@@raynv0 that's a different kind of test and they're out there if you want to find them - I was interested in seeing how clear it would be to people in a more regular context of just hearing some music
Pro for hardware: The physical instrument is an inspiration in itself and speaks to me. Pro for software: I can make music on my lap while watching a movie.
One of my favourite things in the software hardware debate is that. Pro for hardware: I can quickly reach for that immediate sound if I suddenly feel inspiration. Like having a piano or guitar you can just pickup and play is immensely satisfying when getting ideas down immediately in the initial spark. As opposed to having to wait to open up the DAW, searching for the plug-in, and if your midi controller isn't already set up- having to plug it in before you even play. That said portability in software is absolutely gamechanging since you're able to bring this high quality studio sound whenever and wherever you are (on a plane?? A car?? Around the world!!)
i bet i can open reaper up with a plugin chain faster than you can turn on your hardware, wanna race? i just make preset templates for practice. takes 2 seconds. i know you just gotta turn on a switch you win lol. i find hardware vs software a silly argument unless of course you are using mpe controllers. I kind of want an Osmose
@@Maplefoxx-vl2ew Let’s go from power off to playing. You ready? On your marks. Get set. Oh, you lost, The piano was already ready to play when I sat down.
@@lazyfoxplays8503 Oh.. shit right.. but it sounds like 8 of your keys are out tune. Ah we will just tune it ! Cant take much longer than boot up a pc, ipad or that phone thats always on and in your pocket right? Ah Oh sorry im a bit slow here.. it was a synth so thoose Analog Oscillators always match and track.. or whats that sound? It sounds like your 3rd voice is not tracking properly over 2 octaves you are 1 semitone off. Well get out your screwdriver and multimeter cause its index and scale calibration time! Nah okay for real: i Love my hardware (Model D, Crave) but there is a hastle for sure. It gets better with stuff like a digitakt and the Digital brain in analog box. But it also adds that analog organic sound we ALL love. But for me personally, making a ambient patch on the ipad while: in a hammock, out with my better half watching stars, experimenting with organic things as inputs, field recording sounds. Or out at sea on a ferry plopping down on the deck at 02 in the night. I think that form of freedom is ten fold the value of have a orginal hardware with quircks that needs a outlet, calibration and usually is 2-10 times the price. I respect the hell out of it and i love it and i also like using it. But i just like to bring my gear outside (i spend way too many hours behind a desk at work) But to each their own, sorry for the long rant!
@@andrewhuang Yeap, I've been listening to that Beef a few times today, It's really nice. But to choose a favorite of the others, oh that is a tough one, but I think (after listening again a few times) the second one 1:13 It's so funky, so hard to sit still.
@@andrewhuang I love the one at 1:30, would love to know what chords and/or scales you were toying around with when writing that. Such an awesome vibe on this little jam
this is effin’ brilliant. also, arguments will keep happening even though this video clearly defines how silly the arguments are. very creative, andrew, well done.
comparing the actual hardware to the emulation with those blind tests confirmed for me what i already knew: theres exactly zero point in buying hardware if its only about the "authentic sound". emulation and processing power has come to a point where we can absolutely perfectly replicate the circuits in an analogue device resulting in the same exact sound.
Was about to comment with this same sentiment lol. For me hardware is about finding a physical instrument that's inspiring to play and create with - and having something I can take onstage to replicate my favorite recorded sounds in a live setting
@@danielskah maybe unconsciously though? I wonder if anyone has done an academic study on this. I would imagine they have. I dunno... I don't really think about the consumer, I guess, I only think about my (potential) audience. I don't think selling music is viable for me, or most people.
@@larrytan73 I think real gear should ofc still be made, but it’s for live artists and collectors. Not bedroom studio producers. Have learnt that the hard (expensive) was with a 3W and a P10
@@larrytan73 Its all just midi, what's the difference? All you need is the keyboard part (the MIDI-controller), any software in the synth can just as likely be your plugin instead. Literally no reason why its not just a USB device like a normal PC keyboard but with piano keys instead.
Yeah, and it’s good that you can have a cheaper access to a sound that’s more expensive in hardware version, good for the masses. And for the people with the ability to get the hardware, I think there’s just something about the hands on experience that a software instrument can’t beat, it helps in the creative process, and when I’m just looking for ideas I don’t want to go through the information overload of a DAW, I just want to grab a hardware go with the flow.
I bought a minifreak September and I absolutely don't regret my purchase and got the vst license for it in the box. Got it for hands on sound design. It's all about the hands on for me.. The best thing is what makes your workflow easier or what conveniences you. so at the end of the day do what you want and what is best for you as long as it makes you do awesome music
For a while, I've used Cherry Audio's Voltage Modular Synthesizer software to make tons of great sounding presets. I've even made some that realistically sound like acoustic instruments. It's amazing. All of my efforts have been saved as presets in the software. What I love most are the extra features that are easily put into the software: wonderful polyphony and all of the oscillator waves having their own jacks that I can use at the same time. My favorite use is combining waves in a mixer to make unique sounds.
Both are great! Something I did this year was come up with a list of synths and instruments that I wanted to master in the box - because software is great when traveling, it’s nice to have easy options for layering, and it’s cheaper. Likewise, paring down my hardware for what I really love for inspiration - I think there is nothing that substitutes for my hands on real controls and keys, despite the cons, it’s so much more inspiring. At times I have seen zealotry on both sides, but I think a bit of both is the way to go!
I actually got almost all of the blind tests right. Working with analog hardware irl really helps you understand the minute differences between it and software. Analog synths sound a bit less clear whereas software sounds more exact. Although to basically everyone else, they likely wouldn't be able to tell. Despite that, I like how you drew the conclusion that it's not really the sound that matters anymore; it's whether or not the hardware or software you use inspires you. Great video!
The digital versions, at least in guitar amps, also seem to have a sound that is to clear and pristine. I can hardly blame a working artist for going digital just for the sake of travel.
14 วันที่ผ่านมา
@@petermuller161 really? I have serious trouble to make for example BIAS FX sound good using overdrive effects/amps. It always sounds muddy and lo-fi to me. What sim do you use?
I have used digital hardware modeling, digital guitar amps with modeling, fractal, helix. I have little experience with Bias but I have a few plugins. The VST stuff is neat if you can get it dialed in where you like it. For me I like to swap out the speaker impulses or it will all sound lame.
I think the biggest thing to consider with this whole debate is that, as long as you have the money and space to be responsible, the biggest factor for hardware vs. software is which is the best to interact with when you approach your music making - and in many times, that can be different in different situations. Sometimes you want the immediate and often unique tactile nature of a particular hardware instrument - with their limitations and advantages fully present - and other times, the ability to shape, reproduce, and control the sound is far more important. And regarding the Rhodes: I do think I can hear, to some degree, a difference between the actual instrument and the emulation - but neither is strictly *better* than the other. There are instances where what I would say a more immediate mellowness that I pick up on the real instrument is important, while other times I think the slightly edgier sound of the emulation can cut through a mix better, as Andrew demonstrated. And the difference isn't *so* great that you need to have both to have a true Rhodes experience.
A vid I most definitively needed in an inspirational way as well to get the blocker hardware vs software out of my head and not think about it too much. Thank you!
