Who says we can't?

I think soft synths have come a long way in a relatively short time, but I still gravitate to my hardware synths for day to day use. (Although my hardware samplers are getting a bit dusty.)

The advantages that a hardware synth provide boil down to the fact that if I create my sounds using them, I can pack ‘em up, plug ‘em in at gig and utilize those exact same sounds and controllers without the need (or worry) of a pc.

The other feature I like about hardware synths is they’ll never crash or tax my system.
(My system is actually extremely stable and BFD, DR-008 etc. always work glitch free for me, but you know what I’m referring to.)

I don’t think there’s a right or wrong/better or worse anymore for the most part. It's based on your personal preference, work habits and needs.

Softsynths that sound good to me:
(No particular preference implied by the order)

Albino
Octopus
Blue
Purity
Cameleon 5000
Rapture
Dimension Pro
µTonic

And that's just a few of what's available ......

Hey...just reviving an older thread to voice another opinion...

I purchased Wusikstation Platinum (they have a special right now, so I caved)....

There are some pretty cool things in there, but it gets really samey after a while and some of the sounds are just too "zany" to be used in anything but kinda out there stuff - trance, techno, maybe some kinds of hiphop, but a little too unusual for straightforward pop/rock/jazz/r&b/country/etc... Also, the bredth of covereage in it is less than I was expecting. The drums (which I probably wouldn't use anyway unless they were outstanding) were weak at best. The "HQ Pianos" - heard better...etc...Mostly the synth sounds are good but again, a lot of esoteric and "throw one more effect on what otherwise sounds like that square thing I heard earlier". There are things listed in the section called pianos that don't sound even vaguely like a piano...there are a lot of "casio" kinds of sounds - but overall, it doesn't feel like a modern synth and it certainly doesn't have enough bread and butter to it to replace a hardware workstation. It's not multitimbral in the usual sense of the word either, so that means a lot of instances, which evenn if they are low CPU, is a pain.

I DO like some of the stuff that's in there, and I'm sure I'll find $100 worth of overall enjoyment of it.

I still stand that SonikSynth2 (especially when coupled with ST2) is a much better, albeit more expensive option.

Software Synths vs Hardware Synths?

They each have their pluses and minuses and here is my experience with each and why I've decided to go with a mix of both in my studio:

With all of the advantages that software synths may have, there is ONE HUGE disadvantage: They are resource hogs! Hardware synths don't face any resource issues. They are self-contained units that don't require any particular memory or CPU specification to help them along. Theoretically a hardware synth, as long as it doesn't brake down, can run indefinitely without requiring an upgrade to any of its parts. Not so with software synths. These need as much processing horsepower as possible to make them run efficiently.

On the other hand, a major advantage of software synths is that as long as you can keep increasing processing power and memory you should be able to surpass the polyphony(by stacking patches on different channels) and effects processing power of hardware synths. For instance, say we were able to buy machines, without breaking our wallet, that offered 12Ghz CPUs and 12 Giga bytes of memory. There is no telling how many instances of any given plug-in can be instantiated. Hardware synths are a closed boxed. Once the memory and polyphony are maxed out, per manufacturer's limits, that's it! The polyphony and effects processing of hardware synths are fixed forever.

All that being said, a phylosophical question beckons, namely: how much is enough? In other words, what QUALITATIVE difference can the human ear discern between, say, a Korg Trinity's resonant sweep patch and a similar one created by Absynth? Doesn’t it boil down to a matter of personal taste? Granted, there are some bad synth engines out there that produce horrible timbers, but when we start comparing the very best hardware synths to the very best software counterparts, there are very few important audible differences. The differences are easier to discern when we compare a piano sample libray that's 40G bytes large vs one that's a few hundred megabyte. For sampling applications that specialize in acoustic instuments, software wins hands down. I can’t imagine anyone arguing otherwise with any success. But can the same thing be said for software plug-ins that specialize in synthetic sounds?

