Current state of Soft Synths - Sonic Quality

Beatport · Post by **Beatport** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:08 am

This is an age old debate but I feel that it needs reassessment from time to time.

A lot of evolution has taken place in the soft synth arena in the past year+.

I personally feel that soft synths have finally caught up in sonic quality to their hardware counterparts. Whereas only 2 years ago it was tough to find a synth that could live up to my experiences with my Virus, Nord etc, I now find that instruments such as Zebra2 and Massive sound just as good as my hardware. Interested in other thoughts.

hacktheplanet · Post by **hacktheplanet** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:42 am

We need to stop thinking about software instruments and hardware instruments as two separate mutually exclusive entities. It's like comparing apples and oranges, really, when it's all apples. It may have been the case 5 years ago that hardware generally sounded better, but that's not relevant now that so many interesting, complex software synths have been released.

Some synths sound better than others, that's no question. Whether they are hardware or software doesn't matter. We should be comparing the synthesis engines rather than the packaging and interface.

Machinesworking · Post by **Machinesworking** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:51 am

This whole debate is simple to me really.
Digital hardware can easily be matched sound quality wise by a computer. Analogue hardware is much harder to match, though if you are not terribly picky the analogue versions these days are really good.

I have a Memorymoog, JMP-1, and X-Station. The JMP-1 and memorymoog are still not really done to my satisfaction in total. That said, Guitar Rig is Quickly replacing the JMP-1, but I still haven't been able to replace the Memorymoog.
My dream setup would include a ton of old modular synths, and a ton of soft synths.

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:19 am

i.m.o. analog can still not be matched..

though VA hard and soft are equal these days..

shaneblyth · Post by **shaneblyth** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:37 am

sorry guys but I ahve been trying to find a softsynth to replace the sounds on my Yamaha Motif ES I have tried the lot but nothing is close to the sound quality ease of use and flexability
sure softsynths are great for certain things but no matter what platform PC or Mac you cant quite get there.. Otherwise I would of sold up and moved on..
It is actually alot cheaper to buy a piece of hardware.. the receptor maybe the exception but that is just putting your softsynths into a hardware box...

shaneblyth · Post by **shaneblyth** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:41 am

the_planet wrote:We need to stop thinking about software instruments and hardware instruments as two separate mutually exclusive entities. It's like comparing apples and oranges, really, when it's all apples. It may have been the case 5 years ago that hardware generally sounded better, but that's not relevant now that so many interesting, complex software synths have been released.

Some synths sound better than others, that's no question. Whether they are hardware or software doesn't matter. We should be comparing the synthesis engines rather than the packaging and interface.

the only thing you triggered in my thoughts was this

Hardware synths are dedicated and designed computer hardware that is designed to do one thing and one thing only

Software synths are in hardware that is not designed to do a single thing and not designed for music apps at all.. sure they work but maybe thats a better way to look at it.

Johnisfaster · Post by **Johnisfaster** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:08 am

neither hardware or software are better, just different.
is the sound of a spoon hitting a pot better than the sound of a rock hitting a piece of wood? the rock hitting the wood does have it's warm charactor but we all know the spoons and pots have that brightness and shine you'll never get out of wood and rocks. personally I think a good spoon and pot recorded to tape will always sound better. damn those people who record their spoons and pots digitally.

the fact is this: no one cares. just make music.

Beatport · Post by **Beatport** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:35 am

How about the sSOund of A rack hiotting your head!!

Just Kidding, not really crazy ... good point!

realtrance · Post by **realtrance** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:01 am

Honestly, I have to say in these days of 2.4GHz Core Duo CPUs with 2GB of RAM PC and Mac systems, with literally hundreds of gigabytes of hard disk space: the resources available for "softsynths" are just so huge that nothing in hardware can compare any more.

The little issues that remain are latency (get a good sound card) and stability (dedicate your Mac/PC to music-making and most of that problem is solved).

I think we demand so much of Mac/PC hardware, in terms of flexibility, and have so much variety in softsynths, that we lose sight of the depth really available now. There are things you can do, with sequencers and combinations of softsynths and all sorts of audio and MIDI effects, that hardware can't even begin to get near.

OTOH there remains the performative and integrated quality to a good keyboard or rack module. It's a dedicated device, with its software and performance interface specialized to what it does best.