Cool test! It has been a minute since I did one of these. The 'imperfections' is what I found helped me determine it was hardware, though it was certainly easier when the MK8 was more present in the song. As you point out in the pros/cons, there are different uses and ways to get what you want. The software bass line you used made more sense for the clarity, the hardware is better suited in other ideas. The listener gets to go along for the ride whichever way you choose. I'm generally just excited that software is so accessible for many people. As a teacher, I get to open this huge doorway into a realm of music production that gets kids creating in moments. They often want to recreate songs they enjoy or have out-there sounds they want to use. It's faster to access those sounds in software.
That last "pro for hardware" point is sooooo overlooked. The energy in in-person collab sessions can easily dissipate when there is only midi keyboard & a computer screen. I personally don't own a hardware synth yet, but I've gone into SO many sessions where I felt like I've contributed so much because while the producer is at the chair doing their thing, I'm at a different chair able to dial in something else at the exact same time!
Just like we can use MS Teams and do work at home and have the same quality as in-office collaboration. Typically it just doesn't work-out. So much to be said about the in person human experience.
There was a subtle difference in the sound, but I could not tell which was which. I am a hardware guy myself, partly because I'm a guitarist so MIDI is not the way I create, but also I like the look and feel of a pedal board. I can fully understand that some prefer to use AXE FX or similar and running apt/pedal simulations in software. The quality of software have come to the point where it is almost undistinguishable from hardware when listening to the sound, so rather using the adventages and limitations in the creative process will give preferances one way or the other
Great vid, lots of insights. I'm a sucker for hardware, must be psychological😅Pro for hardware : having limitations promotes being focused on the actual music.
I got most of the answers right at 1:34 because you tried to trick us and made the hardware more electronic edm sounding and the software version more realistic and live band sounding. I knew you would throw a curve ball 😂
I got them all correct! I was listening to the nuance of human timing vs digital timing tolerance. Secondarily, I listened to the quality of the two, not knowing what exactly was different, but the vibe I got on the first one that I got correct set the stage for what to listen for. Great video!
Slightly above random voter here too, honestly you went with the right decision going with the emulation for BEEF. The best tell I could look for was the attack/release on the hardware was less linear, but if you have a case such as a more percussive line/need to match instruments emulation would be far better with a cleaner on/off. I'm amazed how good the software has gotten, even on complex chords it really does "the thing".
I am super digging Andrew Luang-hair. It's more cumbersome than short hair but after a while you forget. Added bonus: you look way more relaxed :) This hardware vs software topic is plaguing me recently as I want to invest in more instruments but space is a huge factor for me. Thanks for the video!
I started making music using Reason in the early 2000s. Then 10 years ago I was able to afford hardware. Bought a bunch of small synths and then got into Eurorack. 1.5 years ago I got laid off and sold a bunch of gear. I focused on learning Ableton and only used my Eurorack for sampling. Then I got more comfortable with the Ableton synths. Recently got the Arturia V Collection for $300. I almost never use hardware anymore and I’m totally happy with that. I love the sound I can create with VSTs and I love the control of Ableton for a fraction of what I spent on modular gear. I like both hardware and software, but now I am using software.
In the comparison you can hear a VERY tiny difference. The hardware clips just a little bit at some parts, and the playing is more human (well, obviously). The actual sound though is exactly the same, and you wouldn't notice any difference if you weren't paying REALLY close attention This was a great one Andrew!
he's also humanly playing the software with a midi controller. And as far as clipping goes, that's controlled by his gain knobs on his effects. You can have any sound clip wherever you want, hardware or software.
@@smugler1 That's a fair point. I definitely do still hear a more human feel on the hardware; perhaps he is more used to his midi controller and can therefore play it slightly better. I agree on the clipping, however in these examples the only occurrence of clipping is when the hardware is used
Also the #1 benefit to hardware, being able to control multiple things at the same time, midi this is tougher unless you have a really good controller, and you map it. But being able to hold the attack and release knobs on a compressor and dial them together is such a better experience then wiggling them individually with you mouse.
This software vs hardware state we are in is exactly why the music market has changed, but the influence and more importantly, the connections you make with people, is ultimately still the same weight carried decades ago. Networking still being more important than how they heard from you
Okay, I write very few comments usually, but this video changed my mind. I came into this video with the mindset that "yea ofc they sound the same, we can emulate things so good by now or we sample them where would be the difference". But then in the test (and I am really inexperienced with Rhodes sounds) I scored only two times wrong. Once in the beginning and once with heavy effects. And somehow, I can hear the differences between hardware and plugin, and personally, I like the hardware version much better; it has a more warm and human feel to it. Kind of, in a way, as if Midi couldn't capture the whole performance? But yeah, I could also be wrong, and the hardware just sounds a bit more bass-boosted and has more harmonics due to impedance or smth like that. So, this was actually very eye-opening that apparently, we actually can't reproduce a perfect Rhodes, and that hardware, besides its physical interface, has a place in a studio. Really cool video!
Agreed. I thought the same initially, then got all but one right on the test. I think the software doesn't make enough mistakes when creating the sound.
In the age of every increasing subscription services, something can be said about just owning a physical item rather than a downloadable software as well. Just another angle to it.
I super enjoyed the pro-only lists! I have to say I was pretty certain I would have no idea which was hardware or software at any given example but I was surprised to find that I got nearly all of them correct. I think that if I am tired and want to make music I would prefer software because I could lay down and make music, but if I'm excited and full of energy I would use the hardware.
You didn't mention how good it feels to have physical labeled knobs for each unique operation? That's pretty much the main thing for me, if there was a magical midi controller that shaped the knobs and had labels and all that depending on each and every software then I'd probably go for software every and any time. I hate the feeling of twisting virtual knobs and faders for hours...
@@jackwatts7486 You could indeed. Plus that argument falls apart a bit with a lot of synths today NOT having knob per function. Tons of them are quite shift function or menu diving heavy. Which isn't inherently bad, but only the most vintage or simple of synths are 100% knob per function.
@@Daphoid yep. This is exactly why the one big hardware synth I own has knob per function (and can send all those knobs out via MIDI for everything else which doesn't!)
EXACTLY this! on the right instrument, everything has a dedicated function and always has that function. in some kind of nirvana, there is a giant generic controller with everything you need, i know, but where that does exist, it isn’t cheap. and a given knob changes depending on context. have a small amount of hardware and know it inside out. much less fiddling, more playing.
For me, a very important selling point of hardware over software is that reduced amounts of menu-diving (when using the right gear) tend to give me a more pleasurable creative experience
Awesome testing! I was able to more accurately tell the difference at the start because the hardware just sounded a bit more 'bitey' than the software. Not just the grit, but also the combination of the velocity of the keys just gave it a bit more edge. This completely disappeared once the plugins and effects were added - I had absolutely no flipp'n idea which was which. I totally agree on using both - and just as another scenario - sometimes I start on hardware, then move to software because of my ability to play a part I really like. Sometimes I just vibe with the hardware better, get down a really cool part but am also like "Wow, I can't perform that at 200 bpm." And so I load up a software equivalent and get the job done that way.
additional hardware pro: it can be much easier to modify than software. want to make the clock on your 80s reverb unit variable? pop it open and wire in an LTC1799. doing that ona a piece of software meanwhile requires either reverse engineering/decompiling it or doing very weird things with virtual environments.
