Hardware synths not for me?

[ohmicide]

Lately I've been working solely with software due to temporary space restrictions and to be honest, I'm starting to really wonder if it's worth owning the hardware I have. It's not even like I own a plethora of gear either, my "collection" consists of a Little Phatty, a FRXS, a Sherman Filterbank v2 and some distortion pedals. I was actually considering getting a Virus TI in the near future on top of that.

The problem I find is that my productions are too all over the place to be writing with the synths I own. I usually sit there with my laptop and pull out ACE or Strobe for most of my VA synthesis. The problem is that they usually end up distorted with Ohmicide, too complex and/or with too much polyphony to recreate with my hardware synths. I keep spending a lot of time trying to replace the parts with my hardware and sometimes I really wonder if it was even worth the extra effort for a difference that no one can really appreciate other than me knowing that I sat there moving knobs around and recording for hours.

The "problem" with Ohmicide is that I can't stop using it. The whole multiband distortion thing has become a crucial part of my productions and to be honest I don't think it's worth spending time recording analog synths trying to match the software sounds I already made to be distorted with digital distortion specially since it just makes my synths so damn noisy after being distorted. I also find myself doing things like using ACE's built-in chorus and sometimes distorting with ohmicide after so why bother recording synths if I'm just gonna use a ton of digital processing on top of them?

On top of that, I keep reading about successful artists I admire using either software only or mostly software. For example: Feed Me/Spor, Skrillex, Zedd, Lazy Rich, Noisia, Pendulum, Wolfgang Gartner, etc.

My hardware does have it's good points, but I don't think they really fit the type of music I'm trying to make. They are great for making analog percussion and effects, specially the FRXS and SFB2, but are they really worth all the money for just that? Am I crazy, spoiled, lazy, stupid, etc or is there really no real point for me to own all this hardware? Maybe I just need to spend more time and money trying to make something using mostly hardware? Maybe I should sell both my synths, keep the sherman filterbank, and invest in more software, analog effects and/or perhaps a modular synth? I seriously don't know..

[AJ Reynolds]

i don't see the point in making a track with softsynths then recreating it with hardware. massive waste of time and energy (unless you really get something out of that workflow). use the hardware to inspire you, not the software!

[KryoShift]

If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Tracking hardware instruments can be a major PITA, if that workflow doesn't work for you, it just doesn't. Forcing it will only make you bitter.

[Nev]

Focus on softsynths for sound design, and hardware for mixing and mastering? Just a thought.

Then again imagine how expensive would be to own a few hardware api2500's as oppose to just the plugin, .

Or re-sample your hardware synths into your computer and play with it from there, it's what most people I know do. I can't imagine trying to do Nu-disco or Electro house with just hardware alone all going at once. Those genres strive of re-sampling.

[jbuonacc]

i'd say ditch it, but here's another angle...

the only hardware i own is the Nord G2, Elektron MD-UWmkII (with +Drive), and Elektron OctaTrack. each of these does things or works in ways that i've been unable to find an equal to in software (for the most part, and for me it's obviously a pretty important part - i wouldn't mind doing everything ITB). actually, i think the MD is on its way out because my main reason for keeping it around was the sampling end of it. this can pretty much be covered by the OT now. i've always found the G2 to be a far better drum synth anyway, and there's also plenty of options available in software (Reaktor, and many others).

for most any 'normal' styles of music that i dick around with (techno, electro, whatever), i'm completely happy using softsynths and doing everything ITB. however, i some some esoteric tastes and enjoy making some pretty nutty sounds a lot of the time. for this i enjoy having some specialty pieces around to offer a different way of doing things...

the G2 is pretty much my dream modular. i can make the most f'cked up sounds with it in no time, and with such ease (not to mention the huge library of amazing patches from other users). the stuff that comes out of it makes me wonder why i lust after a Buchla or any other "real" modular. i don't really use it for general synth duties, because i find that most of the 'normal' stuff it can do is easily done with software. it's also possibly the best MIDI controller ever created (with a few shortcomings). for this reason alone i can't part with it.

the OctaTrack i bought for taking audio recorded ITB and on the G2 and playing it back live. (for some reason which i can't explain, i still feel uncomfortable bring a laptop "on stage".) it also just happens to have the ability to completely twist the hell out of anything that i put into it, and does it with ease. i can take stems from tracks recorded elsewhere and turn them into something completely different and new. i can do this in Reaktor or with a number of different plugs, but on the OT i come up with things i wouldn't have thought of otherwise. it's also very portable for live use.

