The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 Search This Thread  Search This Forum  Search Reviews  Search Gear Database  Search Synths for sale  Search Gearslutz Go Advanced
Why Don't New VCOs Sound as Good as Old VCOs? Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 12th April 2018
  #91
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutantt View Post
I am bored of all the words in this thread, please post some audio examples of old vs new.
This one was in the OB-6 thread recently. Put the subtitles on!

YouTube
Old 12th April 2018
  #92
Lives for gear
 
Mr Knoch's Avatar
I agree. The new synths are incredible. Say, I have a quick question about the P~6+6 that you use. Does the poly chain work like the Slim Phatty's where the control surface of the Little Phatty changes the parameters of the other Slims in the chain? Like in the video below? If it does, I'm going to get another 6 for my P~6. Thanks.




Quote:
Originally Posted by string6theory View Post
I know, just having a little fun.

The OG’s were badass. I could have gone that route, but very truthfully believe my new VCO synths (in general) sound in-phucking-credible and are in no way lesser synths sonically compared to their predecessors. Just the opposite, in fact.

I wouldn’t trade my Prophet and OB 6+6’s, Mini D reissue, ARP Odyssey MK3 reissue, Korg MS-20M reissue, TVSP reissue, Slim Phatty, Voyager Select, RME, Sub-37 and Minitaur for any other synths. Well, except maybe the Minitaur for a Taurus 3.

These new VCO synths ALL sound KILLER, just as the OG’s did. The Prophet and OB were never meant as exact replicas and I for one and glad for that. They give me all the analog mojo juice I crave and more.

Would I still love two of the sexiest synths ever made, a Prophet-5 and OB-X? Yes, I absolutely would, just for the sonic diversity and variation (...and, if I felt it at all necessary and had the space). But, not in place of my current, new 12-voice VCO Prophet and OB’s. I very deliberately chose these new VCO synths for their sonics, not despite their sonics, and got so much more in return.

But, pontificating over why the OB-6 sounds “worse” than the OG OB used on the album for VH’s Jump (for eg) is just silly GS fodder. “Different” is the word.

Old 12th April 2018
  #93
this clip by Dave Spiers (GForce Software) is the best

Old 12th April 2018
  #94
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamstan View Post
I'm really curious - how would you rate the sound of the poly I'm working on?
...
I like it.
Strangely enough the sound has a bit of the Alpha Juno Eightties feel.
Slap an FX section on there.
Old 12th April 2018
  #95
Quote:
Originally Posted by robwood View Post
this clip by Dave Spiers (GForce Software) is the best
That dog bark patch is awesome
Old 12th April 2018
  #96
Lives for gear
 
Rufuss Sewell's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Knoch View Post
I agree. The new synths are incredible. Say, I have a quick question about the P~6+6 that you use. Does the poly chain work like the Slim Phatty's where the control surface of the Little Phatty changes the parameters of the other Slims in the chain? Like in the video below? If it does, I'm going to get another 6 for my P~6. Thanks.




Quote:
Originally Posted by string6theory View Post
I know, just having a little fun.

The OG’s were badass. I could have gone that route, but very truthfully believe my new VCO synths (in general) sound in-phucking-credible and are in no way lesser synths sonically compared to their predecessors. Just the opposite, in fact.

I wouldn’t trade my Prophet and OB 6+6’s, Mini D reissue, ARP Odyssey MK3 reissue, Korg MS-20M reissue, TVSP reissue, Slim Phatty, Voyager Select, RME, Sub-37 and Minitaur for any other synths. Well, except maybe the Minitaur for a Taurus 3.

These new VCO synths ALL sound KILLER, just as the OG’s did. The Prophet and OB were never meant as exact replicas and I for one and glad for that. They give me all the analog mojo juice I crave and more.

Would I still love two of the sexiest synths ever made, a Prophet-5 and OB-X? Yes, I absolutely would, just for the sonic diversity and variation (...and, if I felt it at all necessary and had the space). But, not in place of my current, new 12-voice VCO Prophet and OB’s. I very deliberately chose these new VCO synths for their sonics, not despite their sonics, and got so much more in return.

But, pontificating over why the OB-6 sounds “worse” than the OG OB used on the album for VH’s Jump (for eg) is just silly GS fodder. “Different” is the word.

I find it strange that this demo of poly Slim Phattys is a mono melody with octaves, haha. Not one chord?!? Come on my man!