I think a big variable for the "Hardware vs. Software" is that how you play is a larger variable (This is to say that if you have a midi keyboard that feels similar to a "real" keyboard the software is going to be effectively indistinguishable in most use-cases).
Hardware is all about the fourplay - it serves the visceral musician experience. Who needs presets when you can just reach over and tweak the sound! Software is all about gratification and convenience - get what you want when you want it without the baggage. Who needs to tweak the sounds when you have countless presets to use! Sometimes you want the baggage. Sometimes you gotta travel light. Ultimately it’s about finding a balance between both worlds in your own universe.
On the first test I got all of them right. The software sounds more in the background compared to the hardware. Test 2 with the effects I was right for at least half the time but I was mostly guessing. If someone is a keyboardist and wanted to sound their best maybe get the hardware but there is only a spec of dust difference to me. If I were to get one I would just get the software… unless I become a dentist or something in the near future
I always thought this was kinda boring even if i like music and instruments but you've made learning this stuff more interesting to me. Thank you for that! Also the plant music made me laugh very loud 😅 I also wanna say that playing an instument has a good way of conveying the feel of the music.
For me, the biggest 'tell' of the software version is that the velocities are more even and smoothed-out, which suggests the difference is actually more to do with the keyboard/human interface than it is the tech behind it. There's something magical in the physical Rhodes mechanism that invites you to play into it, to explore the dynamic range and kind of dance with the instrument itself. The feel and response of the keyboard complements the sound of the instrument in a beautiful partnership and that's why it's so popular. A MIDI keyboard can't (and don't get me wrong, it shouldn't) replicate that feeling so it produces a different kind of performance. Also, no software can replicate my favourite Rhodes sound, which is turning everything off and just listening to the tines themselves, like a psuedo-celesta. And that's always going to be super-unique to each individual instrument. Counterpoint to myself - the stock Logic EP is great and I use that anytime I need a Rhodes sound.
See hardware is inspiring to me. I've delved fully into the modular world with my own modular system and I'm having so much fun with it and getting lost for hours patching around with it. I just don't get sucked in moving a mouse around a screen like I do having a physical instrument to create with. I like the limitations imparted by hardware. It keeps me from option paralysis, plus I just love coming downstairs to my hardware setup and just noodling on with a basic drum pattern and syncing other synths with it to just make this constantly evolving jam. It's something I can't imagine having the same smoothness of workflow with software alone. If I love a modular hardware emulation so much then I'll just go invest in the real thing. I love using hardware to just explore an instrument in the moment
I could tell it was hardware every time up until all of the pedal FX. There it got tricky. As someone who owns a prominent studio and a music instruments retail store and software store I can tell you it depends on the instrument and the VST. There are certain instruments that the VSTs are great at emulation and others that are far off. At the end of the day use VSTs for the stuff that’s too expensive or you need multiple instances. And use hardware for something you want to explore hands on and you cannot get that emulated sound yet. For me it’s the Moog Sub 37 which you can use an editor vst for which is perfect. Best of both worlds. Access virus ti is another great hybrid with vst support but not on newer OSs. 😊
I threw one of my favorite records out the moon roof in my car the other day because I found out it was primarily soft synths and throat singing. .... ok , so a moon roof doesn't open , it bounced back and hit me in the eye, and also it wasn't throat singing, I just didn't realize I had an airpod in my right ear while my wife was explaing to me what we were doing that day while I was listening to the radio that I thought was a record, but my car only plays CD's mp3's and doesn't have a vinyl player... but if it did this story would be less untrue.
Before I started using analog gear, I had two laptops, which had two FL Studios and they were connected to my analog mixer. I used those laptops like a instruments.
Usually I like both, which I know doesn’t help people trying to figure out a first purpose but they have very clear strengths to me. I will sketch out on software bc I can have my MBP and a launchpad set up in 4ths on my lap for playing in parts, and use something like microtonic for drums. Once I have what I want I can sit down with the hardware synths and patch everything up. Sometimes though I just like what I had on a software patch and will keep it. I think with a physical instrument though I prefer hardware almost always. If I can get a sound from a physical instrument, the feeling of playing it is always more rewarding so that would go for a Rhodes too. With synths it’s a little difference since the sound really is in the box either way - it is just how it is being generated that varies (I know that is oversimplifying but it feels that way to me compared to instruments that physically generate sound)
For laymans it would be quite interesting to compare the same musical piece on both hardware and software. I understand the "blind tests" purpose is to show it sounds amazing always.
Another pro hardware (at least pro analogue hardware): software emulations of hardware instruments often have only 128 positions of a parameter value where the hardware has infinite (or at least many more) positions (this restriction mostly comes due to the MIDI resolution of 7-bit). Often you can hear these steps when turning the knob (virtual or on a controller): A filter sweep on the hardware runs smoothly, while the same filter sweep on the software emulation creates these little steps. So even if the software emulation is so good that you cannot distinguish the sound of the software from the hardware version at all while playing a preset - when "touching" it, the truth comes into place, especially when changing parameters that handle the sound directly or any pitch. Solution: Software developers may integrate some smoothing functionality-at least for parameters where the colour of the sound is changed directly. The steps would not cease to exist, but the transition would be so smooth that it would be less perceivable. Another solution: wider usage of 14-bit MIDI (like the standard for over 40 years now at pitch bend)
Got almost all of em right. Just starting out (a bit late almost 40) so all I can afford is software rn. Would like to note that this channel has been quintessential in realizing my calling as an artist. Society kept it suppressed while simultaneously forcing it out.
As a musician, i love to play the physical instrument, thats the challenge, to wrest something beautiful from a mechanical wood/wire/metal thing. Recording it is another thing.
I only got two wrong. I find that hardware has a softer, warmer and deeper sound that software, but that could also just be my bias. I prefer hardware because it inspires me, no one can take it away from me, and it gives a physicality to making electronic music.
Everyone says “software is exactly the same as hardware” until their computer hardware hiccups during a live performance or the files gets corrupted or the buffering during software suddenly reduces the music’s bitrate. I work with both. In the end, it’s about figuring out what soundscape you are trying to build. I usually tell artists to think more hardware if they want a live sound, as software is NOTORIOUSLY buggy during live performances. Otherwise, every synth has things it can do in person that software can’t. And every software can do things synths can’t. It’s about finding out the sound you like. But I will add. Almost every digital artist I know eventually moves to physical instruments/hardware. Because in the end it’s more fun to stop looking at a screen and worble a dial to make some funky sounds.
I think the differences are mostly in the user,....ease of use, i.e., "set up" and workflow, and user enjoyment...meaning you are more likely to make something you like on something you enjoy using more. From an audio standpoint, every Instrument is different, and changes over time, tuning slips, guitars warp, strings age...etc, etc, plus variation between one Rhodes and the next, in this case, adds unique quality to ones work. You also get the "unintentional" qualities, of audio artifacts from keyboard movement, fret noise, or even "hum" or static... whatever inherent "noise" your hardware creates, again, adding uniqueness. One last thing, is either "re-amping" i.e. using MICS, to record an instrument through and amp, or going "direct" using whatever pre-amp,....interface for a cleaner sound, or older, vintage mixing platforms with older pre-amps, that add color to ones sound. These are some of the reasons I feel hardware "wins".
