SOFTWARE MORE POWERFULL THAN HARDWARE?

[Scott Kemix]

You all probably have had this convo quite often, but lately i am noticing alot of tracks that lack that analog feel to them? I think some plug'ins and vst'i do good jobs but still not as chunky as hardware. People try to brush off and say "software it just as good", but i dont agree or is this because some producers cant be arsed learning how to programme a hardware synth? Your thoughts please.

[audioinjection]

i really think these days software is getting more powerful sounding, but it still doesn't beat the good ol' analog sound imo

but in reality, not everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on proper hardware gear anyway.........plus its kind of a preference now. i know producers who used to be all hardware who prefer software now and vice versa

[nova]

and peeps are making warm as fuk tracks with software for sure. get quite alot of bang out of a plugin for £60 like 400-1000 init ta get a hardware synth thats gonna be as good better wot ever then a software synth. and with some of the real old stuff with no midi is gonna probo be sampled at the end of the day.

[nova]

softwares like heaven

[dirty_bass]

Most people that use software these days have never used hardware, and therefore don`t know how to emulate that sound.
As autechre say, if you can`t make your software produce an analogue sound, then you simply don`t know how to use it.

I hear plenty of hardware stuff that sounds dry, thin and inactive as well.
Plenty in fact. Particularly some techno.

talent, experience and knowledge will give birth to results, there is no shortcut.

[nova]

yeap to true. i got hardware at home virus b and wot not tb 303 im not shy to say i hear techno made with software and it sounds much fatter, better then wot i could do with my hardware. but i do kno my way round virus b. i cant programe like you guys tho i got much ta learn. and ive never been any where ner a proper studio or had a proper tune in my sequencer done buy a pro. and its a massive learning curve

[Komplex]

few things to take into consideration whenever software vs hardware comes up...

*workflow
*flexibility
*sound palette
*sound quality
*tweakability
*directness
*expressiveness
*portability
*phatness (I really didn't wanna put that one in)
*price
etc...

You all probably have had this convo quite often, but lately i am noticing alot of tracks that lack that analog feel to them?

Thats probably because they don't use analogue synths, or don't play/program their music intricately enough...

But another reason is because they are often WAY TOO POLISHED AND OVERCOMPRESSED.

The problem is, people don't think its "pro sounding" unless its been processed with 50 plugins during the mastering stage. When you take away ALL the dynamics, it CAN'T sound analogue (even if it is at the source). I've also noticed that some vinyl coming out looks f#cked up these days. When you look at the grooves, they look all weird and blocky. Like as if the waveform has been totally squashed.

[Komplex]

double post :)

[RDR]

double post :)

Sees double posts, takes a run up, shoots, scores!



Sorry, thought we were playing football.

My 2p is this: For synth programming i prefer hardware, hands down. the directness is FUN.

If you arent having fun then it isnt worth doing.

For sequencing it has to be software. no contest there. To my mind the weakest link in this chain is the convertors on your soundcard. I compared the recording done on my mates roland VS2480 and those done on his ECHO LAYLA and the roland WIPED THE FLOOR with the ECHO, no suprise really since Rolands convertors rock.

Having said that, the most important thing is to recognise that if something works for you then its good, the sound quality and quality of the sound can be debated as not all sounds must be crystal sharp as they can be interesting without that. On the flip side the most basic of sounds can still sound great when recorded well and used in the right place.

whatever you do, learn to wizz around your sequencer and your synth and you'll be producing great sounds in no time.

[TechMouse]

It's all a trade off.

Hardware yields better results immediately, and you have more "hands on" control.

Software can sound as good, but it's a lot more hard work. Though, that said, it can also go much further than hardware will ever do. Try getting hold of a hardware version of Reaktor, for example...

[Scott Kemix]

i really think these days software is getting more powerful sounding, but it still doesn't beat the good ol' analog sound imo

but in reality, not everyone has thousands of dollars to spend on proper hardware gear anyway.........plus its kind of a preference now. i know producers who used to be all hardware who prefer software now and vice versa

Good answer man, this is what made me raise the subject. So could we all really be falling into the digital domain, because its easier and cheaper?

[FILTERZ]

GOD AM I BORED BY THIS SUBJECT

Use what you like , just make it good

[TechMouse]

So could we all really be falling into the digital domain, because its easier and cheaper?

You make it sound like a bad thing - whereas in reality it's just different.

It's cheaper, certainly - but easier? Not if you want to be original, creative, and phat.

You could argue that some people just buy hardware and then have easy phat sounds off the rack.

I'm not really plumping for either side - I think a bit of both is good (if only I could afford some hardware!).

[TechMouse]

GOD AM I BORED BY THIS SUBJECT

Use what you like , just make it good

hehe - fair enough man, it is an old one.

No one's forcing you to read it though!

[acidsaturation]

Having said that, the most important thing is to recognise that if something works for you then its good, the sound quality and quality of the sound can be debated as not all sounds must be crystal sharp as they can be interesting without that. On the flip side the most basic of sounds can still sound great when recorded well and used in the right place.

Word.

I do wish I used my hardware more, 'cos I do find it more enjoyable, but sometimes software is easier and tempting to use because of it.

I find it easier to mix in software, but that's mainly 'cos I cant afford a massave great desk - and so can give more sounds their own channel that I wouldn't be ablt to do with hardware at the moment.

I like the sound of my Hardware when I use it - it adds a bit of a distinctiveness 'cos of the particular set up. I reckon sometimes we have access to too much software so it's hard to mould a coherent sound between tracks 'cos everything changes - this can be good or bad.

I do think you can(or are encouraged to) play about a bit more with hardware in some ways - sometimes 'cos the restrictions of each bit make you need to. What I mean is say you have a crap drum machine and desk and a cheap fx box. It's then you start thinking "well what happens if I put this in here and feedback that through there...

But then the software means you can record that and then do something different and sample that - I remember years ago having a few old bits of kit, a minidisc and a cheap sampler and repatching, "multitracking" between the minidisk and a tapedeck and the sample etc... That's when it gets creastive...

In response to the main question - why do we need to be obsessed with "Analog" anyway. Digital has a quality of its own that can be just a good if done right - Listen to Ken Ishii who uses no analog kit if you don't know what I mean!

[Scott Kemix]

GOD AM I BORED BY THIS SUBJECT

Use what you like , just make it good

Just tried to start a post for people to discuss. Sorry if you dont like and are bored, but you dont have to read it. :lol:

[Scott Kemix]

So could we all really be falling into the digital domain, because its easier and cheaper?

You make it sound like a bad thing - whereas in reality it's just different.

It's cheaper, certainly - but easier? Not if you want to be original, creative, and phat.

You could argue that some people just buy hardware and then have easy phat sounds off the rack.

I'm not really plumping for either side - I think a bit of both is good (if only I could afford some hardware!).

No, its not a bad thing i am just having a general chat about this subject. Though it is different. I think a bit of both is good, but certainly not all digital for sure.

[TechMouse]

but certainly not all digital for sure.

Try telling Mylo that. ;)

[fatcollective]

hardware must be better sounding thats for sure, but these days, its confusing as to who uses what, take alex calver for instence, he uses software and his tunes are fat as ****, so i think at the end of the day its how you use the software and what mastering techniques you use to make your tune full and fat sounding!

[fatcollective]

another point is that i know of big producers that have switched from hardware to software and i dont think this is because software is chaeper...i even think prodigy have done this recently.