Have any of you made the transition from hardware to software and been happy?

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by Raider

If it hasn't already, software will replace 99% of hardware.
It's inevitable.

In 10-15 years maybe. But the current generation of computers isn't powerful enough to truly emulate (aka on the circuit level) even a single piece of hardware correctly in real time.

[Yoozer]

You don't need to emulate on circuit level because your ears are the weakest link in the chain.

Can you hear the difference between a 96k recording of a Mini and an actual one playing the same via MIDI to CV gate - same room, same speakers, double blind?

Any software would only have to fool your ears. Control is trivial to mimic.

[shadowfac]

Originally Posted by sctt_stone

I do not have time between school and a family to work on anything related to music.

Well, if you don't have time for music now that you're a student, you will hardly have any more time for music once you finish your masters and get a job and some kids.

Ok, maybe that doesn't help too much, but what I'm saying is: instead of changing your setup, why don't you try to find some time to use it? Stop posting on online forums and watching TV and spend some quality time with your synths. Stop watching synth porn on the internet to minimize your lust, and try instead to obtain those sounds with your current kit. If you don't have much time to compose and record, then just jam with your synths, using step sequencers and such, and record the result in a single stereo track. This is a big advantage of hardware: you can just turn it on and jam, which is great when you don't have much free time.

In contrast, I find that making music ITB requires you to spend a lot of time thinking, routing tracks, trying different plugins..... you can spend two hours setting up stuff and recording absolutely nothing. So, in your place, I wouldn't sell my hardware... if anything, I'd sell it to buy other hardware more adequate for live jamming: stuff like electribes, elektrons, etc.

[Patrice Baumel]

although i own a few synths i am actually really happy working in the box. many electronic producers i value highly and who produce some of the best sounding records work itb on pretty marginal equipment. skills and a good monitoring system will get you a long way these days.

many people get hung up with the fact that a digital system still cannot completely emulate the analog sound. but keep in mind that this works the other way around in a much more extreme way - analog systems cannot create the wealth of sounds you can get out of a digital setup. i don't see it as a holy grail to make my music sound like it's made with analog gear, there is just so much more to sound. it will make it a lot harder for you to sound unique with a set of hardware thousands of others own than finding fresh and unique ways to create your sounds in a DAW.

it can be a real advantage to be able to duplicate your vst eq's, fx or synths as much as you want, rather than being restricted to just working with one instance of each piece of hardware.

the main advantage of hardware gear to me lies in the interface it provides, not the sound. manipulating sounds in real time on a set of buttons and faders has its charme...

horses for courses, find your own path, there's no one right way for everone.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

You don't need to emulate on circuit level because your ears are the weakest link in the chain.

Can you hear the difference between a 96k recording of a Mini and an actual one playing the same via MIDI to CV gate - same room, same speakers, double blind?

Any software would only have to fool your ears. Control is trivial to mimic.

How is this relevant to the issue? You still need a Mini to produce the sounds. Any emulations I've heard don't come close. Synths, EQs, compressors, whatever. And I don't really want to get into this discussion again. I've recently tested this tube simulation plugin from Wavearts, it's got circuit level emulation. It uses so much CPU I cannot run a single instance at 192khz on my system. But it sounds a lot closer to my hardware gear.

[SWAN808]

Originally Posted by living sounds

How is this relevant to the issue? You still need a Mini to produce the sounds. Any emulations I've heard don't come close. Synths, EQs, compressors, whatever. And I don't really want to get into this discussion again. I've recently tested this tube simulation plugin from Wavearts, it's got circuit level emulation. It uses so much CPU I cannot run a single instance at 192khz on my system. But it sounds a lot closer to my hardware gear.

Im wondering - what is the livingsounds verdict on Nebula? I saw you are on the beta forum but do you use it given your hardware preference?

