Software VS Hardware

[Evan Gamble]

I'm sure this has been discussed before but I've got a simple question...why on earth would anyone buy a product such as the Korg Oasys now an days? It has what..600 MEGABYTES of samples...while Colussus has 32 GIGABYTES. I actually own a Korg KARMA, and the reason I bought it was because I didnt have a good computer, so I guess not having a computer could be the only reason. But otherwise I dont understand how instruments like the Oasys, the motif, Triton, Roland XV series, ext even have a chance. Can someone explain?

[Tomke]

Hardware ...
- uses its own processing which saves power in the computer and provides more polyphony with less sync problems.
- as good as never hang or f**ks up thing with programs and saved work.
- delivers more direct access to parameters and adjustments
- can be used for live performance more conveniently (as opposed to setting up your PC on stage).

The guy who did music for "Chicken run" .. gah, can't remember his name ... Greg something ... he uses very little software sound resources. Instead, he still uses a setup of about 30 Roland S-760 hardware samplers, all connected to his sequencer. He claims it is much more stable than software.

Many soundmodules, take Roland XV or fantom series as an example, delivers sounds with better "direct use" quality then I have heard in nearly any software library out there.

Those are some advantages that hardware still has over software. But we are in a time of turmoil. Things are turning more towards software use. But before the software times, as recently as 5 years ago, many composers was all into hardware, because that was were all the sound resources were back then. Software sound resources in a computer is quite new from that perspective. :)

[mike harper]

software is just another tool there are upsides and downsides.
i never had to reboot my roland xv5080 becuase or driver issues!

[Andrew Aversa]

I have to agree with the initial poster. While hardware is useful if you're doing live recording (obviously), if you're doing all your sound generation from your computer, it's very easy and cost-effective to do without it. Why buy a Triton when you can get SampleTank 2 for 1/10 the price, which has several GB more samples? Why buy a Novation K-Station when you could get the VST (V-Station) for much less, and it sounds the same? It's a mystery to me, really.

[janila]

Why buy a Triton when you can get SampleTank 2 for 1/10 the price, which has several GB more samples? Why buy a Novation K-Station when you could get the VST (V-Station) for much less, and it sounds the same? It's a mystery to me, really.And you can use several instances of the plugin simultaneously.

[Bardstown Audio]

In a professional or home studio setup, there is no advantage to using hardware keyboards or samplers. On a live playing engagement some people may find it to be more convenient to use a hardware keyboard as opposed to taking a computer, though many are using laptops these days on live performance gigs.

Kip McGinnis
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com

[Andrew Aversa]

Well.. right, for performance, a hardware synth might make a lot more sense. I guess I'm referring to studio work only, which is what the larger market is, I'd imagine.

The one hardware company that knows what they're doing is Access, with their new TI line.

[FredProgGH]

Plus, you have to factor in good old inertia. The notion of using a pc as a synth as opposed to a hardware keyboard just takes some work to wrap your head around for some people. I plan to do some gigs later this year and I want to use all my softsynths but I'm still a bit paranoid about taking them live. I'd like to be able to have a whole second redundant system on standby but I'm not sure I can afford it. Also, I guess I'll have to look into the issues of getting additional licenses for everything.

But I agree, when you look into it it seems almost impossible to find justifications to use hardware over software these days.

[Thomas_J]

Many of the best, most musical sounds (not including orchestral) are still only available in hardware form. Probably because of the compelling piracy issue with software solutions. M-Audio made a wise decision when they predicted the explosive growth of software-based studios, and commenced manufacturing of an entire range of USB Midi Controllers. Should have had my stocks in M-Audio ;)

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Don't be paranoid about a PC on stage. Just work out the kinks and set up a roadworthy rig. It's actually very easy, and I guarantee you it takes very little more energy to set up than any other keyboard rig. You just need to do it in the most effective way. I've been using soft-synths exclusively on stage since 2000...and I have literally had only one problem, and it was caused 100% by my own stupidity. I replaced a drive, and wasn't careful putting the drive cage back into the machine and pinched (and shorted a couple of the wires within) a drive ribbon cable. Even at that, the machine worked unless it was hitting that drive, and I got through the gig using Reaktor for everything instead of using my usual combo of Giga and Reaktor.

