Software vs Hardware

[Uncle E]

Great link, don't you love this quote

"There’s so many beautiful qualities to both. When I'm alone and I'm in a small space, whether it's my studio or laptop,"

Weird how he loves being with laptop you know the things you pretend professionals don't use

Also weird and rather hilarious that you believe his bullshit that he has "never used MIDI" while producing music on a laptop

But sure I want the all vintage analog studio of hipster dreams and brag about never using MIDO while saying how much I enjoy my laptop

Apparently it fools people like yourself, and that's always a good laugh

There's definitely BS out there. Still, for the sake of discussion, recording analog synths as audio is a fine way to work and the weird little inconsistencies can help keep it from sounding sterile. An OB-8 that isn't in tip-top shape might have every voice sounding different.

[BONES]

Dont forget tactile enjoyment and not having to fire up a PC, load the synth and worry about OS updates breaking shit.

1. My computer is on most of the time so when I want to do some musical shit, it takes precisely zero time to get that going. In fact, Studio One has been lurking in the background now for an hour, waiting for me to finish telling you people how f**king stupid you all are. When I'm ready to get to work, I'll have a song loaded in a few seconds and be ready to go.

2. Only Apple break things with OS updates, Windows users don't have those problems.

Just turn it on and play

You mean remove the dust cover, turn on the synth, turn on your mixer, then turn on your amp/speakers. I am up and running on PC in half the time it used to take me to get all my hardware ready to go. And if you're stupid enough to have vintage analogue synths, it might be 20 minutes before they are warm enough to be in tune, so what you said is complete bullshit.

The age old saying "It's about the journey, not the destination" is still the truth for me. I want to enjoy the journey of creating and exploring sound. I'm not so jaded by time that I want to just get to the end and be done with it. Not judging you for having your process though, but I'm looking forward to the journey and the process of making music not just the finish line. And the tools you use to get there definitely matter if you ask me.

Which sounds like another way of saying you couldn't finish a song to save your life.

Guess you missed this quote from Jack in the article I'm completely out of the box with gear. I've never used a MIDI instrument in my life

Have you listened to the shit that f**ker produces? He talks about music made ITB as being soulless but every f**king thing he produces is precisely that! I'd take whatever he says and do the exact f**king opposite.

[pdxindy]

But they also use software and laptops and lots of it, and your bullshit idea that professionals use hardware because of speed is just plain bullshit

Hardware straight to audio, just like a guitar or vocals, is fast. When I have a new song idea, I'm generally faster on hardware to get from the initial concept to a first draft composition.

I may start with my voice and guitar. Or I start with an Elektron groovebox, one synth and my voice. That works better for me for exploring ideas than getting on the computer which is unnecessarily complex.

[dellboy]

I have been in the box for a while,although I have pretty much stopped buying software. Even so, I did buy Steinberg Absolute 6 a few months back. My hardware synths are packed away, but this thread got me to haul one out and I choose my Juno 6. It was a relief that it powered on and worked ok,although the pots and sliders were scratchy. One of the keys was temporarily sticky, but altogether pretty good for forty three years of age. So I tested it against my Juno software. I have Softube Model 84, Cherry Audio 106, and Arturia Juno.

I used the Softube 84 as it is the most accurate, and it sounded better at first than the hardware Juno. But after a bit of fiddling, I got them to sound pretty much the same. So equal tie. But make no mistake, the Softube 84 is very good sounding and is a good substitute for the real thing. I soon found though that I was playing the Hardware Juno and forgot about the software one, Its just a more engaging experience. Very easy to make sounds and edit. No patches or menu diving. And it looks gorgeous as well. The trouble with hardware is that it takes up so much space. But its staying out for the time being.

[IvyBirds]

But they also use software and laptops and lots of it, and your bullshit idea that professionals use hardware because of speed is just plain bullshit

Hardware straight to audio, just like a guitar or vocals, is fast. When I have a new song idea, I'm generally faster on hardware to get from the initial concept to a first draft composition.

I may start with my voice and guitar. Or I start with an Elektron groovebox, one synth and my voice. That works better for me for exploring ideas than getting on the computer which is unnecessarily complex.

You do realize it's entirely possible to record software instruments straight to audio right? We all have our own preferences, but the idea was presented that True Professionals only use hardware and leave the software for the unwashed masses and that is simply bullshit

[IvyBirds]

Guess you missed this quote from Jack in the article I'm completely out of the box with gear. I've never used a MIDI instrument in my life

A lot of producers use the laptops and DAW like a tape machine. To capture real instruments and synths. And yes hardware is immediate and fast. I'm not sure why that makes you angry LOL did you sell some really good analog Synths back in the day that are now worth 20x more if you would have waited or something?

Oh I read it, I just find it 100% total bullshit.

