Analogue vs. Software - blindtest

[chk071]

I didn't buy my PC solely for music making. So why would i add it to the expenses i have when making music? It's just a figure people who try to make a point against the use of software are likely to cite. Using software is in no way comparable cost wise with using hardware. Using hardware exclusively is in any way much, MUCH more expensive. Use Reason and you have a whole studio worth thousands of € for just 369 €. Same with *insert random VST daw plus VST's here*. Frankly, i don't even know why that is being discussed, because it's so obvious that it shouts at you.

[Daru925]

I am happy that i could spot the differences beetween hardware and software.
In a mix it would probably be much much harder and meaningless.
As for the subjective quality of sound? As far as i can remember,

-Biggots: tritone is evil, burn them. Some guy throws corn into the fire by mistake, popcorn is born.
-Biggots: recorded music is not legit. Popcorn is now available with salt or sugar.
-Biggots: electric instruments are not legit. Popcorn is good and cheap.
-Biggots: synths are not legit because they are not instruments like electric guitar or trombone. Popcorn is bad and cheap.
-Biggots: computers in music are not legit. Popcorn is a little better but expensive.
-Biggots: my daw is better than yours. popcorn goes fully digital as an emote.
-I cant wait to see whats going to happen in the future, but there will be biggots and popcorn in it, and not actual music. Illuminaties.

Meanwhile random 8 years old creates hits on a pirated fl studio / old broken piano.
As long as the end result is pleasing to ME and the popcorn is tasty, i don't care how art is created.

[jopy]

Part of the point I was trying to make, which seems lost in responses, would be as follows:

1) The price of anything needs to take depreciation into account. For physical and or analog instruments, resale price in the short run is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the original price, and there can be an increase in the value of physical or analog instruments over the longer term. For software, resale prices for a license in the short run can be good, but drop to nearly zero after just a couple of years, especially if the software becomes obsolete. In short, the depreciation in value for physical instruments is much lower, and may even reverse to become appreciation in value.

2) The price of software instruments usually needs to take the cost not only of the software itself into account, but also the price of a computer upgrade for some users. For me, music is far and away the most resource intensive task I use on my computer, and if I only used analog instruments I could just use freeware like Audacity to multitrack with a low-power computer to multitrack.

3) For some people (again, like me), the use of software instruments is associated with a tendency to pile on more and more. I suppose some people stop with just one VSTi and rock out from there. Good for them, but when I look at my own bank account, buying a little hardware saved me some serious money. I'm pretty sure from being a long-termer on KVR that I'm not the only person who has fallen into this pattern. I'm a psychologist by training, so the behavioral effects of a system are something I see as the reality of that system; I can't pretend that I behave the same way as a consumer in the analog versus software world.

4) The cost of anything should take the time value into account. The time from sitting down with an analog device to making music for me is roughly 10 seconds. Once I get fiddling with the computer I can be half an hour deep into menu diving and fiddling with settings on a complex chain of all the excess choices I have in the box before I even start to record. Some people might enjoy that 1/2 hour and not call it a "cost," so as with every single point that I've made, it's idiosyncratic and surely doesn't apply to everyone.

The sum total of what I'm saying is that the price advantage of working purely in the box against using analog may be dramatically overstated. For any of these, your mileage may vary. It's just always framed as a total slam dunk that software is cheaper for all people, and I've recently realized that there's something more complicated at work. For me, analog is not just more immediate and more fun (for me), it's also actually a surprisingly good value.

For the record, quality digital hardware like a Nord Lead would pretty much correspond to everything I said about analog, but that's about the same price anyway. Sounds really good too. None of my points are meant to be anti-software as a blanket statement, for the record. I use software a lot, and have for about 10 years. There are just a lot of disadvantages to stack alongside the advantages.

[chk071]

Part of the point I was trying to make, which seems lost in responses, would be as follows:

1) The price of anything needs to take depreciation into account. For physical and or analog instruments, resale price in the short run is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the original price, and there can be an increase in the value of physical or analog instruments over the longer term. For software, resale prices for a license in the short run can be good, but drop to nearly zero after just a couple of years, especially if the software becomes obsolete. In short, the depreciation in value for physical instruments is much lower, and may even reverse to become appreciation in value.

2) The price of software instruments usually needs to take the cost not only of the software itself into account, but also the price of a computer upgrade for some users. For me, music is far and away the most resource intensive task I use on my computer, and if I only used analog instruments I could just use freeware like Audacity to multitrack with a low-power computer to multitrack.

