Software vs Hardware

[BONES]

I tried syncing Reason once… but going back and forth between two computers is far from being my favourite workflow. I have shared keyboard, mouse and screen between the computers, but the action of switching between computers really breaks my workflow, to the point I rarely use my old computer, I try to avoid it as much as I can.

Yeah, I tried using one computer in the "studio" and another for live work and it just creates way too many problems that require you to throw more and more money at, creating more potential points of failure, just like hardware. I gave up after a year, it was way more effort than it was worth. More importantly, there was no reason to do it, the biggest advantage was that it saved me two minutes every week, not having to pack up my laptop and take it to band practice, then put it back when I got home. It seemed like a good idea but it wasn't.

That’s the harsh reality to me. I use hardware (but also software as well) and I won’t give up it, but I have to be honest about the issues…

So why won't you give it up, what makes it worth the hassle?

[sin night]

By the way, there are also some reasons why I'm not completely keen on using Audio Gridder at the moment:


- Power efficiency: my MacMini M4 is way more power efficient than my previous desktop computer running Windows; I don't want it to be powered all the time (by the way I turn my hardware synths/effect off when I don't need them).

- By using Audio Gridder I would be adding another software layer / dependency in my daw which, in theory, could have issues / go wrong. Audio Gridder is, as far as I understand, the personal side project of just one man; the latest release is from 2023 because he's busy at his main job. While I'm grateful for the existence of this tool and I completely understand his day job comes first, I need to take this into account for my expectations, in case any there's any issue.

- Multiple computers may end their software support at different times / require different software versions: that may require some thinking at some point (maybe it's not a big deal with just one Audio Gridder server, but I wonder what it would be like with multiple computers from different generations).

- I don't like to have software inter-dependencies between multiple computers; each computer is a self contained box and can be decommissioned at any time.

- In the medium/long time, I may want to remove the legacy machines from the domestic network and physically prevent them from accessing the internet (and I mean "running them on dedicated network, with no physical connection to the main one)). By using Audio Gridder, I would need to keep them in the same network of my daw (which is usually a current computer). My old computer has Windows 11, so it's not a problem at the moment, but I'll want to isolate it at some point.

- I don't really need the additional power of my legacy computer to run more soft synths and effects, so I prefer to keep the sessions "self contained" on my main daw as long as possible instead of having the resources across multiple computers (with each of them potentially going wrong at any time).

- I don't really like to use legacy stuffs, I prefer to move on (editors of course are needed if I want to keep using certain pieces of hardware; then I use Reason from time to time, mostly to have access to some of its old sounds... but I want to avoid making it an habit).

[pdxindy]

By the way, there are also some reasons why I'm not completely keen on using Audio Gridder at the moment:

One computer is plenty to keep track of.

I enjoy using hardware synths. I don't try to make a complex setup with hardware synths where everything is connected and sync'ed and midi-able all from the computer. I treat my hardware synths the same as my guitar, flute and voice. I record to audio. In this way, they don't feel burdensome. They're simply instruments and are fun.

Trying to set up multiple computers to all work together in realtime is like the worst of all worlds. There's inevitably more latency, more places where sh*t goes wrong, more bugs, more to update and keep current, etc., etc.

[IvyBirds]

By the way, there are also some reasons why I'm not completely keen on using Audio Gridder at the moment:

One computer is plenty to keep track of.

I enjoy using hardware synths. I don't try to make a complex setup with hardware synths where everything is connected and sync'ed and midi-able all from the computer. I treat my hardware synths the same as my guitar, flute and voice. I record to audio. In this way, they don't feel burdensome. They're simply instruments and are fun.

Trying to set up multiple computers to all work together in realtime is like the worst of all worlds. There's inevitably more latency, more places where sh*t goes wrong, more bugs, more to update and keep current, etc., etc.

FWIW using Audiogridder doesn't add any more latency than you get from using hardware synth and there is no more risk of sh*t going wrong than with any studio setup with multiple instruments

If you are using a hardware synth with your DAW you are sending it MIDI your hardware synth then has to process that MIDI generate a sound. that sounds then has to be converted to a digital signal by your interface, be processed by your computer and recorded to your DAW. If you are playing a synth by ear to be recorded that also is adding latency

It sounds like you are just not keen on computers and software in general which is fine, but that's not really an Audiogridder issue

[sin night]

That’s the harsh reality to me. I use hardware (but also software as well) and I won’t give up it, but I have to be honest about the issues…

So why won't you give it up, what makes it worth the hassle?

