Studio One and virtual synths was an easy decision for me...no more hardware synths yay...I've got three of them with burned out LED screens making them useless. Have you priced them lately compared to virtual synths and sound modules ??

No doubt hardware is more expensive that software.  Sometimes, I just prefer the immediacy of the hardware.

Can't do the dongle, ever. I did the ilok thing swore never again so that eliminated cubase almost out of the shoot.

rbrodbec
It can but it looks like you have to change the msb/lsb calculation versus how you use it in the track inspector which is ridiculous. No .ins file makes it almost unusable for outboard midi gear at least from a workflow perspective IMHO.
If using softsynths it's not a problem.

Opinion only not fact.  I still cannot understand why you don't just set your external synths on the sounds you want to hear.  It sounds to me like the instrument definitions fan boys are just too lazy to be able to set their external synths on the sounds they want.  Or they can't.  More to the point.  Sounds like they cannot edit the patches either as well. 
 
The only thing with this is you have to be familiar with the OS for each hardware synth you have but then again you should be.  If you are not in top of how all your hardware synths work and operate then you should not be using them.  It keeps your brain active too.
 
I use 8 powerful external instruments and have no issues auditioning sounds, editing sounds and just plain leaving the sounds set after doing that. You actually don't need any program changes at all.  I find it is easier not to use them. That way they won't be switching sounds when you don't want them to.  Even if you turn everything off and come back the next day, all my synths will bring up the sound exactly as you left it too. Most hardware synths do this now. 
 
When you are ready you just print your external synths to audio.  And if you do create a patch all you need to do is save it somewhere in the synth itself.  And make a note in Studio One etc that you have used it.  You can name midi events in Studio One to anything you want.  No limit of the length of the name either.  I usually put where the sound lives in that first event name on the track. 

Jeff, though I appreciate your almost religious zeal for S1, you may need to realize that not everyone uses hardware the same way you do.  Your way is not right nor wrong, same as my way is not right nor wrong.  It's just different.   S1 simply can't handle the outboard workflow that some people use. Whether or not you understand it is not the issue - some people (like me) want those features.  You make too many assumptions based on your specific workflow.
 
I gave S1 a good shot - I really wanted to like it, but Cubase was just better for me.
 
-An instrument definition fan boy

The xv5080 can produce up to 32 "sounds" at the same time. It can run tracks of sounds at once, there is no set it to one sound that would be silly. It's a multitimbral device only limited to the sounds you select and if they are poly or mono (will impact the 32 patches you can run at a time). It's loaded with 100's of instruments plus all the performance mode selections, plus my add in cards, plus my user created patches.

I got it working but it is definitely a pita, that is not opinion brah, that is a fact.

Roland manuals are suck.

I get that you have chosen Cubase for its powerful midi capability. No issues there. But to choose another DAW purely based in Studio One's lack of instrument definitions is just plain dumb.  
 
I just believe the moment you have any sort of hardware synth living in your studio you really need to learn it, understand it and be able to use it to its full.  Just switching sounds remotely is not really maximising the use of that machine.  
 
I personally think its fun too getting into the OS systems of these things. They are all different.  Also I am within reach of my hardware synths too from where I am sitting making the job of setting up sounds on each one pretty easy.
 
As the late great Edgar Froese from Tangerine dream said he never uses factory presets because the guy next door has the same presets.  Once you really start either editing patches or making them from scratch then that is when the music will start to sound original.  I get that not everyone wants to do that for sure but how hard is it to simply select a patch on the from panel of the machine you are using.
 
And what about the situation when you might have thousands of patches for an instrument like the Roland JD800 that only has an internal memory of 64. Well it means you have to start loading them in, bank by bank and auditioning them.  If you only use the 64 patches for your Roland JD800 then that is really limiting the use of that machine.  You are missing out on the other thousands of patches for it.
 
Hardware synths require an approach to use them to their fullest. And it aint just leaving their patch memories where they are and using instrument definitions either.
 
Oh and what happens if you have got a synth that there are no instrument definitions for! Are you going to throw it away then.
 
Setting up multi timbral things is yes a little harder for sure but still it is no big deal. Some of my hardware makes this a snap. Others take a little longer for sure but it can be done. You can save those setups too and recall them pretty easily.  If you have multiple synths I prefer to get each one only doing one sound per midi port. They always sound better that way anyway. 
 
 

No I have a different point of view. I like presets. The more the merrier. Why ?? Because I can call up a sound that is familiar to me without spending hours and hours tweaking knobs to get one particular sound. Then try coming back 6 months later to rework the song and try to re-create your special sound...almost impossible.
 
Presets can be fun. I took a preset of Van Halen's famous Jump intro solo, and put it to use in a completely different song, and it came out great for me. That particular sound worked great in my lead part. Nothing else I tried worked as good. So what if that sound has been used before....think of it this way,how many piano players play the same piano sound, or guitar players playing guitars with similar sounds.....why do synth sounds have to be all different ??

Again Jeff, please don't make assumptions:
 
Fact - I didn't choose Cubase over Studio One because S1 lacked support for definition files.  I picked it because I liked it better overall.
 
Fact -  I rarely use presets - I love programming sounds from scratch.  Then I store them in user memory - which I can then choose with a definition file. 
 
Fact - It is not just about changing patches.  Cubase has the ability to create device panels as well - very useful.  Especially if your synths are not within easy arm's reach.
 
Fact - I know my hardware well.  Don't assume that because someone wants to use a definition file to change patches, they don't know their hardware.  That is a ridiculous assumption.  
 
>Oh and what happens if you have got a synth that there are no instrument definitions for! Are you going to throw it away then.
 
Don't assume people just troll the internet to find definition files.   I wrote my own Sonar Instrument definition files, and then created my own Cubase patch scripts for every one of my four pieces of hardware.  From scratch.  
 
 
One thing you and I agree on - it is a blast to play around with synths.  They all have their own unique characteristics and idiosyncrasies.