Software vs. Analog in 2025 – Has the Balance Shifted?

[IvyBirds]

Software has no doubt improved, and it is the sound of electronic music today in many ways. And does a bunch of stuff not that practical to recreate in hardware.

But although it covers some hardware/analog sounds, it's clear that top ends, the general presence, the filters and modulations are not there yet.

Does it matter? Maybe not for everything.

CPU is the main limitation. U-he for example, could make better emulations but then the cpu use would be so high they could not be played in realtime.

What's "better" mean, and when you move beyond emulations of 1970s technology then what?

If you think there is some undefinable characteristic of analog synths based on 1970s technology that can't be measured awesome, buy them, use them, love them, go make a platinum selling record

Those sounds are boring and have been for decades, it's why sales for them collapsed in the 1980s a time I remember quite well.

What makes U-he Synths even Diva and repro awesome isn't the fact that it emulates anything it's the sound they make that hardware can't do

And that's what's awesome about them the fact you can use them and they sound awesome and can do all kinds of things hardware can't, and then you can also use them make those 1970s simple sounds if you want all for thousands less

[IvyBirds]

But although it covers some hardware/analog sounds, it's clear that top ends, the general presence, the filters and modulations are not there yet

Based on what? Define what "general presence_ means and how do we measure that. Define what "top ends" means on obviously you don't mean frequencies since software can easily produce frequencies that exceed human hearing so there would be nothing "clear" about those

As far as Modulations again what are you referring to? Because software easily exceeds the modulation options of hardware

Most of the analog bits you're talking about are not calculatory at all, they are a physical process.
They only need the correct voltage to be propagated through a system, e.g. no cpu impact whatsoever, not to mention free lightspeed transmission.

Light speed? So when you sequence them and record them via your interface and process them with plugins are you still at light speed? Hardly

[zerocrossing]

When it comes to non-linearities and audio rate modulation it is obvious.

It is often obvious, but not always. Again, there are quite a few plugins on the market that do such things at a quality that is on par with hardware. The UAD and Softube stuff stands up to punishment. I'd put the new UADx Anthem synth up against any hardware analog. It's really made to distort and does a fantastic job of it. That filter can get super screamy and when you put it in paraphonic mode, those four oscillators can really drive it into full on metal distortion with no audible artifacts.

Now, does it get the same distortion sound my Analog Four gets? No. It doesn't have the same amount of gain from a single note, so that per-voice distortion on the Analog Four... it's magnificent, and unequalled in software. I can throw a plugin like BB Tubes after it and get more overdrive, but again, just a single voice of it, which is a very different sound.

Eurorack is an interesting case because even when some modules are digital, it is an analog signal that is being wired up. Eurorack has an incredible sound quality. It stands distinct from software.

Now if only some brave soul could produce some good sounding music with it. I KID! I KID! I don't really know the world of modular, but I do know that when I'm making something fairly complex in Softube Modular, I can pretty easily start getting buffer overruns. I guess my question is, are the digital module manufacturing just running very high quality DACs internally to get that level of quality in audio rate modulation? I do notice on some plugins like VCV Rack 2, I can use something like Vult's Debriatus at 8x oversampling and get good results compared to the Analog Four, but never quite there, and the high notes will always start leaking in alias reflections.

And yeah, whether it matters is up to each person. There's no one right answer. I'm happy using both.

Same.

[zerocrossing]

Software has no doubt improved, and it is the sound of electronic music today in many ways. And does a bunch of stuff not that practical to recreate in hardware.

But although it covers some hardware/analog sounds, it's clear that top ends, the general presence, the filters and modulations are not there yet.

Does it matter? Maybe not for everything.

CPU is the main limitation. U-he for example, could make better emulations but then the cpu use would be so high they could not be played in realtime.

What's "better" mean, and when you move beyond emulations of 1970s technology then what?

If you think there is some undefinable characteristic of analog synths based on 1970s technology that can't be measured awesome, buy them, use them, love them, go make a platinum selling record

Those sounds are boring and have been for decades, it's why sales for them collapsed in the 1980s a time I remember quite well.