[AJ Reynolds]

to out it simply, it wouldn't be any fun making music 100% ITB. I love Pro Tools and i spend most of my time working with that but i get much better results when my couple of bits of hardware get involved. When your using hardware it feels like your actually playing an instrument. it's got a different sound and it's nice to look away from the screen for a little while. sometimes the computer gives me a headache so i make a track with the EMX. a virtual instrument and a MIDI controller is just not the same. your still looking at the screen most of the time.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by SWAN808

Im wondering - what is the livingsounds verdict on Nebula? I saw you are on the beta forum but do you use it given your hardware preference?

Nebula is better at some of the aspects of hardware than other plugins, but it's also not fully there either. Actually I haven't used it for quite a while, but I've got a lot of hardware and a console, so I use plugins only if it really cannot be avoided. I tend to use very clean and unobtrusive plugins and leave the coloring to the hardware, really.

[BTByrd]

Originally Posted by lord toranaga

could this have been because you were busy being a student?

That's a possibility, but it's probably not the right explanation. I'm beginning dissertation work as a PhD student right now and am very much busy being a student. I've found that no matter how busy I am, there's always time for knobs :-)

[alexp]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

Can you hear the difference between a 96k recording of a Mini and an actual one playing the same via MIDI to CV gate - same room, same speakers, double blind?
.

Yes. Its more a feel than a sound. Which is something software still cannot do, nor will ever be able to do.

But again, to each his own. Trying to change peoples opinions on this is rather silly, especially on the internet.


alexP

[axm311]

Originally Posted by Patrice Baumel

the main advantage of hardware gear to me lies in the interface it provides, not the sound. manipulating sounds in real time on a set of buttons and faders has its charme....

yeah i agree. i mostly use hardware as a means of generating cool sounds and patterns, but eventually it all ends up in the box for me anyway. imo, having a tactile interface is inspiring for starting tracks, but for finishing it not so much as having it in the box and having that much extra power at your fingertips.

the on thing i notice though is as soon as I record a midi part from hardware it seems to gel a lot easier in the mix without barely touching it compared to a softsynth part, but maybe it's my imagination

[lowkey]

i have slowly swapped over from 100% hardware to about 75% software over a period of years. I still have my K2000 and use it as a master keyboard, where it used to by my main synth and sampler source. My Studio Electronics ATC1 has been kept and gets used in 25% of songs i would say. My Yamaha Pro1 mixer was replaced with a Motu Ultralite.

Ive been using Cubase since its midi only days and have been adopting VST first as fx, then instruments. I really like the total recall and space savings and dont really miss hardware sounds [cause i kept the ATC1]. But i really like being able to slap on eq, compression and fx in software, cause that was a real pain in hardware when i had way more synths than compressors!

The main frustration is controllers and CPU power. Im much happier since i got the Novation Nocturn with Automap. I hit the limit on my cpu usually once per track and have to start bouncing down...

[crufty]

i don't sell my music/sounds (fortunately for my pocketbook).

I don't like itb at all. hate it.

I went from a track a week to a track a quarter.

the sound is sub par.

[crufty]

Originally Posted by kilon

Software is more than enough to make great music, but that does not mean that you wont regret at some point selling your hardware for various reasons. If you dont mind a bit of regret than go on and sell it.

to add on to this...

space is a good reason to sell. If you have synth debt, that is a great reason to sell. A lack of time? Well...if you don't have time otb, how will you have time itb?

There are lots of things that come into play and we random online folk can't, and shouldn't, know all the factors. Some wives, they aren't real fond of the competition, so that is a great reason to sell, if only to keep the peace.

After all they are only things. Perhaps wonderful things, but things nevertheless.

I would not sell them for cash though personally. That is a path to regret for me. The cash will be gone and then you'll have neither synth nor cash (though it does depend on what the cash is for and what you sell).

[Phaidon]

Originally Posted by Raider

If it hasn't already, software will replace 99% of hardware.
It's inevitable.

I think you forgot the "imho" at the end of your statement!

[Raider]

Originally Posted by Phaidon

I think you forgot the "imho" at the end of your statement!

Perhaps, but we're forgetting "Moore's Law" on processor development.
To put the technology curve into perspective, you can buy a 2TB hard drive for $150 now. The entire Library of Congress is 15TB!