...

anyway, i'm not sure if this applies to what you're into or what you're looking for your gear to do. i think that (for the most part) the gear you have and how it functions can be replicated somewhat in software. i'd say sell it and buy a modular, but i'm not sure if you'd do anything with it that couldn't be pulled of with something like the KarmaFX Modular (which i'm demo'ing and am very impressed with). again, i'm not sure exactly what you need or want from your gear.

[Dirty Halo]

If it isn't right for you, then it isn't right for you.

It seems like so much angst and anger in this forum comes from this friction of what we "should" like, "should" do... and we do it to ourselves as much as any.

Ok, guru mode off

-andrews

[jbuonacc]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

... It seems like so much angst and anger in this forum comes from this friction of what we "should" like, "should" do... and we do it to ourselves as much as any.

dead on.

[Eric J]

I don't think its crazy at all, and in fact, a large number of modern successful producers are working exclusively with software, start to finish (whether or not some people want to believe it).

In my 20 years of making electronic music I've owned a Access Virus B, Nord Lead 3, JD-800, Moog LP, Novation Nova, JP-8000 & a Virus TI plu various PCM modules and outboard FX. Sold ALL of them except the Virus TI. The only reason I kept the TI was because I could use it like a piece of software (and it sounds great).

For the kind of music I make (modern prog house, progno & techno), I dont need really need hardware synthesizers & effects. I just don't. All the convenience of software far outweighs any perceived sonic superiority of hardware.

I have a mastering grade set of converters and monitors and I still could hear very little difference between my LP and something like, say, Rob Papens Predator.

Sure, maybe the LP had some slight differences when played in isolation, but certainly nothing thats going to make any real difference in the context of a finished track. What DOES make a difference is things like sound design, arrangement, composition & mixing. All things that are important regardless of where I am sourcing my sounds.

So do what you want to accomplish your goals and dont pay any attention to what someone else thinks you are "supposed" to do.

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by Eric J

I don't think its crazy at all, and in fact, a large number of modern successful producers are working exclusively with software, start to finish (whether or not some people want to believe it).

In my 20 years of making electronic music I've owned a Access Virus B, Nord Lead 3, JD-800, Moog LP, Novation Nova, JP-8000 & a Virus TI plu various PCM modules and outboard FX. Sold ALL of them except the Virus TI. The only reason I kept the TI was because I could use it like a piece of software (and it sounds great).

For the kind of music I make (modern prog house, progno & techno), I dont need really need hardware synthesizers & effects. I just don't. All the convenience of software far outweighs any perceived sonic superiority of hardware.

I have a mastering grade set of converters and monitors and I still could hear very little difference between my LP and something like, say, Rob Papens Predator.

Sure, maybe the LP had some slight differences when played in isolation, but certainly nothing thats going to make any real difference in the context of a finished track.

So do what you want to accomplish your goals and dont pay any attention to what someone else thinks you are "supposed" to do.

... Unless it's what I say.


()


-andrews

[Eric J]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

... Unless it's what I say.


()


-andrews

Well...yeah. I mean clearly.

[bloodsample]

Originally Posted by Dirty Halo

If it isn't right for you, then it isn't right for you.

This.

The main reason I own hardware is because I like to jam and tweak without having to use a computer. I'm a software developer so I spend my whole day sitting in front of a computer. Music is my escape from that, so naturally when I get home I want to stay away from my (computer) monitors. Of course when it's time to record I have no choice...

If music was my job and I was most productive with software I'd ditch my hardware. No point in slowing yourself down if it doesn't add anything to your productions.