Someone will argue that software synths, given enough processing power and memory, can produce larger than life sounds because of their ability to stack larger samples, each one with its own distinct characteristics. A case in point would be a comparison of the original Korg Wavestation SR with its software clone. The latter, arguably, is more powerful since it can be instantiated as many times as resources allow with the goal of creating LARGER, DEEPER sounds. But, the same question is asked: when is enough, enough? Where does sound become unattractive, or even unpleasant? We can, theoretically, stack an infinite number of basic sounds. Is that where synthesis is heading? Following the muse that more is better?

We currently have tools at our disposal like Absynth and Spectrasonics Atmosphere. These plug-ins can morph sound into shapes that will raise the hair on the back of our necks. However, when anyone reviews, or better yet, uses these synths on a real world project, you will hear the same story: "These are great sounding tools, but are limited to certain specialized applications: soundtracks, sound effects and sound design." Is this what the vast majority of the public is doing? There’s probably a larger group of artists experimenting with electronic sounds today than at any other time in the history of synthesis. But does that guarantee that we’ll be hearing better music? Some will argue that is the case. Yet, some will say that we are only hearing convoluted noises instead of musical notes.

All the pilosophical issues aside, there is one area that seems to be consistently overlooked when considering soft vs hard synths: the all too important "MIDI program and bank changes". Seems that very few, if any, people using software synths run into this limitation, or care to mention it when discussing this topic.

Take my case: my pieces tend to be longer than 5 minutes; usually 7-9 minutes long. For songs that long I use LOTS of different patches and combinations(20-40 distinct patches is about average for one of my pieces). When using soft synths I cannot change programs or banks via MIDI(not on Dimensio Pro or Arturia CS-80V). This limits the number of soft synth instances I can run for a given piece. Anything over six to eight instances overloads my CPU.

For example, when I run Ivory Grand I can only run one instance of it(not that you need to run more than that) and MAYBE another two or three instances of any other plug-in synth. And I'm running a 3GigHz, 2 Gig Byte machine! In order to run more soft synth instances I have to run them on my other PC. But that is not the answer. My second PC is the one that runs Sonar 5 and where I record my audio. So running too many plug-ins there will tax the resources of that PC.

On the other hand, with hardware synths I don't have this problem. I simply change program as often as I need to. I don't have to worry about CPU overload or memory consumption. Having four hardware synths I have plenty of combinations or patches running simultaenously and swap them out via MIDI program change parameters. Some folks don’t like to work in this way citing that it’s a headache to keep track of all the program changes. In my case I see it as a way to not have to upgrade my PCs with each software synth I add. Its’ really a matter of enconomics for me.

Here is wha I currently run in my studio:

Korg Triton Rack
Kork Trinity Rack x 2
Korg Z1
M-Audio Keystation Pro 88
Arturia CS-80V
Synthogy Ivory
Cakewalk Dimension Pro
Cakewalk Sonar 5
Dell Dimension 2.8 GHZ and 1Gig bytes RAM
Dell Dimension 3 GHZ and 2 Gig bytes RAm

I find that with this configuration I can use my three plug-ins as they were intended, without any hicups.
I design and compose my music in such a way that I know the limits of my software and don’t come close to reaching its peformance boundaries. My hardware synths are my workhorses and until computers with more power and memory become affordable I will hold on to them.

A development that may convince me to drop my hardware altogether would be if sofTware synth vendors were to incorporate MIDI program/bank change capability into their products. I see this as a very difficult thing to implement since most of these tools use large samples that reside on disk and to swap them in and out of memory would require immense processing and bus I/O speeds. An obvious solution would be to load all of the samples into memory once the plug-in is instantiated for the first time. This would make it easier for the host sequencer to swap out samples as needed. However, this still points us to larger memory(in the teens of Giga bytes) and blazing fast CPUs. Will these be available soon and, more importantly, at an affordable price?