There's no cost of goods with software, its a more viable business model.
The standard for fidelity of recorded music has actually decreased with mp3 as the chosen format.

The rudimentary circuitry in outboard gear can be and is emulated digitally and processed via logic. The issue now is how many different kinds of operations can say an Intel Quad CPU handle at once without choking? How many soft synths and various processor packages, not to mention the actual DAW? Many more than say 5 years ago.

The next generational family of CPU's, supporting chip sets and memory will be able to handle even more. Outboard gear will always be around to a certian degree. But then so are turn tables and vinyl records.

I'm stickn' by my earlier statement. "It's inevitable."

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by Raider

Perhaps, but we're forgetting "Moore's Law" on processor development.
To put the technology curve into perspective, you can buy a 2TB hard drive for $150 now. The entire Library of Congress is 15TB!

There's no cost of goods with software, its a more viable business model.
The standard for fidelity of recorded music has actually decreased with mp3 as the chosen format.

The rudimentary circuitry in outboard gear can be and is emulated digitally and processed via logic. The issue now is how many different kinds of operations can say an Intel Quad CPU handle at once without choking? How many soft synths and various processor packages, not to mention the actual DAW? Many more than say 5 years ago.

The next generational family of CPU's, supporting chip sets and memory will be able to handle even more. Outboard gear will always be around to a certian degree. But then so are turn tables and vinyl records.

I'm stickn' by my earlier statement. "It's inevitable."

The thing is I want to make music now, not in 10-20 years. In the long run software will do everything hardware does now soundwise, but in the long run we're also all be dead. You might even say it's inevitable. ;-)

[lain2097]

Originally Posted by Raider

..There's no cost of goods with software, its a more viable business model.
The standard for fidelity of recorded music has actually decreased with mp3 as the chosen format.

The rudimentary circuitry in outboard gear can be and is emulated digitally and processed via logic. The issue now is how many different kinds of operations can say an Intel Quad CPU handle at once without choking? How many soft synths and various processor packages, not to mention the actual DAW? Many more than say 5 years ago...

Yes there's a cost with software just like any other good. Support, packaging, development, updates (not usually required with hardware), bandwidth, storage, etc.

I agree about how the 'norm' is crap ass MP3 which really is a bad thing. Discs really are the best idea. 16-bit PCM is shall we say: good enough.

I still disagree about processor achievements. Response and especially control have still been mostly neglected. Face it, controllers are kinda lame.

Also by your logic software shall become even more updated / outclassed so you have to constantly upgrade. Oh forget about reselling the older version. Hey wanna 'vintage' copy of Windows 95?

Sorry hardware vs. software debate!

Originally Posted by living sounds

..in the long run we're also all be dead. You might even say it's inevitable. ;-)

Yep can guarantee that with 100% certainty.

[crufty]

we need min 2M hz @ 1024 bits for great analog repro

anything less is uncivilized

[zaphod]

Originally Posted by living sounds

Nebula is better at some of the aspects of hardware than other plugins, but it's also not fully there either. Actually I haven't used it for quite a while, but I've got a lot of hardware and a console, so I use plugins only if it really cannot be avoided. I tend to use very clean and unobtrusive plugins and leave the coloring to the hardware, really.

you should test new consoles released by
ALESSANDRO BOSCHI Alessandro Boschi - Composer, Musician, Audio Engineer, Producer

or tapes/tubes from cdsoundmaster.
I know, they are not free, but there is an huge improvement. You could stack a lot of different consoles, sampled very well, something you could not afford in the real world.

[wax808]

I don't understand why people feel they need to choose between the two.

My entire studio is outboard, sometimes I might use my PC to record. I do look forward to the day when I can get a nice laptop and a Maschine or Reason.

I'm used to making things talk to each other anyways. I don't see why my hardware setup and a nice software setup wouldn't be completely complimentary. As it is I move my loops into my 555 for live play with a compact setup and mangling. Same thing as ableton really.