I wouldn't go back for anything.

[FredProgGH]

Bruce, do you use rackmount pc's, laptops or standard towers?? I only plan to do a couple gigs so I'm questioning the need to invest in a big heavy rack system. Do you just run everything out in stereo, or break it up??

[Nick Batzdorf]

Which sounds are you talking about, Thomas?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Bruce, do you use rackmount pc's, laptops or standard towers?? I only plan to do a couple gigs so I'm questioning the need to invest in a big heavy rack system. Do you just run everything out in stereo, or break it up??

Rack. 4-space. 8-in, 8-out, into a rackmount mixer.

For me, it's the foolproofing in general. You just want to eliminate failure at every turn, in advance, knowing that unexpected things happen. No need to deal with the things you can reasonably expect on top of that. The reason I do not even consider a laptop is that I have had extensive experience with both, and the rackmount solution is the hands-down best. And my laptop experineces were actually less demanding (lectures/clinics) than gigging. A laptop is just a very vulnerable machine on a lot of levels, and even if you beef it up with a bunch of peripherals in every way, you arrive at a significantly increased expense with little or no convenience benefits to show for it.

Certainly you could use almost anything you wanted, and arrive at some system which works for you. My recommendations are more in line with the idea of "live" meaning that the same system could serve anything from local gigging to bus-and-truck.

[Haydn]

I've had hardware synths lockup on me during live performance and have had functions just quit working such as the sustain pedal. Only cycling the power fixed these issues. So hardware can fail and lockup.

[Tomke]

A laptop is just a very vulnerable machine on a lot of levels ...
Out of curiousity. I have not carried any computers on live gigs myself. But if I did, I would be concerned over the health of those. I'm thinking of the light violence road-gear sometimes encounter. Computers contains some delicate moving parts; harddisks for example. How do you deal with that?

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Somewhere buried in this website (maybe a search would find it), I wrote about some of the strategies I've used.

First of all, it is very dependent upon your gig situation. For local gigs where you handle the computer yourself, you have a large degree of control, and you simply treat the computer as well as possible. I would at minumum use a rackmount computer, simply because they're far more bulletproof, and a flight case (whether it's a rack or just a case that tightly holds the CPU unit). Monitor also gets a flight case.

For a road situation where you're not handling the gear, I say put it into a rack of significant size, with nice casters, which would encourage the cartage folk to take the path of least resistance and roll (rather than throw around) the rack.

I would also make the hard drives ALL removable in a road situation, and have a set of backups including a fully-installed and authorized second system drive. I also keep a redundant set of sample drives, loaded and sitting in a drawer.

Once you've removed the drives from the equation by reduncancy and removal, you have largely conquered the "sensitive parts" problem.

I have to confess that I have written an article for publication on this subject, and it might be unfair to my publisher to essentially spill the whole thing here. So maybe someone besides me who has done the gig/tour thing with a computer could also help fill in some of the gaps...

[Ouch that hurts]

I've had hardware synths lockup on me during live performance and have had functions just quit working such as the sustain pedal. Only cycling the power fixed these issues. So hardware can fail and lockup.

Exactly so, and MIDI itself can be an unpredictable PITA, regardless of whether computers are involved. MIDI loops and stuck notes can easily happen in an all-hardware setup.

[StrangeCat]

I have to agree with the initial poster. While hardware is useful if you're doing live recording (obviously), if you're doing all your sound generation from your computer, it's very easy and cost-effective to do without it. Why buy a Triton when you can get SampleTank 2 for 1/10 the price, which has several GB more samples? Why buy a Novation K-Station when you could get the VST (V-Station) for much less, and it sounds the same? It's a mystery to me, really.

What? dude A triton extreme sounds better then Sampletank2 it offers a lot more too, not to mention a full midi controller keyboard that you can dive any sound into. Even my Roland XP-80 expansion boards included, has better sound then Sampletank2. So it's very cost effective to get a professional Keyboard and take advantage of that then say just buy some software with sounds and efx. yea I own Sampletank2 there a lot of good sounds and there is a lot crap also it's sort of a balance I think. Not to mention you could do a full song and production on a Triton as well. and if you compose you need a (keyboard full 88 keys for a midi controller) that will help a lot in arranging and scoring, playing jazz, using as a groove box, etc....

