It's funny that I stumbled across this thread this morning, because I did something yesterday that illustrates my use of hardware and software in a way that I think is more and more common. So, just to start with, I use hardware. A lot.
But...
Yesterday I was tracking guitars and vocals for a band that comes through my joint. They've been in before and know my stuff so the guitar player just brings his guitar and pedal board and plugs into my '68 Fender RI. I've mic'd it up with a BD 201 on the grille and an R84 set back about a foot, both going through Warm Audio pres. I went through all the minutiae of mic placement before they arrived, so he plugs in and off we go. Everything sounds great...until "the pedal". These guys aren't a heavy band, so most stuff is medium-drive type sounds, but for one song the guitar player engages this Digi Metal Master pedal that produces the most god-awful noise I've ever heard out of a pedal. The guitar sound itself is pretty non-traditional, but the amount of hum is just immense....it's not even hum, it's like it's own tone. And LOUD. So I dutifully track it, knowing the whole time it'll be unusable.

But now the cool part.

These days when I track guitars the first thing the guitar player plugs into is a Little Labs Red Eye that splits the signal and sends it to a pre-amp so I can record it dry. So I have a track that is just the sound of the guitar plugged into one of my Great River pres. I take that track, drop Amplitube 4 on it, fire up the Metal Distortion stomp into a Fender Amp and hit play. Close, but not right...he's done something funny to the pedal or something. So next I drop in a Fab Filter Pro-Q2 EQ, throw it in matching mode and let it listen to the recorded track and match the EQ curve. Et viola! Almost exactly the sound of the recorded rig, with none of the madness-inducing noise. Guitar player is happy. I'm happy. The band now refers to me as "The Wizard of Waveforms" (seriously). I let them because it's always nice to have the client think you're magic.
 
The moral of this kind of long story is that I, and lots of other guys I know, still use lots of hardware all the time. There's still something about an amp with a few mics and a Distressor. But I use amp sims all the time too. And I re-amp to live amps. And I use matching EQ's that live solely inside the box. For vocals yesterday we used a U87 to a Great River to an 1176 and then into the computer. Super classic and it's great. But once in the box I'm going to use all manner of digital-only stuff, not the least of which is Melodyne and Vocal Rider. I sum to a hardware SSL with a stereo EQ and Bus Compressor, but I really like a bunch of the tape emulations out there, and they involve MUCH fewer splices with a razor blade :). My opinion: keep the hardware. It's awesome and frequently gets great results, but so is the ITB stuff.
 
Dean

Razorwit
 
 So next I drop in a Fab Filter Pro-Q2 EQ, throw it in matching mode and let it listen to the recorded track and match the EQ curve. Et viola! Almost exactly the sound of the recorded rig, with none of the madness-inducing noise.
 
Dean

I had no idea you could do that. Thanks for taking the time out to share your experience. I can't wait to give this a try.  cheers... Dave.

I find I use both hardware and software about 50:50. For getting ideas down quickly, or just sitting down to play, I find hardware hugely advantageous. I can power up my PC3X to play or record a sequence in seconds. I love that compared to powering up the comptuer load Sonar, select vsts, etc. A post above seemed consider the rompler era as dead. It may be, not sure how many units Kurz and others are moving these days, but for me, the rompler is likely to continue to be important. And with regard to quality of sounds, I think it is untrue that romplers don't compare with vsts. I agree that the very best vst sounds are superior but the better romplers have very competitive sounds, that are absolutely fine quality, that are RIGHT THERE, READY TO GO.
 
Another hardware advantage for keyboardists is live performance. The hardware is just plain reliable. No head scratching - just sit down and play.
 
Software biggest advantage is how nicely it works in a daw environment. Hardware keyboards can`t quite match that. And of course, if you like designing your own sounds, software is generally more capable and there seemingly endless option (not always a good thing when it comes to accomplishing something). Even there, folks who have mastered programming hardware (VAST, etc) can achieve results that are amazing.
 
FS

RD9

Anderton
All the listeners care about is the emotional impact of the music. The person controlling the gear is 1,000 times more important than the gear being controlled.
 
