Hardware vs software synths take infinity : topic initial focus Andromeda A6
-
- KVRAF
- 2475 posts since 6 Jul, 2013
Compare the right things - sound vs sound (this has been done to death with raw recordings auditioned blindly, most people can't tell the difference or if they can, don't reliably pick out the hardware, showing that with a properly done test, and appropriate examples, the hardware is very difficult to pick out from good software, and often performs worse than people expect.)
However, in this case, you are not comparing the sound, you are comparing the *experience*.
And there is no doubt that going over to a mates house excitedly to play on a boutique, expensive, awesome looking piece of hardware, with a custom designed dedicated control surface for all parameters is a *significantly* different experience than going back to your computer, loading up your DAW, loading up the same old plugins, and clicking around with the mouse.
This is even the case with some digital stuff - I still find the experience sitting in front of my Wavestation, programming it via it's own screen a subjectively more rewarding experience than using the software, despite the software having significant advantages in interface, polyphony, features, and fidelity. It may be counter-intuitive, but we're a strange lot...
(And other people will prefer the software, and find the hardware hard to use. I don't like using computer editors to edit hardware either, I prefer a tactile experience programming the instrument directly, unless it's basically far too tedious to bother with - in which case I don't tend to spend much time programming those anyway.)
Re: Andromeda: It's a good synth, and if it inspires you creatively, like a good instrument should, then great. It's quite difficult to be inspired by soft synths in the same way because they don't have that physicality that a beautiful instrument has.
There are other factors - eg analog hardware does things automatically that generally have to be user-programmed in to soft synths (things like instability, life, movement - subtle things, but all things that help it feel "alive").
But basically, we are emotional beings, and software, despite the amazing advantages that it has, is hard to creatively inspire us in the same way as a beautiful musical instrument.
Use each tool for the advantages it brings, and for it's usefulness to you, but sooner or later, it's like photographers all photographing charts to test the sharpness of their lenses - once it's good enough, you should just go and use the things to make art.
99.9% of people couldn't care less what synth the lead line was done on - they just will respond (or not) emotionally with the music and what you are trying to communicate. If hardware, or instrument A, B, C, or X, helps you do that, then great.
It's not about what is "better", it's about what works for you.
However, in this case, you are not comparing the sound, you are comparing the *experience*.
And there is no doubt that going over to a mates house excitedly to play on a boutique, expensive, awesome looking piece of hardware, with a custom designed dedicated control surface for all parameters is a *significantly* different experience than going back to your computer, loading up your DAW, loading up the same old plugins, and clicking around with the mouse.
This is even the case with some digital stuff - I still find the experience sitting in front of my Wavestation, programming it via it's own screen a subjectively more rewarding experience than using the software, despite the software having significant advantages in interface, polyphony, features, and fidelity. It may be counter-intuitive, but we're a strange lot...
(And other people will prefer the software, and find the hardware hard to use. I don't like using computer editors to edit hardware either, I prefer a tactile experience programming the instrument directly, unless it's basically far too tedious to bother with - in which case I don't tend to spend much time programming those anyway.)
Re: Andromeda: It's a good synth, and if it inspires you creatively, like a good instrument should, then great. It's quite difficult to be inspired by soft synths in the same way because they don't have that physicality that a beautiful instrument has.
There are other factors - eg analog hardware does things automatically that generally have to be user-programmed in to soft synths (things like instability, life, movement - subtle things, but all things that help it feel "alive").
But basically, we are emotional beings, and software, despite the amazing advantages that it has, is hard to creatively inspire us in the same way as a beautiful musical instrument.
Use each tool for the advantages it brings, and for it's usefulness to you, but sooner or later, it's like photographers all photographing charts to test the sharpness of their lenses - once it's good enough, you should just go and use the things to make art.
99.9% of people couldn't care less what synth the lead line was done on - they just will respond (or not) emotionally with the music and what you are trying to communicate. If hardware, or instrument A, B, C, or X, helps you do that, then great.
It's not about what is "better", it's about what works for you.
