why use hardware at all?

[jopy]

For those who use a lot of hardware--what makes it worth using when you already have oodles of software, especially since it's so much more expensive to use hardware? Is it the immediacy of real knobs? The sound quality of analog circuits? The need for a portable live system? The bragging rights? (just kidding)

I could answer for myself, but almost all of my answers revolve around the fact that I play physical instruments with real strings (piano, guitar, bass) which obviously are going to be different than any synthesizer.

[justin3am]

I'm not sure, I guess it's a lot of factors. There is the immediacy factor, I can start up my gear which is pre-patched to a mixer and start twiddling away but starting my computer only takes moments longer than starting my V-Synth or XL-7... though starting from scratch with my modular though takes considerably longer than putting a similar patch together in a software modular like U-He's Bazille.

With the analogs, not only is there no patch recall... if I turn the rig off then on again a patch might sound completely different. So, it kinda forces that mindset of "record EVERYTHING". Parameter scaling is also not nearly as perfect on an analog synth as with software so you end up with happy accidents more than calculated results. With digital hardware, it's different because you may have the depth of a VST/AU but your forced to work with a less than ideal interface (for synths that don't have a knob for every function.

I think for me it's often an impulse thing. I see/hear/read about something and it either turns me on or it doesn't. I've always been around people with a lot of hardware so I know how to use that gear to get the sounds I want but at the same time I'm a computer nerd so I've always mucked about with the stuff available to me on that platform. Over the years I've figured out how to get it all in sync working together and thus I no longer look at it like hardware vs. software. It's more like open platform vs. closed platform, where the better I can get gear to work together the more open my options become. I don't know if that really know if that makes sense.

It also comes down to the fact that I'm not looking to "accomplish" anything with the hardware or software I use (unless it's for a gig that pays upfront :hihi:) I just like playing with toys.

[vespers]

For me, I don't really care about hardware vs. software. The results of whatever you use is most important, IMO.  I have my guitars, my bass, mics, etc. that I plug in to my computer, and I do have a MIDI controller and prefer to use external guitar processors. But beyond that, most of my other shit is all 'in the box', so to speak.  I have some software synths and software samplers, I don't have any hardware synth stuff at all. 

[JoshuaKern]

I started down the long path of electronic music creation at the advent of software. (this is a lie it was 2000, sorry I tend to bend the truth at times)  I had played/owned a few synths and when I saw I could do it all with a cpu I was on board.  Than I heard some hardware, and thought, "wow, that sounds better?", so I went to hardware for awhile.  Software caught up (somewhat) to hardware and I came back to the dark side.  I now use both, and for that matter anything I can get my dirty little hands on.  Using strictly hardware or software means you are lacking in tools only available through one of the mediums, not both.  IMO the songs that contain a little hardware and a little software are some of my best compositions.  I love my six trak for the basses, I love my drum traks for the 8 bit samples, I love my cpu because of Reaktor and things you will never do with hardware, and when I need to I reach for whatever strikes me that day/minute.  Oddly enough you ask this as I question my "jack of all trades, master of none" complex.  Too much variety is a dangerous thing...  Hardware recently has just become another component I am trying to make as much mine as I am able to through building the toys myself.  In conclusion I would have to agree, the outcome is really the only thing that matters and our methods are more than likely only of interest to other musically minded people.  This is such an common question (no offense), but for some reason has me thinking a little more than normal, thanks.

[jopy]

This is such an common question (no offense), but for some reason has me thinking a little more than normal, thanks.

No doubt it's a common question, so no offense taken--I have been struggling with some of these same issues lately. I've gone deep into playing bass lately and find the immediacy of that very rewarding relative to programming, but at the same time, computer-based music frees up so many parameters that just can't be addressed in physical instruments. Definitely will use both, but striking that balance is a constant question--that's probably why it's asked so often.

[Jazzyspoon]

My hardware and software are inter connected comfortably enough these days that I don't see the difference like I once did until it's time to go play live somewhere, then hardware wins because it's a performers tool (currently).  For my studio, hardware is just another option, as I have to render/record both to get the results I want to keep anyways.

I started purely hardware and was like that for quite a while.  A mess of pedals, lit up boxes, and semi expensive machines (the computer was just a sequencer, at best), then went to software and saw only the most indispensable pieces stick around.  I.e. vintage gear, specialized guitar pedals, guitars/basses/amps, noise makers/perc, and keyboards that could also be used as controllers, but synth modules (no knobs or ability to be controllers) and standard pedals/effect processors went out the door.

[JoshuaKern]

Balance is something I am severely lacking.  I all to often become ultra obsessed, learn for about a year with every free minute I have, get comfortable and mediocre than move on to the next thing.  I question if its a skill or sickness on a daily basis.  I do long for the ability to be decent with some instrument, I bought a very cheap bass never really got far though.  I would say the confines of most hardware is very comforting when compared to the endless pit of options software all too often is, that concept is something I can relate to.  My plan was to keep playing things live and than go and program them in the box, it gives me the best of both and is what most of us already are more than likely doing.  Jazzy you said it right the difference is really negligible in some peoples set-ups, until you go to play live. 

[shamann]

I find hardware is handy to have just for a change of pace. Most of what I do is still based in software, since I can do so much more in terms of manipulating and processing audio and effects with a computer. But there are times I just need a break from it.

I started years ago with only hardware (very limited lofi gear) but around 1998 went completely software. About 4 or 5 years ago I started getting hardware to build a live rig, because I didn't want to use a laptop on stage. I've stopped doing live shows for the time being, but have continued to invest a lot more in hardware than I initially expected. It's very similar to playing a stringed instrument, some days it's just nice to pick up an instrument and make noise without really thinking. Even electronic instruments afford you the opportunity to just play without pre-calculation. I find using software requires more focus, unless you're just using it as a soundbank for your MIDI controller/keyboard, in which case that to me is essentially the same thing as using hardware, where the sounds come from doesn't really matter in that case.