Hardware vs Software vs Analog vs Digital Synths

[DaniH]

So what is your opinion on them?? Do you think there are any main differences in any of them?? If so, what??

I use a combination of all and after awhile there is no real difference in sound to me. I can tweak a soft-synth/digital to have a "warm analog sound". I love and use all to make my music the way I want it to sound.

[billbaker]

Between hard and soft, I think the differences are a matter of simplicity and reliability (hard) on one hand and innovation and cost on the other (soft).

Between analog and digital... it's more like peanut butter - smooth vs krunchy. A matter of taste as much as technology.

-------------------

I like hard synths, having grown up with them. Having abused, dropped, frozen, broiled, and generally banged on them for many (sigh) years I can't think of one I've owned that actually crapped out to the point of unplayability while in use. I consider that "tank-like" reliability as being nearly as important as the sound coming out.

My computer on the other hand has as many quirks as a method actor on a crack binge -- my old PC had too many mystery faults to count just sitting in my den, I have a hard time imagining how it would have reacted on wonky bar power after bouncing around in my van for a week or three.

On the other hand soft synths -- analog, digital, hybrid, granular, additive, subtractive, ROM-pler, sample players, hardware "clones", drum machines, groove generators, etc. (don't even start on FX plug-ins) have progressed massively in quality and in the breadth of their variety while hard-synth makers have (by necessity) stuck to releasing progressive generations of their same signature synths for years at a time - either for the sake of familiarity or to be retro-compatible with hardware already developed and released.

How many Rolands used the JV/XV expansions? That was what, a 15 year run? Yamaha beat FM to death (4 op, 6 op, variable wave ops, etc.) before settling into Motif mode for the last decade or so and still going. Korg's been developing, refining and expanding since the first M-series, but most of their architectures have been recognizable variations on that first M-1. Kronos is unique only in that it is a whole "buffet" of synth engines rather than just one or two - and notice they're all recognizable from past releases. There's a certain level of comfort in that - and it reduces the learning curve for a lot of users (like me) who've seen some things very like the each of Kronos' 9 engines in their playing history.

So... I have hard synths for stage, but soft ones for studio -- I kinda crave a Kronos, but spending the same $3500+ budget on a (very) good computer and soft-synths would give me a vastly greater capability to make a joyful (or dark and nasty) noise.

BB

[X-Trade]

I care more about the sound itself rather than the circuits that make it.

I really enjoy working with the radias because it is very programmably and I can get a massive range of different timbres out of it - from soft to aggressive, warm to cold. It's more down to the programming.

Synths which impart more character (e.g. certain minimoog, microKorg) can be fun to play and program and get some great sounds but they are limited and particularly when you can only take so many pieces of gear on stage, they're just not practical.

I don't use softsynths generally in any production music.
I mainly 'mess around' and design my own synths in Reaktor, but most purely software tracks I always find disappointing, flat and boring. I do however believe that I could use some of my own Reaktor creations in a proper production track. Aside from that, I try to make a point of patching things in and playing some parts in realtime to impart more human feel on them.

[Eat-Static]

Ultimately its personal choice. I prefer hardware, i love connecting different units together with all those cables. Feels a bit like an science experiment. Software just isnt as much fun. I spend alot of time at work on a computer, so when i'm home i dont enjoy sitting in front of my laptop for hours, its not what i find relaxing.

Eat-Static.

[Synthoid]

I spend alot of time at work on a computer, so when i'm home i dont enjoy sitting in front of my laptop for hours

Same with me. I want to play music when I finish work... not continue to "play computer." I prefer the tactile response of knobs and sliders, plus the satisfaction of knowing the synth or workstation I'm using isn't going to crash or develop weird driver issues.

[Gargamel314]

I prefer hardware to software b/c you don't have to lug around a computer with you to play anywhere. I like my controls to be built for making music, while a computer's controls are generic for many other purposes. The sound just feels more alive to me when created with hardware. Also, i feel like with computers, there are a lot of variables that come into play that have nothing to do with making music, but ultimately affect the performance of the unit, and eliminating that just feels more stable and reliable. Variables like memory leaks, virus's (the bad kind, not the music making synth kind), driver issues, and overall CPU performance... these things are things I don't like to think about when I sit down and get to work.

[SanderXpander]

I use both in the studio but my sample-based stuff is all software.
Live I tried using Mainstage for one project (the bandleader really wanted me to use a few softsynths that were also on the cd) but if I get to pick, hardware all the way.

[CharlesFerraro]

Theres so much I can say about the Analog vs. Digital debate. Stuff about distortion, precision, cost, programmability...

I'm going to show you a paragraph and-a-half that I came across from one of those Synth Secrets articles:

"Finally, I would like to point out that the backlash against Digital Parameter Access has been the fuel behind the current 'retro' craze for all things knobby and controllable. Perversely, many of the over-priced fashion statements that cash in on this craze ("my Jupiter 6 and Prophet 600 are analogue man, real music, not like that digital rubbish...") have digital memories and quantised parameters, and are therefore analogue/digital hybrids. This means that their parameters are limited by the resolution of their processing systems. Furthermore, many of the most sought-after analogue synths use their micro processors to generate their LFOs and envelopes digitally and, in many ways, are barely analogue at all! If you're interested in synthesis, the best way to deal with the digital vs. retro debate is to ignore it, and keep in mind that the reason these instruments exist is to craft different sounds and make music with them. In short:
Don't become carried away by the current craze for vintage synths or their DSP-generated descendants. Think about the type of sounds you want to generate, and choose your instrument carefully so that you can produce them."

[xmlguy]

The most important component of any synth is the analog processor that's always required to get the most out of them - the one between your two ears.

[cello]

The most important component of any synth is the analog processor that's always required to get the most out of them - the one between your two ears.

So true!

[biggrime]

So what is your opinion on them?? Do you think there are any main differences in any of them?? If so, what??

I use a combination of all and after awhile there is no real difference in sound to me. I can tweak a soft-synth/digital to have a "warm analog sound". I love and use all to make my music the way I want it to sound.

Most of my experience is with soft synths. Started including hardware 4 years ago. Sound wise I do not believe there is a big difference. There are some really good software such as the Native Instruments products. To me the biggest difference is the experience. I attempted to go back and use Sonar to seq my m3 and other soft synths but, I feel like a geek. Do not get my wrong I love to dig deep as I used to with reaktor 5. When I am creating music I want to feel as if I am using a instrument not a computer. I always have more fun on a keyboard then a computer. When I finish my setup with the FW card I do plan on using legacy collection on the regular but thats about it. Hardware gives you what you need and not a over kill. I have hundreds if not thousands of drum sounds on my external hard drive but, always end up using the drums in the m3 including the drums I designed in the m3. I can created any drum sound I need without sampling. Software in the long run cost more.

[iixorbiusii]

Personally, I was always a hardware snob - I believed that using a Mac to produce the sound as well as the sequence was for the 'kids' and the only real way to make a decent track was with half a dozen Yamaha / Korg / Roland synths. I never really bothered to look into soft synths because of my own preconceptions.

My opinion changed somewhat when I saw a documentary featuring the producer 'BT'. I think pretty much all his music is done with soft synths.

Furthermore, as today's Kronos', Virus' etc are basically computers, for me, the line between hard and soft synths is less defined.

I know it's at the lower end of the soft-synth spectrum, but I purchased Reason 5 earlier this year and find that it's a very capable tool, and can match my M3 in many respects.