[tonemaker]

I gave up hardware synths and drum machines a number of years ago. At first it was rough because I only had freeware VSTi's. But after acquiring a few good commercial VSTi's now it's good. I think a lot of people are going to be making the same transition as software/MIDI control improves over the years.

[The Architecture]

To be honest there are some genres where I would HATE to use hardware on, especially mammoth projects. Im using hardware right now because for what I want to do with it at the moment it is easier for me than it would be to sit in front of a computer and trying to get the same kind of groove. I make very different music when I use a computer vs the hardware in my studio.

If your trying to make modern music...dont use hardware. Youll be fighting an uphill battle.

[L-feld]

I once got some really good advice. I think it came from Yoozer.

Pack it up in a box, put it in the closet. If you don't miss it three months from now, sell it.

[manman]

Hardware synths are suited for certain genre of music. Depends on what music you produce choose an appropriate synth. You wont buy Korg Triton for lets say trance music or Virus for techno.

[The Architecture]

Originally Posted by manman

Hardware synths are suited for certain genre of music. Depends on what music you produce choose an appropriate synth. You wont buy Korg Triton for lets say trance music or Virus for techno.

:v :v Actually I think those have been used alot for both of those genres. So much of the tritions edm sounds were trance oriented.

[sleestack]

modern music would mean what exactly? What is the criteria for a modern song?

[The MPCist]

Originally Posted by Eric J

....In my 20 years of making electronic music I've owned a Access Virus B, Nord Lead 3, JD-800, Moog LP, Novation Nova, JP-8000 & a Virus TI plu various PCM modules and outboard FX. Sold ALL of them except the Virus TI.

Well, that's one thing that hardware synths have over the softs.... being able to SELL THEM!

[Dirty Halo]

Originally Posted by The Architecture

If your trying to make modern music...dont use hardware. Youll be fighting an uphill battle.

Wha huh? Says who?

-a

[Eric J]

Originally Posted by The MPCist

Well, that's one thing that hardware synths have over the softs.... being able to SELL THEM!

There is no law that says you cant sell software as well. I've sold many software synths (and other stuff) as well over the years. Ironically, I ended up loosing more money on the hardware than I did on the software. Go figure.

[alexp]

[QUOTE=If your trying to make modern music...dont use hardware. Youll be fighting an uphill battle.[/QUOTE]


What? This makes zero sense.


alexP

[Barfunkel]

The artists OP quoted are very ITB-sounding, not sure if making, say, something that sounds like Skrillex, is even possible with hardware. Then again, the workflow of hardware, leads to different kind of things. For me the workflow of hardware is just perfect, I've tried the software thingy a couple of times but it just isn't for me. I hate using the mouse for music and buying a bunch of controllers means your studio is just as expensive and takes as much space as a hardware studio, so there's no point.

I'm glad that there are options, every musician needs his own workflow. Hopefully the cost of classic synths will go down in the future too, when softsynths finallly sound good enough for the purists. So I can buy all the synths I've always wanted for peanuts.

[Praxisaxis]

I honestly think it is a matter of personal taste, there's absolutely no reason to think you can't make good music entirely ITB.

But as I said, it's taste. Personally I think ITB methods encourage a sort of more abstract musical approach, which is currently in vogue, and perfectly good music - a lot of sound design, automation, editing, etc, etc.

But if you happen to enjoy any of these things:
* analogue sound
* sound unique to a particular device, like a machinedrum or Nord Lead
* working with an orientation toward playing an instrument, rather than abstract sound processes
* If you are going for a sound which you know happens to be done one way, then try to go about it another way, it may possibly (but not necessarily) prove difficult.

In these cases there's still a reason to use hardware devices.

A lot of non-synth hardware can have a distinctive sound too, such as preamps, filters, compressors etc (not that I own a heap of those), so these are also bits of gear that some people wouldn't want to part with.

