8 ms·

What I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer i

by swombat 11y ago

What I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool. And some people still like to use hardware synths. And so on... but at the end of the day, unless you're doing something on the hardware that is impossible to do with software (e.g. some kinds of scratching could be argued to be impossible to reproduce exactly without vinyls and turntables), it seems to me the only reason to use a hardware 808 is basically personal preference. Happy to be explained why I'm wrong though. Are there any quantifiable differences between a physical 808 and a software one?

mtinkerhess 11y ago
1) Sounds produced by analog equipment cannot be reproduced exactly in software. You can get very close but so far nobody has gotten it 100% right. 2) The physical controls on hardware make the process of creating music more tactile / intuitive / emotional. It's faster to reach and turn a knob than to click on the knob and drag it -- maybe only by a little but when you do that thousands of times it adds up. 3) The constraints of using hardware can be a useful artistic limitation, that actually increases creative output.
- golergka 11y ago
  I completely agree with (2) and (3), but have you really tested (1), with a blind testing technique and a considerably large sample size? I find when people are talking about how they can tell apart analog from (good) emulation, or 320kbps mp3 (compressed with a proper encoder from a high-quality source) from flac or wav they didn't actually try to do that in a statistically meaningful way.
  - lttlrck 11y ago
    Isn't it more than that though? It isn't just about sample rate and resolution which for a single sound should be extremely accurate, it's about replicating the effect on the sound as the knobs are twisted and sliders moved around. That's a whole different set of problems and I imagine very very difficult to accurately replicate/synthesize.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      Let's put it this way: modern plugins that try to replicate this as close as possible (zero-latency filters etc) have a huge CPU hit.
      - golergka 11y ago
        Can you point me in the direction of the plugins you mean? Because I haven't had problems with CPU levels for a long time now. Just curious.
        coldtea 11y ago
        Here's an example: https://www.u-he.com/cms/diva https://www.u-he.com/cms/diva -- it's widely regarded as one of the best sounding analogue emulations (mostly due to its filters) and as a CPU hog (in its "divine" sound engine mode). Mind you, in a modern CPU you can still run a few instances, but very fewer compared to regular plugins.
louthy 11y ago
> Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. Often it isn't. This can be for a number of reasons: 1. Ignoring the 'leaky' nature of components and just assuming that sticking a software oscillator, followed by a low-pass filter, followed by an envelope etc... will be the same as VCO, attached to a wire, attached to a PCB, ... A lot of old gear needs to 'warm up', it often has inconsistent characteristics from machine to machine, so each one has its own character. Reproducing the effects of the components isn't trivial and can often fail at the extremes (for example: high resonance/low cut off on a TB-303; or the self-oscillation of a Moog filter). 2. When an emulation is running as a plugin (VST, RTAS, AAX), it has to share the host machine with other plugins. Plugins include: other virtual instruments as well as virtual effects plugins and mastering plugins. There's clearly a trade off when the plugin can't use all of the juice that the host has, and therefore their emulations may compromise on time-slicing, or component emulation to save processing time. I use the Universal Audio DSP which emulates a lot of old compressors, tape machines, EQs, reverbs, etc. Some things it's exceptional at emulating (like the Pultec EQ for example), others less so, like the tape emulations. 3. I can't prove this, so take this with a pinch of salt, but there's a 'certain something' that you get from analogue gear, and perhaps that's down to the 'infinite' resolution you get from real physics. Emulations which rely on time-slicing will always create artifacts. I have lost count of the amount of times either I or friends have responded very favourably to an analogue synth or something mixed on an analogue desk (like an SSL). I personally use a combination of both. The UAD emulations are pretty close most of the time, and remove the need to manage a really difficult device, or spend multiple thousands on a machine that's hard to get. I have a Nord Lead A1, which I would describe as a 'clean analgoue' emulation. It's not trying too hard to repro the real analogue synths, it has its own character. I have the TR-8, which sounds pretty close to the 808 and 909, but I can't help feeling something isn't right. And then I have some real Waldorf analogue synths, and everytime I use them it's like being wrapped in warm marshmellows, it's fantastic and unique in a way that my digital equipment isn't. It nearly always comes down to a feeling, rather than something quantifiable. But that is also what music is about.