(I realize there are chords in the mix but they are quiet and not showcased)
Old 12th April 2018
  #97
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by rockmanrock View Post
This one was in the OB-6 thread recently. Put the subtitles on!

YouTube
Yes, thats a pretty big difference in OB-8 favor.
Maybe some small amount of slop would cure the OB-6 on the patch.
Old 12th April 2018
  #98
Lives for gear
 
pr0gr4m's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kja View Post
My point is the karp might sound like an arp, but it doesn't sound that great to me.. I mean it doesn't sound very "alive" to me, like a model D does.
If that was your point, which of these three sentences that you said were written to convey that?

1. You think a karp sounds more analog then a ob6?
2. Ok then, you just showed that you must be severely biased or not been behind a ob6 much..
3. I had a karp but it didn't hold a candle to a ob6.

Also, if your point was that the karp doesn't sound great to you, how did that fit into what the guy you quoted was talking about. You actually say that the karp might sound like an arp, which is in line with what the guy say.

BTW, your first sentence should have begun with the word "Do"...if you were interested in discussion instead of argument.
Old 12th April 2018
  #99
Kja
Lives for gear
Smt is almost as good as new discreet, almost as good as new arp, almost as good as old discreet, almost as good as thru hole.. DO you have the answers to life's mysteries?
Old 12th April 2018
  #100
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Knoch View Post
I agree. The new synths are incredible. Say, I have a quick question about the P~6+6 that you use. Does the poly chain work like the Slim Phatty's where the control surface of the Little Phatty changes the parameters of the other Slims in the chain? Like in the video below? If it does, I'm going to get another 6 for my P~6. Thanks.

...
That’s affirmative!

You can setup the 6+6 to have the keyboard panel control every parameter of the module (in Global settings) - which is awesome for 12-voice polychaining.

You can also set them up to behave completely independently, so the keyboard panel has no effect on the module panel - which is fantastic for creating living & breathing sonic layers between the two. I absolutely love this!

I really need to start a 6+6 thread with all the things I love about them - with examples. Number one is that they simply sound more sonically rich, lush & powerful - like I feel there supposed to - which to my ears makes these pairings simply unbeatable. Sonic masterpieces greater than the sum of their parts.

Where a 6-voice OB might sound a little less lush & lively compared to a classic 8-voice, I’m here (& hear) to let y’all know that the new 6+6 (or 12-voice) OB sounds soulfully alive and sonically kowtows to no vintage synth, OB or not OB (there is no question).

I personally don’t think it’s even a fair comparison with a Prophet 6+6 and OG Prophet-5. Sorry OG. Now, with the P-10 that’s a fairer matchup!

Something I love to do is work each of the LFO’s to slow-sync saws & reverse saws against each other (so they sonically offset and compliment), w/filter, etc, to get the sizzle going, set polymod or xmod variations between the two, different keyboard tracking, pan the keys slightly out from center and pan the module wider, detune each to taste, then slowly sweep the mod wheel.

Another is jamming to sequences - and being able to use the pitch bend wheel on the keyboard while playing lead - without it pitch bending the entire sequence playing on the module.

Or, sync-offsetting two rhythmic sequences playing at the same time on keys and module by simply slowing down the BPM on the keyboard (and leaving the module BPM the same) until I here a syncopation that I like. I can’t even imagine trying to do this by recording parts separately and shifting tracks around in PT.

In conclusion... the new Prophet and OB VCO’s absolutely DO

So, do the Moog, ARP, Korg and Tom Oberheim VCO’s, thank you very much.

Old 12th April 2018
  #101
Lives for gear
 
Analog Rob Lowe's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by neonrider View Post
I don't want to debate *if* they do. That much is obvious. Every non musician I have over to my house I do a little test with. Play a key on a new VCO synth (P6, OB6, "D" etc). Then play a key on a classic.

There's never any contest. Jaws drop. Eyes widen. Goosebumps appear. Panties drop, sometimes.

The question is why. Why do old VCOs sound so much better that even to amateurs it's never any contest? Or even old DCOs? The Deepmind has no emotional effect on people whatsoever. The Juno makes them swoon. Etcetera.

Sure--you can put a soft synth or anything quite frankly--through $10k of high end processing. But that defeats the purpose.

I appreciate the analogue renaissance. I love it. But. The only new poly that gets close to the old ones in tone is the Dreadbox Abyss. The Mini or modular reissues nail it, but that is exactly the old design.