[Andrew Aversa]

What? dude A triton extreme sounds better then Sampletank2 it offers a lot more too, not to mention a full midi controller keyboard that you can dive any sound into. Even my Roland XP-80 expansion boards included, has better sound then Sampletank2. So it's very cost effective to get a professional Keyboard and take advantage of that then say just buy some software with sounds and efx. yea I own Sampletank2 there a lot of good sounds and there is a lot crap also it's sort of a balance I think. Not to mention you could do a full song and production on a Triton as well. and if you compose you need a (keyboard full 88 keys for a midi controller) that will help a lot in arranging and scoring, playing jazz, using as a groove box, etc....

Triton Extremes don't even have half a gigabyte of samples. The sounds are good, but not good enough to justify paying $3000 over $300 worth of samples - I personally like Sonik Synth also. A professional keyboard is not "cost effective" by any stretch of imagination. My current setup, INCLUDING my top-of-the-line computer and sequencer, easily beats the capabilities of a Triton, and it doesn't cost as much as one. Why do I "need" to have a full 88 key keyboard for arranging and scoring again? I don't need any keyboard. All of the music I write is done using my mouse alone. I don't do any live input whatsoever. And it works really well, and the results sound great.

Come on. Maybe these expensive workstations and hardware synths/samplers were useful a decade ago, but not nearly as much anymore.

[David Abraham]

All of the music I write is done using my mouse alone. I don't do any live input whatsoever.

yikes...http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Andrew Aversa]

yikes...http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

It's not as bad as it sounds. Working with FL5's godlike piano roll makes it very easy for me to write even complex passages - I don't think I could get by without it. Inputting live requires low latency (higher CPU usage, buggier playback), as well as very precise playing, and usually some post-playing editing. Why go through all that bother? Even as a pianist with 10 years of experience, I still feel it's not worth it and doesn't save any time.

[David Abraham]

Why go through all that bother? Even as a pianist with 10 years of experience, I still feel it's not worth it and doesn't save any time.

well I suppose it's because at the end of the day I want to enjoy the process, and at this point I still enjoy playing...

[epexegenesis]

It's not as bad as it sounds. Working with FL5's godlike piano roll makes it very easy for me to write even complex passages - I don't think I could get by without it. Inputting live requires low latency (higher CPU usage, buggier playback), as well as very precise playing, and usually some post-playing editing. Why go through all that bother? Even as a pianist with 10 years of experience, I still feel it's not worth it and doesn't save any time.

I feel the same way. I have used FL to compose ever since i started making music on the computer. I don't like playing something from my keyboard because the timing has to be so rigid and my soundcard/computer setup doesn't give me very low latency. I've tried every other possible sequencer but just cannot get used to their piano rolls, which I find it very awkward to use and very very very hard to write music fast with. With FL, I can often click in a melody faster than I can play it anyway.

[FredProgGH]

It's not as bad as it sounds. Working with FL5's godlike piano roll makes it very easy for me to write even complex passages - I don't think I could get by without it. Inputting live requires low latency (higher CPU usage, buggier playback), as well as very precise playing, and usually some post-playing editing. Why go through all that bother? Even as a pianist with 10 years of experience, I still feel it's not worth it and doesn't save any time.

Hey, it worked for Nancarrow!! To me it's the ends, not the means. Do it how ya wanna do it :D

[Andrew Aversa]

well I suppose it's because at the end of the day I want to enjoy the process, and at this point I still enjoy playing...

Oh, I agree. I play the piano several hours a day, and enjoy it very much. But somehow, when you have to write 100 different orchestral lines, most of which are fairly simple and boring, the joy of playing disappears rather abruptly. It does so even faster when you factor in frustrations with quantization, latency, recording, and automation. Recording electronic music live makes even less sense, because much of the 'sound' there comes from the texture, which has more to do with how you design the synthetic drums and instruments than the notes you play.

