Have Modern VST Instruments Replaced Your Hardware Synths ?

[CrystalWizard]

No, they haven’t.

[haslo]

For me, yes they have. Granted, I only have one hardware synth (a Nova Desktop), but I haven't plugged it in right now.

And I won't, for the foreseeable future. The main cause is available space. I don't have a dedicated room for my studio, so my studio is in my bedroom. In fact, it's a tiny desk.

In that space, I have around 50 or 60 synthesizers. I could barely fit one in hardware in the same space.

I also think that software synths who play to their strengths (like Phase Plant, or Ableton's Wavetable) can do things hardware has a tough time doing. Dynamic user interfaces and full-screen modifiable GUIs or accessible mod matrices are something that's really hard to do in hardware, and such a vast array of options can quickly become overwhelming because it inevitably leads to knobs being used for several functions, and that loses the aspect of immediate access to parameters that hardware can provide.

Conversely, I find many software synths that try to emulate hardware down to the knob very underwhelming, because the user experience of the original hardware was built for a completely different medium.

So while I'm strictly in the "both are great" camp, I personally exclusively use software synths right now. Even though I'd probably have preferred getting a TD-3 to getting ABL3, for more or less the same price.

[EnGee]

I honestly don't think I could make music with hardware to anywhere near the standard I do in software. It's way harder, takes way longer and, even then, it wouldn't sound as good. I've certainly got enough hardware that I could do it if I wanted but I reckon you'd have to have rocks in your f**king head to even think about it.

You must be idiot then if you keep buying hardware

[_leras]

I honestly don't think I could make music with hardware to anywhere near the standard I do in software. It's way harder, takes way longer and, even then, it wouldn't sound as good. I've certainly got enough hardware that I could do it if I wanted but I reckon you'd have to have rocks in your f**king head to even think about it.

You must be idiot then if you keep buying hardware

Of course you could make music to the same standard with hardware, you'd just have to adjust your process, probably simple.stuff like commit to audio sooner, more distinct writing and mixing stages.

Every synth/instrument has something different about it that can lead to different outcomes depending on your tastes and how you work.

Hardware synths can be really inspiring to play with, you can tweak across multiple controls in a much more intuitive way while making/finding a patch in a way that software synths are not, but then with software synths it seems easier to incrementally improve a patch later in the creative process.

Personally, I do think there are some sounds that are still just richer and more present in hardware/analogue, and if on an upfront part can add something to the visceral feel of a track when played loud, but clearly there are a.whole raft of sounds that you can get from VSTs that you can't easily get from hardware, or if you can it is anyway digital hardware.

Anyway, surely these days, the question is the wrong way round. Is the new resurgence of analog stopping you from using VSTs?

Round here... Probably not so much, but lots of people ARE using new analogue and/or modular to great effect.

[machinesworking]

What does "dirty" mean? My Uno has a decent drive in the filter, Trueno's filter is absolutely filthy when you drive it hard and Analog Keys has great overdrive/distortion. They all sound much "dirtier" to me than any of my old

This of course isn't a perfect shootout, but in almost every case the sound is bigger, less "stable", dirtier and the filter is just flat out better, from the OBXa. this is pretty much how it always plays out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtYpjUWujM

I don't in any way think every sound needs to be huge, it's just an observation that cleaner sounds, aren't as engaging when just played alone. In a mix, IMO a lot of the juice of that difference is lost, or even creates mix issues, but I think things like the filter resonance sweep at 2:05 are why people love old analogs. Not impossible in software, just not easy.

[vitocorleone123]

Also, YOU might find it ridiculous to think about the "brand" of a synth, but they all have certain characteristics and excel at some things more than others.

Actually, I pointed out that I prefer Korg to Roland because they generally sound more aggressive.

For example, getting Serum to sound like Repro-5 might be possible (or the other way around), but that's gonna take a hell of a lot more work on my part than just using Repro-5.

I don't think that's a valid way of looking at it. To use the spanner analogy again, that's like picking up a 14mm spanner and then looking for a 14mm nut to use it on when what you should be doing is finding the spanner than fits the nut you need to loosen. I don't think of an instrument as having a sound, beyond that very general characteristic of more or less aggressive. Anything I might want to do with Serum (if I owned it), I am sure I could do equally well with RePro-5 and vice versa (which is probably why I never even think to use RePro-5, even though I quite like it).

Why? I like the sound of them better, and nothing I have in software sounds the same.

This is where it sounds like a religion to me. I can't hear anything in the sound of any of my hardware that I'd say I "like" more than my software. My two main hardware synths - Ultranova and Analog Keys, are far and away the best sounding hardware synths I have ever owned, but there is nothing at all they can do that I can't do at least as well ITB.

If there was software, I would've bought or used it instead. Example: my OB-6. I was prepared to spend up to $500 on software that sound as good or better. There wasn't anything anywhere close. I had hoped oberhausen would (I still have it), and it does share some of the characteristics, but it's a different sound. When I want something in the ballpark of the OB-6 but with more than 6 voices, I turn to oberhausen. Otherwise, almost never. Because, to my ears, it's different in a way that sounds worse (not bad, just not near as good).

This is definitely a religious outlook. bx_oberhausen is an absolute beast of a thing. I have less than no interest in how much it sounds like a SEM or an OB-X or your OB-6, I use it for what it brings to our music. I also have zero interest in something like an OB-6 - what a complete waste of money trying to recapture something from 40 years ago when you could have a modern instrument like Analog Keys that isn't trying to slavishly emulate something from the past and is therefore able to offer so much more. I wouldn't swap my Ultranova for an OB-6, either - it's a better synth again than either because it doesn't have to bother with all the analogue bullshit and is free to be the absolute best synth it can possibly be. And it is, it won't run out of polyphony before you run out of fingers and it has performance controls that Tom Oberheim never even dreamed of.

Ugh. I'll just have to agree to disagree with pretty much everything you said here.

For example, saying "this is definitely a religious outlook" over and over doesn't make it true. The OB-6 isn't trying to recapture the past (if it was, all the vintage lovers out there would be all over it instead of complaining that it's not vintage - it's bringing a sound last in production from the past into the current era), and I certainly didn't purchase it with that in mind - what an ignorant thing to say. It has a SOUND. I love the SOUND. I didn't care what made the SOUND, hardware or software. It turned out hardware made the SOUND. So I bought the tool that made the SOUND. How is this so hard to understand? I didn't buy the OB-6 because I wanted a clone or emulation or to relive the past. I didn't buy it because it was an OB-6. I didn't buy it because it was VCO instead of DCO or digital. Nothing else in software or hardware sounds like an OB-6 so I bought the OB-6. Because I liked the sound. Can you name me another synth, software or hardware, that sounds exactly like the OB-6? No? Exactly. So if I loved the sound and want to have the sound (and have the money), why is it a problem to buy the source of that sound?

I'm not saying that all software is better than analog. I'm not saying that all analog is better than software. You seem overly sensitive me describing why I chose a certain tool because I like the sound (should I tear into you for liking Korg better than Roland, or for having favorite synths as you mentioned?). I mean, I chose Hive 2 over Serum and Spire and others because, primarily, I liked the sound better. Yes, I make decisions based on primarily on how things sound. My brain thinks of them more as paints in a palette, not interchangeable ratchet tools or whatever. I like to have different paints.

Repro/Serum - I'll take you at your word that you can use them interchangeably. I can't. Your way of making music is your way of making music. I have my own. That doesn't make one right or wrong, just different. Did someone kill one of your loved ones with an analog synth? It wasn't me. I use software synths all the time and love them. I'm also using my hardware synths without a problem, pretty much just like software synths. 2 of them is plenty for me.

Oh, I also had an Ultranova. Replaced it with the OB-6.

[BONES]

You must be idiot then if you keep buying hardware

No because I don't have any unrealistic expectations around my hardware. I buy hardware for the same reason I have a dozen different pairs of sunglasses - they have a certain aesthetic that I find appealing and I like having that stuff around. If I was buying hardware because I thought it sounded better than software, then I'd be an idiot.

Of course you could make music to the same standard with hardware, you'd just have to adjust your process, probably simple.stuff like commit to audio sooner, more distinct writing and mixing stages.

If you do that then you are just using software to cover over the deficiencies in the hardware so you may as well just use software from the get-go.

Every synth/instrument has something different about it that can lead to different outcomes depending on your tastes and how you work.

Similarly, every synth can cover about 90% of what every other synth can do and it is only rarely that you'd have to consider the differences. e.g. If you want a resonant bassline with lots of bottom end, don't use anything with a ladder filter.

Hardware synths can be really inspiring to play with, you can tweak across multiple controls in a much more intuitive way while making/finding a patch in a way that software synths are not, but then with software synths it seems easier to incrementally improve a patch later in the creative process.

I disagree with both aspects of this comment. A well laid out VSTi will be every bit as easy to work with as any hardware synths and, most of the time even easier, for the simple reason that when you change patches in a softsynth, the controls all update to reflect the current values. That doesn't happen with hardware. At best you might get endless rotary encoders that never give you any visual feedback about current settings. It's a big issue when you are looking for sounds but less so when you are just making little tweaks to fine-tune a sound for a mix. Even with poorly laid-out VSTi, I am yet to find any that are harder to work with than Analog Keys or even the little Uno, both of which would be more trouble than they're worth without a VSTi to patch them from.

Personally, I do think there are some sounds that are still just richer and more present in hardware/analogue

Well, you are wrong and you absolutely can't prove otherwise.

Anyway, surely these days, the question is the wrong way round. Is the new resurgence of analog stopping you from using VSTs?

There is no mention of the word analogue in the topic heading and it's only mentioned in passing in the original post. The discussion is about hardware and that covers a whole gamut of things.

Round here... Probably not so much, but lots of people ARE using new analogue and/or modular to great effect.

Well, of course, it's not completely useless, it just requires a lot more effort and hassle.

This of course isn't a perfect shootout, but in almost every case the sound is bigger, less "stable", dirtier and the filter is just flat out better, from the OBXa. this is pretty much how it always plays out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPtYpjUWujM

I don't in any way think every sound needs to be huge, it's just an observation that cleaner sounds, aren't as engaging when just played alone. In a mix, IMO a lot of the juice of that difference is lost, or even creates mix issues, but I think things like the filter resonance sweep at 2:05 are why people love old analogs. Not impossible in software, just not easy.

That's not what I hear in it. with the "Filter & Resonance" comparison I think the OB-6's oscillators have a grittier sound than the OB-Xa. The OB-Xa is definitely louder, too. But that filter sweep can be done convincingly on any half-decent VSTi. I'd suggest, for example, that the PolySix VSTi does it much better than either of these examples with no effort at all. And when it comes to the really dirty sounds, the sync and unison examples, I think the OB-6 sounds dirtier there, too Sure, it lacks the spread of the OB-Xa in unison but that's got to be a deliberate choice they made with the OB-6.

[sacer]

they have prevented me to buy hardware. If I compare hardware synths, they sound realy comparable like u-he, tal, synapse audio and xilslab. But i don't need the space in my studio and I can controll them with komplete kontrol, push2 and the seaboard. I can record in midi and easily edit all automations, like a recorded filter etc.

[anomandaris1]

Can you name me another synth, software or hardware, that sounds exactly like the OB-6? No? Exactly. So if I loved the sound and want to have the sound (and have the money), why is it a problem to buy the source of that sound?

Give us sound examples then. What you said is totally untrue, imo. In fact, I am sure that most freeware vsts and any good EQ can be enough to replicate any of your 3k euro synth sounds.

[AnX]

software is certainly very convenient

[EnGee]

No because I don't have any unrealistic expectations around my hardware. I buy hardware for the same reason I have a dozen different pairs of sunglasses - they have a certain aesthetic that I find appealing and I like having that stuff around. If I was buying hardware because I thought it sounded better than software, then I'd be an idiot.

You really made me laugh! Oh man!
So, you buy your music hardware without unrealistic expectations! Like I buy a synth and then wonder why it can't be f**ked at night Oh wait you buy synths to wear them, just like your sunglasses! You know, you can make music with them, the main reason for manufacturing them, but this is not the reason you bought them for

Or you bought them so you can play with them little and then say: "Damm if this sounds better than my software, let's see how many idiots bought this and think this way in KVR!"

[excuse me please]

To me the OB-Xa sounds crappy. Already noticed it in the "Jump" vid.
Out of tune, that's an understatement. It sounds huge, but that's about it IMO.

That's why the DX7 got so popular; analog gear was hard to record, because in those days it was always slightly out of tune, it had to "warm up" etc etc. That's why artists jumped in the air when they heard the DX. Finally, they had a synth they could work with!

[replicant X]

deleted

[e-crooner]

To me the OB-Xa sounds crappy. Already noticed it in the "Jump" vid.
Out of tune, that's an understatement. It sounds huge, but that's about it IMO.

That's why the DX7 got so popular; analog gear was hard to record, because in those days it was always slightly out of tune, it had to "warm up" etc etc. That's why artists jumped in the air when they heard the DX. Finally, they had a synth they could work with!

I wouldn't say crappy, but I do think those old synths are overrated.

I will go and warm up my Sylenth1 now

[excuse me please]

To me the OB-Xa sounds crappy. Already noticed it in the "Jump" vid.
Out of tune, that's an understatement. It sounds huge, but that's about it IMO.

That's why the DX7 got so popular; analog gear was hard to record, because in those days it was always slightly out of tune, it had to "warm up" etc etc. That's why artists jumped in the air when they heard the DX. Finally, they had a synth they could work with!

I wouldn't say crappy, but I do think those old synths are overrated.

I will go and warm up my Sylenth1 now

When it comes to mixing, most certainly. But that's just my opinion and the way that I mix, Floofy

That said, the story of rich, analog low end is passé as well. After all, it's about frequencies, their amplitude, - modulation and - envelope and how these frequencies work together in a mix. Nowadays, the possibilities are unlimited in comparison to the 20th century. That's a fact. A single source, here and there, cannot change that evolution in mixing, no matter the quality of the (old) source(-s) IMO.