# New Hardware synth



## pcarrilho (Sep 28, 2020)

Guys,
Last years, Virtual Instruments (VSTi) ware my main tools.
But i miss hardware synth!

So, in 2020, if you have about $2000,00 to spend on synths, what do you think it is best buy?
The synth is for Studio use only.
I am a media/game composer...
Don't need accoustic pianos or other accoustic instruments (i have a ton of Sample libs for thar purpose).
Just need synth sounds, arpegiators...

- Novation Peak + Hydra Desktop?
- Novation Summint?
- Wait for Polybrute?
- Virus TI ?
- REV 2?
- ???

Currently i use VSTIs: Omnisphere, Nexus and Pigments


----------



## shponglefan (Sep 28, 2020)




----------



## ThomasL (Sep 28, 2020)

You're probably going to get as many different answers as there are synthesizers 

I can only speak for the Peak, it's a very deep synth, I love it to bits. The Summit is almost the same but with a greater polyphony.

As for the Hydra, I'm looking forward to sit down with one, sometime. The keyboard version has my attention.

If you haven't seen this video, please do. The Peak is used in the example but it works for almost any synth.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Sep 28, 2020)

I really, really, really love my Hydrasynth! So many possibilities, such a quality instrument, can go from edgy to smooth, sound digital, but also analog (and the macros, the ribbon, CV ins, etc). Here's a quick demo I did with it a few weeks ago:


----------



## chillbot (Sep 28, 2020)

I have a lot of synths, and have had a LOT of synths. I'm completely blown away by the Sequential Pro 3. Just to throw out something else to check out.


----------



## twincities (Sep 28, 2020)

not sure if you want vintage answers or not, but there's a good reason nearly every studio tour/composer cribs style video shows off a juno 6/60/106. it was my first poly, and now many years later, with many more synth choices on my rack, it's still the first i reach for. (and i recently had it fitted with midi to make doubling parts a touch faster)


----------



## rgames (Sep 28, 2020)

I was in the same boat a couple years ago when I started buying hardware synths. Over those two years I've purchased a Rev 2, Prologue, Minibrute 2 and a Pro 3. The Pro 3 is the only one I've not gotten to know very well because it's a recent purchase.

My two cents: I find the Rev 2 easy to replicate in software. I really like the Prologue filter w/ some drive but other than that it's also pretty easy to replicate in software. The tactile sensation of knobs and buttons is a different factor, and it's real, but in the end the Rev 2 and Prologue don't really sound that unique to me other than the Prologue filter on some patches that require some grit. The Minibrute 2 and the Pro 3, however, seem to have sounds I can't easily replicate in software.

If you're really into sound design then the Rev 2 and probably the Pro 3 are the most capable. But I find I don't really use that many of the soud design features - I find that kind of detailed work much easier to do on a computer (or not at all). The Prologue is probably the best match between what's available and what I actually use.

All in all I'd say hardware synths have been fun to mess with but not really a game-changer for me. I think software synths are much better value for a studio-based composer.

One important factor: a bunch of software synths are much easier to store than a bunch of hardware synths.

rgames


----------



## mscp (Sep 28, 2020)

pcarrilho said:


> Guys,
> Last years, Virtual Instruments (VSTi) ware my main tools.
> But i miss hardware synth!
> 
> ...



Can you give us a little more information about your needs for a hardware synth and what you'd expect it to do for you? There are so many variables to consider.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 28, 2020)

pcarrilho said:


> Guys,
> Last years, Virtual Instruments (VSTi) ware my main tools.
> But i miss hardware synth!
> 
> ...



one thing if its not obvous is the recall is not easy like in softsynth. 
for fast deadlines might be an issue. 

ans as rgames mentioned for me is similar, i dont find hardware synths to be night and day compared to
softsynths. And repro or diva used in the right way sometimes sounds more "analog" than analog synths 

Diva and other u-he synths have the cc setup and i connected the Virus ti controllers to it. 
so no matter what project i open, or any u-he synth, the filter on the virus will control the filter of the
soft synth. so its the best of the both worlds. 
the TI is great but Dune3 gets close. 


As for synth, 
polybrute looks amazing. 

Im seeing all the lineup for behringer and it looks very good. the sound is there. it sounds like the classics. 
they are coming out with the OBX soon and that one looks neat. 
their poly moog seems good as well. 
What i like is simple record/play sequence. just step record, press a key and its done. a cool arp sequence that loops and change the sounds layer. 

