Software vs Hardware

[BigAl]

Hey guys,
I'm just an artist that lay down beats(no engineer), but I always wonder. Why hardware stuff sounds better than software? Some people swear that software is just as good though. Software synth and samplers always sound thin and weak for some reason. Don't hardware comes with software O/S. Then why hardware still sounds so much better? Just curious.

--Al

[jazzius II]

Big Al.......

.......hardware can sound crap......software can sound great......and vica versa.

I suspect you're talking about music where all the sounds comes out of a computer.

It's like a saxophone quartet......too much of the same thing is boring.

[BigAl]

Originally posted by jazzius II
I suspect you're talking about music where all the sounds comes out of a computer.

Yep......too much software is weak and boring to me.

--Al

[Froombosch]

IMHO it has to do with sonic footprints. Very simple example:
When a midi song is played through one synth it will sound boring because all the sounds have the same foorprint. That is why I like to change mikes, preamps, comrpessors etc durung some sessions because They all have a different colour.

Most software effects are poorly designed. I bought lots of effectmachines that sound great and after a while I stopped listening to the software equivalents because I am always missing soundquality. Even when it comes to dirting things up.

Maybe the TDM plugins are a lot better that the VST I use with Nuendo, but EQ/Compression/effects of Nuendo/plugins I do not like....



Harrie

[BigAl]

Originally posted by Froombosch
Most software effects are poorly designed. I bought lots of effectmachines that sound great and after a while I stopped listening to the software equivalents because I am always missing soundquality. Even when it comes to dirting things up.

Yeah....The TC Electronics and the Lexicon is hard to beat. A Virus, a Novation and a Nord Lead synth are nice too, but everything from a computer with the plug-ins effects and all on it is weak.grudge

[NeoVXR]

this kind of "virtual" tool is quite new to our culture.
I am sure that the problem is not just the lack of a physical device which gives sound a footprint. the tools have influence on our habits. we forget that we must supply for the personality of a sound, when the device does not have one. it is in most cases possible to program the desired shape, if we have found the concept AND the perception to it.
I gained this experience from good old DX7, where I had to learn what kind of footprint is intrinsic. I found many different kinds! I programmed my own sounds, and together with a roland midi device they were totally sufficient for a rich arrangement.

but pro-tools and plugins are used to save time and effort!
this is the best explanation that software tools can sound boring.
hardware devices are a matter of experience, you take one that already has a personality and footprint. most software is neutral, and you must not only use it correctly, but additionally do something extra, like kind of DETUNING, so it is not ideal but does something unique to your track.
I am positive, if you use different plugins from different vendors, and change the settings quite much, for every single track, it should become better.
of course, there are many bad plugins around. digitally bad means also, when it has a footprint, that has nothing to do wth the effect itself. in the first moment you might say "wow, this has a special sound", but then there is no knob to tune this attitude, only the expected effect knobs! all tracks will sound the same...

also I expect more development in the principle of audio software, to reflect some low-level physical effects (maybe quantum noise, or new dithering algorithms, what do I know...)

being digital, with only 44.1/16, is already kind of strong footprint.
there is an amount of aliasing, and re-shaping transients.
try a digital test signal! if you shoot an ideal square wave into your signal chain (-100%,+100%, ...) you will see. for meaningful operation you need to "tame" it according to nyqvist and fourier theory. when you got it right, it looks like it went through - guess what ! - a RC lowpass.

good sound without an analog device in the chain is difficult, but not impossible for all times. at least the microphone is analog enough

[BigAl]

Originally posted by NeoVXR
good sound without an analog device in the chain is difficult, but not impossible for all times. at least the microphone is analog enough

Analog is sweet.

--Al

[NeoVXR]

whatever !

[boody]

Wise words NeoVXR

At the conservatory there was a teacher who could make _any_ sound with a DX7. None of his pupils gave it a serious try though, because they were into the presets of the newer synths. He tried to make students more aware of their personal ability to create their own sounds (hell of a job with a DX though), but most went for new presets...

even I try a preset before I make my own sound... hmmm

[JohnMcD]

<even I try a preset before I make my own sound...> -boody

Ha ha. I agree about presets. I find myself using a preset and adjusting from that point on. Despite seeming a little like cheating or being lazy, I think it just gets you to where you want to be a little faster.

Oh well.

Hardware sounding better? How about those hardware units that operate on software? Wierd world huh?

-John

[BigAl]

Originally posted by JohnMcD
Hardware sounding better? How about those hardware units that operate on software? Wierd world huh?

I think the Akai Z4 sampler even comes with a 20 gig hard drive; that's like a computer in a box.grudge

[merlin17]

Originally posted by boody
Wise words NeoVXR

At the conservatory there was a teacher who could make _any_ sound with a DX7. None of his pupils gave it a serious try though, because they were into the presets of the newer synths. He tried to make students more aware of their personal ability to create their own sounds (hell of a job with a DX though), but most went for new presets...

even I try a preset before I make my own sound... hmmm

Was that a guy who had/has a studio near Bielefeld?
I did a guitar session there back in 1990 or so and he played me some stuff he did entirely with a DX7 and some FX and it was awesome!

Peter

[boody]

I don't think so; he's Dutch. His name is Ernst (forgot his family name) and he teached at Rotterdam. But I'm sure he's not the only one who can work miracles on a dx7

[BigAl]

Is the Fm7 the software verson of the DX7?

[boody]

Yep

it even reads fm7 data

[Froombosch]

Making the best of some gear main you have got to build your own presets.

I have worked hard on some presets for the Eventide Eclipse and am now working in my little spare time with the 8000. Building your own presets, helps with making (strange) sounds and making things special. It 'll help you with mixing misc as well

I was very lucky that Eventide even choose some of my presets, who are now inside the Eclipse.