I'm a quite technical/nerd person. I studied computer science and I work in that field as well and I also "enjoy" working on electronics on my spare time (or rather: I make it work). I can handle the technical side quite well (but of course it takes time). This is probably the ultimate reason why I don't give up with hardware: it doesn't bug me enough.

For me, hardware is not really an hassle, I'll describe it more like a sort of a "less than perfect relationship, which I still enjoy".
But even if it's working for me, I try to be as transparent as possible about the issues and what I don't like. I know my technical background is a strong bias, both in the way I think and the way I communicate, so I try to take that into account and be as clear/transparent as possible in order to avoid false expectations. In particular, I try to calm down any enthusiasm if I think it could hide some kind of complexity.


With that said: what makes hardware worth to me? Well, I love the sound of some of those hardware, the way I interact with them, especially when jamming (for example, quickly turning on and off steps and sounds on a drum machine - I often use a TR-8S for this - maybe while doing something else on synth or an effect as well).
Also, a good part of my instruments are analog, many of them respond to cv, sometimes I even do some modifications or build things according to my needs / taste...


It's also a way to try to move a little bit away from a computer screen (my day job requires to sit the whole day in front of a monitor). I spend the whole day chasing down software issues, so I want something relatively more stable in the long time at least when I'm making music. At the same time, those hardware devices appeal to my nerd side as well...


Sometimes, after a day of work, I just turn on a few synths, the audio interface and the speakers and I jam with the computer turned off. If something remotely "interesting" comes out of that jamming, I may turn on the computer to record them, add parts and so on...
But there are also days when I don't feel working with hardware... other times, I start with software then I add an hardware instrument because I think it's fitting...


To be honest, I could work with a fully ITB setup if I had to; but I like having options and my current needs don't force me to go ITB (if I had to meet strict deadlines or I had a need for quick recall or I had to go on tour, I would use way more software or go fully ITB).

[IvyBirds]

By the way, there are also some reasons why I'm not completely keen on using Audio Gridder at the moment:


- Power efficiency: my MacMini M4 is way more power efficient than my previous desktop computer running Windows; I don't want it to be powered all the time (by the way I turn my hardware synths/effect off when I don't need them).

Why would you leave your computers on all the time? You can power them off. I do. Mine are also connected to a power conditioner that I also shut off. When I am not using them they are drawing zero power

- By using Audio Gridder I would be adding another software layer / dependency in my daw which, in theory, could have issues / go wrong.

Any software or hardware synth can have issues and in theory go down at any time

Audio Gridder is, as far as I understand, the personal side project of just one man; the latest release is from 2023 because he's busy at his main job. While I'm grateful for the existence of this tool and I completely understand his day job comes first, I need to take this into account for my expectations, in case any there's any issue.

Why is that a problem? It's rock solid and stable. Why does it need to be updated? The last update two years ago fully updated it for Apple ARM added a few features many users won't use, and fixed a few minor bugs. What more does it need to do?

With any software package you run the risk of it not being updated or the developer disappearing. Since we are talking about free software that costs $0 so what? It is also currently running perfectly on the most recent versions of Windows, MacOs, and Linux. Why do you think it will turn into a pumpkin at midnight and just stop working?

- Multiple computers may end their software support at different times / require different software versions: that may require some thinking at some point (maybe it's not a big deal with just one Audio Gridder server, but I wonder what it would be like with multiple computers from different generations).

Why would that be an issue? Most people are using this with old computers they are not using anymore and it extends their usable life, you already have an old computer that would work awesome with it. If at some point in the future you couldn't use your old computer so what? It's free software and you would just revert back to what you are doing now? The second use case is people buying two or more current and powerful computers to use with it

- I don't like to have software inter-dependencies between multiple computers; each computer is a self contained box and can be decommissioned at any time.

Audiogridder is a networking tool, each computer can fully be operated independently of each other, each and every computer can be decommissioned at any time.

- In the medium/long time, I may want to remove the legacy machines from the domestic network and physically prevent them from accessing the internet (and I mean "running them on dedicated network, with no physical connection to the main one)).