I thinnk i might buy a wall of behringger synths eurorack style and also get some specific eurorack modules like clouds or other granular modules plus some of the seq from berhringer. 

another option is the elektron analogue four mk2. it has over bridge so its like the virus ti but analog. 
for media composing i feel that should be important but i dont see it a lot in this communitu.


----------



## shponglefan (Sep 28, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> another option is the elektron analogue four mk2. it has over bridge so its like the virus ti but analog.
> for media composing i feel that should be important but i dont see it a lot in this communitu.



Like all Elektron boxes, the Analog Four is really more of a performance groovebox. This community isn't really geared towards live synth performances, so that's probably why you don't see it (among other things) talked about here.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 28, 2020)

shponglefan said:


> Like all Elektron boxes, the Analog Four is really more of a performance groovebox. This community isn't really geared towards live synth performances, so that's probably why you don't see it (among other things) talked about here.



yeah. i have seen the marketing is def big on that. but for being analog and can be recall for any project, seems like a great thing for media composers. 
most hardware synth in the film comunity seems to revolve around that blade runner style warm pads.


----------



## mscp (Sep 28, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> one thing if its not obvous is the recall is not easy like in softsynth.
> for fast deadlines might be an issue.
> 
> ans as rgames mentioned for me is similar, i dont find hardware synths to be night and day compared to
> ...



There are so many variables that make a hardware synth night and day to a soft synth. 

Reasons include: hardware circuitry (signal chain and components that affect the overall resulting sound), “irregularities” to waveforms that are often the signature “sound” of a particular synth, the physical architecture of a hardware synth, processing offload, resale value, ... the list is “endless”. 

I have always been a hybrid software/hardware synth user, and the differences are still there. Of course, there are a lot of synths that don’t really add much to anyone’s software palette, but boy oh boy, buy a Moog system 15, or a second-hand CS-80 and see if you can get half of the sounds with software. No amount of plugins in your signal chain will get you there. I’ve tried for 10+ years. 

In terms of workflow agility, I don’t see how it would hinder anyone’s process. Retrieving preset data via CC and Sysex is a piece of cake to setup in any major DAW (especially Logic, Cubase, and Pro Tools). Praise to Cubase for being the KING for this type of setup.


----------



## Allen Constantine (Sep 28, 2020)

Polybrute FTW!


----------



## ALittleNightMusic (Sep 28, 2020)

I agree that software synths are incredible and very full featured. That’s also why I wouldn’t want something that’s just a software synth in an expensive box. I want great hands on control, fantastic sound fidelity, and something that adds something different to my software Arsenal. I went with a Moog Minitaur and a Novation Peak, and they meet all those criteria. Lot of fun to program (and easy) and sound incredible, plus are analog synths (for the most part). Emulations are just that. If you go hardware, might as well get the real deal.


----------



## soundcheck (Sep 28, 2020)

ASM Hydrasynth


----------



## mscp (Sep 28, 2020)

ALittleNightMusic said:


> I agree that software synths are incredible and very full featured. That’s also why I wouldn’t want something that’s just a software synth in an expensive box. I want great hands on control, fantastic sound fidelity, and something that adds something different to my software Arsenal. I went with a Moog Minitaur and a Novation Peak, and they meet all those criteria. Lot of fun to program (and easy) and sound incredible, plus are analog synths (for the most part). Emulations are just that. If you go hardware, might as well get the real deal.



Peak is beautiful, even the earlier batch with that extra noise level that gave the town something to moan about.


----------



## shponglefan (Sep 29, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> yeah. i have seen the marketing is def big on that. but for being analog and can be recall for any project, seems like a great thing for media composers.
> most hardware synth in the film comunity seems to revolve around that blade runner style warm pads.



If one is looking for Vangelis-style pads, there are much better synths for that (including digital ones). The main draw of the Analog Four is all of the extra features like the sequencer, parameter locks, CV outs, etc. It's really not a synth one should be looking at just for pads, especially since it's limited to only 4 voices.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 29, 2020)

shponglefan said:


> If one is looking for Vangelis-style pads, there are much better synths for that (including digital ones). The main draw of the Analog Four is all of the extra features like the sequencer, parameter locks, CV outs, etc. It's really not a synth one should be looking at just for pads, especially since it's limited to only 4 voices.