But since you are obviously a huge Swifty please share with us an example of a Taylor Swift Song that has synth sounds on it that can't be replicated with software and sound exactly the same way

Since you are using Taylor Swift's music as an example that professionals only use Hardware and think it's shameful if you use MIDI and software and hold Taylor Swift up as the shining star example of professionalism and creativity and as the example of how we should all work that should be easy for you

My Daughter is 27 years old. She has been like most girls in America her age a giant Taylor Swift fan just like you apparently. I have through my daughter heard every Taylor Swift song, multiple times, both the original versions and the rerecorded "Taylor's Versions". Yet I have never heard any synth sound that couldn't have been done with a plugin.

But maybe I missed something and if so please post an example. If you can't it's OK we will all know that it's was bullshit like we all know it is

[vitocorleone123]

I have been in the box for a while,although I have pretty much stopped buying software. Even so, I did buy Steinberg Absolute 6 a few months back. My hardware synths are packed away, but this thread got me to haul one out and I choose my Juno 6. It was a relief that it powered on and worked ok,although the pots and sliders were scratchy. One of the keys was temporarily sticky, but altogether pretty good for forty three years of age. So I tested it against my Juno software. I have Softube Model 84, Cherry Audio 106, and Arturia Juno.

I used the Softube 84 as it is the most accurate, and it sounded better at first than the hardware Juno. But after a bit of fiddling, I got them to sound pretty much the same. So equal tie. But make no mistake, the Softube 84 is very good sounding and is a good substitute for the real thing. I soon found though that I was playing the Hardware Juno and forgot about the software one, Its just a more engaging experience. Very easy to make sounds and edit. No patches or menu diving. And it looks gorgeous as well. The trouble with hardware is that it takes up so much space. But its staying out for the time being.

That’s great!

Personally, I don’t have any software synths that sound just like my hardware synths. I’d definitely not buy a hardware synth with a great emulation already available. I’m sure some year they’ll be emulated, though. But it’d have to be at least a 99% accurate emulation for me to consider replacing them, though.

[SoftSynthLover99]

But they also use software and laptops and lots of it, and your bullshit idea that professionals use hardware because of speed is just plain bullshit

Hardware straight to audio, just like a guitar or vocals, is fast. When I have a new song idea, I'm generally faster on hardware to get from the initial concept to a first draft composition.

I may start with my voice and guitar. Or I start with an Elektron groovebox, one synth and my voice. That works better for me for exploring ideas than getting on the computer which is unnecessarily complex.

but the idea was presented that True Professionals only use hardware and leave the software for the unwashed masses and that is simply bullshit

No lol that is just the idea that you have conjured in your own mind from misunderstanding several post. All I was saying is that a hobbyist may not see any benefit in spending for example $10K-$20K on a hardware synth when music is just a hobby and not a career.

But people who take music as a career and make money and work with talented individuals on a daily basis, are more likely to purchase hardware and expensive gear because it's what they do for a living. They don't care if a plugin "almost" sounds like the hardware. They are just gonna use the hardware because they know it will sound right vs wasting time comparing plugins.

You think a guy who plays basketball a few times a week at the local gym, takes basketball as serious as a professional NBA player? Of course not so likewise a professional producer artist or songwriter is gonna treat a music career more serious than your average hobbyist, and that includes investing in better gear as your career grows.

Cheers!

[pdxindy]

Hardware straight to audio, just like a guitar or vocals, is fast. When I have a new song idea, I'm generally faster on hardware to get from the initial concept to a first draft composition.

I may start with my voice and guitar. Or I start with an Elektron groovebox, one synth and my voice. That works better for me for exploring ideas than getting on the computer which is unnecessarily complex.

You do realize it's entirely possible to record software instruments straight to audio right?

Sure, I can record software instruments straight to audio, but that's irrelevant to my point about hardware being fast and working well for the composition process.

[pdxindy]

Personally, I don’t have any software synths that sound just like my hardware synths. I’d definitely not buy a hardware synth with a great emulation already available.

For synths, I'm fairly agnostic. I like both hardware and software and find them comparable in terms of getting results I'm happy with.

For drums/percussion, I prefer hardware. There is nothing in software that sounds like my Elektron Rytm.

Someone might argue that software can sound like the Rytm. That may be true-ish in some theoretical sense, but after years of comparison, the results I get on the Rytm have certain qualities that percussion/drums I do in software don't.

On the computer, I get pushed past the threshold where I'm in my head too much. The Rytm I know well and my hands just do stuff. That combined with the unique, raw tonalities of the analog circuits and it just does it for me. Ironically, the Rytm being a drum machine, I get the least machine-like/mechanical results. It's so organic and untamed.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Personally, I don’t have any software synths that sound just like my hardware synths. I’d definitely not buy a hardware synth with a great emulation already available.