Anyway, getting back on topic, I think it's important to add that most hardware deveopers are probably scared about going software, and that's probably why they've tried not to. It's not hard to see the struggling software-only developers all around, and even with annoying (and increasingly complex) copyright protection methods like dongles, pirates continue to find a way around them. I'm sure the Triton sounds could be very easily sampled, and MOSS boards reprogrammed and distributed in VST/DX/AU/RTAS, but Korg just doesn't want to do it yet. That's why Access is the smartest hardware developer around, making a hardware synth that acts JUST like a software VST in terms of ease-of-integration, but cannot be pirated and has tons of power and all the benefits of hardware as well.

[StrangeCat]

Come on. Maybe these expensive workstations and hardware synths/samplers were useful a decade ago, but not nearly as much anymore.[/QUOTE]

I guess it's just matter of taste and opinion. naa I still want a Roland Fantom X sometime ;)
and yea i input with a mouse in sibelius for scoring and arranging, and use a pen and staff paper for composing. I play the piano so I need a keyboard LOL. It's all good. :D Software Hardware, whatever get's the production done.

[Evan Gamble]

:D Software Hardware, whatever get's the production done.

I believe this is a good note on which to end this thread :cool: !

[Thomas_J]

Nick,

Yamaha VL1 (VL70m only in DSP cards which is considered hardware), Access Virus (only powercore DSP cards), Novation SuperNova II (Software alternative is V-Station which isn't even half the man), Roland V-Synth (no software alternative), Roland Concert Grand SRX-expansion board, Korg Triton (although I'm not too fond of the korg sound their sound banks blow all the software alternatives out of the water).

[Nick Batzdorf]

I agree wholeheartedly about the first two - in fact I have them both.

The others I don't know, but I believe you. :)

[Martin Hines]

I think it's important to add that most hardware deveopers are probably scared about going software, and that's probably why they've tried not to.

I don't believe this is true.

Musical instrument hardware manufacturers like Korg, Roland, and Yamaha have a lot of expertise in all of the "parts" that make up a product (sound programming, effects programming, audio hardware design, keyboard design, etc.), and integrating all of those parts into a single "box". As long as there is a market for "just turn it on and it works" instruments, they will keep making them.

Having said that, these manufacturers ARE moving toward a computer-centric world, when it makes sense, and when it doesn't compromise ease of use or reliability. Take the new Korg OASYS as a perfect example. Under the hood is a PC motherboard with a Pentium processor, and the entire instrument is software based, running on a customized Unix operating system.

However, Korg has worked hard to make sure that the system, when stressed, will react just like a hardware keyboard, with appropriate voice-stealing. This is different than your typical PC music app that may react to stress with audio glitches. Another example is the internal hard drive, which is only 40GB in size. At first this small size seems strange. It is small because they use a laptop hard drive with a slower RPM speed, because their engineering tests show that the larger "normal" internal hard drives are just not rugged enough to be inside a keyboard.

Other examples are Yamaha's recent acquistion of Steinberg, and Roland's partnership with Cakewalk, which are attempts to leverage both software and hardware expertise.

From my perspective there will always be a place for good, rugged, "it just works" hardware.

[Hardy Heern]

I really don't think that there's much practical difference between a PC with a piece of cable connecting a piano keyboard and display; and a specially shaped box with a small display and a few buttons,which has a $50 (if your lucky) keyboard built in. They're just different shaped boxes, connected in different ways. Both approaches have main circuit boards, power supplies, sound cards, displays, cpus and software etc. The software in the keyboard is burnt into a eprom (I think) rather than being stored on a hard disk although even that might have changed..... since I last looked.

The keyboard synth wins in portability, looks and integration and the PC based system wins in every other way.http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

To use a HiFi analogy the PC approach is like separates and the keyboard synth is your integrated 'lifestyle' music centre package. The separates approach is more versatile and powerful. If you like buttons and knobs you can even add those with a 'separates' PC based system.

Frank

[Andrew Aversa]

Keyboard synths win in integration? Do you have any idea how much more annoying it is to use a piece of hardware in a software-based workflow than it is to simply add a VST? I'm pretty sure hardware loses in that category, too.