I guessed almost all examples correct, but not because of the sound itself but because of what was played. Especially the Jazz pieces sounded not like the stuff you usually play. So I figured it was either programmed midi or played by someone else -> software. OTOH the dubstep growl was too simple for being produced via software. I guessed you had to use one hand to turn a knob so you had to keep the melody pretty simple with the other hand. Anyway, great video (as always)
unbelievable, you are also playing tricks on us, the order you are playing each one, but they are wonderful, if especially they do other type of sounds too.
That's a really nice track! I like to occasionally switch to hardware just for having a different approach to the workflow, which results in things, I wouldn't have done in software. Also, sometimes it just feels nice to twist some actual knobs with my hands.
I perfect scored the first test, but was just random guessing once you started adding effects. very interesting stuff. I also feel like I got the first bit completely right because I understand how humans pick an order of things to seem random which actually ends up making it extremely predictable. no way of me proving one way or the other tho
I found the hardware was easier to pick out but I was way less sure on software. That initial plink on the hardware stands out, at least on the iconic "Rhodes" tones. But at this point we have the ability to do literally anything to a sound wave. You could make banging on the case sound like a Rhodes if you really wanted. IMO the advantage of hardware is convenient access to those specific tones. And that the constraints imposed by the instrument can foster more creativity than just having an infinite pallette to draw from - aka the "blank page problem". But there's no wrong answers, just best fits.
As a synth noob, i could NOT tell, the digital rhodes is crazy good! One telltale is maybe if you know what to listen for, a physical rhodes will have mors knobs turned in a natural way? (Haven't watched all the way through but have been really wanting this vid :P thanks!)
So i was correct every time. And my weird explanation for it, is that i could here the actual weight of the hardware keys being played. And the mechanical feedback. You can also heard it when you demonstrate where you choose the plug in over hardware. Plug in is clean. Hardware gave that weight mechanical sound as soon as you let the jey go. But to be honest. Both is dope!
I had only one or them wrong but I have to say that I've been a keyboardist for around 20 years, owning several Fender Rhodes piano's, so maybe that helps. I use both software and hardware, and both have their pros and cons. I think the difference it's easier to hear with a Rhodes than, for instance, with a Roland Juno replica. So yeah, pure sound-wise I can hear the difference, but as I said, there are many instances I'd go for software, think producing on the road, budget or the ability to save presets or use midi (my Rhodes mk1 has no midi). I'm a sucker for buttons, knobs, smell (yes some old instruments smell haha..), imperfections, unpredictability, different key-beds, all with a certain feel, restrictions etc. And for that reason I'd love to own all instruments in hardware but pure practically both in space and financially, not possible. I love software, but also love hardware.
Here’s the thing, platinum records have been made in basements and million dollar studios, they have cost millions of dollars, or thousands of dollars, they have used nothing but hardware and tape, and nothing but digital and midi. What you do with them in the context of your sound is what matters. The hardware will always sound richer and noisier, the software will always have less noise and sound “cleaner and slimmer”. I can hear the difference but it’s really about how you do it, not what you do it with. That being said, gosh the hardware sounds good ☺️
When you play a Rhodes you're playing keys which move physical hammers which strike physical tines which are amped kinda like an electric guitar. That's a very different experience vs. using a MIDI keyboard to transmit messages to a VST, and it really has nothing to do with which one sounds better after you digitize the physical piano and A-B them. But for the average aspiring producer who can't really play any instruments anyway, this point becomes pretty dubious.
I knew which was hardware and software on all the examples. Am I a freak? It's definitely worth using hardware. - You already know what you're going to use. You don't have to pick which of the hundred VSTs you're using today, and you're going to learn every damn thing about that piece of equipment. - From zero, to a sound you want is an inspiring process. You'll get to a different, less you, or at least less unique place just picking up and tweaking a preset. - The tactile experience is rewarding. At least for me. I've used soft synths, and aside from in Reason (especially Thor), I've felt like the synth was making the music and not me. Seriously, whenever I use softsynths the music isn't even the genre I want. It's freaky. Like "this is an amazing synthwave song, and I have had and have no intent to ever make synthwave" I'm using a lot of words to say something simple because I don't know how to express is simply.
the guessing was really hard but i did get the 4th one correct and the last one had no clue, it seems it doesn't really matter if the music is still fricking good xD who would have tought. Humor and editing of this video is on point btw, it certainly gave me a few loud chuckles that made me rewind because i didn't hear what was said next xD
Stream BEEF:
Spotify open.spotify.com/track/3IrwWVOz5YZNuOcilwwzqX
Apple music.apple.com/ca/album/beef/1776772817?i=1776772818
Bandcamp andrewhuang.bandcamp.com/track/beef
TH-cam music.th-cam.com/play/OLAK5uy_kZ88xuQ9FlW0R1Qayff1ZGZGFQ1PYTtJM.html&si=68Jdh_f3-LMqfRa-
Amazon music.amazon.com/albums/B0DL7Y1NQ6?marketplaceId=ATVPDKIKX0DER&musicTerritory=US&ref=dm_sh_5dZRUELHB6piRfQWIRL882fsQ&tag=ton08-20
More fanlink.tv/andrewhuang-beef
This is SUCH a groovy track! I love it!
The comparisons would've been valid if you played the same material on both.
@@raynv0 that's a different kind of test and they're out there if you want to find them - I was interested in seeing how clear it would be to people in a more regular context of just hearing some music
Pro for hardware: The physical instrument is an inspiration in itself and speaks to me. Pro for software: I can make music on my lap while watching a movie.
why are you watching a movie with your laptop tho
@sarkany888 why are you making a song while watching a movie is a better question
Who does that?
@@Luftmysza. I enjoy watching the same movies over and over. This is how I relax and detach.
Grooveboxes are perfect for playing with on your lap while watching a movie! :)
One of my favourite things in the software hardware debate is that.
Pro for hardware: I can quickly reach for that immediate sound if I suddenly feel inspiration. Like having a piano or guitar you can just pickup and play is immensely satisfying when getting ideas down immediately in the initial spark. As opposed to having to wait to open up the DAW, searching for the plug-in, and if your midi controller isn't already set up- having to plug it in before you even play.
That said portability in software is absolutely gamechanging since you're able to bring this high quality studio sound whenever and wherever you are (on a plane?? A car?? Around the world!!)
i bet i can open reaper up with a plugin chain faster than you can turn on your hardware, wanna race? i just make preset templates for practice. takes 2 seconds. i know you just gotta turn on a switch you win lol. i find hardware vs software a silly argument unless of course you are using mpe controllers. I kind of want an Osmose
@@Maplefoxx-vl2ew
Let’s go from power off to playing.
You ready?
On your marks.
Get set.
Oh, you lost,
The piano was already ready to play when I sat down.
@@lazyfoxplays8503 Oh.. shit right.. but it sounds like 8 of your keys are out tune. Ah we will just tune it ! Cant take much longer than boot up a pc, ipad or that phone thats always on and in your pocket right?
Ah Oh sorry im a bit slow here.. it was a synth so thoose Analog Oscillators always match and track.. or whats that sound? It sounds like your 3rd voice is not tracking properly over 2 octaves you are 1 semitone off. Well get out your screwdriver and multimeter cause its index and scale calibration time!