What makes U-he Synths even Diva and repro awesome isn't the fact that it emulates anything it's the sound they make that hardware can't do

And that's what's awesome about them the fact you can use them and they sound awesome and can do all kinds of things hardware can't, and then you can also use them make those 1970s simple sounds if you want all for thousands less

I was there as well. I had a front row seat, working in a music shop. People didn't get rid of analogs because they were "boring," they were looking for stable tuning and polyphony. Also, I'm not generally hearing a lot of complex sounds in most electronic music. Not then, not now. Most synthesizers about as complicated as a Prophet 5 can do a fairly wide range of great sounds that work in a wide variety of music. Bands like Radiohead, whose music is fairly complex in the world of pop music, still use one.

Anyway, I get it. You're an ideologue and everything that's said to you will instantly trigger some sort of argument or excuse, regardless as to if it actually makes sense. I love complex synthesizers too, but it's a different thing. Sometimes you want lamb vindaloo, sometimes you just want an aged NY Strip steak. Arguing as to what one of those is "better" is just about as stupid as this conversation.

I'd love to go full ITB, but I have not heard a synth that's as complex as a PolyBrute that sounds analog and doesn't crap out at some settings. I'd love to get rid of my Analog Four, but nothing in software sounds remotely like it, with its blistering filter drive, feedback oscillator, etc. I'd love to sell my Prophet 12, but tuned feedback, AM and FM aren't available in software. I could go on with the rest of my synths, but you get the point. If you're happy 100% ITB, that's awesome. I'm envious. I'm not happy fully ITB... not yet. I do think it's a possibility, but not today. But to stay on this battle when you're clearly out of ammunition... you're just looking weak and confused.

[ghettosynth]

Awesome so you say the board in question is not what is used in the Super 6, thanks for proving my point

Nobody said that it was. All hardware products have to manage cost to earn profit. My point was that FPGAs have particular advantages and I showed you a $300 dev board hosting a $65 - $80 chip that can achieve microsecond latency (audio round trip). Your desktop CPU, no matter how boss it is, cannot do that.

It's clear to me why an FPGA was chosen for the Super 6, I not convinced that it's clear to you though. What do you think that the tradeoffs were, broadly speaking?

Allen and Heath moved to FPGA's in their line of digital mixers for reasons similar to the Dante board discussed in the talk, latency. I use one as my recording platform and chose it because of the low latency. My small portable mixer achieves 0.7ms Latency from any input to the output with processing included. They also achieve this with 64 channels on their larger boards.

This is all discussed in the talk I linked, well, not Allen and Heath, but other boards that used FPGAs for high channel count and other synths that use FPGAs for very high sample rates.

As far as research level why did you post a PDF of a PowerPoint given at one of the most advanced Sound Research Labs in the World affiliated with a major University. Founded by John Chowning the father of FM Synthesis if it's not research level

I asked you to explain what you mean by "research level?" Have you ever used Faust? I developed a prototype for a commercial product with it about five or six years ago. It has been studied for some decades now, but is and has been generating usable work by industry.

I have certainly shown you that the board, which you referred to as "research level hardware" isn't anything special. It's a common dev board for people developing FPGA ideas. It incorporates an A9 ARM processor and a choice of two different sized FPGAs. To put this in perspective, The A9 SOC CPU is about 30x slower than the CPU in a modern iPhone. It's the FPGA doing the heavy lifting there.

https://www.amazon.com/Digilent-Zybo-Z7 ... G4485?th=1

Name dropping John Chowning as if that has any bearing on anything is more funny than anything else.

[ghettosynth]

I was there as well. I had a front row seat, working in a music shop. People didn't get rid of analogs because they were "boring," they were looking for stable tuning and polyphony.

Exactly, as well as digital sheen and realistic-ish sounding acoustic instruments, which was the new thing. Digital was not a dirty word in the 80s. It was even used to try to sell some DCO based synths, like the JX10, in competition with the DX7. The D50 was ground breaking because of samples, the M1 had better samples and a built in sequencer.

<snip>Excellent examples</snip>

I do think it's a possibility, but not today. But to stay on this battle when you're clearly out of ammunition... you're just looking weak and confused.

Right??

[pdxindy]

What's "better" mean, and when you move beyond emulations of 1970s technology then what?

If you think there is some undefinable characteristic of analog synths based on 1970s technology...