3) For some people (again, like me), the use of software instruments is associated with a tendency to pile on more and more. I suppose some people stop with just one VSTi and rock out from there. Good for them, but when I look at my own bank account, buying a little hardware saved me some serious money. I'm pretty sure from being a long-termer on KVR that I'm not the only person who has fallen into this pattern. I'm a psychologist by training, so the behavioral effects of a system are something I see as the reality of that system; I can't pretend that I behave the same way as a consumer in the analog versus software world.

4) The cost of anything should take the time value into account. The time from sitting down with an analog device to making music for me is roughly 10 seconds. Once I get fiddling with the computer I can be half an hour deep into menu diving and fiddling with settings on a complex chain of all the excess choices I have in the box before I even start to record. Some people might enjoy that 1/2 hour and not call it a "cost," so as with every single point that I've made, it's idiosyncratic and surely doesn't apply to everyone.

The sum total of what I'm saying is that the price advantage of working purely in the box against using analog may be dramatically overstated. For any of these, your mileage may vary. It's just always framed as a total slam dunk that software is cheaper for all people, and I've recently realized that there's something more complicated at work. For me, analog is not just more immediate and more fun (for me), it's also actually a surprisingly good value.

For the record, quality digital hardware like a Nord Lead would pretty much correspond to everything I said about analog, but that's about the same price anyway. Sounds really good too. None of my points are meant to be anti-software as a blanket statement, for the record. I use software a lot, and have for about 10 years. There are just a lot of disadvantages to stack alongside the advantages.

No offense, but that's a lot of assumptions there. What if i don't resell my instruments? What if i don't hoard loads of software instruments? What if i don't upgrade my computer? What if i don't fiddle around with software much, but just make music with it? I mean, it's cool that you have found the way you want to do things, but none of what you just stated has to be also valid for others. And frankly, i wouldn't even go so far to weigh the pros and cons for other people. Why bother if someone wants to use hardware instead of software, or the opposite?

On topic, i only can say that the differences are really minor, and you probably wouldn't even notice them in a mix/track context. Must say that the hardware sounds a bit more organic though, the ACE examples seem more static. Could well be the patches though.

[wagtunes]

@Jopy

Of course. There is no utopia. If only.

[jopy]

No offense, but that's a lot of assumptions there. What if i don't resell my instruments? What if i don't hoard loads of software instruments? What if i don't upgrade my computer? What if i don't fiddle around with software much, but just make music with it? I mean, it's cool that you have found the way you want to do things, but none of what you just stated has to be also valid for others. And frankly, i wouldn't even go so far to weigh the pros and cons for other people. Why bother if someone wants to use hardware instead of software, or the opposite?

I agree; that's why I kept saying over and over again that this is just my situation. I frequently see people proclaiming that software is more economically smart, and I think that makes all the opposite assumptions from the ones I made. Either way there are assumptions. We all have our own calculations to make, and these are some of the factors that I think don't get discussed regularly. I'm pretty sure that there are at least a few other people who have some of the same concerns that I only recently realized about myself.

I'm also (just) over 40, so I'm thinking of this all from a longish time frame, so things like obsolescence and depreciation are probably more salient for me.

[jopy]

@Jopy

Of course. There is no utopia. If only.

There you go. I think you summarized my whole convoluted train of thoughts in six words.

[foosnark]

For physical and or analog instruments, resale price in the short run is about 2/3 to 3/4 of the original price, and there can be an increase in the value of physical or analog instruments over the longer term.

You do have a point here, but it depends a lot on the instrument. The Korg DS-8 was $1440 when it came out in 1986 (about $3100 today). The "Buy It Now" price for one of them today on eBay is $225 including shipping. A fully refurbished DX7 is $300, when its original price was something like $4500 in today's dollars.

The Korg Wavedrum I bought a few years ago is selling new for about $200 less than I paid, and my used one certainly isn't going to fetch as much with its scratches and scrapes.

As for analog: the Micromoog I had when I was a kid -- one of Moog's weakest and cheapest synths, from 1975 -- I think my dad bought for me for $150 or so in 1987, at the lowest of analog synth popularity. Restored ones are now selling for $1100 or more, which seems like a lot and like an opportunity for someone to profit or make their investment back -- however, that's still less than what the original price would have been.