Maybe my sentence was too close together. My point is that composers seem to look for mostly those vangelis pads. And synth that do that like the prophets, dsi, and so on.


----------



## tf-drone (Sep 29, 2020)

Roli Seaboard, inclues Equator synth plugin. The MPE functionality makes very expressive play possible.


----------



## gsilbers (Sep 29, 2020)

Phil81 said:


> There are so many variables that make a hardware synth night and day to a soft synth.
> 
> Reasons include: hardware circuitry (signal chain and components that affect the overall resulting sound), “irregularities” to waveforms that are often the signature “sound” of a particular synth, the physical architecture of a hardware synth, processing offload, resale value, ... the list is “endless”.
> 
> ...



in terms of composing for film scores and most genres the differences are mute. And mostly subjective. maybe if it’s a Trent reznor type of scores. And even then software alternatives are good nowadays if done correctly.

and sysex is a major pita. No matter how well it’s implemented. Specially vs just loading a plugin and saving patches. Not to mention on modular setups.

In terms of sound, software is there.
maybe in terms of tweak ability, the hardware is more fun and leads to cooler and more experimentation.

most composers just want to load a patch, tweak it a bit and move on with
And for that, hardware synth won’t make much of a difference. Not even in junkie xl case that everything could easily be replicated w synth.

again, subjective. If you like hardware and feel the difference then go for it.

.but in terms of its context within a score or a track it’ll be impossible to hear the difference.


----------



## mscp (Sep 29, 2020)

gsilbers said:


> and sysex is a major pita. No matter how well it’s implemented. Specially vs just loading a plugin and saving patches. Not to mention on modular setups.



This is not true in my studio. Both Cubase and my hardware talk to each other effortlessly. Everything is set, ready to be "dialed in". Recalling patches are *one* click away via Cubase's channel inspector. Granted, it took me a while to set it all up (just like building a template would in most cases). Note: My setup only applies to synths that have internal preset/memory storage. For my modular, I keep track and patch sheets tucked in a folder, but I don't find it hinders my writing process since I use modular to sound design rather than write music with.




gsilbers said:


> In terms of sound, software is there.
> maybe in terms of tweak ability, the hardware is more fun and leads to cooler and more experimentation.



I've been using hardware and software synths for almost two complete decades but I believe that if I can tell the difference in a blind test while eating crunchy snacks, I'm sure everyone else will be able to as well. There are simply way too many *v**ariables* at play, a few which were mentioned in my previous post. Try A/B comparing two significant ones in your studio and let me know what you think. I'm not discrediting software at all. I use them very often as well. Also, some synths *can* easily be recreated ITB, no doubt. Not all though.



gsilbers said:


> most composers just want to load a patch, tweak it a bit and move on with
> And for that, hardware synth won’t make much of a difference. Not even in junkie xl case that everything could easily be replicated w synth.



It depends on a variety of reasons. Dialing a patch in is related to workflow - not sound.

I cannot use JXL as an accurate reference because I'm not entirely familiar with his workflow. I find some of his YT videos entertaining, and I like his noble cause.In regards to his sound design, it is audible how some of his sounds (exposed only) come from hardware, especially through calibrated monitors in a studio, dub stage, and cinema. It *is* day and night.



gsilbers said:


> again, subjective. If you like hardware and feel the difference then go for it... but in terms of its context within a score or a track it’ll be impossible to hear the difference.



Music is, in its basic form, subjective. Nobody truly *NEEDS* to have what they claim they need. I've seen a lot of beautiful mockups written with Symphobia 1, and a lot of awful music recorded with live musicians. Could the first ever be rendered into a final product? Certainly. Would I enjoy it? Absolutely! Would have they sounded like the real deal? Nope! See my point? (Now I'm starting to sound like some guy in one of Seinfeld's episodes...lol)

Your average moviegoer will not notice a difference or care about it on a lot of aspects. Then why go the extra mile in certain projects? It's all about context, “perfectionism”, audience,... Like you brilliantly said: it's subjective.


----------



## Wally Garten (Sep 29, 2020)

rgames said:


> All in all I'd say hardware synths have been fun to mess with but not really a game-changer for me. I think software synths are much better value for a studio-based composer.



