Thanks for the comments, gentlemen!
N.F.,
I'm not that big on the a-typical trance scene(created only for the purpose of dancing),but I do like the unique,film-noir soundscape type of atmosphere and this is it!
I'm kind of picky about trance myself, I generally feel the same way you do unless it's progressive from the pre-ASOT years. Some of those years really pushed the boundaries of some of the classic analog and VA synths that we all know and love. Of course, the same can be said of many genres of EDM, but trance has a nostalgia value for me personally. Thanks for the encouragement.
At one time, I was mostly certain that hardware gear has a superior sound to software synths. However, certain soft-synths such as certain Reaktor ensembles, Sylenth1, V-Station, etc. have me convinced of the following:
1. For the most part, most synthesizers have a few distinguishing characteristics that set them apart from others. This could be aspects of the filter resonance (is it liquid, metallic, overly dynamic, thick?), the purity of the oscillator types (are they more prone to phase like analog gear or not?), you get the idea.
2. Hardware "in general" a sharper tone due to poor recording equipment -- ie, the soundcard's ground noise for the inputs introduces a false colorization, even if this is faint or flat-out inaudible. Sometimes, this is also the fault of older equipment itself -- for instance, the original Yamaha DX-7's converters were a lower bit-rate than the DX-7 Mark 2 or the TX81Z. For some, they enjoyed the lower bit-rate more-so, because of the sharpness of tone. If I'm correct, the bit rate was upped from 12-bit to 16-bit rate converters.
3. Hardware has more invested into it, so patches are generally in better hands for programming. However, this also depends on the style of music you are trying to investing time and talents therein. Trance has had a monopoly in many soft-synth circles as of late (for instance, the Vanguard -- perfectly suited for any genre, but has the initial presets set to trance enthusiasts).
4. Hardware was also better groomed in a time when musicians generally devoted more time and talent into their work. Because of the saturated market,
5. Older hardware (such as the pre-MIDI era) has better phasing in the oscillators due to the sound shaping sources being purely electrical. Software has tried to copy this mechanism, but they can never quite mimic it to perfection. This has also carried over into the VAs as well, but not as strongly as the pre-MIDI era.
6. My Roland JP-8080 sounds 100% better than the Superwave P8.
7. Hardware is expensive.
8. A lot of the joy in discovering old hardware is pure nostalgia instead of quality of sound. If you refer to point #1, software synthesizers have almost caught up to hardware in terms of quality of sound. However, because of how the smallest details can't me mimicked to perfection, the software instrument will inevitably sound different. Therefore, it is better to treat software synths as different instruments, not necessarily inferior -- depending on your purposes.
9. I'd have a difficult time trying to copy the Board of Canada. They use a lot of old analog equipment to process their soundscapes. Vintage sounds are best captured with vintage gear. This follows point #8.
10. Software is quicker to program and store patches intuitively.
11. Hardware is more fun to program because of tactile response between the knobs and sliders. MIDI controllers can go a long way, but there is something to be said about the relationship between man and musical-machine.
12. Software is only getting better. The trend is only decreasing the gap week by week.
Score:
Hardware: 4
Software: 3
The truth is that I cannot afford to own hardware equipment that I fancy. Therefore, I enjoy the world that I am forced to subscribe to and I embrace it.