I don't expect today's Volcas, or even a Minilogue or Matrixbrute to be worth more than their original price in 10-15 years, though of course they won't be worth $0 like a copy of Monark probably will be. But I buy this stuff to use it and enjoy it, not to resell it. I consider the money gone when I have the gear, whether it's hardware or software, and anything I resell later is kind of a mark of failure because I shouldn't have bought what I didn't intend to keep.

2) The price of software instruments usually needs to take the cost not only of the software itself into account, but also the price of a computer upgrade for some users.

Buying a better performing computer just to run one softsynth is painful. Buying it to do your recording, mixing, sequencing, mastering, editing, effects and synths? Very economical.

Computers continue to get more cost-effective and also require fewer upgrades than they used to. I've been a gamer since the early-mid 90s and used to feel the upgrade itch every 6 months or so. My current computer is 5 years old and still runs everything I throw at it just fine. My best guess is, it'll be another 3-5 years before I want to replace it.

3) For some people (again, like me), the use of software instruments is associated with a tendency to pile on more and more.

Granted. But for a lot of people that happens with hardware too though; I had a friend who went deep into debt in the 90s buying racks of hardware synths, samplers etc. that didn't have the power that free software and a $500 computer has today.

4) The cost of anything should take the time value into account. The time from sitting down with an analog device to making music for me is roughly 10 seconds. Once I get fiddling with the computer I can be half an hour deep into menu diving and fiddling with settings on a complex chain of all the excess choices I have in the box before I even start to record. Some people might enjoy that 1/2 hour and not call it a "cost," so as with every single point that I've made, it's idiosyncratic and surely doesn't apply to everyone.

It takes me about 10 seconds to fire up Maschine and load a synth if I just want to start playing it too. I can respect wanting to limit your choices -- some people are more than happy with their voice and a ukelele after all, and sometimes I just pick up a frame drum or mini cajon and start drumming. But my setup gives me the flexibility to either just pick an instrument (real or virtual) and quickly start playing, or to get detailed and nerdy with it. I love to experiment, and most of my recordings start with playing in both the senses of the word.

Of course part of that speed and familiarity comes with many hours of digging and experimenting, just as the ability to play an instrument comes with many hours of pracitce. As you guessed, I didn't count that time as a "cost"

[foosnark]

Oh, and that Micromoog I had? It was in bad shape, but I gave it to my brother who wanted to start a band, and knew a guy who was going to fix it for him. Except that guy pretty much disappeared with it.

[ghettosynth]

No offense, but that's a lot of assumptions there. What if i don't resell my instruments? What if i don't hoard loads of software instruments? What if i don't upgrade my computer? What if i don't fiddle around with software much, but just make music with it? I mean, it's cool that you have found the way you want to do things, but none of what you just stated has to be also valid for others. And frankly, i wouldn't even go so far to weigh the pros and cons for other people. Why bother if someone wants to use hardware instead of software, or the opposite?

On topic, i only can say that the differences are really minor, and you probably wouldn't even notice them in a mix/track context. Must say that the hardware sounds a bit more organic though, the ACE examples seem more static. Could well be the patches though.

Additionally, if one is going to start talking about time and efficiency comparisons, then one has to include the value of integration that comes with software.

[IncarnateX]

For some people (again, like me), the use of software instruments is associated with a tendency to pile on more and more. (....) I'm pretty sure from being a long-termer on KVR that I'm not the only person who has fallen into this pattern.

I am pretty sure of that too. Software and GAS is a dangerous combi. Every new piece of software may seem cheap in comparison with hardware but as they pile up, it may be much more expensive than sticking to some well chosen hardware synths. However, it depends on the person of course. People with hardware GAS can be in just as big troubles if they actually have room for their synths and money to buy them. But it is certainly easy to fall into the software GAS trap IME.

For this reason and the fact that I got sick of all the choices, I stick to either iPad or my very thouroughly chosen hardware studio. GAS on iPad is not that bad because synths are very cheap and good stuff is not published that often. Hardware studio has to be small for the sake of space and further I do not like too complicated a set up. Three small synths, a MC909, and a mixer with onboard effects is my limit.

[chk071]

I frequently see people proclaiming that software is more economically smart, and I think that makes all the opposite assumptions from the ones I made. Either way there are assumptions. We all have our own calculations to make, and these are some of the factors that I think don't get discussed regularly.