Is it clocking, pitch control, amps, signal chains? All the above?

For example, in the P6/OB6, it seems like the autotune, or algorithmic cv control of pitch, is sampling and holding, somehow forcing, the start phase of voice--there's a weird kind of artificial forced phasing that sounds very unnatural, very weak, it's very noticeable. The voices don't smush into each other. I have no idea, though, I'm not an engineer. I just know it sounds...off. Nice, but not AS nice.

Is it even fair to call something that has total locked control of pitch or phase etc a "VCO"? Again, I have no idea. I just know I'd rather have a real autotune I press now and then than...this constant, ever-present DSP control of the oscillator that appears to be basically what these new VCOs do. Do we need a whole new word for them? Oscillator fascism?

Hold forth.
Because, the old ones will die. May as well move on man. AI will represent your new reality
Old 12th April 2018
  #102
Kja
Lives for gear
The other day I was thinking, even though another vco was much more thick and huge sounding like you imagine vintage sounds, the prophet 6 Vco's have a real beauty to them that I believe Dave designed them to be able to sound really lush and gorgeous at the expense of a huge range, they kind of stay in their sweet spot it seems like. You gotta really work to get them to overdrive the filter( the crossmod seems to work) or to get nasty sounds down low, but they are trully the most beautiful vco's I've ever heard that just sparkle.
Old 12th April 2018
  #103
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
It is never the VCO alone; the circuitry around it plays a role as well.

Distortion, tolerances, heck, even component age may play a role. But eyes deceive too - the sheer size and occupied space influence, too.
True. When you turn up the filter cutoff on a Prophet 5, you are not hearing an unfiltered oscillator. When you turn up the Prophet 6’s cutoff, you are. Most modern analogs open up all the way. Most vintage ones didn’t.
Old 12th April 2018
  #104
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisso View Post
The OP is claiming old VCOs sound better than new VCOs when both are embedded in hardwired synths with a ton of other factors going on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo Starr View Post
Without a doubt. I kind of ignored this VCO claim with my first response. But yeah it’s certainly not just vco’s making vintage synths sound the way they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie munro View Post
Blaming modern vco when there's thousands of components involved in the actual output that reaches the ear, priceless.
Blatant strawman arguments.

Answer me this guys: what part of the OP's post actually denies discussion of the rest of the signal path as an influence on the final sound of the oscillators?

Spoiler alert: absolutely none of it does. In fact he even acknowledges this possibility in his post, suggesting that the autotune functionality could be a culprit. Others in the thread cited amps, PSUs, digital controllers, capacitors in the filters, and so forth, which were actually constructive, intelligent contributions to the discussion. At absolutely no point in the thread did anyone state that answers like these were off-topic because they didn't involve the oscillators, because absolutely no one ever denied the involvement of the rest of the signal path.

Imagine this:
A man goes up asks a group of plumbers and city water experts and asks "my tap water tastes funny, what do you think is the problem?".

They reply "well there's a whole network of pipes between the water source and your tap, but you're only focused on the water, so your question is invalid lololololololololol".
Is that an intelligent or constructive answer to the question?

No, it's stating the obvious, the exact kind of stupid answer you'd only get from forum trolls.

Everyone knows water goes through pipes, and the man never said it couldn't be something in the pipes. In fact, given that the people he asked are supposed to be knowledgeable about the topic, he probably expected that they would have some intelligent answer regarding what substance could be getting into the pipes, how and where it's getting into the pipes, how it could be prevented from getting in, or what he could do to take it out after the fact.

Anyone who approaches a discussion with this kind of self-defeating strawman BS clearly was never honestly attempting to address the topic. In fact, it's pretty obvious they were looking for the first chance to avoid addressing the topic and just derail it instead.
Old 12th April 2018
  #105
Lives for gear
 
Gringo Starr's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Blatant strawman arguments.

Answer me this guys: what part of the OP's post actually denies discussion of the rest of the signal path as an influence on the final sound of the oscillators?

Spoiler alert: absolutely none of it does. In fact he even acknowledges this possibility in his post, suggesting that the autotune functionality could be a culprit. Others in the thread cited amps, PSUs, digital controllers, capacitors in the filters, and so forth, which were actually constructive, intelligent contributions to the discussion. At absolutely no point in the thread did anyone state that answers like these were off-topic because they didn't involve the oscillators, because absolutely no one ever denied the involvement of the rest of the signal path.