I know that's a facile answer and it may sound snarky, but that's not the intention. It's more of a plea for musicians not to be afraid to express their emotions, and to place little - if any - importance on the medium.

Craig, I understand you are trying to inspire and have always found your advice to be top notch.  (e.g. I recently reread your article in Bass Player on compression.)  However, I must wholeheartedly support Schwa in his request for advice on the present state of the software and how it is used; especially after being away for a while.  I too had wondered what software and hardware configurations were in use these days and found the other posts quite interesting.
 

Fair enough. But I was also playing off all the comments along the lines of "I use both," which is probably the prevailing option these days. There are so many choices...which is great, but those choices can take you down a rabbit hole. I know people who spend so much time trying to decide things like "which of the 800 available kick drum samples do I use" that they forget the part they were going to play .
 
In terms of instruments and effects, software and hardware have reached a degree of parity in terms of quality of sound. The example given of using software to solve the hardware amp problem also shows how they can be complementary. Software has the cost advantage, though, which frees up disposable income for the hardware that doesn't have a software equivalent - mics, preamps, monitors, cables, etc. So I think part of the answer ties in with economics; if you have limited disposable income, you might as well go with software, so you have bucks to spend on transducers and control surfaces - the hardware that IMHO matters the most.

 Mr Anderton wrote- "There are so many choices...which is great, but those choices can take you down a rabbit hole. I know people who spend so much time trying to decide things like "which of the 800 available kick drum samples do I use" that they forget the part they were going to play ."   
 
This--+100
 
I still use certain hardware (and software)  mostly because I know  it will get the job done fast. To me a song should be ready to listen too in a few hours. THEN you can go back and muck about, but often the demo version has the most soul because it was all about the performances and not about the gear.  
 
I know we all work differently and there is unlimited types of music being created here. I'm still just doing the same thing we did with a 4 track synced to an Atari but lovin' the other options now.  Years go by and they hand us more and more tools to work with until it's overwhelmingly daunting.  
 
Example- Focusrites Mix Control is a powerful tool for creating monitor mixes,,, but,, it's faster for me to use a hardware mixing board. 
 

MacFurse

Razorwit
 
 So next I drop in a Fab Filter Pro-Q2 EQ, throw it in matching mode and let it listen to the recorded track and match the EQ curve. Et viola! Almost exactly the sound of the recorded rig, with none of the madness-inducing noise.
 
Dean

I had no idea you could do that. Thanks for taking the time out to share your experience. I can't wait to give this a try.  cheers... Dave.

Whelp... that comment stuck out for me as well, and a quick Google search listed both Fab Filter Pro-Q2 EQ (which I do not have) and Ozone 5 (which I do have). Ironically, this is on a tab I have never clicked on! Made me chuckle since the GUI is so complex, but this is also something I am anxious to try since one of the reference videos was pretty blunt about taking anyone's (recorded) guitar tone that you want - also this usage goes way beyond just guitar tones.
 
This also provides very direct insights into amp sim presets (EQ) to get them to replicate tones in a much quicker manner. I am also very curious to stress test this guy now, since one application that came to mind immediately are voice actors who play various characters in the same work. I find it hard to believe that people remember nuances between sessions spaced months apart, so this "trick" may actually be the key to character renditions done (and matching follow-on work to previously recorded material).
 
Anyway, "hardware" just got a wicked slap in the face, but I will admit there is nothing more satisfying than jacking into a real amp for me.

mettelus
 
Anyway, "hardware" just got a wicked slap in the face, but I will admit there is nothing more satisfying than jacking into a real amp for me.

 
Yup, there's something about moving air and having the amp interact with the room (to me, a big part of the sound) that is indeed very satisfying. Of course, one of the beauties of sims involves neighbors who don't find amps quite so satisfying 
 
I think one reason why amp sims have become accepted isn't just because the quality of the emulations has improved, but also, once a sound is on a track there's much less difference between an emulation and "the real thing."
 