Nah okay for real: i Love my hardware (Model D, Crave) but there is a hastle for sure. It gets better with stuff like a digitakt and the Digital brain in analog box. But it also adds that analog organic sound we ALL love.
But for me personally, making a ambient patch on the ipad while: in a hammock, out with my better half watching stars, experimenting with organic things as inputs, field recording sounds. Or out at sea on a ferry plopping down on the deck at 02 in the night.
I think that form of freedom is ten fold the value of have a orginal hardware with quircks that needs a outlet, calibration and usually is 2-10 times the price.
I respect the hell out of it and i love it and i also like using it. But i just like to bring my gear outside (i spend way too many hours behind a desk at work)
But to each their own, sorry for the long rant!
All the "Which Rhodes are we hearing" music is so damn good, wish we had full songs of them in one album.
One is out and linked in the description, let me know which others you liked best :)
@@andrewhuang Yeap, I've been listening to that Beef a few times today, It's really nice.
But to choose a favorite of the others, oh that is a tough one, but I think (after listening again a few times) the second one 1:13
It's so funky, so hard to sit still.
Yesss, the musics great! Very jazzy
@@andrewhuang I love the one at 1:30, would love to know what chords and/or scales you were toying around with when writing that. Such an awesome vibe on this little jam
an album simply titled, "On the Rhodes again..." lol
this is effin’ brilliant. also, arguments will keep happening even though this video clearly defines how silly the arguments are. very creative, andrew, well done.
comparing the actual hardware to the emulation with those blind tests confirmed for me what i already knew: theres exactly zero point in buying hardware if its only about the "authentic sound". emulation and processing power has come to a point where we can absolutely perfectly replicate the circuits in an analogue device resulting in the same exact sound.
Yeah, just make sure to use a good enough keyboard to get the most out of it.
Tbh I could hear when it was the hardware every time
Was about to comment with this same sentiment lol. For me hardware is about finding a physical instrument that's inspiring to play and create with - and having something I can take onstage to replicate my favorite recorded sounds in a live setting
@@GwazaJuse the thing is that as a creative you probably can pick it out every time, but a consumer probably won't. in a mix is probably even harder.
@@danielskah maybe unconsciously though? I wonder if anyone has done an academic study on this. I would imagine they have. I dunno... I don't really think about the consumer, I guess, I only think about my (potential) audience. I don't think selling music is viable for me, or most people.
We have reached a point where software is so close that whenever i see a „vs“ debate i never participate. I just grab my popcorn
Should we just stop making real gear!?
@@larrytan73 I think real gear should ofc still be made, but it’s for live artists and collectors. Not bedroom studio producers. Have learnt that the hard (expensive) was with a 3W and a P10
@@larrytan73 Its all just midi, what's the difference? All you need is the keyboard part (the MIDI-controller), any software in the synth can just as likely be your plugin instead. Literally no reason why its not just a USB device like a normal PC keyboard but with piano keys instead.
Yeah, and it’s good that you can have a cheaper access to a sound that’s more expensive in hardware version, good for the masses.
And for the people with the ability to get the hardware, I think there’s just something about the hands on experience that a software instrument can’t beat, it helps in the creative process, and when I’m just looking for ideas I don’t want to go through the information overload of a DAW, I just want to grab a hardware go with the flow.
@@TeKett no no
Holy crap the music in the all the hearing tests is so fire 😭
I can't be focusing in on the sound when I'm vibing to the music man
I like the hairstyle
Yeah, but is the software version as good as the hardware one?
FWIW, I think his hardware hair just sounds warmer. 👍
They both sound great, but man that mk8 is a damn work of art in itself. What a lovely, inspiring instrument.
I bought a minifreak September and I absolutely don't regret my purchase and got the vst license for it in the box. Got it for hands on sound design. It's all about the hands on for me.. The best thing is what makes your workflow easier or what conveniences you. so at the end of the day do what you want and what is best for you as long as it makes you do awesome music
For a while, I've used Cherry Audio's Voltage Modular Synthesizer software to make tons of great sounding presets. I've even made some that realistically sound like acoustic instruments. It's amazing. All of my efforts have been saved as presets in the software. What I love most are the extra features that are easily put into the software: wonderful polyphony and all of the oscillator waves having their own jacks that I can use at the same time. My favorite use is combining waves in a mixer to make unique sounds.
Both are great! Something I did this year was come up with a list of synths and instruments that I wanted to master in the box - because software is great when traveling, it’s nice to have easy options for layering, and it’s cheaper. Likewise, paring down my hardware for what I really love for inspiration - I think there is nothing that substitutes for my hands on real controls and keys, despite the cons, it’s so much more inspiring. At times I have seen zealotry on both sides, but I think a bit of both is the way to go!
The one that's better is the one that brings you the most joy as an artist and performer.
I actually got almost all of the blind tests right. Working with analog hardware irl really helps you understand the minute differences between it and software. Analog synths sound a bit less clear whereas software sounds more exact. Although to basically everyone else, they likely wouldn't be able to tell. Despite that, I like how you drew the conclusion that it's not really the sound that matters anymore; it's whether or not the hardware or software you use inspires you. Great video!
The digital versions, at least in guitar amps, also seem to have a sound that is to clear and pristine. I can hardly blame a working artist for going digital just for the sake of travel.
@@petermuller161 really? I have serious trouble to make for example BIAS FX sound good using overdrive effects/amps. It always sounds muddy and lo-fi to me. What sim do you use?
I really wanted to not know which is which haha
I have used digital hardware modeling, digital guitar amps with modeling, fractal, helix. I have little experience with Bias but I have a few plugins. The VST stuff is neat if you can get it dialed in where you like it. For me I like to swap out the speaker impulses or it will all sound lame.
Yeah, that final point right at the end of the video is the biggest one by far.
Loving this new (?) jazz direction!
And no, I could definitely not tell which was which
It’s really a breath of fresh air indeed
2:16 That dubstep caught me off guard, damn that was hard
Andrew Huang is the first producer who plays dubstep on a real Rhodes.
@@timwra I feel like loads of dubstep producers must have used real Rhodes in the early days. Im going to have to go and research now.
Sounds a lot like Water by Ohgr
I think the biggest thing to consider with this whole debate is that, as long as you have the money and space to be responsible, the biggest factor for hardware vs. software is which is the best to interact with when you approach your music making - and in many times, that can be different in different situations. Sometimes you want the immediate and often unique tactile nature of a particular hardware instrument - with their limitations and advantages fully present - and other times, the ability to shape, reproduce, and control the sound is far more important.
And regarding the Rhodes: I do think I can hear, to some degree, a difference between the actual instrument and the emulation - but neither is strictly *better* than the other. There are instances where what I would say a more immediate mellowness that I pick up on the real instrument is important, while other times I think the slightly edgier sound of the emulation can cut through a mix better, as Andrew demonstrated. And the difference isn't *so* great that you need to have both to have a true Rhodes experience.
I second that
u should definitely make a "how many instruments i own" video lol
Yes! +
andrew’s channel is a youtube treasure! diverse content but always interesting! thanks for being so consistently great! ❤️
In the words of Gotye, “These amazing simulations end up sounding even better than the real thing”
Love seeing a State of the Art reference out in the wild
Rare state of the art mention
this video is one of the best and funniest i've seen in a while - thank you for that experience
A vid I most definitively needed in an inspirational way as well to get the blocker hardware vs software out of my head and not think about it too much. Thank you!