Imagine this:
A man goes up asks a group of plumbers and city water experts and asks "my tap water tastes funny, what do you think is the problem?".

They reply "well there's a whole network of pipes between the water source and your tap, but you're only focused on the water, so your question is invalid lololololololololol".
Is that an intelligent or constructive answer to the question?

No, it's stating the obvious, the exact kind of stupid answer you'd only get from forum trolls.

Everyone knows water goes through pipes, and the man never said it couldn't be something in the pipes. In fact, given that the people he asked are supposed to be knowledgeable about the topic, he probably expected that they would have some intelligent answer regarding what substance could be getting into the pipes, how and where it's getting into the pipes, how it could be prevented from getting in, or what he could do to take it out after the fact.

Anyone who approaches a discussion with this kind of self-defeating strawman BS clearly was never honestly attempting to address the topic. In fact, it's pretty obvious they were looking for the first chance to avoid addressing the topic and just derail it instead.
You must be bored out of your goddamn mind. It’s as if you think you’ve reached the holy grail of perspective. Smoke a joint, take a trip, take a nap... Maybe go play with a synth?
Old 12th April 2018
  #106
Lives for gear
 
shreddoggie's Avatar
I am really tired of these threads that miss the obvious point: Old VCO's sound better because they have lots more EXPERIENCE and any suggestion otherwise is blatant age discrimination.

Last edited by shreddoggie; 12th April 2018 at 07:16 AM..
Old 12th April 2018
  #107
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gnalvl View Post
Blatant strawman arguments.

Imagine this:
A man goes up asks a group of plumbers and city water experts and asks "my tap water tastes funny, what do you think is the problem?".

They reply "well there's a whole network of pipes between the water source and your tap, but you're only focused on the water, so your question is invalid lololololololololol".
Is that an intelligent or constructive answer to the question?

No, it's stating the obvious, the exact kind of stupid answer you'd only get from forum trolls.

Everyone knows water goes through pipes, and the man never said it couldn't be something in the pipes. In fact, given that the people he asked are supposed to be knowledgeable about the topic, he
No his question would rather be "my tap is the problem I don't even want to debate it".

Have he tapped out the oscillators directly and compared?

These discussions would be more interesting with audio examples in Starsky Carr detail. I love retrosound demos but his comparison videos are so obviously biased.
Old 12th April 2018
  #108
I actually did some comparison audio a few years ago, comparing isolated oscillators from modular systems.
I posted un-named samples from a few vintage and new oscillators. It's true the vintage osc came top, but not by much and not for everyone. A couple of modern oscillators did sound poor, but that was down to their design and compromise chosen for their price point.
Old 12th April 2018
  #109
Lives for gear
 
Praxisaxis's Avatar
 

I dunno. I've played some old synths which sound like cr*p. I've played new synths which sound beautiful. I've been told here and elsewhere that it should be the other way around.

One thing this thread has certainly not done is to make me feel bad about my oscillators.
Old 12th April 2018
  #110
Lives for gear
 
synthRodriguez's Avatar
>> Why Don't New VCOs Sound as Good as Old VCOs? Or rather, why do old VCO's sound better than new VCO's?

I don't know why, but they do. I've performed the same uber-scientific test as the OP of having non-musician friends listen to both, and the results are always the same. Usually there's an "Oh wow." response; no one has ever said they don't 'get it'.

I made the decision last week to go full-vintage for all my analog stuff. A guy is coming by at noon today to buy the P6 and that's fine. What made me pull the trigger was the Memorymoog I got the week before, there's just no comparison. The Prophet will end up sitting in the corner with the MM in the room. I probably wouldn't go all-vintage if I wan't a tech as with vintage comes the associated problems, but since I can work on them, giddy-up.

And there's the old argument that no one will hear the difference in a mix. That may or may not be true, but the music is for me not someone else. I'LL hear the difference, and that's what counts.
Old 12th April 2018
  #111
Lives for gear
 
cr73645's Avatar
Yep, vintage synthesizers usually sound better than new ones - that’s true when you compare high end vintage synthesizers with the P6 and OB6 price range. I don’t know if it’s only the VCOs, and probably has a lot more to do with how everything is integrated.