[JonP]

Keyboard synths win in integration? Do you have any idea how much more annoying it is to use a piece of hardware in a software-based workflow than it is to simply add a VST? I'm pretty sure hardware loses in that category, too.

Not really. I still have a few synths wired in that are just as easy to add and in many ways are more convenient because there is no CPU drain. Hit record and the part's in. Hardly rocket science.

I still use hardware because I like the feel of it :) Its nice to be able to turn the knobs on my Doepfer sequencer and generate some random patterns, or flick the power switch, plug in the cans and play my old OB8. Its immediate. I don't have to set anything up. Flick, plug, play....nice and easy and inspiring.

That's not to say that I think software doesn't score. I'd take it over hardware in the studio most days but I don't think hardware is completely redundant, especially not with the likes of Roland's gem of a synth, the V-synth.

[Andrew Aversa]

Not really. I still have a few synths wired in that are just as easy to add and in many ways are more convenient because there is no CPU drain. Hit record and the part's in. Hardly rocket science.

I still use hardware because I like the feel of it :) Its nice to be able to turn the knobs on my Doepfer sequencer and generate some random patterns, or flick the power switch, plug in the cans and play my old OB8. Its immediate. I don't have to set anything up. Flick, plug, play....nice and easy and inspiring.

That's not to say that I think software doesn't score. I'd take it over hardware in the studio most days but I don't think hardware is completely redundant, especially not with the likes of Roland's gem of a synth, the V-synth.

Yes, but with software you don't even have to hit the record button. That's what makes it irritating, if you ask me. And with a good computer, CPU usage is negligible - since I built my DAW 6 months ago (and it wasn't even top of the line then), I've NEVER run into CPU problems, and I usually work with 50+ effects and 10+ huge synths. Hardware does inspire me, but it's the transition phase - getting it to flow with everything else I do on my PC - that really kills the inspiration. Believe it or not, I use to own a V-Synth and I ended up selling it and putting the money towards NI Komplete 2 and the new DAW. I don't regret that decision for a second.

[JonP]

Yes, but with software you don't even have to hit the record button. That's what makes it irritating, if you ask me..

Well, you do.....sort of. You either have to render it to audio, freeze - whatever. Its the same thing. The only difference is that it takes place exclusively in the virtual world and can be processed faster than realtime if desired. Sure, with hardware you sometimes have to sort out I/O problems with connections and potential noise but I've never found it really makes much of a difference. In fact, recording some older gear gives it more character than their soft equivalents have. My old OSCar run through SADIE sounds better than my ImpOSCar in Cubase.

Like I said, I'm not trying to diss soft synths. I sit in front of Reaktor to an unhealthy degree (!) but there are things instruments like V-synth can do that take an awful lot of setting up and messing around to try and get close to with software and controllers. And if you use these things live then its something you appreciate even more.

[Houston Haynes]

I think there is a smart way to do hardware solutions. For *my* money, the Oasys solution wouldn't be very smart, but who's to say that it won't work for someone else? From my perspective, I don't know how they can sell that hardware at that price and make a living, but there are other monolithic solutions that mystify me (Open Labs is a good example, but not the only one).

On the flip side, I think that the Muse Research Receptor is an interesting hybrid with a compelling price/performance ratio. There will be lots of hardware solutions that will be coming to market this year, and I think the most successful ones will be roadworthy, but will also have a place in the computer-based studio (as opposed to trying to *replace* the studio, per se). I'm not saying anything magical here, it's fairly obvious, but when you look at some products you wonder if if the company executives understand that simple tenent.

I know for a fact that Korg was working on the Oasys ten years ago - because of a conversation I had with a former Korg employee that was there ten years ago. It certainly has more to it than my old trusty SY99, which was a huge synth-based workstation with several methods of synthesis, sequencing, and built-in effects - and the SY was $4000 in the early 90's.