[cfalk]

as someone who cut my teeth on analog/hardware set-ups(i'm old) and now uses a combo of both software and hardware, i say... why choose? you always want to use the right tool for the right job.. or .. the tool that YOU use best. the endless analog vs. digital saga is old. the only problem i have with software is.. why use something that "emulates" analog, why not just go to the source? on the flipside.. DAW's are awesome. like i said i used to be "that guy"...the one with a full analog/hardware set(step sequencers, over priced vintage this-and-that, you name it). my workflow is SOOOOO much better since i crawled out of the dark ages and embraced computers... hi my name is Carl..i'm a recovering Analog-aholic.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by Raider

I'm stickn' by my earlier statement. "It's inevitable."

Actually you are wrong.

And you are wrong because you make a big assumption... that hardware manufacturers will sit with the hand crossed waiting for software (aka pc software) to catch up.

The market actually shows the opposite signs, hardware manufacturers keep improving the software inside their hardware to compete with the latest pc software and of course the hardware iproves as well, with more memory and more processing power. Take a look at the latest workstations , they fight back furiously providing some of the best tools on the market in one compact solution. And of course there are the specialisation tools that have no equal in quality in the pc software (see H8000).

The weakness in your argument is that you assume that good sounds equals more processing power. Actually sound quality and the musical nature of a tool depends in very good research and development. Hardware tends to lead and pc software tends to follow. That has been the trend for decades now and it does not show any signs of change.

For me the inevitable future is that both hardware and software will loose and win at the same time, and what will this give birth to is a true hybrid that unifies the best of available technologies. They have been products that try to bridge the gap already , but still we have a long way to go.

Future is far from clear but I can promise you that it does not involve how many cores are dwelling inside your box.

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by kilon

Actually you are wrong.

And you are wrong because you make a big assumption... that hardware manufacturers will sit with the hand crossed waiting for software (aka pc software) to catch up.

The market actually shows the opposite signs, hardware manufacturers keep improving the software inside their hardware to compete with the latest pc software and of course the hardware iproves as well, with more memory and more processing power. Take a look at the latest workstations , they fight back furiously providing some of the best tools on the market in one compact solution. And of course there are the specialisation tools that have no equal in quality in the pc software (see H8000).

The weakness in your argument is that you assume that good sounds equals more processing power. Actually sound quality and the musical nature of a tool depends in very good research and development. Hardware tends to lead and pc software tends to follow. That has been the trend for decades now and it does not show any signs of change.

For me the inevitable future is that both hardware and software will loose and win at the same time, and what will this give birth to is a true hybrid that unifies the best of available technologies. They have been products that try to bridge the gap already , but still we have a long way to go.

Future is far from clear but I can promise you that it does not involve how many cores are dwelling inside your box.

But: With (nearly) unlimited CPU power one can simply simulate the circuits of all the great analog boxes. EQs, compressors, synths, whatever. This is what really matters. The remaining high end algorithms from digital outboard should be availible in the box by then. After all, Lexicon just ported their algorithms. In 10-20 years your average CPU will be able to handle a Bricasti, H8000 or whatever you throw at it.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by living sounds

But: With (nearly) unlimited CPU power one can simply simulate the circuits of all the great analog boxes. EQs, compressors, synths, whatever. This is what really matters. The remaining high end algorithms from digital outboard should be availible in the box by then. After all, Lexicon just ported their algorithms. In 10-20 years your average CPU will be able to handle a Bricasti, H8000 or whatever you throw at it.

if you have done any programming like I have you will now that there is a grave difference between CAN DO and WILL DO. In practice things are alot more difficult than they seem. Personally I made this mistake more than once, and I paid the price , and so do other programmers.

And personally I do not see eventide or anyone else sharing their code with competition...

Just do not hold your breath....

[living sounds]

Originally Posted by kilon

if you have done any programming like I have you will now that there is a grave difference between CAN DO and WILL DO. In practice things are alot more difficult than they seem. Personally I made this mistake more than once, and I paid the price , and so do other programmers.

And personally I do not see eventide or anyone else sharing their code with competition...

Just do not hold your breath....

