Why would I need that, if I already have it? Why won't you just accept my personal judgement?

If you want to go on and ruin your own life by spending thousands of dollars on a nowadays hoax, go right ahead! Because that's what it is! Manufacturers want you to believe that their expensive hardware is unsurpassed. People like you want me to believe that if I don't agree with you there must be something wrong with me or my 'preamps'? Well, I can tell you it's not me, but it's something between your own ears. You just want to desperately believe that true analogue synths sound better than digital ones.

It's about the same as people that believe that vinyl records always sound better than whatever digital opposite. It's a way of life I guess? But it's mainly between the ears of the listeners head and certainly no exact science.

The pure fact in music today is, no listener of your music will never ever hear the difference in whatever production you make with true analogue synths as opposed to using 'top tier' virtual instruments. If people like your music it's not because you used true analogue synths with 'top tier, clocking/conversion and a preamps'. It's because of the music itself.
If they don't like it, well I guess your $6000 dollar hardware synth with superior analogue sound, and with your ' top tier clocking/conversion and preamps' analogue inputs doesn't make your music sound better than it actually is, does it?

 

Last edited: Apr 16, 2026 at 9:09 AM

Something gave me that sence, too.

 

@RachProko - it is not that serious tho, i was watching a Mike Dean ytb the other day where a pretty known sound designer came in his studio and realized Mike´s setup sounds a bit different than his own

I´m using soft synths so i´m with you on that one, but there is some "conditioning" needed for old analog synths to get that sparkle.

pt2 is about the clocking

 

Last edited: Apr 16, 2026 at 10:11 PM

I feel that while using analog synths it's much more interesting for me to imagine manipulating the sound of electricity, alive and vibrant compared to the sterility of cold insensate ones and zeros. I use plenty of incredibly wonderful soft synths but it just feels different to me. Also, in people listening and being able to discern if a synth sound is created in the analog realm or if churned out through computer processing, it doesn't make that much of a difference to me if they can or if they can't...when I'm enjoying what I'm creating then anybody that has a chance to listen to it will enjoy it either way.

 

Whenever it comes to hardware vs software, it almost always ends up as a debate about sound quality, but hardly anyone talks about touch. And that’s strange, because this is music. It’s an art form, and touch is part of how that art is made.

A slight turn of resonance, the way you ride a filter cutoff in real time, the physical resistance of a knob, the fact you’re not looking at a screen but responding with your hands. Those things change decisions. They change timing. They change feel.

With a mouse, you tend to think first and move second. With hardware, you often move first and react to what happens. That alone can lead you somewhere you wouldn’t have gone otherwise.

Software has caught up massively in sound. In many cases it’s indistinguishable. But the experience of shaping sound is still very different, and that experience feeds directly into the music you end up making.

So the real question isn’t whether we need hardware synths. It’s whether we value a more physical, performative way of interacting with sound, or whether we’re happy working in a more precise, visual environment.

Both are valid. They just lead you to different places.

 

Physical keyboards are instruments because they let you play and shape sound at the same time. All the controls are available in real time, so performance and sound design become one continuous action. That is the real meaning of immediacy.

Even when plugins are powerful and fast, the workflow is usually stepped: choose a sound, configure it, then perform or edit it inside the DAW. That separation is what creates the sense of convenience and recall.

So the real difference is not hardware vs software. It is whether the interaction is continuous or segmented.

That is also why rack units and hybrid setups often confuse people coming from plugins. They do not match either workflow cleanly. They sit in the middle, adding more work to the workflow without fully behaving like an instrument or a DAW tool. (At least without a good editor application).

The failure happens when someone picks a tool that does not match how they actually work, then blames the tool for the result.

If you cannot play an instrument, why would you buy one, to make it sound like you can? That is exactly what Kontakt is for.

 

Do it.

 

I use my mouse enough, I don't want to 'play' my synths with one or sit there turning knobs or drawing in automation with mouse clicks. I'll take my hardware any day where I can actually feel it and everything is immediate when I need it, and I want to actually play it and get the correct 'feeling'.

Stuff like the TUS emulator, as awesome as it is, still doesn't quite sound like my real Microwave XT through my Soundcraft console into Cubase. Roland Cloud is awesome too, but I'll use my SH-101 and TR-1000 over the 101/909 plugins any day of the week. Hell, I'll take my SH-4D over any of the Cloud stuff too.

 

The hardware is supremely knobular, which can be a big deal. If you're gonna buy one, buy two. When one stops you got the other while the broke one is in the shop.