However, the SY99 is *also* a good historical example of how a hardware synth is not necessarily the most robust solution - as many people here are quick to assume. It ended up with a really nasty little problem between the processor and effects chip that when the system opted to take a dirt nap (which synths this complex will do from time to time) the effects chip would emit this **HUGE** click/pop/splat that would absolutely, positively, without a doubt send your speaker monitors into the floor. Heaven help you if you were wearing headphones at the time. Six months after the problem was found a recall was issued and replacement motherboards were shipped out. The board was free but the labor to replace it was **not**. :mad:

So, before everyone trots out their cherished assumptions and knee-jerk reactions, check your history books.

[Guga Bernardo]

Well, I actually bought a Korg Triton Pro X for my studio for $4000 when it was released in the market... In that time the best computer available was like a Pentium III 800 Mhz, and Triton seemed very, very useful. But today the scene has changed completely, and if I knew that things would change so much in such a short time, I would never bought it. Today we have soft-synths that can deliver the same quality for a much lower price, and the best of all, no repair costs. In fact, my Triton is used today only as a MIDI controler, nothing else, and in each day that passes its market price is decreasing and the odds of a total breakdown is increasing. I guess this is the last hardware synth of my life! :)

[fozzy]

Yup. That's my situation. I don't see any advantage to adding more hardware to my home studio. It's pretty much a softstudio ;) . Playing out? Laptop is more and more my preference.


In a professional or home studio setup, there is no advantage to using hardware keyboards or samplers. On a live playing engagement some people may find it to be more convenient to use a hardware keyboard as opposed to taking a computer, though many are using laptops these days on live performance gigs.

Kip McGinnis
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com (http://www.bardstownaudio.com/)

[Max Head]

I agree, presets from hardware units are indeed great. But they are designed to impress customer. A la, for the huge money you have huge sounds (Preset like "Dream Pad Covering Universe bla bla bla" is olmost in every HU under N1). But they are rarely fit in the mix and at the and you have to choose something more simple.

[Bruce A. Richardson]

Here's the thing: Money aside, or rather, if you are not trying to save money between a hardware and software performance solution, then software blows it away.

The fastest computer you can buy, mounted in a roadworthy box, with the right hardware, right rack mixer, and right MIDI controllers, will make a performance system which is ***scary*** good, and which is just as easy to set up and just as stageworthy.

But if you're approaching it as, "How can I build the equivalent of a couple of nice hardware synths for $1000," then you will be on far less dependable ground. I think you always have to look at equivalent dollars spent for equivalent situations, and then look at what that money buys.

You also have more separate components to license, etc. You just have to be realistic--assess what you've got licensed in the way of sofware and samples, look at what you'd need hardware-wise to perform with it, and give yourself time to put it together and to create a performance environment which works for you.

[bugs]

In a professional or home studio setup, there is no advantage to using hardware keyboards or samplers. On a live playing engagement some people may find it to be more convenient to use a hardware keyboard as opposed to taking a computer, though many are using laptops these days on live performance gigs.

Kip McGinnis
Bardstown Audio
www.bardstownaudio.com

Totally agree. People with hugh investments in hardware are desperate to find some way to rationalize their purchases--disparaging software seems to be they only thing with which they all agree. Those 20th Century musicians!

[josejherring]

Totally agree. People with hugh investments in hardware are desperate to find some way to rationalize their purchases--disparaging software seems to be they only thing with which they all agree. Those 20th Century musicians!


Man I'm glad people are having this discussion. I've been dreaming of this day since I bought my first IICX back in 1990. I've always wanted everything to be software and computer based because I really never liked much hardware stuff. (Except for that beloved M1 and wavestation. Never got over those. Lovely stuff).

But, I'm so happy that it's going in the way that it's going and I don't miss the days of spending $1,500/ea for 3 S-760 that had only 16 parts, 24 voice polyphony and 32megs of ram. Cheaper faster better that's the way to go. That's the only way we can compete with the A-list that could have afforded 100 s-760. Nowadays that doesn't matter. Maybe we can get back to outdoing eachother musically instead of outdoing eachother with gear. Much better for music.

So before anybody starts harping about the good 'ol days again. I still have an Akai s-5000. You can buy it from me for what I paid, if you feel that strongly about it.... :eek: .....yeah I thought so.


Cheers,


Jose