The way I tend to think about it is that there are tons and tons of very good software synths for normal "bread-and-butter" synth sounds. For example, I used to have the Behringer clone of the Moog Model D, and it was very fun to play with, but eventually I sold it because I had three different Model D clones in software and wasn't really getting anything out of the hardware that I couldn't get more efficiently in the box. So for your standard "Moog sound" or Vangelis pads, or dance music chords and stabs -- it's all pretty easy to do with software.

But hardware shines in a couple of places, I think. First, the sequencers and modulation routing on a hardware synth may be unusual and may lead you to choices you wouldn't otherwise make. I'm eyeing the Arturia Minibrute 2S for this very reason. I've always liked Arturia sequencers, and in fact I've often used my Beatstep Pro with my softsynths or software drum kits just because the hardware helps me think in a different way from drawing notes on the DAW grid. And many "grooveboxes" and drum machines make it really, really easy to sit down and start playing satisfying music in a matter of seconds, without too much overthinking.

Second, some hardware synths really are unusual in their architecture and can't easily be replicated in software. The Make Noise 0-Coast is _kinda_ like an ordinary monosynth, but it integrates some "West Coast" architecture that really challenges you to think differently about both your oscillator and your envelopes. The Elektron Digitone is pretty much the best, easiest-to-use FM synth I've found in terms of dialing in sounds -- I like it better than FM8, Arturia's DX7, or anything else I've tried. (However, this is one where I _don't_ like the sequencer.) And the Czech company Bastl Instruments makes a set of weird little desktop modules that behave unlike anything else I know of -- including a lo-fi granular tweaker, a nigh uncontrollable analog monosynth focused on highly "squelchy," "wet" sounds (and with a very cool audio envelope follower), and a palmtop "analog logic computer" that takes clock division to an absolutely insane level. And this is to say nothing of the near infinite possibilities of modular synths.

So those are the primary things I look for in hardware -- a sequencing and patching experience that pushes me in a different direction, and/or an unusual synth architecture that's not easily replicated in the box.


----------



## mscp (Sep 29, 2020)

Wally Garten said:


> The way I tend to think about it is that there are tons and tons of very good software synths for normal "bread-and-butter" synth sounds. For example, I used to have the Behringer clone of the Moog Model D, and it was very fun to play with, but eventually I sold it because I had three different Model D clones in software and wasn't really getting anything out of the hardware that I couldn't get more efficiently in the box. So for your standard "Moog sound" or Vangelis pads, or dance music chords and stabs -- it's all pretty easy to do with software.
> 
> But hardware shines in a couple of places, I think. First, the sequencers and modulation routing on a hardware synth may be unusual and may lead you to choices you wouldn't otherwise make. I'm eyeing the Arturia Minibrute 2S for this very reason. I've always liked Arturia sequencers, and in fact I've often used my Beatstep Pro with my softsynths or software drum kits just because the hardware helps me think in a different way from drawing notes on the DAW grid. And many "grooveboxes" and drum machines make it really, really easy to sit down and start playing satisfying music in a matter of seconds, without too much overthinking.
> 
> ...



You've just mentioned some of the many variables applied to hardware synths. Great post!


----------



## cmillar (Sep 29, 2020)

Just tossing in to the discussion that my good old Roland XP-80 and the JV-2080 are still incredible, as least to my ears. (...I have several soundcards in them as well.)

The more I hear and check out all my soft synths when trying to find something I like, I just fall in love with the Roland hardware gear that I've kept more and more.

They're much 'fatter', have some 'character' in the sound due to the hardwiring/circuits/filters/etc./etc.....and are so refreshing to hear and manipulate.

I've been 'neglecting' these babies over the last couple of years since I've been trying to fall in love with various soft synths. But, I do appreciate them more and more.

I could really wipe all the soft synths off my drives and be perfectly happy with these good old Roland pieces.


----------



## mscp (Sep 29, 2020)

cmillar said:


> Just tossing in to the discussion that my good old Roland XP-80 and the JV-2080 are still incredible, as least to my ears. (...I have several soundcards in them as well.)
> 
> The more I hear and check out all my soft synths when trying to find something I like, I just fall in love with the Roland hardware gear that I've kept more and more.
> 
> ...



The overall depth is simply beautiful. I have a couple of them as well. I also subscribe to Roland Cloud and I could notice a few differences, especially in my favourite patches. Plus a used JV1080 is actually being sold cheaper than a perpetual software license (for now at least).


----------



## Wes Antczak (Sep 29, 2020)

In terms of hardware, of the current synths out there, the Poly Brute looks really good, imo. For something simpler and much less expensive, the Pro-1 from Behringer looks good. 