Yes, all I'm saying is that WHEN the circuit simulations work in real time and sound just like hardware it will be over. I think it will eventually come to this, the question of WHEN remains. Not holding my breath for it over here, I'm investing in hardware all the time. ;-)

[Patrice Baumel]

Originally Posted by living sounds

But: With (nearly) unlimited CPU power one can simply simulate the circuits of all the great analog boxes. EQs, compressors, synths, whatever. This is what really matters. The remaining high end algorithms from digital outboard should be availible in the box by then. After all, Lexicon just ported their algorithms. In 10-20 years your average CPU will be able to handle a Bricasti, H8000 or whatever you throw at it.

i wholeheartedly agree. the algorithms are there, all that needs to be done is provide enough calculating power to execute them. i mean, how much processing power can sit in a machine dating back to 2006, like the h8000fw? today's top of the line desktop machines should have absolutely no problem running it as a native plugin, so i am more thinking that 3 years down the road you should have plugins with full M7 or H8000 functionality. it's probably not computing power that's holding us back but product marketing.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by living sounds

Yes, all I'm saying is that WHEN the circuit simulations work in real time and sound just like hardware it will be over. I think it will eventually come to this, the question of WHEN remains. Not holding my breath for it over here, I'm investing in hardware all the time. ;-)

I know who you are and what you believe, you probably do not remember me but we have met in KVRForum.

Concerning your point

Well maybe , or maybe some hardware will never know in our lifetime any kind of emulation because none will actually bother or dare to embrace the difficult task.

But even when a true emulation exist
by the time this happens, hardware will have moved to bigger and better things.

Still I would love a resynthesis VST emulating VSYNTH GT resynthesis and sample stretching. Alas I do not see it coming for the next decade at least.

[crufty]

cpu, bus, and fp sizes aren't there yet.

24bit/96khz is plenty for recording and fx application.

My experience with 32bit / 64bit floating point aka decimal numbers--assuming our circuit emulations are floats and not fixed integer aka whole number math--is that when you add a small amount to a large amount you get a massive error. In the grand scheme of things these errors don't really matter. But in the narrow scheme of things, these errors (I think anyway) are what cause software to sound weak in comparison to analog--that 5%.

Analog is also continuous and perfect. The performance of analog circuitry may be massively imperfect--a circuit on paper may produce different results in reality as time goes on and components degrade or interfere with each other. Throw in noise and tuning issues (one of my favorite you tube videos is a xoxbox going out of tune because of a candle placed nearby) and I'd guess there are a lot of parameters that go into circuit emulation.

Even @ 192khz I think software emulations are missing on huge swaths of data, because sound @ point Z is dependent on the cumulative results of points A - X. (Making this up), if current volt = sin ( cos (1/tan (prev voltage)), the difference between 32 bit floats and 1024 bit floats is dramatic (1024 may be overkilll), and @ 2 million samples per second (vs a paltry 192 thousand) even more accuracy.

When we hear a softsynth and go hmm that sounds weak, what we are really hearing is not poor programming (per se), but instead errors within the emulated circuit, due to an inability of the computer to contain the sound we (I) want emulated. A simple knob w/a simple knob tweak pot leverages many organic properties of our universe as we know it. The poor little computer only knows on and off--any property has to be programmed, and I don't think 64bits @ 192khz is accurate enough to do say the squelch of a tb303 or the rumbly bass of an aging sh 101.

There should be a calculated point, perhaps specific to each circuit, where the ear simply will fail to hear the result of any imperfect circuit emulation, and 1024 / 2Mhz may be overkill. If c-sound had variable math and sample rate that would be an interesting test, but Alas I fear it does not. Right now, at high resonance and overdrive, I have yet to hear a vst synth that did not sound digital. Sure it sounds good when you are itb, and when I listen to xm radio I really couldn't say which is itb and which isn't; all the same, when I wander over to any analog synth and hit a note, it is still night and day (for me).

[alexp]

Originally Posted by crufty

we need min 2M hz @ 1024 bits for great analog repro

anything less is uncivilized

Crufty for space pope.


alexP