brianobush 11y ago
I could talk about the analog nature of synthesizers, but one of the most important for me is direct and tactile control - basically the knobs. E.g., One of my favs is Moog Sub37 synth http://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37 http://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37 Another benefit is that the machines get me away from my computer.
S_A_P 11y ago
So most software is 95% of the sound. A lot of hardware is nostalgia + purpose + tactile feel. However there is definitely something to the school of thought that hardware is inherently limited vs software and that opens creative windows that staring at a computer screen may not. Since I have owned real 808s I know what they can do and they are certainly romanticized a large amount. However, the 808s sequencer has a small amount of swing to it which is emulated(but able to be disabled) in the tr-8. I've never heard this mentioned in software. Software emulations have very distinct advantages in that most have parameters that can be tweaked far outside of a real 808/whatever analog device. Where this kind of hardware shines is the fact that you know a certain type of beat/sound is easy to achieve. It's that magic moment that you make something original that the hardware wasn't intended for that makes it all worthwhile. I experience that way more often with hardware than software.
crb3 11y ago
> Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. CD-quality is 44.1KHz sample-rate 16-bit stereo. That's 22us per sample. That's a lot of perceptible quantization error when, it turns out, our pitch, timbre and spacial-placement sensory gear is sensitive down to the microsecond level (google "microsecond phase sensitivity" on that). A drum synthesizer done on a PC is limited to the soundcard's samplerate at output, so it's always going to be perceptibly less real than continuous analog.
- nitrogen 11y ago
  The phase information contained in a digitally sampled signal is not limited by the sample rate[2]. It's not (just[0]) the audio sample rate that makes simulations inaccurate, but inadequate detail in the simulation. A digital recording of an analog drum machine will sound indistinguishable from the original, but obviously lacks the flexibility of changing settings on the original machine. [0] An analog circuit simulation is basically a numeric integration and differentiation engine. Having a coarse simulation timestep, especially with a simple integration method, can affect the accuracy of a simulation. See [1] for information about how this affects video game physics. [1] http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/integration-basics/ http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/integration-basics/ [2] Proof by example (not written by me): "Jack_delay -- This is a small command line JACK app you can use to measure the latency of your sound card. It uses a phase measurements on a set of tones to measure the delay from the output to the input. Accuracy is about 1/1000 of a sample." -- http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/
smosher_ 11y ago
> I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool. The sound is incredibly hard to get right in some cases. You can simulate vinyl remarkably well with a timecode record or DJ controller and special software, but: the plugins have extremely limited range compared to the real thing and the controllers require the same investment as a turntable and timecode still needs the turntable. Nearly every used record store and thrift store has a pile of nearly-free records which are ideal for sampling: obscure stuff no one has heard of, ancient stuff that is no longer recognized by today's audience or may have even been obscure in its day. As for preferring hardware, in my opinion it's the responsible thing to do. Because: * Say you want to play a show. Are you going to bring a laptop in there and pray it doesn't do something insane, say... auto-discover the wifi, start installing updates during your gig? Or just crash because it has an undiscovered cooling problem an it's hotter than your usual environment with all those bodies dancing around? * Software tends to cost money too. There are free options, but chances are you will want _something_ in your software setup that isn't free. * Idiosyncrasies. Just like your audience wants to hear that vinyl sound, producers often want those hardware quirks. A lot of this amounts to fetishism, but sometimes there are more objective reasons. * Dedicated functionality. Portable instruments. Playable instruments. Jamming on a PC keyboard does not give you the same response as jamming on instrument keys or pads, or whatever the instrument has that is designed to be played. You could buy a controller, but then you're back to buying hardware. * Workflow is king. Nearly everything software needs a mouse these days. Or a dedicated hardware controller. It's a workflow-killer. I learned the hard way that I can't produce very well with software. A few years