None of the above is an argument for keeping any of your hw gear, if you prefer ITB. As I said, it depends what you want to do and how you prefer to do it.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by Praxisaxis

But if you happen to enjoy any of these things:
* analogue sound
* sound unique to a particular device, like a machinedrum or Nord Lead
* working with an orientation toward playing an instrument, rather than abstract sound processes
* If you are going for a sound which you know happens to be done one way, then try to go about it another way, it may possibly (but not necessarily) prove difficult.

I declare no to all the above , well not that I dont enjoy the analogue sound but not enough to make me keep a hardware synth.

There is an area that software cannot touch hardwares... "speed". With hardware I work blazing fast, and that a very good thing for quality of music I make. I tend to destroy thing the more I start to think and make sense of them. The more I act on instinct the more likely is to make something that is outside me, something that is not based on my personal standards and beliefs and I love discovering new things. I love braking my own rules. Its not easy, but hardware helps me get there alot faster.

Tried it with software, several daws, vsts and midi controllers, failed , failed and failed. Its clear, that in this are, software has a rather long way to go.

Software is made to edit , scrutinize, waste time. Its not made to perform.

I want to go back to software, as hardware is very expensive to buy and service, its also alot harder to carry with me and does not share the flexibility of software. But alas speed is the foundation on which I operate as a musical being, for me hardware is my only choice.

[Praxisaxis]

I declare no to all the above

I'm guessing you're disagreeing with me just for the heck of it, because what you wrote is almost what I just said: hardware pushes towards an instrumental, or playing attitude, whereas software tends to push toward editing, sound design, close scrutiny etc., (especially if you class a controller as hardware). This is perhaps the fundamental difference.

And it's not just to do with the user's workflow, but also to do with the system's design. This is evident by the way software developers so frequently market a controller, in their bid to include "playing minded" people (but producing hardware to go with the internal software makes the whole debate sort of moot, because in that case it is essentially "hardware," if that intended means of operation is less than ideal without the controller).


And as for this:

* sound unique to a particular device, like a machinedrum or Nord Lead

and this

* If you are going for a sound which you know happens to be done one way, then try to go about it another way, it may possibly (but not necessarily) prove difficult.

For the life of me I can't see what there is to disagree with...
1) Different bits of hardware do have characteristic sounds. People can, and often do, like that. And 2), if you happen to want the sound of, say, a gigantic modular synth, the ideal way to get it (all things being equal) is to have a modular synth. That doesn't mean the best thing for people to do is to go out and purchase one, but in relation to the OP, if you happen to already possess one, then it would be folly to get rid of it, if you believe you will continue to aim for that particular sound in your music.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by kilon

There is an area that software cannot touch hardwares... "speed".

I'd say that the people who compose for TV/commercials would disagree with you on that.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by Praxisaxis

I'm guessing you're disagreeing with me just for the heck of it, because what you wrote is almost what I just said: hardware pushes towards an instrumental, or playing attitude, whereas software tends to push toward editing, sound design, close scrutiny etc., (especially if you class a controller as hardware). This is perhaps the fundamental difference.

And it's not just to do with the user's workflow, but also to do with the system's design. This is evident by the way software developers so frequently market a controller, in their bid to include "playing minded" people (but producing hardware to go with the internal software makes the whole debate sort of moot, because in that case it is essentially "hardware," if that intended means of operation is less than ideal without the controller).


And as for this:


and this


For the life of me I can't see what there is to disagree with...
1) Different bits of hardware do have characteristic sounds. People can, and often do, like that. And 2), if you happen to want the sound of, say, a gigantic modular synth, the ideal way to get it (all things being equal) is to have a modular synth. That doesn't mean the best thing for people to do is to go out and purchase one, but in relation to the OP, if you happen to already possess one, then it would be folly to get rid of it, if you believe you will continue to aim for that particular sound in your music.

In short I dont care about the characteristic sound of a specific hardware. And I dont care about particular sounds. I prefer to explore and not to follow. I can do that with any synth.

