Soft Synths vs Hardware (Triton) - Pros and Cons?

I love good hardware synths. I also love good software synths.  I use both all the time.

A1MixMan


Softsyths settings are saved with the project, hard synth settings are not.

That is not true. Ever hear of sysex? Also if one is just using stock patches there is nothing to save except the patch from the ini file.

John

A1MixMan


Softsyths settings are saved with the project, hard synth settings are not.

That is not true. Ever hear of sysex? Also if one is just using stock patches there is nothing to save except the patch from the ini file.

What if your not using a midi cable only the 1/4 inch outs? sysex doesn't work then. Or if your synth doesn't even have midi.

But I suspect you have already found that using the built-in sequencer etc. is a good deal more tedious than doing that on a computerized DAW

Yes!  I started a few songs with the Triton's sequencer but then finished them in Sonar, and have stuck with Sonar for sequencing ever since.  Managing the Triton's effects is a pain (since it needs to be done via the touch screen rather than the computer), but I use SYSX to save them with each project; it's cumbersome, but I am used to it by now.  I do all the mixing in Sonar. 

If you are just using samples or built in sounds that may not matter much

I haven't been tweaking sounds on the Triton, mostly because they are not saved via the SYSX I'm using, and cannot be saved with each project.  Also, I tend to use realistic-sounding instruments (piano, bass, drums, etc.) rather than synthy stuff, so I don't often think about changing the sounds.  However, sometimes I wish I could tweak a kick or snare which just isn't "doing it for me".  With the Triton I just give up, but if soft synths' sounds can be saved with each project, I might give sound tweaking a shot.

Which of the soft synths included in Sonar 8.5 is a good starting point for "realistic" sounds?  I've got them all installed, but have only fiddled a few minutes with TTS-1 and Dimension Pro (which is a bit sluggish).

If you're after realistic sounds, Dimension's probably the best included option. On an older machine, you'll probably want to methodically use the freeze function though - or, though the solution is less than ideal, use a lighter Soft Synth to write and work out the basic arrangements and then reassign those tracks to Dimension and freeze.

Big plus to softsynths to me is:
Kontakt 4.1 has killer sounds and only cost $379. Routing is amazing, you edit samples right in Kontakt, you can morph sounds together (very cool) Of interest to keyboard players is you can layer and split the keyboard anywhere and way you like. Although I am a guitar player.Right now they all kinds of promos. You cannot buy a hardware synth that will even come close to Kontakt for $379. Granted, you said that come with Sonar. Maybe you need to invest in a really good one.
I do still use my Good old Edirol SC-88VL, the sounds are, well different.
I think both definitely have their place today.
edited:confuse

I'm with Susan.  I would find it difficult to give up my Triton, Motif and Fantom (though the latter two are just the sound modules). 

I like messing around with them I suppose and for shear 'get the idea down', you can't beat it.   While my current workstation is very stable and reliable for Sonar, there were times that getting everything to hold hands and sing kum-ba-yah would just suck the ever loving life out of the creative moment.

I'm old. 

There are definite advantages to both.

I used to have a very big hardware synth setup but now have reduced it to 3 Kurzweils and 2 EMU samplers. All with large libraries. (Including Roland, Akai , Yamaha and Ensoniq) I think it is sound quality issue. They can all do 16 part multi timbral arrangements and their effects processors sound good too. They have unique qualities such as Kurzweil VAST which has not been modelled in any plug in to date. (yet!) I would love to see that! EMU has a sound all of its own. Sometimes the patches just have so much depth and warmth it is hard to describe. I have receently discovered the sound of Yamaha samplers and they are a treat too. Hard to use but interesting texture.

The Kurzweil is simply one of the best sounding hardware devices on the planet and so also is the EMU. They sound great. But so do all the synths within Sonar (and  extras of course) and marrying the two can give endless possibilities. It is not that difficult to reset the hardware with the same sounds and everything even years later. EMU and Kurzweil also have digital output options for transferring their signal that way and that is also a nice option.

I agree with all those that have mentioned great sounding instruments so far such as Yamaha, Roland, Korg etc...Many of the keyboard models make wonderful controllers too.

Its still a good idea to turn external synth parts into audio as well but not always necessary. I use a Yamaha digital mixer to accept all their analog signals and it works a treat. I do love the sound of the hardware playing live during a mixdown. It has always been special to me. The libraries are important and many companies have great and extended libraries.

But I am getting excited about the Kontakt 4 concept too as that can read all of the above mentioned libraries that I am currently using and I know the NI is going to sound damn good! Hey just add another 43 Gig to your collection. And although I love the hardware, I also believe it is only a matter of time before all these things sound wise will be fully realised in a virtual capacity.

Maybe we have too much to choose from. (I have 900 million patches now and loops! ) I think I liked it a lot when I had only a handful of analog synths and I had to set the panels each time to make them sound.

Bit like the simplicity of picking up an acoustic guitar. If your synth is already patched into your sound system its just a matter of playing away with changes to patches readily at your finger tips. No mouse to fiddle with.