ago I went with a nice portable piece of kit that does a little bit of everything from sampling to synthesis and mixing. When I did that everything changed drastically. I thought about music differently and really started to get my hands on it. Hardware isn't that costly unless you need to have the most badass kit or a large setup. When my wish-list is complete, mine will have cost me about $1500. A decent laptop + Ableton Live + midi controller would be cost at least that much. That will take you far, but it's not an argument against just buying the hardware instead. Some people work better with software, and that's cool, but for anyone who works better with hardware, the word "preference" only works in the sense that "I would prefer not to have my hand chopped off." It probably goes both ways, but I couldn't tell you about that. ;)
pistle 11y ago
It's nit-picky but the bother to owning and the value isn't based on measuring the difference between the software models (which are very good; d16 group's are phenom) and the hardware. It IS the hardware itself. It's the physical thing that you touch and responds directly. It's the case, the buttons, knobs, design. So you own them because they are the actual thing, not the reproduction. Why do collectors buy original art? They could just buy the print? Yet, even cooler than just some artwork or other collectible end product, these are cherished tools of creation that are still culturally relevant. Personal preference vs. sonic value is a false binary. It's so much more than that.
tessierashpool 11y ago
I've never owned an 808, but I've owned at least 18 hardware synths and samplers, as well as Live, Reason, Rebirth, and lots of softsynths on iOS. I hate softsynths on OS X because it's not stable enough. I have two synths that were made in the 1980s and they don't need any software updates to run. You just plug them in and turn them on. Hardware lasts for a very long time. Software, you don't really buy it, you rent it for the brief lifespan of your computer. Emulating analog gear is difficult for the same reason that writing software which simulates any real-world process is difficult. TLDR: everything louthy said. Even emulating digital gear, which logically should be much easier, is still a challenge. I have a Korg Wavestation and a Korg M1. Both are 100% digital. Both are well-emulated in Korg's popular and well-regarded Legacy Collection. But well-emulated isn't the same as exactly reproduced. And Korg supports the Legacy Collection now, but they won't forever. I can't even trust operating systems to work properly when I install them. I'm not risking my ability to make music on the incredibly widespread incompetence of programmers, even at the best companies on earth, when all I have to do is put down less than $200. Look at the bug trackers for any open source project from Apple or Google. Apple's still got WebKit bugs around arbitrary cookie resets from at least ten years ago. Or look at iTunes. The demand for programmers is so intense that you can be an utter incompetent and still have a terrific career. If the best companies on earth can't get their shit together, how on earth is some music company going to do it? Also, no two 808s ever sound exactly alike. The 808 is still unbeaten when it comes to claps and kicks. Emulations are getting better and better, but you're never going to get a picture of a sunset which is more beautiful than being there. The only truly, unequivocally successful emulation project ever is the x0xb0x, which "emulated" the Roland TB-303 by taking it apart. We have two--count 'em, two--analog electrical engineers with too much time on their hands working on this project. An original TB-303 was diassembled and reverse-engineered to verify the schematic. The original transistors were analysed using big expensive curve-tracers to determine their characteristics. We measured every waveform and counted every cycle to give you the best sound...its just like the original because it IS the original. http://www.ladyada.net/make/x0xb0x/ http://www.ladyada.net/make/x0xb0x/
- coldtea 11y ago
  >I hate softsynths on OS X because it's not stable enough. Not sure what you mean here. People have been using OS X to make music professionaly, including in huge $10.000/day studios, for a decade, with Pro Tools, Logic and Cubase. They also use it live, in 90% of electronic music lives you'll see one or more Mac laptops. Now, while a few plugins or some hosts might crash (they're software after all, and quality varies) now and then, with something like Reason that you mention there are hardly ANY crashes ever. And, since I've also used Windows for music for a long time (Cubase mostly) and my brother still uses it full-time as a pro, it's not like things are any more stable there. But still, stable enough to get thousands of professionals using Windows/PT/Cubase/etc too. And don't get me started on the BS idea that Linux based DAWs are "more stable" because of "Linux = rock solid" etc stuff. Linux DAWs are few, with few commiters, lacking in UI refinements, and more importantly lacking in basic functionality. They are also a pain to setup (unless you want to work with just simple audio and some of their native plugins, and no MIDI, VST etc), and crash all the time. Been there, done that. Now, of course a M1 or a modern synth will be "always there" and more stable that an computer plugin, but stuff like: >* I'm not risking my ability to make music on the incredibly widespread incompetence of programmers, even at the best companies on earth* puzzles me. It's not like the potential for instability of this "widespread incompetence of programmers" prevented all professional artists currently employed to produce records with DAWs and plugins.
