Is it worth it to get a bunch of hardware? (coming from software only)

[dellboy]

When I close my eyes and simply play I do not sense any difference between any of the synths at my disposal. I play them, express the sound in the same way, via the keyboard and knobs plus faders (even with software!). Go figure!

It sounds like you can at least play keys,which is great. But even then it is only an ok sort of way to play a software emualtion of a real world or analog synth. But there is no way that any real sort of meaningful expression can be coaxed out of a keybed. At best it is touch sensitive and has aftertouch,but its expressive capabilitities are very limited. There are various new fangled devices to try to make input a better experence,but at best they are bodges.

Six months ago I picked up a violin for the first time and since then have practised daily. Of all instruments,the violin is probably the most expressive in capable hands.Now if an electric violin exists with midi or usb input,that would be getting somewhat closer to real expressive capabities. But even then it would not be anywhere as good as the real thing.

[Rameses]

that f-sliding itt, lol

[Russell Grand]

Hardware is better than software.

I especially like the non-existent hardware equivalent of Alchemy. It's so good, isn't it?

Oh, by non-existent do you mean like the software version of Alchemy for PC?

Not at all. My Personal Computer (a Mac) does have a copy of Alchemy2. Yours doesn't? That's a pity.

But my other Personal Computer (custom build running Windows) even has Alchemy 1! How about that! It exists across the boundaries of computer platforms, who would've known?

Obviously my personal computer is a Windows machine.
And you have Alchemy for Windows because you bought it while it was still available to be gotten. Others weren't so lucky. Who'd have known that not everyone was able to purchase it back when it was available?
Sure, I could buy a $2000+ machine just to run the newest Alchemy, but while Alchemy is great (I have the free version from CM), it ain't $2000 great.

[Rameses]

Yes, but no analog synthesizers, those are mostly a waste of money. A good spend are rack units/sound modules, they sound way better than any out-of-the-box soft synth.

Rack unit modules are software instruments that are housed in a metal box instead of existing on a computer hardrive. The reason a computer can emulate them so well is because they are both digital. The only thing making them sound better to you is that the metal box version has an amplifier and dac output stage that colours the sound.

An analog synth on the other hand exists in the real world and manipulates electricity to produce sound waves. One of your metal box digital boxes or (modules) has to emulate real world sound waves in the digital domain. Think a vinyl or shellac record versus a cd or mp3.

Are you trying to state anything specific? Because Rack Unit Sound Modules are considered Hardware, regardless of the way they generate the audio signal. Factually Rack Units Are Hardware and sound better than plugins and analog hardware synthesizers.

[dellboy]

How about Halion? A sampler plus synthesiser extraordinaire?

Halion ?

I have had more fun with an Akai S2000 and a bunch of floppies than I had with that thing after wasting so much bandwidth downloading it.

[whyterabbyt]

Factually Rack Units Are Hardware and sound better than plugins and analog hardware synthesizers.

So, which bit of the 19" metal case is it that makes such a crucial difference to the sound?

[Rameses]

Factually Rack Units Are Hardware and sound better than plugins and analog hardware synthesizers.

So, which bit of the 19" metal case is it that makes such a crucial difference to the sound?

Are you trolling? What are you even trying to say? That a Rack Unit Sound Module is equal to a generic computer running a vst? I hope not.

[dellboy]

Yes, but no analog synthesizers, those are mostly a waste of money. A good spend are rack units/sound modules, they sound way better than any out-of-the-box soft synth.

Rack unit modules are software instruments that are housed in a metal box instead of existing on a computer hardrive. The reason a computer can emulate them so well is because they are both digital. The only thing making them sound better to you is that the metal box version has an amplifier and dac output stage that colours the sound.

An analog synth on the other hand exists in the real world and manipulates electricity to produce sound waves. One of your metal box digital boxes or (modules) has to emulate real world sound waves in the digital domain. Think a vinyl or shellac record versus a cd or mp3.

Are you trying to state anything specific? Because Rack Unit Sound Modules are considered Hardware, regardless of the way they generate the audio signal. Factually Rack Units Are Hardware and sound better than plugins and analog hardware synthesizers.

Sigh.

My hardware Korg M1 sounded identical to the Korg M1 software version. But to your ears the hardware version will always sound much better. In fact, the software one is actually a big improvement because it has increased polyphony and a resonant filter which was always the M1's achille's heel.

[himalaya]

When I close my eyes and simply play I do not sense any difference between any of the synths at my disposal. I play them, express the sound in the same way, via the keyboard and knobs plus faders (even with software!). Go figure!

It sounds like you can at least play keys,which is great. But even then it is only an ok sort of way to play a software emualtion of a real world or analog synth. But there is no way that any real sort of meaningful expression can be coaxed out of a keybed. At best it is touch sensitive and has aftertouch,but its expressive capabilitities are very limited. There are various new fangled devices to try to make input a better experence,but at best they are bodges.