For now, hardware synths are a viable solution to the restrictions imposed on computer resources by software synths. Hopefully, in the near future we’ll all have that 12 Ghz, 12Gbyte monster sitting in our studios.

JR Fernandez
January 9, 2006

Am I missing something here? What softsynths don't respond to program change MIDI messages? Seems to me that I do it all the time using my K2661 as a controller and spmetimes I even have to remember to set the Kurz not to send program changes externally when I rotate the alpha wheel in a program select mode.

I think, as some posters have mentioned, that both have their merits. That said, I'd always own at least one 'real' keyboard i.e hardware synth, so that when music is the first priority, mucking around with computers doesn't have to destroy creative impulses.

As I see it, there are several directions that each of us can go in at any different point in time.

1. Working on musical ideas. Use a hardware synth and something immediate like a minidisc recorder to capture ideas as a sketchbook. Because when you're in a musical plane, you're really using a different part of your brain and you - well, certainly I - don't want to faff around loading stuff or mucking around in any way.

2. Gigging. Have one real keyboard and any amount of backup computerised stuff. If the computer stuff crashes you can at least busk on the keyboard - that, in my opinion, is vital - and something that will restart almost instantly after a power glitch is much preferred.

After that most of the stuff we are doing will accommodate computers and some time spent thinking - so soft synths are fine, but I would never relinquish all hardware. I love having knobs and lights in front of me - it makes me feel I'm interacting in a tangible way with the technology.

ORIGINAL: jinga8
Look at ROMplers like Dimension Pro, the IK Multimedia thingy, and that Colossus thing. For synth emulations, check out Arturia, (Moog, Minimoog, ARP2600, CS-80) or Native Intstruments (FM7, P-53, etc) or for some innovative stuff checkout Virsyn, Cakewalk's Rapture and z3ta+, etc.

Dimension Pro is not a ROMpler, it's a sampling synthesizer. It can be used as a straightforward sampler, or you can create your own patches in .sfz code with a simple text editor. Likewise you can just drag and drop single-shot .wav file samples and it will map them automatically up and down the keyboard, without any aliasing.

stratton, you raise another valid point, and one that I didn't want to bring up(for the sake of not wanting to open a can of worms!), namely, the actual SOUND of hardware synths vs software.

I can only speak from my personal experience, but I have not been able to match the DEPTH and WIDTH of my Triton and Trinity patches with Dimension Pro or the CS-80V. Specially the Korg organs, strings and synths. Those patches are simply amazing. The depth and thickness of the B3 organs don't get much better than on the Korgs. In contrast, the B3s on DPro's expansion pack 1 are pretty weak. They are thin and lifeless and adding chorus and reverb to them only makes them sound worse.

I don't know if it's the patches themselves or the D/A converters on the Korgs(I use M-Audio audiophiles 24/96 on my PCs, which are not shabby sound cards), but the sounds seem, to my ears at least, richer and more complex on the Korgs. Of course, it's all subjective. But I've tried long and hard to fiddle around with my soft synths, tryng all kinds of combinations and effects stacking and I cannot match the depth of the Korgs.

Something else that adds to the depth and richness of my hardware synth sounds are the TC Electronic M300s I have running in series with each synth. These units allow me to set compression AND reverb to the signal path and having this combination far exceeds anything I am able to generate via software. I have yet to match the reverb quality of the entry level M300s with anything I have in software; and I have Soundforge reverbs as well as the Lexicon plug-in that comes with Sonar, but neither one of these can enhance the signal as well as the M300s. The differences are dramatic! I am not talking about taste here. It's a discernable difference that most anyone will pick up on. Say what you want, but I am not convinced that software reverbs can stand up to their HW counterparts. Even entry level ones like the M300s.