tomphoolery 11y ago
There's a few reasons why I love analog hardware synths: - Hackability: Hardware is the "open-source" of the music world. If I have the hardware, there's nothing anyone can do to stop me from tweaking it in some way. I can open up any of my synths and solder components to cables in order to patch in CV to various parts of the synth that the manufacturers never intended. Additionally, modular synths are totally DIY and you build each component, then route them in various ways. In fact, much of the allure of hardware synths comes from the ability to run patch cables between components...changing the routing could mean changing the entire sound. - Personality: Hardware analog synths, especially vintage hardware, have their own personality due to the erosion of their components. Typically, the older a piece of hardware gets, the more interesting and complex its sounds become. The tuning and accuracy of each VCO and VCF are affected over time and this becomes apparent when you leave the synth running for a while (letting it "warm up"). It takes a while, but I've made some pretty amazing sounds using my college's Moog Modular and ARP 2600 (when I still went there). Digital hardware and software synths will always sound the same no matter what year you turn them on. This is great for performers, but it makes old digital gear disposable while old analog gear is valuable. - Tactile control: You just can't beat the feeling of twisting knobs and hitting pads. It's so god damn fun. Plus, I'm a performer at heart...it's more entertaining to look at someone banging on hardware than it is to see them staring at a computer screen. In fact, myself and several of my peers have been working on a "no-computers" live set in which the entire set is made up of analog synths and no computers are used on stage, to avoid a central point of failure should anything bad happen. All that being said, I still don't own an 808 and I still wouldn't. Why? Because the 808, while it is analog machinery, is quite limited in its abilities to tweak each sound. You can't just synthesize a drum sound from scratch with the 808, you have to use the 808 kick no matter what. So in my opinion, there's not really a reason to own those old drum machines these days. If you want the tactile control, get a TR-8...the samples in it sound great! If you just want to play with 808 samples, download them from that sample thread on /r/electronicmusic or something. Sounds pretty much the same at the end of the day. I do own a TB-303 though. There's just nothing else like that original acid sound. The x0xb0x, however, is much more stable and I use that while playing out...keeping the 303 in the studio for when I produce. I'd rather not risk that getting broken because it has a lot of sentimental value to me. Much of my favorite electronic music uses the 303 somewhere in its production.
coldtea 11y ago
>What I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. 1) For one, music is about inspiration, and the hardware can be more inspirational -- even if for pure psychological reasons. 2) The tactile feel of the hardware lets you explore it hands on, and is more immediate and rewarding than clicking on a screen (can still be better even from using a modern plasticky MIDI controller with pads, since those are multi-purpose not task specific). With hardware you approach and program stuff differently. 3) Each hardware unit (analog, that is) can have a slightly unique character, from both changes that happened to it over time, and also from slight variations in the production run and compenents (especially in those times). Plugins that try to emulate that that in full (e.g. from self-oscillation to tuning instability to zero-latency filters) exist, but are CPU monsters (e.g. Diva). 4) Hardware also has to be recorded in, which adds another element of coloring to the sound. 5) Beatboxes like this are also nice for live performances (including live programming). 6) Plug-ins are disposable. A hardware unit can go up in price as time goes by.
mbrock 11y ago
I don't know anything about drum machines, but I know that generally, translating analog circuits into transfer functions and then into numerical simulations is an Actually Difficult Problem—especially when you consider the need for such simulations to be more than fast enough for real-time. Some circuits can be "solved" to perfect accuracy, but when you get into non-linear effects like distortion, you no longer have clean mathematical models to implement.