Cool test! It has been a minute since I did one of these. The 'imperfections' is what I found helped me determine it was hardware, though it was certainly easier when the MK8 was more present in the song. As you point out in the pros/cons, there are different uses and ways to get what you want. The software bass line you used made more sense for the clarity, the hardware is better suited in other ideas. The listener gets to go along for the ride whichever way you choose.
I'm generally just excited that software is so accessible for many people. As a teacher, I get to open this huge doorway into a realm of music production that gets kids creating in moments. They often want to recreate songs they enjoy or have out-there sounds they want to use. It's faster to access those sounds in software.
That last "pro for hardware" point is sooooo overlooked.
The energy in in-person collab sessions can easily dissipate when there is only midi keyboard & a computer screen. I personally don't own a hardware synth yet, but I've gone into SO many sessions where I felt like I've contributed so much because while the producer is at the chair doing their thing, I'm at a different chair able to dial in something else at the exact same time!
Just like we can use MS Teams and do work at home and have the same quality as in-office collaboration. Typically it just doesn't work-out. So much to be said about the in person human experience.
The funny thing about the way we pronounce B when describing it as a letter is that we actually say "Bee", so you actually did say E 3 times haha
ahahah same thought
There was a subtle difference in the sound, but I could not tell which was which.
I am a hardware guy myself, partly because I'm a guitarist so MIDI is not the way I create, but also I like the look and feel of a pedal board. I can fully understand that some prefer to use AXE FX or similar and running apt/pedal simulations in software.
The quality of software have come to the point where it is almost undistinguishable from hardware when listening to the sound, so rather using the adventages and limitations in the creative process will give preferances one way or the other
It all comes down to your creative process.
Why are Andrew's videos such an aesthetic?
Great vid, lots of insights. I'm a sucker for hardware, must be psychological😅Pro for hardware : having limitations promotes being focused on the actual music.
I got most of the answers right at 1:34 because you tried to trick us and made the hardware more electronic edm sounding and the software version more realistic and live band sounding. I knew you would throw a curve ball 😂
I got them all correct! I was listening to the nuance of human timing vs digital timing tolerance. Secondarily, I listened to the quality of the two, not knowing what exactly was different, but the vibe I got on the first one that I got correct set the stage for what to listen for. Great video!
Slightly above random voter here too, honestly you went with the right decision going with the emulation for BEEF. The best tell I could look for was the attack/release on the hardware was less linear, but if you have a case such as a more percussive line/need to match instruments emulation would be far better with a cleaner on/off. I'm amazed how good the software has gotten, even on complex chords it really does "the thing".
I am super digging Andrew Luang-hair.
It's more cumbersome than short hair but after a while you forget. Added bonus: you look way more relaxed :)
This hardware vs software topic is plaguing me recently as I want to invest in more instruments but space is a huge factor for me. Thanks for the video!
4:15 your brain said 3 E's because B ends with the same sound, same phoneme
Andrew we need a jazz fusion album from you PLEASE
Hoping to!
I started making music using Reason in the early 2000s. Then 10 years ago I was able to afford hardware. Bought a bunch of small synths and then got into Eurorack. 1.5 years ago I got laid off and sold a bunch of gear. I focused on learning Ableton and only used my Eurorack for sampling. Then I got more comfortable with the Ableton synths. Recently got the Arturia V Collection for $300. I almost never use hardware anymore and I’m totally happy with that. I love the sound I can create with VSTs and I love the control of Ableton for a fraction of what I spent on modular gear. I like both hardware and software, but now I am using software.
In the comparison you can hear a VERY tiny difference. The hardware clips just a little bit at some parts, and the playing is more human (well, obviously). The actual sound though is exactly the same, and you wouldn't notice any difference if you weren't paying REALLY close attention
This was a great one Andrew!
he's also humanly playing the software with a midi controller. And as far as clipping goes, that's controlled by his gain knobs on his effects. You can have any sound clip wherever you want, hardware or software.
@@smugler1 That's a fair point. I definitely do still hear a more human feel on the hardware; perhaps he is more used to his midi controller and can therefore play it slightly better. I agree on the clipping, however in these examples the only occurrence of clipping is when the hardware is used
Also the #1 benefit to hardware, being able to control multiple things at the same time, midi this is tougher unless you have a really good controller, and you map it. But being able to hold the attack and release knobs on a compressor and dial them together is such a better experience then wiggling them individually with you mouse.
This software vs hardware state we are in is exactly why the music market has changed, but the influence and more importantly, the connections you make with people, is ultimately still the same weight carried decades ago. Networking still being more important than how they heard from you
Okay, I write very few comments usually, but this video changed my mind.
I came into this video with the mindset that "yea ofc they sound the same, we can emulate things so good by now or we sample them where would be the difference". But then in the test (and I am really inexperienced with Rhodes sounds) I scored only two times wrong. Once in the beginning and once with heavy effects. And somehow, I can hear the differences between hardware and plugin, and personally, I like the hardware version much better; it has a more warm and human feel to it. Kind of, in a way, as if Midi couldn't capture the whole performance? But yeah, I could also be wrong, and the hardware just sounds a bit more bass-boosted and has more harmonics due to impedance or smth like that. So, this was actually very eye-opening that apparently, we actually can't reproduce a perfect Rhodes, and that hardware, besides its physical interface, has a place in a studio. Really cool video!
Agreed. I thought the same initially, then got all but one right on the test. I think the software doesn't make enough mistakes when creating the sound.
In the age of every increasing subscription services, something can be said about just owning a physical item rather than a downloadable software as well. Just another angle to it.
I super enjoyed the pro-only lists! I have to say I was pretty certain I would have no idea which was hardware or software at any given example but I was surprised to find that I got nearly all of them correct. I think that if I am tired and want to make music I would prefer software because I could lay down and make music, but if I'm excited and full of energy I would use the hardware.
You didn't mention how good it feels to have physical labeled knobs for each unique operation? That's pretty much the main thing for me, if there was a magical midi controller that shaped the knobs and had labels and all that depending on each and every software then I'd probably go for software every and any time. I hate the feeling of twisting virtual knobs and faders for hours...
Couldn't you pick a midi controller and map the knobs so you have the same controls? Would be more work but also more affordable.
@@jackwatts7486 You could indeed. Plus that argument falls apart a bit with a lot of synths today NOT having knob per function. Tons of them are quite shift function or menu diving heavy. Which isn't inherently bad, but only the most vintage or simple of synths are 100% knob per function.
@@Daphoid yep. This is exactly why the one big hardware synth I own has knob per function (and can send all those knobs out via MIDI for everything else which doesn't!)
EXACTLY this! on the right instrument, everything has a dedicated function and always has that function. in some kind of nirvana, there is a giant generic controller with everything you need, i know, but where that does exist, it isn’t cheap. and a given knob changes depending on context. have a small amount of hardware and know it inside out. much less fiddling, more playing.
For me, a very important selling point of hardware over software is that reduced amounts of menu-diving (when using the right gear) tend to give me a more pleasurable creative experience
Hahahaha the last point with the dipping the cable in coffee and the delayed reaction was awesome 😂
Fun video!