I have the Orchestral collection expansion card in my Triton rack. The combis offered by that card are FAR superior to any of the Garritan strings and orchestral stuff that comes with DPro(and the samples are smaller on the Korg!). There is no comparison. For classical purists the combis on the Korg expansion card will not work. For example, the patches on the stacked strings combis all play in unison. This is a no no, since each patch should be playing a distinct note of a given chord. So there is no way to fool a purist when playing the combis. However, if one were to take the individual patches and compose using those then realistic approximations can be achieved. I wouldn't attempt to use the strings on DPro on any piece that featured them prominantly. They are simply flat and lifeless.

I just cannot find an area where DPro or the CS-80 can match the richness of the Korgs. True, the CS-80 has a unique PERSONALITY that the Korgs can't match, but I often find myself stacking Korg patches on top of DPro and CS-80 patches to add some depth to them. I hardly, if ever, do the opposite.

I had some old roland analogue synths and some string ensembles in my studio the other day. And I am actually pretty happy that i dont have to deal with them every day... tuning, strange behaviour... turn up a knob and then down again, and the sound isnt the same as it was last time... which is probably part of the charm, but kinda annoying and time wasting for me at least. and they are noisy, and have to be well kept or the knobs are noisy when you turn them etc.
I'm perfectly happy with my (almost) exclusively soft studio :)

One of the best things about SoftSynths is that they use midi.
Midi in the box is a lot more powerful than midi outside the box.
Every time you run a softsynth you're running a whole 'nother
port with another 16 midi channels .... and no midi cables.
And so on ad infinitum ( or until your cpu chokes).

Another plus that comes to mind is the huge ammount of memory
a PC has to offer .... many sample libraries today are way too big
for a standalone hardware based synth/sampler...

Sure the old analogs are hard to emulate exactly but most of the
analog emulations are so close it only really matters to real hard
core afficionados ... most of us haven't even heard the originals
to be able to compare ... so the emulations sound fine.

There are more advantages ... but that will do for now .....

ORIGINAL: Susan G

"So do/can hard synths. ......"

G'day Susan,
Sure they can but I was referring more to the ease with which
one can call up another bank of 16 midi channels in softsynth
land and no need to cable them.....

I understand having a hardware keyboard would be great for
those times when you just want to doodle around or whatever......

I'm a guitarist so I guess the hardware synth is not so important to me.
I just reach for the ol' K-Yairi whenever I need to just chill with an instrument
with no hi tech to think about.... understand the need for that completely...

i think its a two part. when it comes to sound, maybe...but when it comes to creating sound, i would say that softsynth programming is still not an attractive way of creating sound

john

I just thought of something else. When you change patches on most modern hardware synths, any notes currently playing stay playing the old patch. Any new notes play the new patch. Normally the patch change time is also very very short. Try doing that with a softsynth.....

Actually my main ROMPler is a Korg X5D with a.... wait for it.... 8M sample ROM. Although its acoustic piano does suck, the other sounds are mostly killer, with definitely the most convincing clavinet I've ever heard, for instance, excellent organs and some rather nice brass. How they did that in a design which is now over a decade old (and which I think is still in production, because the whole unit weighs about the same as a guitar and for a five octave keyboard is smaller than almost any controller I've ever seen, so it is still a very good piece of kit for gigging, just tuck it under one arm, with a lightweight X stand in the other, and off you go....)

ORIGINAL: FretWizz

ORIGINAL: Susan G

"So do/can hard synths. ......"

G'day Susan,
Sure they can but I was referring more to the ease with which
one can call up another bank of 16 midi channels in softsynth
land and no need to cable them.....

I understand having a hardware keyboard would be great for
those times when you just want to doodle around or whatever......

I'm a guitarist so I guess the hardware synth is not so important to me.
I just reach for the ol' K-Yairi whenever I need to just chill with an instrument
with no hi tech to think about.... understand the need for that completely...

Don't those guitar things need cables and ports and amplifiers and mics etc to get them into Sonar (not to mention all those pesky strings)- wouldn't a guitar soft synth be better then

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Different things make different sounds - in any given situation some'll be more suitable than others - pick the one that suits it best.