Hardware vs. Software (Page 1 of 2)

I used to be all software but as I got more into physically playing keyboards and programming synths I left that behind. Which is one reason I got into micromusic. Now I have samplers, synths, effects, and MIDI to tie it all together. I really like it, it's something I could never feel behind a computer. I'm actually trying to find a feasible way to record everything and use my mixer and effects to limit any computer editing. I read this as I was exploring/jamming with all of my stuff.

I use emulated hardware, because my Gameboy is wonky, I don't have a triwing screwdriver to open it up, and I haven't yet ordered my cart. I'll probably continue to use the emulators, though, for more complex sounds that would freeze up a DMG.

When I make non-chip music, I tend to gravitate towards using the plugins to create chippy sounds.

I say, as long as it sounds good, then it's good. Hardware does have it's own Mojo, but either way is fine. Do what you can with what you have, and get more stuff if you need it. The challenge of trying to emulate hardware sounds with software plugins is in itself an inspiring limitation.

I personally prefer the act of physically handling an instrument over clicking and typing on a computer, though. That's why I use a game controller while emu-LSDJing.

the only value of limitation is that it magnifies the brilliance needed to overcome said limitation... pragmatism ftw

Yes you do.

The hardware/software distinction is fast becoming a moot point. Like it's only worth splitting hairs over if the hardware is an analog synth, and even then, you could consider the method of wiring/electrical signal as the "software" of the synth. Depending on how stoned you are, you can take "hardware" and "software" to mean anything these days, so the first thing in this discussion that should happen is a discussion on what we all define hardware and software to be.

I like to think of hardware as kind of creating medium for a particular task to be completed in, and software as an interface between the medium and the operator. So (definitions of "interface" notwithstanding), in the case of an analog synth, the hardware creates the medium of electrical signals for sound to be parsed from, and the software is the keys, knobs, etc. This isn't a rigid definition, nor is it it all-inclusive...it's just something that works for me in most cases. I don't need it to be rigorous, really.

But what it does is allow the discussion to stop being a simple hardware/software dichotomy and start being a discussion on the interactions between the hardware and software, and then on the interactions between the operator and the tool. Ultimately all any of this is doing is allowing us to take an internal thought or idea and externalize it...the value in really expensive tools is the ease in which it allows us to externalize something, which is one way to think about operator/tool interactions. At the same time, a tool designed in an unusual way allows us to conceive of entirely new interactions that we haven't really thought of before, which is another kind of interaction.

Most software tools fall in the first camp -- that of easing an externalization. If you think about it, that's kind of the point; software is supposed to "understand" the hardware really well so it can interpret a user's actions and translate them to something comprehensible. So stuff like Ableton and LSDJ -- that stuff eases the externalization of our ideas because it makes the actual creation of sound easy enough for us to comfortably do. Hardware, on the other hand, is often concerned with the second camp -- creating novel interactions that compel us to think about the software differently. This is also kind of intuitive -- changes in medium obviously create way different sounds; a string instrument is going to create a completely different sound than an electrical signal, etc.

The REALLY interesting stuff, however, happens when the hardware and software become pretty intertwined, such as what happened with LSDJ/Nanoloop and the Gameboy (see, I managed to bring it back to chiptune). I honestly can't imagine seriously composing an LSDJ song in an emulator because it just makes SENSE to use LSDJ on a Gameboy (this is just me, obviously other people do things differently, it's just a talking point). At the same time, what happens if LSDJ gets mouse control? To me, it loses its compelling feature (one of the only interfaces between Gameboy sound chip and user) when it starts becoming less exclusive...that's my theory on why LSDJ is kind of the de-facto DMG tool.

So I guess in the end I'm not sure where I'm going with this >_<

EDIT: I'm really sorry if this post kills this thread because it's way too long

EDIT2: Man, long essays about nothing is what a digital arts minor gets you...all the digital arts MAJORS are out actually, like, making shit

Last edited by spacetownsavior (Aug 9, 2012 4:53 am)

I enjoy different aspects of all the various interface styles I've used. The sheet music interface of Anvil Studio/Rosegarden, etc.(favorite), the piano roll of Sound Club/FL Studio/LMMS, the freedom of expression and organic-yet-sterile nature of LSDJ and other trackers (least favorite, tbh), live recording with various live instruments(favorite favorite), trying to synthesize said instruments, the aforementioned "ukulele-to-tracker" method, the organic and liberating style of Sony Acid loop-based stuff, etc.

One thing I really need to get is a midi controller/keyboard, because ever since I switched from recording on my little Yamaha keyboard to doing PC based composition, I've always missed the spontaneous human element that live recording offers.