Giving us the brain of their digital synths

The Lounge General Discussion
#1

There are many digital hardware instruments that, in essence, are a specialized controller for a piece of software in one tidy package. There are many recent examples of the software from some of these instruments being released in plugin form. Opsix, Modwave, Minifreak, Roland stuff, Waldorf, etc.

This seems like a smart move for companies. Many consumers are belt tightening and buying less hardware for a variety of reasons. Many are involved in a daw/controller environment to some degree and this provides an economical way to use these instruments. Software sales are not limited by production obstacles. I have to think this is a large market for any synth company.

Why do you think we don’t see this happening more? Is it a positive trend or not?

#2

I’m just guessing of course, but it seems like the predominant part of this is in the hubris of the dedicated hardware buyer, not wanting to see it this way, not much integration with PC and little to no interest, and the other part is manufacturers not wanting to alienate that buyer who generates a large part of their revenue.

In ten years, it may likely head in the direction that you indicate, hard to say.

Personally, I find collecting software boring. I wouldn’t want to acknowledge that paradigm either.

4 Likes
#3

Yamaha is doing this with the Montage, but so far you’ve got to buy the hardware to get the software version.

1 Like
#4

Indeed the dedicated hardware enthusiasts have been and remain the primary target for many manufacturers. But I have to think that this group is small compared to what’s out there these days, relatively speaking.
I can see a sort of idealogical stance keeping everything in the hardware form factor. But I dunno.

1 Like
#5

I think it’s bigger than what you’d expect otherwise youtube gear demos wouldn’t top the algorithm. Also, the manufacturers put a LOT of money into development, I think most of it is corporate and they do forecast, so if it weren’t profitable they would be mid-shift right now already.

But this is only the present status quo, I’m not saying that it won’t change. It’s just an Occam’s razor situation, where the simplest answer often turns out to be correct.

1 Like
#6

Do not underestimate the complexity and cost of making a graphical user interface for computer use, that lives up to today’s standards of usability, graphic detail and performance.
The “software” in the quote is purely a functional black box from the point of view of a VST.

It also requires a completely different set of design and programming skills than making hardware, so it’s something that requires additions to the team and learning within the organization to get right.

I think this is why you only see big companies experiment with it, or those companies who happen to have the skills in-house to begin with.

Edit: remove ambiguity in last sentence

7 Likes
#7

I think it’s good thing when you get the option to get anything digital in pure software format, it really gives you the ideal preview of the capabilities and sound and portability, the fact that someone can have their favorite sound source everywhere without the need to drag hardware is very appealing.

if someone wants a tactile experience they will get the dedicated hardware for it, regardless if it’s available in software mode too… imagine something like Vital, Zebra or Diva in hardware, people would be all over it even though it’s available as a plugin.

1 Like
#8

IMO there could be the following aspects important:

  • availability
  • individual physical interface

Some, like me, buy a synth to last for decades without reaching the point of “sorry … not longer supported by updates or OS”. I’ve got some plug-ins I loved, which are dead by now because of this.

Do we know a virtual synth plug-in, which was usable over decades as is? And whithout having a computer system archived as is from the past?

I have a D-50 in my studio, production period was between 1987 and 1990 (if Wikipedia is correct). That’s availability and reliability for more than 25 years.

It also makes for some of us a difference to work with a general-controller, which in many cases has to be set-up individually for different plug-ins, or to use an individual tactile UI of an instrument.

For me - as an example - using a DAW interface is to concentrate on graphics, finding the correct position on screen, point exactly to the activation area of the function I want to use, and do the klick or drag. On many of my synths I can achieve the same litteraly blind and with two hands in parallel, just so.

Maybe that designers of hardware synths are just like some of us preferring tactile and individual interfaces themselves?

4 Likes
#9

a.k.a. “muscle memory” … I too dislike interfaces that require my eyeballs for the feedback loop, prefer touch alone.

Sometimes staggered by what my fingers can achieve seemingly on their own.

#10

I think it’s just a way for them to expand the instruments ”community”. And Korg has been doing this for a long time with their Legacy VST Collection. There’s additional money to find in VSTs, they don’t have to invent a new instrument to release a VST, they increase the community content available to both hardware and VST platforms by having interoperability of patches.