I dont even believe that synths have a specific sound hardware or software. I dont believe that an artist can be more superior than the tool he is using , because a tool can never be fully explored , a synth is a universe by its own , it has its own sould and entity like a human, but then a human is also a tool of nature and the universe.

I could go on and on and on , but I think already you see the vast diffirence .

And dont take disagreement as a form "I am smart and you are a fool". None is truly wise, we all try to figure this world out , in our own ways.

I disagree because I like to evaluate things from a different angle, cause I think variaty is crucial to our understanding and evolution. It is not a question of right and wrong.

Originally Posted by Yoozer

I'd say that the people who compose for TV/commercials would disagree with you on that.

Disagreement is healthy , I welcome it with open arms. However I dont think that TV/Ads music orientation towards ITB has to do with speed as much as it has to with sound quality. If you use orchestral sound like the vast majority of films and tv programms do , then nothing beats the quality of big software rompler libraries. I would be surprised if those artist were OTB. Also you have to take into account that most young artists today (who deal mainly with electronic genres), dont use hardware that much because of the expense and not clear understanding of the real benefits of hardware.

Just because a time demanding music genre is oriented towards ITB music production does not mean that speed is the main criteria. But then they may have discovered a workflow that permits to work faster on software than on hardware that I am not aware of, I would welcome any enlightenment on the subject.

The way I see it , software in order to act instantly like hardware would need dedicated midi controllers per daw and per vst. Most midi controllers though are generic and demanding alot of setup to be used properly. Many of them have deeply flawed implementations that many users complain about see Automap and KORE .And even in that case, many of the functionalities demand a mouse even in cases where you don need to go deep in editing. And using a mouse I dont see how it could be considered as something fast especially when you have to go mouse -> pc keyboard -> music keyboard and loop the whole process.

[fateisaweapon]

I would say keep both. but lately I've asked myself the same question. I can get really good sounds from programming on software, and likewise on my hardware but personally I get sick of doing too much of one or the other. When i get some making a mostly software track, the next track seems like I'm using more hardware and vice versa, that's just me but like I said, I can understand what your saying

[Praxisaxis]

In short I dont care about the characteristic sound of a specific hardware. And I dont care about particular sounds. I prefer to explore and not to follow. I can do that with any synth.

I dont even believe that synths have a specific sound hardware or software.

But my comments were general, not in relation to you in particular. It's probable (and now proven) that someone (eg you) out there does not "believe" that different pieces of synth hardware have different sonic characteristics. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, the general consensus is that they do. And as long as that's true, then it's likely someone will prefer the sound of, say, a Machinedrum, to some other thing. It's not the Machinedrum's fault that it happens to be hardware.

It is not a question of right and wrong.

Well, I declare no to all of the above.

[kilon]

Originally Posted by Praxisaxis

But my comments were general, not in relation to you in particular. It's probable (and now proven) that someone (eg you) out there does not "believe" that different pieces of synth hardware have different sonic characteristics. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Nonetheless, the general consensus is that they do. And as long as that's true, then it's likely someone will prefer the sound of, say, a Machinedrum, to some other thing. It's not the Machinedrum's fault that it happens to be hardware.



Well, I declare no to all of the above.

You offered an opinion, a popular one. I offered another . End of story.
We are still friends.

I do believe that a synth has "sonic characteristics" but what I am saying is that there so many of them its pointless to talk about a characteristic sound. I think its easy to get stuck , how that filter sound when you do this to it, or how that oscilator responds when you off sync it against another oscilator in that particular setting. Mainly because many people want to recreate old sounds and that is not something bad at all. But there is more to a synth than just that.

I think you felt that I was attacking you in some way for being absolute, when I was only offering my opinion that may represent some other people too that are afraid or overwhelmed to offered here.

And I do not feel like people should follow my opinion, I offer my opinion to bring a new player in the table, and make the game abit more interesting. It would be boring if we all agreed no ?

I dont have an issue with agreeing with other people or at least exploring their opinions that is why I am a member of this forum. IF you want to eloborate on your opinion even if it takes a whole page, be certain that I will read till the last word and not just jump up with a reply.