I still have one synth and a controller keyboard hooked up that way so I can just play without all the wizz bang gadgetry of computers, sound cards, softsynths fx etc.

Don't get me wrong when I work I'm totally In The Box (ITB) these days because its just got such enormous variety and flexibility I'd never go back.

BUT! Sometimes you just gotta play.

Hi,

I'm an old geezer that grew up on Hammond B3s, Rhodes, Polysix, Prophet 5, Emulator II and various sound modules. Years ago, I wanted to see if I could find an equal counterpart to all my old favorites as well as the flexibility of new sounds. I really believe that softsynths have delivered on that. The NI instruments suites, Dim Pro, Reason, Korg legacy collections have really came through for me. I can even load all my old favorite samples from my EMU-II into Kompakt and enjoy those sounds forever without having to worry about my old hardware. I agree that for live performance you can't beat the doppler effect of a leslie speaker, but for recording I love the NI B4. There are many great hardware synths still out there but for a limited budget, softsynths are the way to go. Just my humble opinion.

I've had at one time or another nearly all the top shelf hardware synths and romplers (and Korgs were my favorites) But with the exception of one piano sound from my Alesis QS8 which serves as my controller I am now totally inside the box.  And I wouldn't go back.  Ever.  

I just read an interesting article in the latest EM about synthesizers.  There was a gathering of some of the world's most famous synthesizer developers including Dave Smith, Tom Oberheim, and Don Buchla.  Dave Smith made an interesting point when he said at some point in the life of a soft synth it will be obsolete because of the company's demise and the inability to port the soft synth over to new operating systems and processors, etc.  While, a hard synth will always be there in spite of technological advances in computing.  He may well be biased, but it has already happened to some soft synths, and it, no doubt, will happen again.  It would seem to me to be a warning to buy only from well established companies and be wary of the fly by nighters.  That being said, I'm still happy with all my hard and soft synths.
Regards to all,
Lynn   

Yea, I read that article too Lynn, ol pal.  Only trouble is that a hardware synth will still be stuck with it's architecture and limitations and (usually) very small amount of RAM...FOREVER.  And hardware synth makers go out of business just like software makers (Dave Smith put most of his company up his nose in the eighties).  Plus a really good hardware synth or rompler will cost you on the north side of $2000.00 semolians.  Omnishpere which...IMHO...puts almost everything else soft or hard to shame is only $479.00 and even if Spectrasonics went out of business tomorrow you could spend the next ten years or so and still be learning stuff about Omni's sounds and programming depth (and it's 30GIGS of samples and waves to play with).  Plus...bear with me here...if new operating systems come along new software synths and romplers will too.  And they will only be more powerful and feature laden than what has come before.  Now that's truly scary.  Lastly...yep, I'm finally wrappin it up...what are hardware synths anyway?  Just software synths in a box.  Rock On Software!!

I, too, depend primarily on hardware synthesizers. Over the past 5 years I have been actively trying to use software synths and samplers more. The problem is the hardware just works so much better!

My primary synth is a Yamaha MO8, which serves as both voice module and MIDI controller. It's about 6 years old, but most of its sounds are still superior to anything I have in software, despite having invested thousands in software (about 100GB in samples last I counted).

Even when I have a patch for a software sampler that's equal to the MO8, I'll still use the MO8 for one simple reason: no latency.

Sometimes, I'll record MIDI with the MO8 and then substitute another synth later, but that often doesn't work well because I use pitch bend, mod wheel and keyswitches during the performance and these don't always translate to another synth.

A hardware synth will never crash your computer. If you tire of it, it can be sold on eBay (unlike soft synths). If you hold on to it long enough, it will hold its value or even appreciate in value (unlike soft synths).

Then there's playability. My MO8 (and probably your Triton, too) has a much higher quality keyboard than any MIDI controller I've ever owned or banged on in a music store or at NAMM. And my Hammond XK-1 has a real B-3 style keyboard, which lets me actually play it like an organ - something nearly impossible on your average "semi-weighted" controller keyboard. Real drawbars complete the package.

Finally, I still play live. You will never, ever see me on stage with a friggin' laptop!

As usual Dave has hit upon a point that may explain some things here. If we divide ourselves into musicians and producers from a perspective view I think it becomes clear that musicians have as a major part of their being an intimate relationship with the instrument they know and use. It is hard for me to have any sort of feeling for a softsynth. I am a sax player and look at a saxophone as an extension of myself.  It is a conduit to my most deep emotions from a musical point of view. I can not see being that close to any software in any way. A producer is not looking at it this way. A producer is looking at the sound in total. His instrument is the entire production process. There can not be a close relation to a favored instrument that goes back years or the feeling that comes with such human instrument collaboration on a physical level.

Nither is better or more attuned to music but the one approaches the subject a little differently then the other.

I believe that what is said above can help understand the differing point of views here. Then again maybe not. LOL