Plus, their instrument customers might appreciate having the hardware for gigs/experimentation, but the software for production

#11

Korg has plugins for all their latest digital synth hardware releases. Modwave, Opsix, Wavestate are all plugins. I like Modwave a lot!

1 Like
#12

It is much more difficult to sell a product in a market that is oversaturated with options (VST instrument plugins).

Let’s say you are a small-scale hardware instrument manufacturer. If you make your instrument available in plugin format and it sounds exactly like the hardware option, for many people there isn’t a reason to buy the hardware version at that point. This slowly turns your operation into a software-first kind of thing.

Plugins also need regular updates as the underlying technologies move onwards (OS, plugin format, DAW).

1 Like
#13

Due to the sensitivities of some, and in an effort to act responsibly, I will not tell jokes.

But boy do I have a few!

Anyhoo… the Korg physical synths? Cool but not gonna buy. I do use the OpSix VST though (free version, tweak something for 10 minutes, auto sample it for keygroups for 10 minutes, slide under the 20 minutes free timer, restart/repeat)

Something like the MinFreak? I’d rather pay 4x because I’d want the physical controls, also because I have the MicroFreak and they would look cool together. I’ll pay a premium for the knobs and the coolz in that case.

But I like DAW’s and mice and touchscreens as much as knobs and sliders. Often I like them much more depending on what I’m doing.

#14

Saturation is certainly a reality. But I have to think it’s true of the hardware market as well.

#15

Sometimes it will be because the makers aren’t just selling a brain, they’re selling an experience.

In some cases the way you interact with the software is as important as the software itself - and so a VST may be an impaired experience or could change how it’s used in ways that the maker might see as diminishing its value.

It also enables them to curate the experience to a specific set of inputs. When you know what it feels like to sweep a knob, flick a slider or wiggle a joystick then you can code around that - if the user could be using any MIDI controller the design task changes, and some will be complaining about response curves etc.

Novel input is especially relevant. Consider that many synths aren’t just keybeds but they’re instruments in their own right. Even repackaging a synth into different hardware can drastically change how you use it - an SH101 for example, without that mod stick it gets used in quite different ways, it makes different sounds, because people will ‘play’ it differently - one might argue that’s an intrinsic part of the instrument in a similar way to how it can be hard to VST a guitar.

2 Likes
#16

Is there something specific about these examples that begs the question? I ask because I see any digital synth basically as a computer and software bundle with a dedicated controller.

#17

Yeah because that’s what they are. Some are running on generic hardware (like new Korgs), some on more specialized DSP chips, but in both cases it’s software code, that’s responsible for how it sounds.

For me, hardware is all about physical interaction with the instrument, live improvisation, reliability (unless something physically breaks) and independence from computer quirks. Software is all about ease of integration with a DAW, flexibility (multiple instances, processing power), space saving/portability and it’s also nice for learning the instrument (especially if it’s complex).

I like having both versions of an instrument for those specific reasons, but one is not replacement for the other, even if it sounds exactly the same.

#18

Flip this around too.

Give us the body of the virtual soft synth.

This is a common request, and objective.

There has definitely been interest, in this forum and elsewhere, for a hardware Pigments from Arturia. ( As for example. )

And isn’t one of the goals of a good controller – to seamlessly encapsulate a software synth.

That’s the big appeal of the Push 3. And even that isn’t far enough for some hence the Push 3 Standalone – and that even gets complaint for not being complete enough.

Standalone Embodiment !

3 Likes
#19

I think a lot of these were conceived to be made available as VST’s and hardware from the beginning of the product development though. so decisions were made during development that made that possible (or easier). once that’s done, it’s incorrect to just assume things can be simply ported over easily.

and, as mentioned, even if the actual DSP code could be ported over easily, UI’s aren’t exactly the simplest and fastest thing to develop (if you want them to look nice and function well). and this is before you get into the question of should a purely hardware company start to go down that road…

#20

Push 3 is not really designed to wrap over vsts though, it has way better support for Live native stuff and playability but not really third party and being synth controller, and honestly I’d get it without the pads, I don’t want them so 80% of the size is not for me.

the Electra One on the other hand looks like almost a perfect solution, the ability to sync to every param is pretty amazing. if you could build one with faders/custom amount of knobs and have a way to map stuff easily it would be amazing. whoever makes such controller and doing a good job wins imo