by swombat 11y ago

mtinkerhess 11y ago

1) Sounds produced by analog equipment cannot be reproduced exactly in software. You can get very close but so far nobody has gotten it 100% right. 2) The physical controls on hardware make the process of creating music more tactile / intuitive / emotional. It's faster to reach and turn a knob than to click on the knob and drag it -- maybe only by a little but when you do that thousands of times it adds up. 3) The constraints of using hardware can be a useful artistic limitation, that actually increases creative output.

golergka 11y ago
I completely agree with (2) and (3), but have you really tested (1), with a blind testing technique and a considerably large sample size? I find when people are talking about how they can tell apart analog from (good) emulation, or 320kbps mp3 (compressed with a proper encoder from a high-quality source) from flac or wav they didn't actually try to do that in a statistically meaningful way.
- lttlrck 11y ago
  Isn't it more than that though? It isn't just about sample rate and resolution which for a single sound should be extremely accurate, it's about replicating the effect on the sound as the knobs are twisted and sliders moved around. That's a whole different set of problems and I imagine very very difficult to accurately replicate/synthesize.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    Let's put it this way: modern plugins that try to replicate this as close as possible (zero-latency filters etc) have a huge CPU hit.
    - golergka 11y ago
      Can you point me in the direction of the plugins you mean? Because I haven't had problems with CPU levels for a long time now. Just curious.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        Here's an example: https://www.u-he.com/cms/diva https://www.u-he.com/cms/diva -- it's widely regarded as one of the best sounding analogue emulations (mostly due to its filters) and as a CPU hog (in its "divine" sound engine mode). Mind you, in a modern CPU you can still run a few instances, but very fewer compared to regular plugins.

louthy 11y ago

> Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. Often it isn't. This can be for a number of reasons: 1. Ignoring the 'leaky' nature of components and just assuming that sticking a software oscillator, followed by a low-pass filter, followed by an envelope etc... will be the same as VCO, attached to a wire, attached to a PCB, ... A lot of old gear needs to 'warm up', it often has inconsistent characteristics from machine to machine, so each one has its own character. Reproducing the effects of the components isn't trivial and can often fail at the extremes (for example: high resonance/low cut off on a TB-303; or the self-oscillation of a Moog filter). 2. When an emulation is running as a plugin (VST, RTAS, AAX), it has to share the host machine with other plugins. Plugins include: other virtual instruments as well as virtual effects plugins and mastering plugins. There's clearly a trade off when the plugin can't use all of the juice that the host has, and therefore their emulations may compromise on time-slicing, or component emulation to save processing time. I use the Universal Audio DSP which emulates a lot of old compressors, tape machines, EQs, reverbs, etc. Some things it's exceptional at emulating (like the Pultec EQ for example), others less so, like the tape emulations. 3. I can't prove this, so take this with a pinch of salt, but there's a 'certain something' that you get from analogue gear, and perhaps that's down to the 'infinite' resolution you get from real physics. Emulations which rely on time-slicing will always create artifacts. I have lost count of the amount of times either I or friends have responded very favourably to an analogue synth or something mixed on an analogue desk (like an SSL). I personally use a combination of both. The UAD emulations are pretty close most of the time, and remove the need to manage a really difficult device, or spend multiple thousands on a machine that's hard to get. I have a Nord Lead A1, which I would describe as a 'clean analgoue' emulation. It's not trying too hard to repro the real analogue synths, it has its own character. I have the TR-8, which sounds pretty close to the 808 and 909, but I can't help feeling something isn't right. And then I have some real Waldorf analogue synths, and everytime I use them it's like being wrapped in warm marshmellows, it's fantastic and unique in a way that my digital equipment isn't. It nearly always comes down to a feeling, rather than something quantifiable. But that is also what music is about.

brianobush 11y ago

I could talk about the analog nature of synthesizers, but one of the most important for me is direct and tactile control - basically the knobs. E.g., One of my favs is Moog Sub37 synth http://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37 http://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37 Another benefit is that the machines get me away from my computer.