For drums/percussion, I prefer hardware. There is nothing in software that sounds like my Elektron Rytm.

Someone might argue that software can sound like the Rytm. That may be true-ish in some theoretical sense, but after years of comparison, the results I get on the Rytm have certain qualities that percussion/drums I do in software don't.

I think I'm headed towards either the Analog Rhytm or something like the Perkons HD-01 myself soon. ITB drums are quick and easy but I would love to experiment with analog drums a bit.

Is it the drums themselves or the sequencer you like most on the Elektron? From the brief demos I've heard it does have a certain punch on the kick drum.

[Gam456]

No lol that is just the idea that you have conjured in your own mind from misunderstanding several post. All I was saying is that a hobbyist may not see any benefit in spending for example $10K-$20K on a hardware synth when music is just a hobby and not a career.

You shoul have a look into the list of professional musicians using Omniphere
Many profesionnal use software on stage like Depeche Mode, Goldfrapp and many more

[pdxindy]

I think I'm headed towards either the Analog Rhytm or something like the Perkons HD-01 myself soon. ITB drums are quick and easy but I would love to experiment with analog drums a bit.

Is it the drums themselves or the sequencer you like most on the Elektron? From the brief demos I've heard it does have a certain punch on the kick drum.

If you just want some standard drum sounds, there are cheaper options, including ITB. I can get great kicks ITB for example.

The strength of the Rytm for me, is the combination of everything together. Each voice can layer analog machines with samples and then through the analog filter and other circuits. And then of course the sequencer and it can sample which is a world unto itself.

IMO, the Rytm excels when you want to go off the beaten path. That's where I live. I love making ambient rhythmic beds with percussive sounds and bass. Then the whole thing comes alive with the p-locking and it's organic and could be some musicians playing strange instruments live.

The Rytm has analog distortion and compressor, and p-locking the settings for those is glorious. It can get so raw and untamed it puts a huge grin on my face. I have 2 Rytm's because I like them so much and also because the analog distortion and compressor combo cannot be bypassed. So if I want to grunge out but keep a few voices clean, I would either have to multi-track, or use two Rytms (or a Rytm and something else).

There are solid performance controls, and in many cases, it's best just to record straight to audio because this box does stuff that can never be repeated. The ways that the individual voices combine to hit the compressor while p-locking stuff... I've never heard anything like it in software.

To sum up, if you want a basic drum track, don't waste your money. If you want to go to wild places nobody has ever gone before, then the Rytm is the best freakin machine ever made.

[cryophonik]

I think I'm headed towards either the Analog Rhytm or something like the Perkons HD-01 myself soon. ITB drums are quick and easy but I would love to experiment with analog drums a bit.

Is it the drums themselves or the sequencer you like most on the Elektron? From the brief demos I've heard it does have a certain punch on the kick drum.

Another RYTM (mk2) owner here and it's my go-to for hardware drums. For me, it's the whole package - the RYTM's blend of analog and samples, the sequencer, and the whole workflow. There's a learning curve and it certainly has its quirks that you need to get comfortable with, but it's a machine that a person can get lost in for hours. I've never owned a Perkons, but I had a Jomox AlphaBase sitting next to my RYTM for about a year, and it was certainly strong in some areas (e.g., the kick drums), but I preferred just about everything about the RYTM over the AB, especially the sequencer.

[dellboy]

I have been in the box for a while,although I have pretty much stopped buying software. Even so, I did buy Steinberg Absolute 6 a few months back. My hardware synths are packed away, but this thread got me to haul one out and I choose my Juno 6. It was a relief that it powered on and worked ok,although the pots and sliders were scratchy. One of the keys was temporarily sticky, but altogether pretty good for forty three years of age. So I tested it against my Juno software. I have Softube Model 84, Cherry Audio 106, and Arturia Juno.

I used the Softube 84 as it is the most accurate, and it sounded better at first than the hardware Juno. But after a bit of fiddling, I got them to sound pretty much the same. So equal tie. But make no mistake, the Softube 84 is very good sounding and is a good substitute for the real thing. I soon found though that I was playing the Hardware Juno and forgot about the software one, Its just a more engaging experience. Very easy to make sounds and edit. No patches or menu diving. And it looks gorgeous as well. The trouble with hardware is that it takes up so much space. But its staying out for the time being.

That’s great!

Personally, I don’t have any software synths that sound just like my hardware synths. I’d definitely not buy a hardware synth with a great emulation already available. I’m sure some year they’ll be emulated, though. But it’d have to be at least a 99% accurate emulation for me to consider replacing them, though.

I can never get it to sound exactly like the software,but its close enough for my needs. The software is very useful with a Juno 6 because it gives visual representations of the presets (or thereabouts).