However this brings up another element of hardware I don't recall seeing mentioned yet: having a physical experience with a piece of hardware might be more inspirational, thus providing an advantage that goes beyond sound itself.
 

Anderton
]
 
 
 
However this brings up another element of hardware I don't recall seeing mentioned yet: having a physical experience with a piece of hardware might be more inspirational, thus providing an advantage that goes beyond sound itself.
 

My old ARPs where that way...you moved and patched stuff sometimes not knowing what the sound was going to do...  but alas, they're long gone and I have no desire to buy the new hardware emulations.
We did enjoy the solitude of the reverb chambers too...back in the day....except they were mic'd !!

One of hardware's top benefits is (potential) simplicity. However, both hardware and software get into "infinite variations" of FX chains/processing... it is just cheaper to get a signal "swimming in effects" from software. Huge down-side to this is each effect is unknowing (and uncaring) of what preceded it, so there is nothing to stop a user from applying a massive wet reverb, compressing that heavily, and then running it through distortion. (Most) hardware will require a user to intentionally bypass "typical" (which is not necessarily bad), but with software this is not the case. The simplicity of "only" the knobs and sliders on my amp make tweaking quick, and I have rarely felt limited by this (with the notable exception that a digital distortion input to a clean channel is required for grunge, etc. as the amp is a tube amp).
 
That said, both hardware and software can get into the realms of overly complex (and potentially self-defeating); and conversely software can be elegant and useful as well. I was pleasantly surprised first time I used Craig's amps (both the "High Gain" and "Dark Metal" have been baked into tracks); they are very similar in mentality to a hardware amp - simple, "locked" FX sequence, yet enough tweaking available to do the job in short order (with nice results).
 
Maybe a simpler way to put it is that it is much easier to "know your gear" when it has a limited number of knobs and switches available.

Anderton
 However this brings up another element of hardware I don't recall seeing mentioned yet: having a physical experience with a piece of hardware might be more inspirational, thus providing an advantage that goes beyond sound itself.

I think that's definitely true to one extent or another...or if not more "inspirational", just easier and faster to get a good, pleasing result. Of course, that's probably a key ingredient in something being more inspirational, so those things may be interchangeable. In my case I started out with ITB compressors, and until the last couple years or so was a big proponent of never doing something like running through a compressor on the way into the box. Now, it's just easier and faster for me to do some compression on the way in, particularly since I have a bunch of nice hardware to use. I guess that probably qualifies as inspirational.
 
One other thing that I've really noticed in the last couple of years. I started out with just digital emulations of things like 1176's and Fender amps, but it wasn't until I got one of the real things (particularly in the case of the guitar amplifiers, less so but still true for compressors) that I feel like I really figured out how to use them and what the sound was. One good example: for the longest time I couldn't ever really figure out why anyone would use a Fender Pro Jr. The emulations just kinda left me with a big "meh". Then a few years back I picked one up. It was cheap, I had a couple hundred bucks from some studio work, and it was sitting in the store staring at me like a three-legged shelter kitten. I got it home and started playing with it and within a few minutes kind of had an epiphany: shotgun simple, kinda nasty in a very specific way, boxy but the good kind. Then, and only then, did the (really very good) emulation start to hold some appeal. Not sure if it was the fact that I was pushing air with it, or if it was the lack of other immediately available choices and additions, but whatever it was I figured it out. I've since used it on a bunch of recordings. It's been the same thing with any number of other devices, though maybe not to the same extent. In some cases I've even come to the conclusion that some emulations are overdoing particular things. Once I figured out what a real SSL bus comp was doing I could hear it when manufacturers were taking that thing and really shoving it in my face (I'm looking at you, Steven Slate...but I still like your stuff).
 
In any case, I've long wondered if other folks have had the same experience. If the idea of often not really "getting it" until you use the hardware was common or just my backwards self. If it's common I have to wonder if that's not an argument for owning at least some hardware. 
 
Craig, in your case, do you think you would have been able to create the amp simulators that you've made if your only experience with guitar amps was emulations?
 
Dean