VST vs. hardware

[Phil Thalasso]

Hello forum,

this post doesn't come out of the blue, but results from this topic:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10330&p=38669#p38669
Now, I know that this has absolutely nothing to do with the initial topic, which was
Bob's new synth, so to keep things organized, I opened up this new thread which is a general
question about hardware and software synths. For those of you who do not want to jump to the
other thread: Some companies produce software-emulations of hardware and I do have a feeling
that this happens a lot, examples being u-he's Diva and Synapse's Legend. Synapse calling
their latest vst "legend" speaks for itself. They didn't come up with something "new" but a
sound concept that Mr. Moog developed some 35 years ago. Question: Has that kind of emulation
to do with the fact that hardware is much more expensive, yet people want to have that
particular sound? If so, is there really a way to analytically (I refer to signal-analysis)
draw the conclusion that a Moog Voyager can do what a VST cannot do? For my part, I like
both hardware synths (my first one was a Korg Polysix) and VSTs. Soundwise I really cannot
tell which is which. Especially when people alter their analogue synth sounds with filter-
banks or effects and what not. What I am trying to get at is the following: Adam Szabos
recent Synth was - according to Tulamide's post in the thread cited above - constructed in a way
that it's sound is in some way similiar to the Access Virus. I own neither Adam's VST nor the Virus, so I
can't tell. But isn't it such that actually you can always do an awful lot more wit a VST in a DAW
than with the hardware, given that most of us have only two feet and ten fingers?
When I'm using my hardware it is solely for the purpose of working on music, that is melody,
harmony and rhythm. Any thoughts on that?

Regards
Phil