I had the opportunity to test drive these recent polys, and they’re always a deception. You expect something and when you actually hear it in person it simply doesn’t have the wow factor. The comparison is ok if you judge it only by this standard (hearing the synth alone). The problem with vintage synths is that they’re temperamental, unstable and unreliable to actually record - for those who just like to play and listen, they’re unbeatable.

On the monophonic side, I’d say that we still have some serious and very good synths. No, they’re not a copy of the Minimoog or anything else you wanted to get when you were a kid, but they’re a beautiful thing on its own. I wouldn’t ever rely on something with 40 years like many here do, but maybe that’s just me.
Old 12th April 2018
  #112
Lives for gear
 
Gnalvl's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gringo Starr View Post
You must be bored out of your goddamn mind. It’s as if you think you’ve reached the holy grail of perspective. Smoke a joint, take a trip, take a nap... Maybe go play with a synth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSM2030 View Post
No his question would rather be "my tap is the problem I don't even want to debate it".
Objectively wrong. Straight from the OP:

Quote:
Originally Posted by neonrider View Post
Is it clocking, pitch control, amps, signal chains? All the above?
Seriously guys, literacy is your friend.
Old 12th April 2018
  #113
Lives for gear
 
enossified's Avatar
As an electrical engineer, I really love these threads.

Why does any audio gear sound like it does? Because of the design. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Use different components, use different design topologies, etc. and things change. Sometimes a lot.

A lot of what people who are not engineers think of as so important...handwired vs. PCB, through hole vs. SMT, vintage caps vs. modern caps, etc. has nothing to do with it.

What makes something sound "huge" is not always distortion. When you listen to $200,000 stereo systems, it's not distortion that makes them sound like that.
Old 12th April 2018
  #114
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
As an electrical engineer, I really love these threads.

Why does any audio gear sound like it does? Because of the design. Period. Full stop. End of story.

Use different components, use different design topologies, etc. and things change. Sometimes a lot.

A lot of what people who are not engineers think of as so important...handwired vs. PCB, through hole vs. SMT, vintage caps vs. modern caps, etc. has nothing to do with it.

What makes something sound "huge" is not always distortion. When you listen to $200,000 stereo systems, it's not distortion that makes them sound like that.
I'm an electrical engineer as well. Regardless of what I think about this, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself to some extent. You write

Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
Use different components, use different design topologies, etc. and things change. Sometimes a lot.
and then you say

Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
A lot of what people who are not engineers think of as so important...handwired vs. PCB, through hole vs. SMT, vintage caps vs. modern caps, etc. has nothing to do with it.
Handwired vs PCB likely changes the physical 3d topology somewhat. Electrical characteristics would also change (resistance, capacitance). However, I'm not aware of any classic synths where PCBs weren't used, I don't think hardwired ever came up.

Through hole vs SMT means using different components which you yourself said can make a difference. SMT caps typically have lower ESR than their through-hole equivalents.

Vintage caps vs modern caps: if all their parameters are exactly the same it shouldn't matter, but that equivalence should include their parasitic properties (resistance, inductance, capacitance).

Even if you copy the original design from the original schematics (or by tracing the PCB), you are still making a different implementation with different components with possibly different characteristics. Making a 'perfect' clone might require measuring the original components used and adding components to the new design to account for the parasitic properties of the components used in the original.
Old 12th April 2018
  #115
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
...

Why does any audio gear sound like it does? Because of the design. Period. Full stop. End of story.

...
I would just modify that “Why?” to be...

Because of the implementation of the design. /

Horses for courses... or in this case... VCO’s for synths.

No missing magic mica. No unbelievable uber-unobtanium. Just a couple of maestro of the craft named Smith & Oberheim... true synth designers and implementers, among a very exclusive club of similarly gifted peers and competitors around the world just doing their thang... making modern classic synths with all all the sonic appeal of the OG’s and more. Imo & ymmv.

Old 12th April 2018
  #116
Quote:
Originally Posted by synthRodriguez View Post
A guy is coming by at noon today to buy the P6 and that's fine. What made me pull the trigger was the Memorymoog I got the week before, there's just no comparison.
Possibly very little to do with the oscillators.
The whole debate is wrong. Most of you are comparing old SYNTHS to new SYNTHS.
Major factors in the Memorymoog are the VCA's and Filter.
Old 12th April 2018
  #117
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by string6theory View Post
No missing magic mica
I'm somewhat skeptical about the claims surrounding the benefits of silver mica caps, but they do have characteristics that are different from other types of caps.