BEEF is amazing. Massive GTA 5 vibes
I really can't tell... they both sound great! Thanks for the video! I wish I could try the MK8 somewhere...
Awesome testing! I was able to more accurately tell the difference at the start because the hardware just sounded a bit more 'bitey' than the software. Not just the grit, but also the combination of the velocity of the keys just gave it a bit more edge. This completely disappeared once the plugins and effects were added - I had absolutely no flipp'n idea which was which.
I totally agree on using both - and just as another scenario - sometimes I start on hardware, then move to software because of my ability to play a part I really like. Sometimes I just vibe with the hardware better, get down a really cool part but am also like "Wow, I can't perform that at 200 bpm." And so I load up a software equivalent and get the job done that way.
Nice jazzy "the herbaliser" vibes !
As for the hardware/software debate i don't care much what matters is textures i can get from any of the sources.
additional hardware pro: it can be much easier to modify than software. want to make the clock on your 80s reverb unit variable? pop it open and wire in an LTC1799. doing that ona a piece of software meanwhile requires either reverse engineering/decompiling it or doing very weird things with virtual environments.
Counterpoint: open source software offers the same sort of "under the hood" access.
I think a big variable for the "Hardware vs. Software" is that how you play is a larger variable (This is to say that if you have a midi keyboard that feels similar to a "real" keyboard the software is going to be effectively indistinguishable in most use-cases).
These tracks sound so damn good I couldn’t care less whether it’s the real or plugin Rhodes lol. Great video as always.
On the midi point, with any midi-capable synth, you can use the midi-in to "play" impossible lines or correct mistakes too.
I am confident in saying I got every single vs wrong. This is a nice plugin...I have to check this out
Hardware is all about the fourplay - it serves the visceral musician experience. Who needs presets when you can just reach over and tweak the sound!
Software is all about gratification and convenience - get what you want when you want it without the baggage. Who needs to tweak the sounds when you have countless presets to use!
Sometimes you want the baggage. Sometimes you gotta travel light.
Ultimately it’s about finding a balance between both worlds in your own universe.
On the first test I got all of them right. The software sounds more in the background compared to the hardware. Test 2 with the effects I was right for at least half the time but I was mostly guessing. If someone is a keyboardist and wanted to sound their best maybe get the hardware but there is only a spec of dust difference to me. If I were to get one I would just get the software… unless I become a dentist or something in the near future
I always thought this was kinda boring even if i like music and instruments but you've made learning this stuff more interesting to me. Thank you for that!
Also the plant music made me laugh very loud 😅
I also wanna say that playing an instument has a good way of conveying the feel of the music.
For me, the biggest 'tell' of the software version is that the velocities are more even and smoothed-out, which suggests the difference is actually more to do with the keyboard/human interface than it is the tech behind it. There's something magical in the physical Rhodes mechanism that invites you to play into it, to explore the dynamic range and kind of dance with the instrument itself. The feel and response of the keyboard complements the sound of the instrument in a beautiful partnership and that's why it's so popular. A MIDI keyboard can't (and don't get me wrong, it shouldn't) replicate that feeling so it produces a different kind of performance.
Also, no software can replicate my favourite Rhodes sound, which is turning everything off and just listening to the tines themselves, like a psuedo-celesta. And that's always going to be super-unique to each individual instrument.
Counterpoint to myself - the stock Logic EP is great and I use that anytime I need a Rhodes sound.
See hardware is inspiring to me. I've delved fully into the modular world with my own modular system and I'm having so much fun with it and getting lost for hours patching around with it. I just don't get sucked in moving a mouse around a screen like I do having a physical instrument to create with. I like the limitations imparted by hardware. It keeps me from option paralysis, plus I just love coming downstairs to my hardware setup and just noodling on with a basic drum pattern and syncing other synths with it to just make this constantly evolving jam. It's something I can't imagine having the same smoothness of workflow with software alone.
If I love a modular hardware emulation so much then I'll just go invest in the real thing. I love using hardware to just explore an instrument in the moment
I could tell it was hardware every time up until all of the pedal FX. There it got tricky. As someone who owns a prominent studio and a music instruments retail store and software store I can tell you it depends on the instrument and the VST. There are certain instruments that the VSTs are great at emulation and others that are far off. At the end of the day use VSTs for the stuff that’s too expensive or you need multiple instances. And use hardware for something you want to explore hands on and you cannot get that emulated sound yet. For me it’s the Moog Sub 37 which you can use an editor vst for which is perfect. Best of both worlds. Access virus ti is another great hybrid with vst support but not on newer OSs. 😊
That pro and con part had me laughing. Brilliant.
I threw one of my favorite records out the moon roof in my car the other day because I found out it was primarily soft synths and throat singing. .... ok , so a moon roof doesn't open , it bounced back and hit me in the eye, and also it wasn't throat singing, I just didn't realize I had an airpod in my right ear while my wife was explaing to me what we were doing that day while I was listening to the radio that I thought was a record, but my car only plays CD's mp3's and doesn't have a vinyl player... but if it did this story would be less untrue.
andrew is amazing at counterpoint!
Before I started using analog gear, I had two laptops, which had two FL Studios and they were connected to my analog mixer. I used those laptops like a instruments.
Usually I like both, which I know doesn’t help people trying to figure out a first purpose but they have very clear strengths to me. I will sketch out on software bc I can have my MBP and a launchpad set up in 4ths on my lap for playing in parts, and use something like microtonic for drums. Once I have what I want I can sit down with the hardware synths and patch everything up. Sometimes though I just like what I had on a software patch and will keep it.
I think with a physical instrument though I prefer hardware almost always. If I can get a sound from a physical instrument, the feeling of playing it is always more rewarding so that would go for a Rhodes too. With synths it’s a little difference since the sound really is in the box either way - it is just how it is being generated that varies (I know that is oversimplifying but it feels that way to me compared to instruments that physically generate sound)
For laymans it would be quite interesting to compare the same musical piece on both hardware and software. I understand the "blind tests" purpose is to show it sounds amazing always.
Awesome video! I haven't been around in a min, focusing my own channel, but bro I'm diggin the long hair 💪
I laughed so hard at the bio filter/dip it in my coffee bit
Another pro hardware (at least pro analogue hardware): software emulations of hardware instruments often have only 128 positions of a parameter value where the hardware has infinite (or at least many more) positions (this restriction mostly comes due to the MIDI resolution of 7-bit). Often you can hear these steps when turning the knob (virtual or on a controller): A filter sweep on the hardware runs smoothly, while the same filter sweep on the software emulation creates these little steps. So even if the software emulation is so good that you cannot distinguish the sound of the software from the hardware version at all while playing a preset - when "touching" it, the truth comes into place, especially when changing parameters that handle the sound directly or any pitch.
Solution: Software developers may integrate some smoothing functionality-at least for parameters where the colour of the sound is changed directly. The steps would not cease to exist, but the transition would be so smooth that it would be less perceivable.
Another solution: wider usage of 14-bit MIDI (like the standard for over 40 years now at pitch bend)
Issue is solved by Midi2. Not yet common, only in some controllers. 32 bits instead of 7
Got almost all of em right.
Just starting out (a bit late almost 40) so all I can afford is software rn.
Would like to note that this channel has been quintessential in realizing my calling as an artist. Society kept it suppressed while simultaneously forcing it out.