I must say though that software is more economically smart, and that's why i chose it. At the moment i have about 10-12 software synthesizers in my folder, 2 arpeggiators, and a whole bunch of effects, 20 or so, not to add the effects which come with my DAW. Calculate that against hardware, and you'll be happy to get away with 10 times the cost, probably a lot more though. There's not really much to argue or assume about that, it is like it is. Fair enough, because a big amount of the costs for hardware IS the actual hardware. Not to talk about the value ghettosynth mentioned, to be able to use as many instances as the sky/CPU allows me to use, and not having to render, and change my whole workflow (addmitedly the workflow thing is subjective).

The only advantage hardware would offer ME is hands on control, and maybe when talking about analog synths a little advantage in sound, though i probably would opt for a richly featured VA synth, which would erase that advantage again. But then, that would be also pretty esoteric, when i can control my soft synths with my controller keyboard with knobs and faders.

[jopy]

At the moment i have about 10-12 software synthesizers in my folder, 2 arpeggiators, and a whole bunch of effects, 20 or so, not to add the effects which come with my DAW. Calculate that against hardware, and you'll be happy to get away with 10 times the cost, probably a lot more though.

I guess this is part of where I see the difference (for me). I have 2 synthesizers (one is the Prophet 08 that has an onboard sequencer and arpeggiator) and one Strymon delay pedal. That seems to suffice for me out of the box, whereas in the box I did have the 10 software synthesizers and 20 chained effects situation. To perfectly replicate the software with hardware would indeed by super expensive, but I (again, just me, YMMV) don't feel like I need so many synths and a lot of effects because the two I have sound so good to me and the rewards are so immediate I don't feel any need to go further.

I suppose one could always bring up the Eurorack analog hardware bloat as an example of OTB needs perpetually multiplying, which is exactly why I have really resisted that option. I'd never dig myself out of that debt hole for sure.

[stillshaded]

Well, even though I usually prefer the sound of analog without a doubt. I use software 95% of the time, and I own several analog synths.

It's all personal preference. But as far as the price argument, that's a little out there if you ask me.

I bought fl studio years ago for $150 on sale, and I also use a 3rd gen i7 laptop I got for $400 bucks on Craigslist. The amount of very high quality sounds I can make with just this setup is staggering. For one thing Harmor is one of the best sounding digital synths in my mind, mainly because it is not trying to be analog.

Now, it is true that I will never be able to get my money back on this laptop of software. However, they will not lose their ability to make sounds any time soon. By the time that this laptop wears out (knock on wood), I will be able to get a new one for a few hundred dollars that is much more powerful.

Also, I love my analog synths, but out of the 7 that I own, only two are not in need of repair. I got pretty amazing deals on all of them, ($400 ms20, $400 sh-09, $200 ax60, $200 mks-50 etc) but it's really bothersome that they each have issues, and it's overwhelming to think about getting them fixed.

But I can't deny they have their charm that software can't reproduce. Maybe my ear is more in tune with that than some people because I have worked with both extensively. But there are obviously tons of sounds that analog will never be able to create. So all in all, I like to have both.

As far as how things "sit in a mix," I think this is something that you will understand easily if you ever try to mix digital and analog synths. They actually fit together perfectly. A moog takes up so much space! It's not just that it "has a lot of bass", there some kind of wily wooly quality that makes it stick out more. That's not always what you want. NI Massive on the hand (still love this synth) sticks out in a totally different way. So they each fit into a mix differently. It's hard to explain, but if you ever tried to mix a minimoog and massive, you would immediately be aware of this phenomenon.

[chk071]

At the moment i have about 10-12 software synthesizers in my folder, 2 arpeggiators, and a whole bunch of effects, 20 or so, not to add the effects which come with my DAW. Calculate that against hardware, and you'll be happy to get away with 10 times the cost, probably a lot more though.

I guess this is part of where I see the difference (for me). I have 2 synthesizers (one is the Prophet 08 that has an onboard sequencer and arpeggiator) and one Strymon delay pedal. That seems to suffice for me out of the box, whereas in the box I did have the 10 software synthesizers and 20 chained effects situation. To perfectly replicate the software with hardware would indeed by super expensive, but I (again, just me, YMMV) don't feel like I need so many synths and a lot of effects because the two I have sound so good to me and the rewards are so immediate I don't feel any need to go further.

Fair enough. From the 10-12 synths i have in my VST folder, i actively use about 3 or 4 i guess. So, it's rather a matter of "i'm able to afford a couple of synths", and the low entry barrier which comes with using software which makes you have more synthesizers installed. Still, if i wanted to use hardware synths, i'd have to spend a, for me, fortune to even be able to start.