That's easy. I have a wired LAN in my studio just for Audiogridder. That LAN is not connected to the Internet in anyway. When I want to or need to connect them to internet I do so via WIFI which is a different network. I spent $0 on this LAN as I already the router laying around. If I didn't my total investment would be $50

By using Audio Gridder, I would need to keep them in the same network of my daw (which is usually a current computer). My old computer has Windows 11, so it's not a problem at the moment, but I'll want to isolate it at some point.

Why is that an issue? I have Windows 7, 10, and 11 computers happily existing on my audiogridder network. I can't remember the last time my Windows 7 laptop was connected to the Internet it was at least 5 years ago, my Windows 10 machine was probably connected last maybe a year and half to two years ago.

- I don't really need the additional power of my legacy computer to run more soft synths and effects, so I prefer to keep the sessions "self contained" on my main daw as long as possible instead of having the resources across multiple computers (with each of them potentially going wrong at any time).

So you are worried about one of multiple computers going down causing an issue but have no issue with all your computing eggs in one basket? If you don't need extra power awesome, and if you like me are worried about a computer going down having redundancy and spreading that risk between multiple machines is better

- I don't really like to use legacy stuffs, I prefer to move on (editors of course are needed if I want to keep using certain pieces of hardware; then I use Reason from time to time, mostly to have access to some of its old sounds... but I want to avoid making it an habit).

You don't need to use anything legacy to use Audiogridder, you can use all of the current crop of plugins in any current DAW

If Audiogridder isn't for you awesome don't use it, but please don't spout misinformation about it based on incorrect assumptions

Audiogridder is just a networking tool and plugin host. Your computers are literally built for networking and moving large amounts of data over a network. You can use them to stream multiple 4KUHD video streams at the same time, you can use it to stream hundreds of channels of Bidirectional Audio using tools like DANTE

You don't invest any money to get Audiogridder it's freezing and if it were to turn into a pumpkin at midnight and you had to walk home from the ball with one shoe there are other similar tools available

For me I have multiple plugins that are rather CPU and RAM intensive. I have a screaming fast i9 with a ton of RAM but that is not enough so I can offload those plugins to other computers on my network. Maybe you don't have need for that and that's awesome but I most definitely do and my guess is many others here do as well

[sin night]

If you use multiple computers, you have more chances of a failure compared to a single computer. You may have an advantage when the consequences of a single node failing are not as big as a whole single system failing (provided that you can keep on working with the remaining nodes).

Also, guess who has to do the routine maintenance work to keep everything running and has to do the extra work if anything breaks?

If you need the computing power of multiples computers, Audio Gridder is definitely a good choice.

I know I can use Audio Gridder for current plugins, but my use case would be to use some legacy plugins (for example the Lexicon MPX plugin which never made it to Apple Silicon and some Exponential Audio plugins as well): if I do so, my current projects would depend in keeping that computer running. Printing a synth to audio
is something I do on a regular basis (using hardware synths…), but it’s something I’d rather avoid when it comes to effects used in mixing.
I don’t need to spread the load of current software across multiple computers at the moment, my main computer is enough for my needs.
And “legacy” software is legacy for a reason…

[sin night]

Also, can you run the exact same version of a current plugin on all of you machines, including the old ones like win7? Or maybe you’re stuck with an old version on one of the nodes? Or you just don’t run that plugin on that node, I get it…

[dellboy]

For over a hundred years records have been made by recording audio into grooves in shellac or vinyl. The audio source can be from a voice, guitar, accoustic instruments, electric guitars or pianos etc. There is no actual need for midi. It was not invented until 1983. There is no need for digital. It really did not come into its own until the 1980s. A record of a musical performance can be made entirely in the analogue domain. It is digital and midi that have been added to analogue and not vice versa.

What is hardware using this information? Is a violin hardware? A Cello? An Oboe? If they are, then an analogue synth is also hardware that can be played and recorded without the need to plug it into a midi source. Just connect a lead from a hardware synth into an analogue tape recorder and play. No need to connect a midi lead. Or substitute a digital audio interface for the recording medium to record. There is no more latency than recording the human voice.

But because of the wonder of modern inventions we can pretty much do away with analogue and just use digital and midi with virtual instruments. Both are great ways of making music. Having said that, I have just noticed that KVR now has adverisments from Thomann and Sweetwater, both of whom are largely hardware retailers.