Whether or not that translates to an audible difference I don't know, but Jacob Brashears seems to think so and if the sound of the (poor) demo of the Relic is anything to go by he might be right so I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand.

Still, I would expect the differences to matter mostly at RF, not at audio frequencies, but I suppose using silver mica caps vs something else could affect the shape of the resonance bump.

The fact that they are inherently low-tolerance might have something to do with it as well. The way PCBs are populated it's unlikely that matched caps would be used on a VCF, with silver mica's you would have matched values by definition.

I remain skeptical until someone can show (or let me hear) the difference a silver mica capacitor makes in a VCF (all else being equal).
Old 12th April 2018
  #118
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOYZ View Post
I'm an electrical engineer as well. Regardless of what I think about this, it seems to me you are contradicting yourself to some extent. You write



and then you say



Handwired vs PCB likely changes the physical 3d topology somewhat. Electrical characteristics would also change (resistance, capacitance). However, I'm not aware of any classic synths where PCBs weren't used, I don't think hardwired ever came up.

Through hole vs SMT means using different components which you yourself said can make a difference. SMT caps typically have lower ESR than their through-hole equivalents.

Vintage caps vs modern caps: if all their parameters are exactly the same it shouldn't matter, but that equivalence should include their parasitic properties (resistance, inductance, capacitance).

Even if you copy the original design from the original schematics (or by tracing the PCB), you are still making a different implementation with different components with possibly different characteristics. Making a 'perfect' clone might require measuring the original components used and adding components to the new design to account for the parasitic properties of the components used in the original.

By this argument, Roland's ACB modeling may actually do a better job than modern hardware VCO emulation attempts.
Old 12th April 2018
  #119
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
By this argument, Roland's ACB modeling may actually do a better job than modern hardware VCO emulation attempts.
Yes, that exact thought has occurred to me before, and it applies to any software emulation, not just ACB. A really good software emulation could, at least in theory, be closer in sound to the original than a hardware clone that uses the same circuit design but with different components.

Of course it depends on the quality of the software emulation. In the end I'll let my ears be the judge. I must say that the VC-340 sounds much more like the VP-330 than Roland's VP-03 attempt.

It also depends on the way the software does the emulation, software is not doing an emulation on the actual atom/electron or quantum mechanics level. It's using a model and that model might not be perfect either and might fail to reproduce the behaviour of a component or circuit under all circumstances, even if it's perfect under circumstances under which the component or circuit was actually measured.
Old 12th April 2018
  #120
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOYZ View Post
I'm somewhat skeptical about the claims surrounding the benefits of silver mica caps, but they do have characteristics that are different from other types of caps.

Whether or not that translates to an audible difference I don't know, but Jacob Brashears seems to think so and if the sound of the (poor) demo of the Relic is anything to go by he might be right so I wouldn't dismiss this out of hand.

Still, I would expect the differences to matter mostly at RF, not at audio frequencies, but I suppose using silver mica caps vs something else could affect the shape of the resonance bump.

The fact that they are inherently low-tolerance might have something to do with it as well. The way PCBs are populated it's unlikely that matched caps would be used on a VCF, with silver mica's you would have matched values by definition.

I remain skeptical until someone can show (or let me hear) the difference a silver mica capacitor makes in a VCF (all else being equal).
I’ll keep an open mind as well. Certainly, materials have characteristics that can impact sonics, which is why they are chosen for particular applications. However, in the case of these newer VCO synths sans silver mica, I don’t lament its absence by any stretch. And, without a contextual frame of reference, meaning a comparison of the same synth with and without it, this may always remain a ‘holy grail’ sonic panacea for pontificators.

You bring up a great example with Brashears and the Relic though, and perhaps he’s done his own contextual testing which helped him form his own conclusions. But, I’d still need convincing that its inclusion makes a significant impact, while knowing full well that it must make some impact. What measure of impact is, I suppose, the real (likely unanswerable) question. And, the resultant better (or not) still remains subjective.

But, there’s no denying that the inclusion of certain component materials in vintage synths and their subsequent inclusion (or not) in modern remakes, reissues and reimaginings of these synth, appeals to (or imparts disdain in) those synthusiasts who desire 1:1 vintage replicas.

I’m a tone hound from way back, so again, try to keep an open mind until I can here things for myself, or, form a judgment based on good info. My ears have been very pleased with modern VCO’s to this point, while also remaining very pleased with their predecessors.

Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump