From my personal experience, i cannot confirm that.tehlord wrote:The best thing about software is that it allows people with no skill or patience to get the job done without any of the fun bits of creativity getting in the way.
Hardware VA's vs latest and greatest software VA's
-
- KVRAF
- 35448 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
-
- KVRAF
- 5179 posts since 16 Nov, 2014
And it gives the "hardware is the only way" guys new things to bitch about...tehlord wrote:The best thing about software is that it allows people with no skill or patience to get the job done without any of the fun bits of creativity getting in the way.
Hardware knobs are still the most fun to use but software is so much more flexible (you could say you can even expand your creativity there).
I find the best way to combine flexible software with great hardware controllers.
If you have not enough polyphony in a software synth... just layer some instances.
At least i would say that no "consumer" listener will ever hear the difference in a well made mix today..... but most of those listen to crappy smartphone included headphones some compressed data.
-
- KVRAF
- 4751 posts since 22 Nov, 2012
I use both but the difference IMO is two fold. You still get the dynamics out of hardware that is very difficult to achieve in software. All the pieces of hardware used will add color and character that is sometimes described "magic". Second thing is the interface obviously. The keyboards for hardware tend to be much superior. Having assigned knobs is hell'a faster. I can just sit down and start turing knobs as apposed to having to pre assign everything and flip through menus (I HATE MENUS!).
-
- KVRAF
- 16402 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
Any synth with one knob per function, such as the Nord and almost the Virus, should be pretty equivalent to software in this regard. Personally, I do quite well with matrix interfaces like the Blofeld and Pulse 2 but I can see how it might be more challenging than software.SLiC wrote:I have one other point, and again it is a generalisation, but when I buy hardware I seem to spend more time learning to use it properly it than I do with software.
The ones where I completely agree with you are the oversimplified hardware like the microKORG. Simple to learn, yes, but you're almost forced to use presets because of how little can be done with knobs.
-
- KVRAF
- 23103 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
-
- KVRAF
- 8184 posts since 22 Sep, 2008 from Windsor. UK
Dasheesh wrote:You still get the dynamics out of hardware that is very difficult to achieve in software.
I agree. I don't get how people can't hear it.
Soundcloud | Facebook |
-
- KVRAF
- 11202 posts since 2 Dec, 2004 from North Wales
Also, are people playing software instruments live? (Not rhetorical, I realy don't know). I can play/write my hardware and I guess anyone with the same hardware could take that song/sound live. The stuff I do ITB would be a lot more difficult to reproduce live....
X32 Desk, i9 PC, S49MK2, Studio One, BWS, Live 12. PUSH 3 SA, Osmose, Summit, Pro 3, Prophet8, Syntakt, Digitone, Drumlogue, OP1-F, Eurorack, TD27 Drums, Nord Drum3P, Guitars, Basses, Amps and of course lots of pedals!
-
- KVRAF
- 23103 posts since 7 Jan, 2009 from Croatia
Not everyone has the same set of ears, or the same needs, or even care about the differences, especially when they become extremely minute like they did. Also for some pros of software far outweigh the cons. And so on...tehlord wrote:I agree. I don't get how people can't hear it.Dasheesh wrote:You still get the dynamics out of hardware that is very difficult to achieve in software.
-
- KVRAF
- 8802 posts since 7 Oct, 2005
What do you mean by the dynamics?tehlord wrote:Dasheesh wrote:You still get the dynamics out of hardware that is very difficult to achieve in software.
I agree. I don't get how people can't hear it.
If you play keys with a good velocity sensitivity, you can have the same dynamics like the hardware.
But I agree that having playing skills is very helpful not only in giving that human feel but helpful in composing and sound design as well.
Of course, the software (or hardware) can't beat the dynamics of the acoustic instruments which is very complex because not only the velocity is changing but the tone itself (guitar, piano ...etc).
-
- KVRAF
- 1568 posts since 1 Aug, 2006 from Italy
If you spend your days working in front of a screen, then hardware is very welcome to give some rest to the eyes.
In my opinion it all comes down to the sound engine and which format the developer decided to sell it. If you want *that* synth engine, then you're forced to buy *that* synth, in whatever format (hardware or software) it exists. If you are ok with using a similar tool, then you can look for alternatives in your favourite format.
Technical differences are something interesting to know about, but then it all comes down to the sound you like most (despite the features).
Interfaces in hardware are great when they are well thought, otherwise they can be a pain. With some synths the editor is almost a requirement... With software, the only real limitation is screen space (you don't have to pay money for each additional knob you put on the gui), but the interface can be still unconfortable if it's not well designed (and you get the same kind of limitations as hardware when you start mapping things to a midi controller).
So, the winner is.. real analog!
Every solution has some advantages and some limitations, so it all comes down to the sound you like most and the workflow you want, there's no absolute winner.
In my opinion it all comes down to the sound engine and which format the developer decided to sell it. If you want *that* synth engine, then you're forced to buy *that* synth, in whatever format (hardware or software) it exists. If you are ok with using a similar tool, then you can look for alternatives in your favourite format.
Technical differences are something interesting to know about, but then it all comes down to the sound you like most (despite the features).
Interfaces in hardware are great when they are well thought, otherwise they can be a pain. With some synths the editor is almost a requirement... With software, the only real limitation is screen space (you don't have to pay money for each additional knob you put on the gui), but the interface can be still unconfortable if it's not well designed (and you get the same kind of limitations as hardware when you start mapping things to a midi controller).
So, the winner is.. real analog!
Every solution has some advantages and some limitations, so it all comes down to the sound you like most and the workflow you want, there's no absolute winner.-
- KVRAF
- 35448 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Just got this video offered again on Youtube, after i haven't watched it for a while:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw6tYDahEkU
Seriously, there's something musical, fat, rich, and beefy about this thing, and some hardware VA's, that is really, really only captured in very few soft synths. It's not even so much that i do think that technologies isn't far enough, it surely is miles ahead of the times when the Roland JP-8k was made, it's rather that many soft synths developers seem to have a weird taste, or don't really understand the virtues which made the JP-8k, or a Virus so popular. There aren't more than a handful of soft synth out of the 40, or 50 i tried, which really make me think "Wow, that's real hardware sound". For most, i'd say they're stick lacking in some, often a lot of regards. It's just not as "perfect", or full of character like these machines. Either the filter is dull and boring, envelopes suck, the bottom end is sort of hollow, or sounds strangely synthetic, or the unison sound isn't pleasing, sounds too clean, too clinical, or whatever. Synths which really sound good have a huge sweet spot, and are really hard to make sound bad. There are really lots of examples for that in hardware in my eyes, and very few in software. It's not that software, or software developers weren't capable of doing what hardware does. It's simply that only very few really manage to.
I know i often praise Spire, and probably tick off many people with that by now, but, i just can say that it is one of the few synths which give me that hardware vibe, and, that the dev's obviously were exactly trying to achieve that with their approach. I really would hope more dev's would encourage that approach, and analyze popular hardware, and try to figure out what it is the people loved, and still love about them, and tries to carry that over into software. I don't think it should sound identical, but, it should be a good orientation point.
Some more "shit"
:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Tgj_vrgY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFA_bY5_zkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuHaguhynOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hw6tYDahEkU
Seriously, there's something musical, fat, rich, and beefy about this thing, and some hardware VA's, that is really, really only captured in very few soft synths. It's not even so much that i do think that technologies isn't far enough, it surely is miles ahead of the times when the Roland JP-8k was made, it's rather that many soft synths developers seem to have a weird taste, or don't really understand the virtues which made the JP-8k, or a Virus so popular. There aren't more than a handful of soft synth out of the 40, or 50 i tried, which really make me think "Wow, that's real hardware sound". For most, i'd say they're stick lacking in some, often a lot of regards. It's just not as "perfect", or full of character like these machines. Either the filter is dull and boring, envelopes suck, the bottom end is sort of hollow, or sounds strangely synthetic, or the unison sound isn't pleasing, sounds too clean, too clinical, or whatever. Synths which really sound good have a huge sweet spot, and are really hard to make sound bad. There are really lots of examples for that in hardware in my eyes, and very few in software. It's not that software, or software developers weren't capable of doing what hardware does. It's simply that only very few really manage to.
I know i often praise Spire, and probably tick off many people with that by now, but, i just can say that it is one of the few synths which give me that hardware vibe, and, that the dev's obviously were exactly trying to achieve that with their approach. I really would hope more dev's would encourage that approach, and analyze popular hardware, and try to figure out what it is the people loved, and still love about them, and tries to carry that over into software. I don't think it should sound identical, but, it should be a good orientation point.
Some more "shit"
:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4Tgj_vrgY0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFA_bY5_zkI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuHaguhynOM
-
- KVRAF
- 16402 posts since 22 Nov, 2000 from Southern California
-
- KVRAF
- 35448 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
Yep, Diva is definitely a synth i would say is up there with hardware. I rather took the JP-8k as an example in this case though, to show that, already in 1998, they really managed to create a fat, musical, and characterful sounding VA, and that without zero delay feedback filters, and all that fancy technology we have these days, and, without slaughtering your CPU in pieces. It's hard to compare, but the hardware in these things is kind of a joke compared with the processing power we have in our home PC's nowadays, or even back in the days. Ok, as i wrote, hard to compare, because a computer has to do a whole lot more than the OS on a hardware synth. I think, the bottom line of what i want to say is, why do devs have such a hard time creating character, creating pleasingly sounding instruments. Every single model i posted videos from above have a lot more character, massive sweetspots, and pleasing sounds than 90-95 % of the soft synths i used. Dunno if it's a matter of taste, ear, or whatever. Taste is surely a factor, because, people on this very forum have stated that they found synths awesome, which barely got a yawn out of me. On the other hand, a whole lot of people seem to confirm some of the synth choices i did, so, i don't think i'm that far away from, how should i call it... maybe the common denominator, whether that's good or bad.
It's probably even more drastic for people who like analog synths. I like those too, but not when they're monophonic, and have a feature set, which hardly gives me enough options to get more than a few basses, farts, and squirks out of them. Behringer Deep-12 for example is very interesting, and also a good example of a well sounding polyphonic analog IMO. Andromeda sounds nice too, but somehow VA to me. What would be really awesome to have a well featured VA soft synth with a filter like in Diva, Monark, or other analog modelled synths, which are capable of recreating analog filters in nice detail. Dune 2 does, but then, i don't like it's character. IMO, it loses a lot of power and beef, and edginess compared to other synths (sorry, just my opinion). I don't feel like the latest generation of VA soft synths (Rapid and Avenger) has really brought anything new to the table, so i will most probably pass on both anyway. But surely, something like i described will surface one day.
It's probably even more drastic for people who like analog synths. I like those too, but not when they're monophonic, and have a feature set, which hardly gives me enough options to get more than a few basses, farts, and squirks out of them. Behringer Deep-12 for example is very interesting, and also a good example of a well sounding polyphonic analog IMO. Andromeda sounds nice too, but somehow VA to me. What would be really awesome to have a well featured VA soft synth with a filter like in Diva, Monark, or other analog modelled synths, which are capable of recreating analog filters in nice detail. Dune 2 does, but then, i don't like it's character. IMO, it loses a lot of power and beef, and edginess compared to other synths (sorry, just my opinion). I don't feel like the latest generation of VA soft synths (Rapid and Avenger) has really brought anything new to the table, so i will most probably pass on both anyway. But surely, something like i described will surface one day.
