markyzno
Cant beat circuits for sound.

If you are saying you like the sound of circuits, then there is no argument. The distortion and design limitations inherent in using electronics to process sound creates a result that has a personal appeal to many people, and if you are one of those people, your preference is unassailable. If you intend to imply that circuits produce better fidelity to the real world sound that is being recorded, you are demonstrably incorrect. At some point turning sound into signal requires it to go through an analog stage, but once you pass into the digital realm, properly designed algorithms can definitely introduce less artifact than circuits that attempt to do the same thing. 

I love this response.  How can analog see the future and be prepared to limit before the passage arrives?  In the digital world, this can be done.
 
I had a wire recorder from WWII as a kid.  Trust me, it sounded really bad.  We have come a long way.  I have to believe, that if human civilization continues, there will be nothing analog that cannot be emulated, if desired, in the digital world.  Afterall, it is marketed digitally as a final product these days and unlikely to return to tapes being played in cars.
 

carlman
When needing a brickwall limiter digital can be a better choice over analog.

I find I increasingly don't care about accuracy of emulation. I'm only really interested in whether any given tool  is useful and of quality. And I simply don't buy that there's an inherent superiority to analogue.
 
The task is to make good sounding recordings of good music, and there are a whole heap of ways to do that. The brush isn't the painting.

And here is another though I have had - not matter how good hardware eqs are, there is nothing like seeing it graphic form (Whether a graphic or parametric hardware compressor - in fact a parametric hardware compressor is hard to visualize the curve.)
 
So why not have a hardware compressor that has a screen on it, so that while adjusting the parameters, once can see the curve like in a digital eq?
 
Anyway, this is one ore example where digital currently beats analogue on eqs.  At least for me, see what is going on, helps me use it better, and if I can use it better, then that can affect the product.

My hardware 1176s, SSL bus compressors, Telefunken tape machines and Pultec EQ clone sound better than their software emulations. So do all my guitar pedals versus Axe FX II emulations. Axe FX II is very, very close but there's still something going on in the analog circuits with the harmonic distortion software can't reach.
 

Anderton

Sycraft 
Also there's the conflating of the concept of accuracy with being good. An accurate emulation of something may not actually be the best sounding result. It is fine if the idea is trying to emulate something accurately, but you can't say it is only a good sound if it emulates an existing device accurately. It can very well be possible to improve on something. Heck, in the digital world it is possible to flat out do things you just can't in the analogue world.

 
YES!!!!
 
For example with the CA-X guitar and bass amps, I didn't want to model existing amps - we already have Guitar Rig, Amplitube, etc. for that. I wanted to model the "idealized" amp sounds I hear in my head. The analogy I use is that conventional amp sims are film, and the CA-X amps are CGI. 

My thoughts exactly! Correct emulation of analogue gear often has nothing to do with getting the right sound. The same is true with samples and VIs. Many times super accurate super clean samples sound sterile and artificial rendering otherwise perfect instrument almost useless.

My approach to not worrying about whether software emulations are as good as the hardware they're emulating is to not have any hardware to compare it to. So my Arturia SEM is way better than the original Oberheim I don't have. My T-Racks Fairchild is a million times better than the real Fairchild I will never be able to afford, and likely wouldn't buy even if I could, because $30000? Really?
 
I used to own a real Yamaha CS80, in wonderful condition, which I bought for $600 in 1987 and have always regretted selling for the same amount a few years later before its value, like that of every vintage analog beast of its kind, went through the roof. It was 100% awesome. But if I had it now it would take up half my studio. The Arturia emu doesn't sound just like it, I'm sure, but it sounds pretty good, and it takes up a few MB on my hard drive and I have it and can use it and make music with it. I would probably use it half the time even if I still had the real one, since that had exactly 4 memory slots and no presets and no MIDI and sometimes I just need to work fast.
 
Or I can use Iris or Chromaphone, which do things no hardware I've ever met can do, or Kontakt which is so far beyond any hardware sampler it's hard to even know where to begin... 

This blurs the lines.
 
http://www.klanghelm.com/MJUC.php
 
The MJUC jr is free also.

Anderton
My understanding is that in the case of the Wavestation and M1, Korg simply ported the algorithms over from hardware to software, so the algorithms that generate the sounds are essentially identical. However, the software versions aren't limited by the quality of the D/A converters that were built into the keyboards, which probably accounts for why you think the plug-ins sound better - they actually do .

Thanks Craig that explains a lot. There are two types of synths too. Ones that are all purely digital and everything is just 1's and 0's inside and the sound is simply converted back to analog right at the last minute. eg a DX7.  These sorts of machines should be able to be work in pure software because that is what is happening anyway. So FM7 sounds identical to me to a DX7. Anyone who believes otherwise I would say is just suffering a rather large amount of placebo.
 
All analog beasts are another story but the fact we have such power now and nearly all aspects of analog circuits can be modeled is rather interesting. The fact that some virtual versions of these things such Arturia devices and Sonic Projects etc clearly shows that to be the case. Dave Smith is even using digital oscillators now in most of his new analog synths because as he says they sound fantastic! Plus more interesting options available too.
 
 
 
 

I have been very pleased where DSP effects have taken me.
how ever the one that is still elusive is the tube. the mic pres tube pre amps.
they haven't yet nailed that yet. but even over the past 2 years we are seeing things I never thought I would ever see.
Bias FX and Bias Amp. those plug ins for guitar are amazing and really kicked it up a notch for me in the re amp, guitar sims world.
what used to be an SM57 mic'ing a marshall now is very close to Bias Amp.
typically now I mix and match with both. (marshall, Peavey 6505+, Vox and mixed with amp sims gives a full thick sound.
so I still rely on hardware as well. using mic pre amps, guitar amps, rackmount compression in the recording stages to tame gain fluctuation.