I still have most of my old gear, which includes a fully loaded JV2080, and that can be incredibly fun and pleasing to have in your palette. Kind of like the hardware Omnisphere of its day. I'm not suggesting that you should necessarily drop everything and run out and get a 1080/2080, but if a good one should happen to come your way it may be worth looking into. The expansion cards can be on the expensive side and difficult to get though.

I won't speak for software vs. hardware, because everyone is different, but I do believe that something like what Steve Roach is able to accomplish wouldn't be quite the same if he was just mousing around on his laptop.


----------



## tmhuud (Sep 29, 2020)

The Poly Brute!


----------



## olvra (Sep 29, 2020)

cmillar said:


> Roland XP-80 and the JV-2080



Two "romplers" synths fatter than Heckmann's code?

I really doubt it... but nostalgia speaks volume on these matters


----------



## whinecellar (Sep 29, 2020)

Lots of great points above. Certainly some synths can easily be recreated in software, but I absolutely get more inspiration and great ideas out of twisting knobs and goofing around with hardware than I do by playing with a cursor onscreen.

For example, I just added a vintage Roland JX-10 and new Retroaktiv programmer to my hardware collection, despite having several Roland cloud options that can make the same sounds. And they definitely sound slightly different - but more important, I’ve been cranking out great ideas just by playing that controller like an instrument. Here’s a little dive into that process


----------



## tmhuud (Sep 29, 2020)

Nice addition that JX 10 Jim.


----------



## whinecellar (Sep 29, 2020)

tmhuud said:


> Nice addition that JX 10 Jim.



Man it’s SO good. And I definitely prefer it to the modem plugins. It’s a pad monster!


----------



## vitocorleone123 (Sep 29, 2020)

Getting a hardware synth - or two - for inspiration and variety is a great idea. Of course, I'm biased, because I did exactly that. I opted for an SE-02 and an OB-6. A mono and a poly, pure analog (because I can get digital and modulation for days in all the VSTs I have).

Based on your needs, a PolyBrute MAY be exactly perfect. The only downside is the lack of polyphony - but that's if you use a lot of long release chords more than anything. I can tell you from the OB-6, which sounds a bit "fatter" to me raw but the PB has a lot more sound design options built in, is that one voice can be a lot of sound. 3 note chords are easily massive. From what I've seen, the 6 voices is, to date, the only real lack. But you can get used to it, as long as the limitations aren't directly opposed to your style.

If you want a lot of easy inspiration and great sound for "bread and butter and beyond", you can't go wrong with a Prophet 6. Sequential will supposedly be announcing something new within a few weeks, so it might also be worth holding off - and just keep researching in the mean time. Alternatively, if you don't really need polyphony, the Pro3 looks and sounds astounding - and will be getting more features soon in firmware.

Otherwise, I'd look at digital. A great hybrid alternative to the PB, for less $, worth considering would be the Summit. You could get the Summit and an analog monosynth, like the SE-02 or the Pro1 for the price of the PolyBrute. You'll need to work at the sounds more, potentially, to get them to sound like more than VSTs.


----------



## Saxer (Sep 30, 2020)

I've got a Peak and a Roland SE-02. It's fun to play and edit sounds at the same time. But seriously: it rarely ends up in my projects. Recording as audio or saving sys-ex is no real fun for me especially when customers want edits. I'm too old and did this shit for decades. So it's more like a hobby inside the workspace.

But the hardware integration of Omnisphere 2.6 is really great! When I move any knob or fader on the hardware synth it is represented in Omnisphere (both Peak and SE-02 are on the hardware profile list). After two minutes I forget that I'm not playing the hardware anymore. Best feature! And everything is saved with the song and you can open as many instances as you want (or your computer wants).


----------



## pcarrilho (Sep 30, 2020)

Good advices here! Thanks!

And what about Roland Jupiter 80?
I can get one at a very good price.

Jupiter 80 still worth on 2020? (just need the synth sounds... don't care for accoustic sounds... for that, i use my Sampled Libs)


----------



## ThomasL (Oct 6, 2020)

All my hardware synths are controlled like VST instruments in Studio One, upon loading a project the used sound is transfered automatically via the VST. Best of both worlds, instant recall when loading a project, move a knob on the synth and the patch is saved in my project as soon as I save the project.


----------

