For me the biggest benefit is the extra processing power of a hardware synth -- getting some of the load off my CPU. Currently the UltraNova is the only hardware synth I own but I may get another Virus in the near future.
The real benefit for me is not really one of better sound than Zebra, Sylenth, Massive, Dune, SynthMaster etc., it would be because sometimes a track based solely on plug-ins can get CPU heavy unless you bounce to audio and lose a lot of creative flexibility by doing so. If I can move some of that load to another processor then its a big plus to me (unless in doing so I run into problems like timing or latency then its not worth the effort).
I've heard of blind studies held where literally nobody was able to accurately and consistently identify a virtual analog h/w synth versus a software synth without being informed which was which. There may be somewhat of a placebo effect going on if someone says the hardware sounds better. I actually read a couple of years ago a representative from Moog come out and say that hardware doesn't sound any better than softsynths, but the real reason to buy Moog gear is the inspiration the hands-on h/w tweaking provides, which I would agree with but it was a powerful statement considering who was saying it.
So basically my stance is that there can be good reasons to get a hardware synth, Virus or otherwise, I just don't think that sound should be the primary justification.
A/B clips of Virus vs competition would be of interest to me too, although unless it is just of raw waveforms I would think it would be very hard to set up a fair comparison.
I have A/B'd my Ultranova against Zebra with a similar very simple patch and wouldn't be able to tell the difference if I were blindfolded. It would be hard to compare more complex patches because the way you program the two isn't identical. I've heard at least one prominent EDM sound designer (Rob Lee) say he preferred the Ultranova sound to the Virus, for whatever that's worth.
|