S_A_P 11y ago

So most software is 95% of the sound. A lot of hardware is nostalgia + purpose + tactile feel. However there is definitely something to the school of thought that hardware is inherently limited vs software and that opens creative windows that staring at a computer screen may not. Since I have owned real 808s I know what they can do and they are certainly romanticized a large amount. However, the 808s sequencer has a small amount of swing to it which is emulated(but able to be disabled) in the tr-8. I've never heard this mentioned in software. Software emulations have very distinct advantages in that most have parameters that can be tweaked far outside of a real 808/whatever analog device. Where this kind of hardware shines is the fact that you know a certain type of beat/sound is easy to achieve. It's that magic moment that you make something original that the hardware wasn't intended for that makes it all worthwhile. I experience that way more often with hardware than software.

crb3 11y ago

> Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. CD-quality is 44.1KHz sample-rate 16-bit stereo. That's 22us per sample. That's a lot of perceptible quantization error when, it turns out, our pitch, timbre and spacial-placement sensory gear is sensitive down to the microsecond level (google "microsecond phase sensitivity" on that). A drum synthesizer done on a PC is limited to the soundcard's samplerate at output, so it's always going to be perceptibly less real than continuous analog.

nitrogen 11y ago
The phase information contained in a digitally sampled signal is not limited by the sample rate[2]. It's not (just[0]) the audio sample rate that makes simulations inaccurate, but inadequate detail in the simulation. A digital recording of an analog drum machine will sound indistinguishable from the original, but obviously lacks the flexibility of changing settings on the original machine. [0] An analog circuit simulation is basically a numeric integration and differentiation engine. Having a coarse simulation timestep, especially with a simple integration method, can affect the accuracy of a simulation. See [1] for information about how this affects video game physics. [1] http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/integration-basics/ http://gafferongames.com/game-physics/integration-basics/ [2] Proof by example (not written by me): "Jack_delay -- This is a small command line JACK app you can use to measure the latency of your sound card. It uses a phase measurements on a set of tones to measure the delay from the output to the input. Accuracy is about 1/1000 of a sample." -- http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/ http://kokkinizita.linuxaudio.org/linuxaudio/

smosher_ 11y ago

> I'm not criticising your preference for using hardware, that's your call. Some people still like to use vinyl, and I guess that's pretty cool. The sound is incredibly hard to get right in some cases. You can simulate vinyl remarkably well with a timecode record or DJ controller and special software, but: the plugins have extremely limited range compared to the real thing and the controllers require the same investment as a turntable and timecode still needs the turntable. Nearly every used record store and thrift store has a pile of nearly-free records which are ideal for sampling: obscure stuff no one has heard of, ancient stuff that is no longer recognized by today's audience or may have even been obscure in its day. As for preferring hardware, in my opinion it's the responsible thing to do. Because: * Say you want to play a show. Are you going to bring a laptop in there and pray it doesn't do something insane, say... auto-discover the wifi, start installing updates during your gig? Or just crash because it has an undiscovered cooling problem an it's hotter than your usual environment with all those bodies dancing around? * Software tends to cost money too. There are free options, but chances are you will want _something_ in your software setup that isn't free. * Idiosyncrasies. Just like your audience wants to hear that vinyl sound, producers often want those hardware quirks. A lot of this amounts to fetishism, but sometimes there are more objective reasons. * Dedicated functionality. Portable instruments. Playable instruments. Jamming on a PC keyboard does not give you the same response as jamming on instrument keys or pads, or whatever the instrument has that is designed to be played. You could buy a controller, but then you're back to buying hardware. * Workflow is king. Nearly everything software needs a mouse these days. Or a dedicated hardware controller. It's a workflow-killer. I learned the hard way that I can't produce very well with software. A few years ago I went with a nice portable piece of kit that does a little bit of everything from sampling to synthesis and mixing. When I did that everything changed drastically. I thought about music differently and really started to get my hands on it. Hardware isn't that costly unless you need to have the most badass kit or a large setup. When my wish-list is complete, mine will have cost me about $1500. A decent laptop + Ableton Live + midi controller would be cost at least that much. That will take you far, but it's not an argument against just buying the hardware instead. Some people work better with software, and that's cool, but for anyone who works better with hardware, the word "preference" only works in the sense that "I would prefer not to have my hand chopped off." It probably goes both ways, but I couldn't tell you about that. ;)