Harrie

[MikeyMike]

I have been using hardware for the last 5/6 years and I just started thinking about audio vst plugins. How many people feel that they are being limited my hardware in this day and age and how did you feel when you made that transition.

[Yoozer]

I feel that you should've checked the date before bumping up this thread .

The problem with hardware is not so much a limitation; it's the convenience of having 32 software compressors or EQs without actually needing the room for it or the cabling.

"Versus" is a factor that only is present in the mind and the wallet. There's nothing that stops you (and certainly not forum denizens on the Internet) from using both and benefiting from the strong points of both, if you can afford it.

For me, the transition was a liberation. Before, I used Cubase with a Midex, and keeping projects intact (writing down patches, settings, volumes) was a pain. So was bouncing to audio.

I started with Cubasis, which didn't even handle audio, and when I got to 5 VST, the plugins were still pretty much crap because the CPU power wasn't there yet. Around SX1, I got into software synths - but got immensely frustrated with Cubase's back-ass-wards way of handling effects, MIDI inputs and control. The hoops you had to jump through were ridiculous.

Then I dumped Cubase at version SX3 and switched to Ableton. Suddenly the software world and the control over it became much more pleasant, and I discovered that what Cubase made an exercise in frustation was a breeze in Ableton; working with audio as it was intended to be. Recording, resampling, etc. I actually get stuff done now - and mostly in software because I still haven't found the ideal audio interface (but hopefully soon). My stack of projects, experiments, demos etc. accumulates instead of withers.

Another big change was software sampling. I made the mistake to buy an ESI4000, which doesn't handle plain wav files and doesn't have a graphical display. Editing is as fun as wallpapering your house through the bathroom window. It was Reason's NN-19 which made it fun again and Ableton's Simpler and ShortCircuit which made it a -lot- of fun.

To me, the fact that this method of working made it -fun- to make music for me again - that's liberation, and that's doing away with silly limitations.

The idea that you should repeat the process with your mouse of what you'd do in real life in 1980 in a studio - on a screen - is completely insane. Mimicking small displays while you've got two 21" LCD screens is completely insane.

[MikeyMike]

Originally Posted by Yoozer

I feel that you should've checked the date before bumping up this thread .

The problem with hardware is not so much a limitation; it's the convenience of having 32 software compressors or EQs without actually needing the room for it or the cabling.

"Versus" is a factor that only is present in the mind and the wallet. There's nothing that stops you (and certainly not forum denizens on the Internet) from using both and benefiting from the strong points of both, if you can afford it.

For me, the transition was a liberation. Before, I used Cubase with a Midex, and keeping projects intact (writing down patches, settings, volumes) was a pain. So was bouncing to audio.

I started with Cubasis, which didn't even handle audio, and when I got to 5 VST, the plugins were still pretty much crap because the CPU power wasn't there yet. Around SX1, I got into software synths - but got immensely frustrated with Cubase's back-ass-wards way of handling effects, MIDI inputs and control. The hoops you had to jump through were ridiculous.

Then I dumped Cubase at version SX3 and switched to Ableton. Suddenly the software world and the control over it became much more pleasant, and I discovered that what Cubase made an exercise in frustation was a breeze in Ableton; working with audio as it was intended to be. Recording, resampling, etc. I actually get stuff done now - and mostly in software because I still haven't found the ideal audio interface (but hopefully soon). My stack of projects, experiments, demos etc. accumulates instead of withers.

Another big change was software sampling. I made the mistake to buy an ESI4000, which doesn't handle plain wav files and doesn't have a graphical display. Editing is as fun as wallpapering your house through the bathroom window. It was Reason's NN-19 which made it fun again and Ableton's Simpler and ShortCircuit which made it a -lot- of fun.

To me, the fact that this method of working made it -fun- to make music for me again - that's liberation, and that's doing away with silly limitations.

The idea that you should repeat the process with your mouse of what you'd do in real life in 1980 in a studio - on a screen - is completely insane. Mimicking small displays while you've got two 21" LCD screens is completely insane.

Cool deal. I bumped this thread to avoid making another one. I agree with you. I use Samplitude by the way. There is nothing like having all those plugins available to shape the sound of your music when in the process of creation. I think I going to give the "Hybrid" method a try and see if I can get it to work for me. I just worry so much about the using vsts like Ominisphere etc and them not working properly.....Midi lag etc.

[Yoozer]

Originally Posted by MikeyMike

I just worry so much about the using vsts like Ominisphere etc and them not working properly.....Midi lag etc.

Well, it's not really the MIDI that's going to give you lag - that's the fault of the drivers of the audio interface you're using and the horsepower in your computer that allows you to have a small buffer. Less than 10 ms is easy for me, even with a basic E-mu 1212m .

As for not working properly; I don't think I've had that happen to me yet. All software worth its salt has demo versions available - Omnisphere's an exception since the library is awfully huge which makes it not practical yet - so you have to visit the local music store. If you haven't chosen your computer for music production yet or you're working on an older machine you want to upgrade, ask them about configurations. You're likely to pay a premium for the fact that they're not moving a lot of boxes and because of say, 19" rack cases with extra silencing/dampening.

In my case, I simply followed one of the Ars Technica guides and replaced the flashy graphics card for gaming with a passively cooled one and the case with something that's less noisy.

In case you're going the Windows route, beware of any "optimizing" myths and guides where several services are disabled. The time spent on that is generally wasted; simply getting faster hardware pays off far more. The choice for the OS should be determined by which sequencer/hardware you're going to run - after all, that is what you're going to work with most of the time.

[larry b]

Nothing in the world like mixing a little bit of both into the audio stew!

thumbsupthumbsup