I used to be completely averse to softsynths but at this stage I've totally changed my mind. I can easily see them replacing hardware in the next few years.

djsynchro · Post by **djsynchro** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:20 am

Depends on what you want to do. If you want a really tight bassline, IMO softsynths are better, especially the ones that restart the oscillator on keydown.

A lot of real synths (Roland SH-101) produce clicks after the release stage which is also a real problem getting a clean, tight bassline.

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:19 am

I used to think that this debate was futile.
But now that I've been involved in the process of testing the crap out of a hardware emulation, I gained a fresh perspective.

Although some people will argue this point, Audiorealism's Bassline 2 is the closest thing you'll find to a hardware tb-303.
It is designed with analog behaviour in mind.
Since not every tb-303 will sound the same as the other, you are able to configure most of the settings that might get you closer to the sound of what you feel a 303 to be.
It's emulated right down to the accent ducking and vca clicks (optional).
The synth is still not a real 303. But then again, the only good thing about a 303 was the sound and the sequencer.
Once we get OSC/HID or something else that is better then MIDI, then the
resolution over controlling a parameter will drastically improve.

Which brings me down to the point of my post.
Both software and hardware have their downfalls.
Hardware always has limitations.
Software always has issue's.

We cant match the level of control we have over hardware in software. Especially not when it comes to controlling sound. We're still stuck with a 0-127 CC value limit in software.
While hardware doesn't have this limitation..

So this debate is really not about sound and the quality of it all. It's about the quality you get from tweaking sounds that are not limited to 128 steps. (IMHO)

ikke · Post by **ikke** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:41 am

Pasha · Post by **Pasha** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 12:02 pm

Personally I go back and forth between them and still I can't decide.

Just yesterday I recorded a groove piano solo. First I was using SampleTank (I'm talking about a 499$ softsynth here). The sound was good.
Then I changed to my old (Year 2001) Roland JV1010, 64 notes Piano Sample.
Crispier. Closer to the real thing. I left the track with this last one.

My take is that it depends on what part you're playing/recording sometimes hardware modules stand in a mix a way more better than softsynths do. They sound warmer and even without effects the base sound sounds better to me.
If you look at JV1010 specs you find out that the samples ROM is a fraction of my 5GB SampleTank library...
It's also true that by using Softsynths you gain a lot more portability and when it comes to mix you can deep freeze the track without recording it in real time from your hardware MIDI module, keeping all the process in the digital domain.

To my ears some sounds are better from hardware, even though for bread and butter sounds a Softsynth does its job wonderfully.

Of course when you ear pianoteq....http://www.pianoteq.com/
We are looking a revolution in synthesis, closer to reality without tons of samples. Math does the trick here. We'll see.

- Best
- Pasha

mathew · Post by **mathew** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:48 pm

shaneblyth wrote:sorry guys but I ahve been trying to find a softsynth to replace the sounds on my Yamaha Motif ES I have tried the lot but nothing is close to the sound quality ease of use and flexability

but, you are playing a soft synth.
all modern digital synths are software with hardware controllers.

if you could put albino or polyiblit inside of a box, it would be the same as saying "my motif sounds authentic".

the reason you havet found anything that matches the motif, is that, well, nobody has copied the motif into a hardwareless version. its not like there is circuitry that has variables in its inherent character.[/i]

Michael-SW · Post by **Michael-SW** » Mon Feb 05, 2007 8:55 pm

shaneblyth wrote:
the only thing you triggered in my thoughts was this

Hardware synths are dedicated and designed computer hardware that is designed to do one thing and one thing only

Software synths are in hardware that is not designed to do a single thing and not designed for music apps at all.. sure they work but maybe thats a better way to look at it.

The digital hardware inside most synths are generally inferior to a general purpose computer. That is why you actually can buy a hardware synth for less than a high end computer. Also it is not magic hardware, it is ones and zeroes just like your computer.

But you may partially right, as most soft synth developers are wary of overloading your computer and "low CPU usage" is a selling point for soft synths. A hardware synth designer doesn't have to think about leaving CPU left for your DAW, reverbs whatever. On the other hand, he has a more limited hardware to work with.

Current state of Soft Synths - Sonic Quality

How do soft synths currently compare to hardware?

Current state of Soft Synths - Sonic Quality