pistle 11y ago

It's nit-picky but the bother to owning and the value isn't based on measuring the difference between the software models (which are very good; d16 group's are phenom) and the hardware. It IS the hardware itself. It's the physical thing that you touch and responds directly. It's the case, the buttons, knobs, design. So you own them because they are the actual thing, not the reproduction. Why do collectors buy original art? They could just buy the print? Yet, even cooler than just some artwork or other collectible end product, these are cherished tools of creation that are still culturally relevant. Personal preference vs. sonic value is a false binary. It's so much more than that.

tessierashpool 11y ago

I've never owned an 808, but I've owned at least 18 hardware synths and samplers, as well as Live, Reason, Rebirth, and lots of softsynths on iOS. I hate softsynths on OS X because it's not stable enough. I have two synths that were made in the 1980s and they don't need any software updates to run. You just plug them in and turn them on. Hardware lasts for a very long time. Software, you don't really buy it, you rent it for the brief lifespan of your computer. Emulating analog gear is difficult for the same reason that writing software which simulates any real-world process is difficult. TLDR: everything louthy said. Even emulating digital gear, which logically should be much easier, is still a challenge. I have a Korg Wavestation and a Korg M1. Both are 100% digital. Both are well-emulated in Korg's popular and well-regarded Legacy Collection. But well-emulated isn't the same as exactly reproduced. And Korg supports the Legacy Collection now, but they won't forever. I can't even trust operating systems to work properly when I install them. I'm not risking my ability to make music on the incredibly widespread incompetence of programmers, even at the best companies on earth, when all I have to do is put down less than $200. Look at the bug trackers for any open source project from Apple or Google. Apple's still got WebKit bugs around arbitrary cookie resets from at least ten years ago. Or look at iTunes. The demand for programmers is so intense that you can be an utter incompetent and still have a terrific career. If the best companies on earth can't get their shit together, how on earth is some music company going to do it? Also, no two 808s ever sound exactly alike. The 808 is still unbeaten when it comes to claps and kicks. Emulations are getting better and better, but you're never going to get a picture of a sunset which is more beautiful than being there. The only truly, unequivocally successful emulation project ever is the x0xb0x, which "emulated" the Roland TB-303 by taking it apart. We have two--count 'em, two--analog electrical engineers with too much time on their hands working on this project. An original TB-303 was diassembled and reverse-engineered to verify the schematic. The original transistors were analysed using big expensive curve-tracers to determine their characteristics. We measured every waveform and counted every cycle to give you the best sound...its just like the original because it IS the original. http://www.ladyada.net/make/x0xb0x/ http://www.ladyada.net/make/x0xb0x/

coldtea 11y ago
>I hate softsynths on OS X because it's not stable enough. Not sure what you mean here. People have been using OS X to make music professionaly, including in huge $10.000/day studios, for a decade, with Pro Tools, Logic and Cubase. They also use it live, in 90% of electronic music lives you'll see one or more Mac laptops. Now, while a few plugins or some hosts might crash (they're software after all, and quality varies) now and then, with something like Reason that you mention there are hardly ANY crashes ever. And, since I've also used Windows for music for a long time (Cubase mostly) and my brother still uses it full-time as a pro, it's not like things are any more stable there. But still, stable enough to get thousands of professionals using Windows/PT/Cubase/etc too. And don't get me started on the BS idea that Linux based DAWs are "more stable" because of "Linux = rock solid" etc stuff. Linux DAWs are few, with few commiters, lacking in UI refinements, and more importantly lacking in basic functionality. They are also a pain to setup (unless you want to work with just simple audio and some of their native plugins, and no MIDI, VST etc), and crash all the time. Been there, done that. Now, of course a M1 or a modern synth will be "always there" and more stable that an computer plugin, but stuff like: >* I'm not risking my ability to make music on the incredibly widespread incompetence of programmers, even at the best companies on earth* puzzles me. It's not like the potential for instability of this "widespread incompetence of programmers" prevented all professional artists currently employed to produce records with DAWs and plugins.

