I'm wondering if anybody has some thoughts about whether there is still any point in using external hardware equipment when it comes to processing of sound. As more and more of classic hardware (even analogue) have been converted to software, it looks like everything can be done in the box and that it is a waste of shelf space to have any physical product around. 
 
I don't want to go to much into the analogue vs digital topic, but is the emulation now so good that there is no audible difference ?
Is there any advantage of having a physical product anymore ? Whether digital or analogue ? 
 
Thank you.

Most shootouts tend to reveal that the hardware is always sounds slightly better but of course cost and physical space are a personal consideration.

iRelevant
Is there any advantage of having a physical product anymore ? Whether digital or analogue ? 

Flashing lights!

 

bitflipper

iRelevant
Is there any advantage of having a physical product anymore ? Whether digital or analogue ? 

Flashing lights!
..

Well that's true, flashing lights is definitely a big plus :) Which reminds me of that the user interface is different, ranging from small computer with dynamic knobs and meters to dedicated static buttons that always do the same thing. 

bapu
Most shootouts tend to reveal that the hardware is always sounds slightly better but of course cost and physical space are a personal consideration.

Do you know if these shootouts have been based on A/B type blind tests ? 

Hardware-expensive
Software- Not so much
They can sound similar or almost exactly the same.
 
As a result of the above ^^ a natural selection has occurred. People with less money naturally select to work ITB.
Old and nostalgic folks like to at least mention hardware every now and then. It gets me to see a well known engineer advertising a software plugin or instrument whilst sitting in a studio loaded to the gills in expensive hardware.
 
Is there a tradeoff? It's very negligible. You might not notice.
 
It's always a good idea to have a decent hardware signal chain going into the box. Not everyone does.
 
 

The vst plugins are imo nearly as good as hardware devices for mixing
but I prefer hardware  devices for mastering :
Why ?
Fill a room with 10 people and play
1. one song mastered with hardware and
2. one song mastered digital (software)
 
Simply compare the body moves and facial expressions during this
test and you know why.

Starise
Hardware-expensive
Software- Not so much
They can sound similar or almost exactly the same.
 
As a result of the above ^^ a natural selection has occurred. People with less money naturally select to work ITB.
Old and nostalgic folks like to at least mention hardware every now and then. It gets me to see a well known engineer advertising a software plugin or instrument whilst sitting in a studio loaded to the gills in expensive hardware.
 
Is there a tradeoff? It's very negligible. You might not notice.
 
It's always a good idea to have a decent hardware signal chain going into the box. Not everyone does.
 
 

Hmmm ... so in essence it is hardware for the rich, software for the poor. Do you recall any comparisons you've made yourself, and what you observed ? I have an old RE-201 collecting dust, as I'm using the newer RE-20 instead. I've yet to check out any RE-201 VST's, but I understand there are plenty around. The newer RE-20 sounds good and is more practical, but I would say there is noticeable difference in sound, particularly on the spring reverb and tape saturation sound. 
I'm wondering what the big studios are using theses days ? Is it all VST's and in the box as well you think ? 

Pragi
The vst plugins are imo nearly as good as hardware devices for mixing
but I prefer hardware  devices for mastering :
Why ?
Fill a room with 10 people and play
1. one song mastered with hardware and
2. one song mastered digital (software)
 
Simply compare the body moves and facial expressions during this
test and you know why.

Is this something you have tried ? 
I'm currently working on building a hardware based multi-band compressor/limiter out of curiosity, using standard modules, and so fare it sounds good. But it's hard to compare the results vs software. I'm uncertain as whether it is my imagination, the flashing lights and moving needles that make it sound better. I guess I will have to do some A/B blind tests on myself once to see if there is something to it. 

iRelevant

Pragi
The vst plugins are imo nearly as good as hardware devices for mixing
but I prefer hardware  devices for mastering :
Why ?
Fill a room with 10 people and play
1. one song mastered with hardware and
2. one song mastered digital (software)
 
Simply compare the body moves and facial expressions during this
test and you know why.

Is this something you have tried ? 
I'm currently working on building a hardware based multi-band compressor/limiter out of curiosity, using standard modules, and so fare it sounds good. But it's hard to compare the results vs software. I'm uncertain as whether it is my imagination, the flashing lights and moving needles that make it sound better. I guess I will have to do some A/B blind tests on myself once to see if there is something to it. 

Yes,
we tried that in a well known mastering studio  during a
3 years (mixing /audio ) education course.
 
To watch the body language of 10 people listening 
to several with software mastered songs in a way shocked me .
We had 2 songs in 2 versions ,mastered with software and hardware.
The body language of the group during  listening to analog mastered
tracks changed completely.
 
If you can manage, I recommend everybody to do such a test .
Since that experience it feels like  a crime to master a song with software for me .
 
Have to mention that I like to do mixing with
software cause there are really good plugins available.
 
sounds interesting,what kind od limiter /compressor are you building?