As a musician, i love to play the physical instrument, thats the challenge, to wrest something beautiful from a mechanical wood/wire/metal thing. Recording it is another thing.
7:49
Warm yourself by the fire son
And the morning will come soon
I'll tell you stories of a better time
And a place that we once knew
I only got two wrong. I find that hardware has a softer, warmer and deeper sound that software, but that could also just be my bias. I prefer hardware because it inspires me, no one can take it away from me, and it gives a physicality to making electronic music.
If you haven’t watched “Doom: Behind the Music” start at 17:28.
He combines hardware and software in a single instrument.
Super cool.
I just bough my first physical synthesizer like two days ago, this video was uploaded just in time
Everyone says “software is exactly the same as hardware” until their computer hardware hiccups during a live performance or the files gets corrupted or the buffering during software suddenly reduces the music’s bitrate.
I work with both.
In the end, it’s about figuring out what soundscape you are trying to build.
I usually tell artists to think more hardware if they want a live sound, as software is NOTORIOUSLY buggy during live performances.
Otherwise, every synth has things it can do in person that software can’t. And every software can do things synths can’t.
It’s about finding out the sound you like.
But I will add. Almost every digital artist I know eventually moves to physical instruments/hardware.
Because in the end it’s more fun to stop looking at a screen and worble a dial to make some funky sounds.
Wait until the software users try to sell their used software in 20 years...
I think the differences are mostly in the user,....ease of use, i.e., "set up" and workflow, and user enjoyment...meaning you are more likely to make something you like on something you enjoy using more. From an audio standpoint, every Instrument is different, and changes over time, tuning slips, guitars warp, strings age...etc, etc, plus variation between one Rhodes and the next, in this case, adds unique quality to ones work. You also get the "unintentional" qualities, of audio artifacts from keyboard movement, fret noise, or even "hum" or static... whatever inherent "noise" your hardware creates, again, adding uniqueness. One last thing, is either "re-amping" i.e. using MICS, to record an instrument through and amp, or going "direct" using whatever pre-amp,....interface for a cleaner sound, or older, vintage mixing platforms with older pre-amps, that add color to ones sound. These are some of the reasons I feel hardware "wins".
I guessed almost all examples correct, but not because of the sound itself but because of what was played. Especially the Jazz pieces sounded not like the stuff you usually play. So I figured it was either programmed midi or played by someone else -> software.
OTOH the dubstep growl was too simple for being produced via software. I guessed you had to use one hand to turn a knob so you had to keep the melody pretty simple with the other hand.
Anyway, great video (as always)
unbelievable, you are also playing tricks on us, the order you are playing each one, but they are wonderful, if especially they do other type of sounds too.
I see you like patting your pineapple too!
I will agree, if the music is "good" people will enjoy. This was good. thx.
It's not only hardware vs software, but old vs new. Build standards, aging compoments etc
Talent is what matters the most.
That's a really nice track!
I like to occasionally switch to hardware just for having a different approach to the workflow, which results in things, I wouldn't have done in software. Also, sometimes it just feels nice to twist some actual knobs with my hands.
I perfect scored the first test, but was just random guessing once you started adding effects. very interesting stuff.
I also feel like I got the first bit completely right because I understand how humans pick an order of things to seem random which actually ends up making it extremely predictable. no way of me proving one way or the other tho
What ever inspires you keep doing it! My MPC 2000xl (hardware) kills the Mpc software and the newer MPC's.
I found the hardware was easier to pick out but I was way less sure on software. That initial plink on the hardware stands out, at least on the iconic "Rhodes" tones. But at this point we have the ability to do literally anything to a sound wave. You could make banging on the case sound like a Rhodes if you really wanted.
IMO the advantage of hardware is convenient access to those specific tones. And that the constraints imposed by the instrument can foster more creativity than just having an infinite pallette to draw from - aka the "blank page problem". But there's no wrong answers, just best fits.
Beef has that Too Many Zooz raw vibe. Keep doing you
Edit: I mean those in a good way.
As a synth noob, i could NOT tell, the digital rhodes is crazy good! One telltale is maybe if you know what to listen for, a physical rhodes will have mors knobs turned in a natural way?
(Haven't watched all the way through but have been really wanting this vid :P thanks!)
I think we are there in terms of hardware compressors too, it's a shame because hardware looks so COOL!!
So i was correct every time. And my weird explanation for it, is that i could here the actual weight of the hardware keys being played. And the mechanical feedback. You can also heard it when you demonstrate where you choose the plug in over hardware. Plug in is clean. Hardware gave that weight mechanical sound as soon as you let the jey go. But to be honest. Both is dope!
Awesome video. Great points and insight. Also, I love your hair!
I had only one or them wrong but I have to say that I've been a keyboardist for around 20 years, owning several Fender Rhodes piano's, so maybe that helps. I use both software and hardware, and both have their pros and cons. I think the difference it's easier to hear with a Rhodes than, for instance, with a Roland Juno replica. So yeah, pure sound-wise I can hear the difference, but as I said, there are many instances I'd go for software, think producing on the road, budget or the ability to save presets or use midi (my Rhodes mk1 has no midi). I'm a sucker for buttons, knobs, smell (yes some old instruments smell haha..), imperfections, unpredictability, different key-beds, all with a certain feel, restrictions etc. And for that reason I'd love to own all instruments in hardware but pure practically both in space and financially, not possible. I love software, but also love hardware.
Here’s the thing, platinum records have been made in basements and million dollar studios, they have cost millions of dollars, or thousands of dollars, they have used nothing but hardware and tape, and nothing but digital and midi. What you do with them in the context of your sound is what matters. The hardware will always sound richer and noisier, the software will always have less noise and sound “cleaner and slimmer”. I can hear the difference but it’s really about how you do it, not what you do it with. That being said, gosh the hardware sounds good ☺️
When you play a Rhodes you're playing keys which move physical hammers which strike physical tines which are amped kinda like an electric guitar. That's a very different experience vs. using a MIDI keyboard to transmit messages to a VST, and it really has nothing to do with which one sounds better after you digitize the physical piano and A-B them. But for the average aspiring producer who can't really play any instruments anyway, this point becomes pretty dubious.
Pro for Hardware: a Rhoades also works as a really nice (and expensive) furniture.
I knew which was hardware and software on all the examples. Am I a freak?
It's definitely worth using hardware.
- You already know what you're going to use. You don't have to pick which of the hundred VSTs you're using today, and you're going to learn every damn thing about that piece of equipment.
- From zero, to a sound you want is an inspiring process. You'll get to a different, less you, or at least less unique place just picking up and tweaking a preset.
- The tactile experience is rewarding. At least for me.
I've used soft synths, and aside from in Reason (especially Thor), I've felt like the synth was making the music and not me. Seriously, whenever I use softsynths the music isn't even the genre I want. It's freaky. Like "this is an amazing synthwave song, and I have had and have no intent to ever make synthwave" I'm using a lot of words to say something simple because I don't know how to express is simply.
the guessing was really hard but i did get the 4th one correct and the last one had no clue, it seems it doesn't really matter if the music is still fricking good xD who would have tought.
Humor and editing of this video is on point btw, it certainly gave me a few loud chuckles that made me rewind because i didn't hear what was said next xD
Andrew going full Leonid from Are You Afraid of the Dark, with that hairstyle.