[BONES]

I spend the whole day chasing down software issues, so I want something relatively more stable in the long time at least when I'm making music.

Stability/reliability is the no. 1 reason I won't go back to hardware, ever. It's always been an order of magnitude more reliable than any hardware set-up I've ever had.

Sometimes, after a day of work, I just turn on a few synths, the audio interface and the speakers and I jam with the computer turned off.

I also spend 8 hours at work in front of a computer but I still find "jamming" on the computer to be at least as enjoyable, if not moreso. That's why I prefer plugins that also include a standalone version, so I can focus on the instrument without the distraction of all the rest of it. Even if I've got a hardware synth wired up and ready to go, it's just more effort and I'll often end up firing up its editor/librarian app to tweak it, because it's just easier.

... other times, I start with software then I add an hardware instrument because I think it's fitting...

I've never approached it like that. To me a synth is a synth is a synth. If I like the sound of an instrument, I'll use it for anything, really. There are only a few specific things I'll think of one instrument over another for. e.g. Thorn or Spire when I want a glitchy sequence kind of thing.

[sin night]

Maybe I didn’t express myself well enough on this last point (english is not my first language), with “it’s fitting” I meant “I think that’s the right instrument for that part”. I don’t force myself on a specific kind of technology, I use whatever feels right to me in a specific moment.

If a plugin does the job instead of a hardware piece, I can wait before committing to an audio track… and the hardware is still free to play something else. I won’t replace a plugin with hardware just for the sake of using hardware.

[Uncle E]

If you use multiple computers, you have more chances of a failure compared to a single computer.

If the second computer fails or isn’t around, does Audio Gridder automatically switch the processing to the first computer? I think DSP Bridge does that.

[zerocrossing]

Maybe I didn’t express myself well enough on this last point (english is not my first language), with “it’s fitting” I meant “I think that’s the right instrument for that part”. I don’t force myself on a specific kind of technology, I use whatever feels right to me in a specific moment.

If a plugin does the job instead of a hardware piece, I can wait before committing to an audio track… and the hardware is still free to play something else. I won’t replace a plugin with hardware just for the sake of using hardware.

That’s pretty much exactly how I operate. I only turn to hardware when I’m after a specific tone that my software lacks, but more importantly, when that tone is coupled with a feature set that’s not really common in software.

For instance, being able to morph between presets has been a thing in software for a long time. I remember discovering it on the Ohm Force plugins. However, having that feature with the character of an analog synthesizer isn’t really a thing, at least not in plugins of high quality analog modeling. So my Nina and PolyBrute get used when that’s what I’m looking for.

[Tj Shredder]

If you use multiple computers, you have more chances of a failure compared to a single computer.

If the second computer fails or isn’t around, does Audio Gridder automatically switch the processing to the first computer? I think DSP Bridge does that.

You would typically do the same with hardware as with plugins running on a second computer. Keep the Midi/note information and print to disc. I mean for remixing it is sufficient, and if you want to tweak the sound of your ancient plugin or synth, just replace it with something modern or a completely new toy…
Nothing to loose. In the old days we only had printed tracks and still could finish the music.
We might have too many options. When do you really go back to an old recording and can’t live without some gone gear?
Even a violin could break and if you get a new one it will sound different, but still would be a violin…
Same applies to synths…

[IvyBirds]

If you use multiple computers, you have more chances of a failure compared to a single computer.

If the second computer fails or isn’t around, does Audio Gridder automatically switch the processing to the first computer? I think DSP Bridge does that.

I am not sure as I have never run into that issue, I think the likelihood of any of your computers failing is exceeding low. Especially with modern SSD drives and the disk management tools built into modern OS, as you no longer have a mechanical point of failure

Of course from a mathematical standpoint the risk of your main computer failing remains exactly the same no matter how many computers you have in the chain. If your main computer fails you could simply use one of your other computers and keep on trucking with only a mild inconvenience, if one of your servers fails, once again you are back up an running very quickly and it's only a mild inconvenience

If you only have one computer and it fails you are done, until you repair it or get a new one

I would never want to rely on a single computer for anything, I will always want a redundant back up system. And if I am going to have a redundant backup system anyway it just makes sense to use them