad my quest finally came to an end in this regard, though I am still baffled that it took me so long to come up with a very simple solution

On another note. It seems somewhat a mystery to me that where DIVA and other emulations don't hit the bass-spots to me, U-he's ACE somehow has this stronger hardware DCO-Appeal to me I like from BS2 and Deepmind 6. It is more a "hybrid" feel corresponding to synths I am raised with; Juno 106, JX-3P, SH101 the Alpha Junos than a VCO feel like that of the JP4 I once owned or the boog. Should I emulate basses by VA, I think ACE would be my weapon of choice.

[SneakyBeats]

Seriously? I kinda like Olga, although not enough to buy it, but it doesn't compete with newer VSTi, let alone old classics.

At least it sounds old. Though more like 40 years than 20

[IncarnateX]

Later came amazing instruments like Prophecy. My band mate still has a Prophecy and you only have to switch it on and press a key to go all weak at the knees.

I have one. Mainly used for physical modelling of outerworldish "accoustic" instruments. I also have a Yamaha MU100R with the VL7 board and the BC1 breath controller: "Look mom, I can play space sax". They are both very unique imo, though psysical modelling is far from perfect emulation, it is very expressive for solo instruments somewhere between synths and accoustic instruments.

[BONES]

If I had one and it was permanently set to Prophetic Steps, I'd be completely happy with that.

[zerocrossing]

https://www.stillwellaudio.com/plugins/olga/
Olga

I really like Olga. I told them as soon as they label the controls properly (no, the tape look isn’t good), I’d buy it. I still use Oligarc quite a bit.

[tbugz]

I've been quietly following this thread with interest since I'm forgoing all soft synths and using hardware now exclusively. (In fact I'm selling the few VSTi I bought over the years if you anyone interested ). None of the analogue vintage stuff, but several older VAs, a K2500, VSynth, P12 and expecting the Iridium soon. The only analogue synth is the UNO and find it impressive for what it is. Anyway, my point is that yes, the modern VSTi are truly spectacular though difficult to find one with a discernible uniqueness from the ever crowded field. There's always the usual list where ever one checks.

Yet for all the laurels rightfully deserved with many VSTi, folks still spend thousands on outboard gear to specifically give these sounds that secret sauce. There's a whole industry catering to achieve the desired sound via more plugins, expensive hybrids like UAD, Console 1, etc. Nevermind the vast number of dedicated EQ, comps, summing and bus mixers, etc. Also not to mention the 500 choices. OF course all these are useful for ANY instrument, tracks, or whole mixes (heck, I'm considering that SIlver Bullet), but if you notice they are marketed more often than not to ITB producers on how to better achieve the "authentic" hardware equivalent. Clearly there's something missing. Just my general observations.

[digitalboytn]

I used hardware many years and had many of the "most popular" analog and digital synths and I also was a long time active in a hardware forum. The problem of many hardware users seems to be, that they constantly need rationalizations, why they still pay much money especially for old vintage gear and then they sell it and buy the next one. Another problem is, that such guys are thinking they're elite, because they're a diving through endless menus in mini displays or put endless cables together and so on. But the reality since years is, that VSTs have much more features and synthese possibilities and also are often sounding much better. Meanwhile more and more current hardware toys are trying to sound like VSTs, too. So finally the thread title is nonsense and I wouldn't use hardware for free again, because I don't miss any of them! Let the shitstorm begin!

I am with you 100%...

I used to have all of the best hardware and although it was all tax deductible,I paid a lot of money for it...

It got to be a real PITA dealing with all of that crap for so many different reasons...

Now I only have a couple of preamps and compressors to get into the box and a few analog toys for guitars...

Everything is so much easier and I find the digital world to be far more creative as well....

The possibilities are almost endless,but the musical fundamentals still remain the same....

You have to start with inspired ideas,well written songs and music and a good understanding of the tools and elements that are used in the production stage