Better in this case means reproducing the essential characteristics of analog. That may or may not include emulating a specific instrument.

I understand you are using the term (1970's technology) in a derogatory sense, trying to make analog seem outdated, but it just shows how little you know. Analog is, to this day, a creative and fruitful field of development and analog synthesis is fresh and evolving and has a vast and essentially unlimited sonic range.

And the characteristics in analog that are challenging to duplicate in digital and not undefinable, they are clearly defined, understood and easily heard and/or viewed on a scope.

[Scotty]

Anyone claiming victory here is delusional. There are no referenced double blind tests to confirm or refute the superiority of analog emulation over the originals and no way to 100% correct for the impact of aging electronics. Even if the emulations were somehow easily identifiable in a mix are they worse or just different? There is no one agreed upon conception of what constitutes a superior synth sound. Does a hair’s whisper of saturation that floats your boat from an analog synth surpass the total sound design flexibility of a modern plugin with an advanced modulation matrix? Does a hands on experience of a near one to one knob and slider synth bring you closer to the music as some feel or is the mouse a better fit for others. Is the fussiness of hardware a financial encumbrance and distraction from creative flow or does it force you to commit to a sound and allow you to commit to a vision? Does it even matter to the audience or is a good song a good song?

Individual experience and preference is being conflated with objective truth. Carry on as you will but no one is likely to be convinced by any argument here. We like what we like and buy what we will or can afford. Most of us rationalize away the strongest arguments that are counter to our position and that is clearly in evidence here. T’was ever thus.

I’ve never been a purist and I love the options we have available now. I have a lot of hardware and a ton of software. We’re spoiled for choice. I’ll gladly show you my classic hardware but I’m not going to take a minute of your time trying to convince you that it sounds better than your favourite vst. I respect you too much to assume you experience sound and the creation of music the same as me.

[IvyBirds]

.Anyway, I get it. You're an ideologue and everything that's said to you will instantly trigger some sort of argument or excuse, regardless as to if it actually makes sense. I love complex synthesizers too, but it's a different thing. Sometimes you want lamb vindaloo, sometimes you just want an aged NY Strip steak. Arguing as to what one of those is "better" is just about as stupid as this conversation.

I think you are misinterpreting what I said.

My ONLY ideology on the subject is the idea that one is NOT better than the other and that's what I am pushing back on. However I end up with hardware purists that want to argue about mythical things like "presence" and "sounds alive" that they can't define or measure and just declare it to be so

As far as the sound of 1970s and 1980s analog synths. I love them. I play in a classic rock cover band and have played in many of them over the years. I use them all the time, but it's not the end all of Synthesis and those sounds are easily achieved with software especially when played live in bars.

I also play some times in a 1980s top 40 cover band and again use those sounds a lot. There is just simply no needs to use expensive and heavy analog synths to play those sounds

I say it's boring because there is nothing really new there. I can hear an analog patch on a record and 90% of the time with very little thought or effort reproduce it with software. I could do so just as easily with hardware but I am just never hauling a bunch of heavy expensive things to the gig and 99% of the audience doesn't care unless you happen to get a synth nerd in the audience, but most of the time these days those people want to know about my Gig Performer rig.

The bulk of my gigs are solo piano. I have a great friend that is a high end wedding and event planner. She sends so much business my way for playing piano it's insane. Many of these are corporate gigs during the week which is awesome almost every gig I do I get another booking that I send back through the event planner. None of that is very glamorous of course but it pays the bills and all of them I show up these days with just a controller or two and a laptop, unless the venue has a piano or the client rented one which happens often

For my personal music at home I am all about things that hardware can't do because I find that more interesting. Thinks like additive and complex deep FM, and sample manipulation

I'd love to go full ITB, but I have not heard a synth that's as complex as a PolyBrute that sounds analog and doesn't crap out at some settings. I'd love to get rid of my Analog Four, but nothing in software sounds remotely like it, with its blistering filter drive, feedback oscillator, etc. I'd love to sell my Prophet 12, but tuned feedback, AM and FM aren't available in software.

Awesome, I am glad you do those things and have found hardware you like that works for you in the way you want it to. I would rather do 32 operator FM patches that you can't do with hardware with the exception of my Montage but that's just a computer in a box anyway, or take a found sound from a field recording, isolate it, manipulate it and then turn it into a Wavetable it resynthesize it into a playable instrument and I want to do that with as many physical controls as possible and I do all of this for my own personal amusement

I could go on with the rest of my synths, but you get the point. If you're happy 100% ITB, that's awesome. I'm envious. I'm not happy fully ITB... not yet. I do think it's a possibility, but not today. But to stay on this battle when you're clearly out of ammunition... you're just looking weak and confused.

If you think I look weak and confused awesome as you think I am saying things I am not. All of these things are just tools, nothing more and nothing less that help us achieve what we want to do with music. One persons tools are different than someone else's because they want to do different things. That doesn't make them better it worse just different

[IvyBirds]

Better in this case means reproducing the essential characteristics of analog. That may or may not include emulating a specific instrument.

Awesome what are those things and how do we define and measure them so we can universally know what "better" means?

I understand you are using the term (1970's technology) in a derogatory sense, trying to make analog seem outdated, but it just shows how little you know.

Only I am not. I am literally saying it in the literal sense it is 1970s technology. Microprocessors manipulating control voltages sent to a VCA, VCA, or VCF is a 1970s technology. PPG with the 1020 was using DCOs and digitally controlled analog envelopes in 1977

Analog is, to this day, a creative and fruitful field of development and analog synthesis is fresh and evolving and has a vast and essentially unlimited sonic range.

No doubt people can use them in a creative way, but the underlying technology hasn't really changed in 40+ years with the exception of things that require software

And the characteristics in analog that are challenging to duplicate in digital and not undefinable, they are clearly defined, understood and easily heard and/or viewed on a scope.

Awesome then define them and show me how to measure them and what you are talking about. I am specifically looking for how to measure and define "presence", "warmth" and "life"

I can use a scope and show you the difference between a Juno and a CS80 yet they are both analog synths, and I can use a scope and show the difference between a DX7 and a D50, yet both of them are digital synths from the 1980s. And I can show you on a scope the differences between DIVA and Falcon

But being different doesn't make them better or worse it just makes them different

[whassup]

I’ve never been a purist and I love the options we have available now. I have a lot of hardware and a ton of software. We’re spoiled for choice. I’ll gladly show you my classic hardware but I’m not going to take a minute of your time trying to convince you that it sounds better than your favourite vst. I respect you too much to assume you experience sound and the creation of music the same as me.

Thanx for that one!

[crimsonwarlock]

You're an ideologue ...

I'd say that goes for both sides of the discussion.


However, the amount of cork-sniffing here has reached legendary levels. Nothing new for KVR though

[dellboy]

Those sounds are boring and have been for decades,

[dellboy]

Turns out hot air fills pages just fine. Proof that you can generate walls of text without a foundation.

[SoftSynthLover99]

.Anyway, I get it. You're an ideologue and everything that's said to you will instantly trigger some sort of argument or excuse, regardless as to if it actually makes sense. I love complex synthesizers too, but it's a different thing. Sometimes you want lamb vindaloo, sometimes you just want an aged NY Strip steak. Arguing as to what one of those is "better" is just about as stupid as this conversation.

My ONLY ideology on the subject is the idea that one is NOT better than the other and that's what I am pushing back on. However I end up with hardware purists that want to argue about mythical things like "presence" and "sounds alive" that they can't define or measure and just declare it to be so

I am curious what some of your favorite albums of all time are for synth sounds? And if you can name any albums that are done with only software synths that are considered classics today?

I really dig some electronic stuff like Daft Punk Discovery, Homework, Tron Legacy soundtrack and Random Access Memories. All of those albums are done with hardware synths and Tron and Random Access were done with a huge modular setup supposedly https://www.reddit.com/r/DaftPunk/comme ... nd_random/
https://equipboard.com/pros/daft-punk

Then you have artist like Stevie Wonder who made use of the Arp 2600, Minimoog and tons of hardware synths to produce all time great sounding albums for decades.

Been getting into Stereolabs music and some of the newer stuff does sound like software synths, but from what I see they use rather lesser know hardware synths like Italian made and Moog Rouge etc.

So yeah curious what your favorite albums are and if you have any that are all done on software synths. Would love to take a listen!