tomphoolery 11y ago

There's a few reasons why I love analog hardware synths: - Hackability: Hardware is the "open-source" of the music world. If I have the hardware, there's nothing anyone can do to stop me from tweaking it in some way. I can open up any of my synths and solder components to cables in order to patch in CV to various parts of the synth that the manufacturers never intended. Additionally, modular synths are totally DIY and you build each component, then route them in various ways. In fact, much of the allure of hardware synths comes from the ability to run patch cables between components...changing the routing could mean changing the entire sound. - Personality: Hardware analog synths, especially vintage hardware, have their own personality due to the erosion of their components. Typically, the older a piece of hardware gets, the more interesting and complex its sounds become. The tuning and accuracy of each VCO and VCF are affected over time and this becomes apparent when you leave the synth running for a while (letting it "warm up"). It takes a while, but I've made some pretty amazing sounds using my college's Moog Modular and ARP 2600 (when I still went there). Digital hardware and software synths will always sound the same no matter what year you turn them on. This is great for performers, but it makes old digital gear disposable while old analog gear is valuable. - Tactile control: You just can't beat the feeling of twisting knobs and hitting pads. It's so god damn fun. Plus, I'm a performer at heart...it's more entertaining to look at someone banging on hardware than it is to see them staring at a computer screen. In fact, myself and several of my peers have been working on a "no-computers" live set in which the entire set is made up of analog synths and no computers are used on stage, to avoid a central point of failure should anything bad happen. All that being said, I still don't own an 808 and I still wouldn't. Why? Because the 808, while it is analog machinery, is quite limited in its abilities to tweak each sound. You can't just synthesize a drum sound from scratch with the 808, you have to use the 808 kick no matter what. So in my opinion, there's not really a reason to own those old drum machines these days. If you want the tactile control, get a TR-8...the samples in it sound great! If you just want to play with 808 samples, download them from that sample thread on /r/electronicmusic or something. Sounds pretty much the same at the end of the day. I do own a TB-303 though. There's just nothing else like that original acid sound. The x0xb0x, however, is much more stable and I use that while playing out...keeping the 303 in the studio for when I produce. I'd rather not risk that getting broken because it has a lot of sentimental value to me. Much of my favorite electronic music uses the 303 somewhere in its production.

coldtea 11y ago

>What I don't understand is why bother owning the hardware these days, other than personal taste? Surely the reproduction of an ancient hardware drum sequencer in today's software should be perfect. 1) For one, music is about inspiration, and the hardware can be more inspirational -- even if for pure psychological reasons. 2) The tactile feel of the hardware lets you explore it hands on, and is more immediate and rewarding than clicking on a screen (can still be better even from using a modern plasticky MIDI controller with pads, since those are multi-purpose not task specific). With hardware you approach and program stuff differently. 3) Each hardware unit (analog, that is) can have a slightly unique character, from both changes that happened to it over time, and also from slight variations in the production run and compenents (especially in those times). Plugins that try to emulate that that in full (e.g. from self-oscillation to tuning instability to zero-latency filters) exist, but are CPU monsters (e.g. Diva). 4) Hardware also has to be recorded in, which adds another element of coloring to the sound. 5) Beatboxes like this are also nice for live performances (including live programming). 6) Plug-ins are disposable. A hardware unit can go up in price as time goes by.

mbrock 11y ago

I don't know anything about drum machines, but I know that generally, translating analog circuits into transfer functions and then into numerical simulations is an Actually Difficult Problem—especially when you consider the need for such simulations to be more than fast enough for real-time. Some circuits can be "solved" to perfect accuracy, but when you get into non-linear effects like distortion, you no longer have clean mathematical models to implement.