Six months ago I picked up a violin for the first time and since then have practised daily. Of all instruments,the violin is probably the most expressive in capable hands.Now if an electric violin exists with midi or usb input,that would be getting somewhat closer to real expressive capabities. But even then it would not be anywhere as good as the real thing.

Do not get attached to the word "keyboard" and its velocity and aftertouch as the sole means of expression. Midi keyboard controllers have much more to offer than that, and can be very expressive (I'll upload an example later).

There are various new fangled devices to try to make input a better experence,but at best they are bodges.

Is this expressive enough for you or are you struck by a device that is 'a bodge job'?
https://soundcloud.com/electric-himalay ... ind-thingy

[whyterabbyt]

Are you trolling? What are you even trying to say? That a Rack Unit Sound Module is equal to a generic computer running a vst? I hope not.

No, your strawman isnt something I would be saying. I'd definitely say that you'd have to qualify 'equal' before you could even begin to make a comparison between any specific rack unit and any specific VST, but the kind of crass generalisation you're trying to draw is just the level of fallacy I try to avoid.

Which is what my point actually is, your shibboleth notwithstanding. There's nothing specifically inherent to the rack format that has any correlation with sound quality whatsoever, negatively or positively.

[dellboy]

You don't buy the VST , you get the AU when you buy yourself a Mac and Mainstage. Simples.

Goodness, I thought the dinosaurs died out years ago.

[Rameses]

Yes, but no analog synthesizers, those are mostly a waste of money. A good spend are rack units/sound modules, they sound way better than any out-of-the-box soft synth.

Rack unit modules are software instruments that are housed in a metal box instead of existing on a computer hardrive. The reason a computer can emulate them so well is because they are both digital. The only thing making them sound better to you is that the metal box version has an amplifier and dac output stage that colours the sound.

An analog synth on the other hand exists in the real world and manipulates electricity to produce sound waves. One of your metal box digital boxes or (modules) has to emulate real world sound waves in the digital domain. Think a vinyl or shellac record versus a cd or mp3.

Are you trying to state anything specific? Because Rack Unit Sound Modules are considered Hardware, regardless of the way they generate the audio signal. Factually Rack Units Are Hardware and sound better than plugins and analog hardware synthesizers.

Sigh.

My hardware Korg M1 sounded identical to the Korg M1 software version. But to your ears the hardware version will always sound much better. In fact, the software one is actually a big improvement because it has increased polyphony and a resonant filter which was always the M1's achille's heel.

Dude haha I'm talking about

1. Rack Unit Sound Modules...
2. ...Without an emulation equivalent,

so your post is obsolete anyway I don't even understand what you're trying to adress by "to your ears the hardware version will always sound much better", like, wtf Better harmonic spectrum is really nothing you could call subjective.

[himalaya]

How about Halion? A sampler plus synthesiser extraordinaire?

Halion ?

I have had more fun with an Akai S2000 and a bunch of floppies than I had with that thing after wasting so much bandwidth downloading it.

I have lived through the hardware sampler era and I know for a fact that using such devices is no fun at all (when compared to computer-based samplers). But that is not the point, maybe you are a masochist and it is indeed fun for you
But! We are trying to dissect your assertion that "hardware is better than software" so, I want to see your Akai S2000 do a beautiful synthesised granular layer mixed with a lush synthesised virtual analogue layer (maybe add some lovely PWM modulation here) mixed with some world instruments that have long tails, no sample length truncation allowed.
Can you do it in your S2000? Or if you can not, can we settle on a fact that hardware is not necessarily better than software?

[himalaya]

You don't buy the VST , you get the AU when you buy yourself a Mac and Mainstage. Simples.

Goodness, I thought the dinosaurs died out years ago.

You thought right! But this isn't the place for any fans of dinosaurs. Are you looking for a Dino Fan forum?

once you get yourself a Mac and a copy of Mainstage, you will be able to experience one of the most advanced synths in the world, Alchemy 2, and realise that there is absolutely nothing in hardware that does what Alchemy 2 does, or comes even close to it! Does this clarify it for you some more? Or do I need to post some excerpts from Jurassic Park for you to assuage your need for dino action?

[Rameses]

Are you trolling? What are you even trying to say? That a Rack Unit Sound Module is equal to a generic computer running a vst? I hope not.

No, your strawman isnt something I would be saying. I'd definitely say that you'd have to qualify 'equal' before you could even begin to make a comparison between any specific rack unit and any specific VST, but the kind of crass generalisation you're trying to draw is just the level of fallacy I try to avoid.

Which is what my point actually is, your shibboleth notwithstanding. There's nothing specifically inherent to the rack format that has any correlation with sound quality whatsoever, negatively or positively.

So you simply would say that Nexus is better than any Rack Sound Unit for which there isn't an software emulation yet because it's both computers but nexus is cool?