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
Analog vs Digital...the last word Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 15th September 2011
  #91
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
just want to add to be fair that the digitizing of vinyl is one of the most demanding tasks because we have subharmonics in the <10hz range and overtones above 20 k out of the needle dance thru the grooves..

however actual digital formats promise us that that is beyond the borders of our reception and dont matters..
that's what you want to believe, but I think its BS.
Old 15th September 2011
  #92
Lives for gear
 
enossified's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeHayduke View Post
In the 80ies, massive digital pedal boards came up and that continued for a decade, everyone wanted them and the convenience of saving setups etc. What do you think they cost now, used? Peanuts. People could not make them sound good, and ditched them. Ring any bells in the synth world?
I had to jump in on this...

There are still plenty of digital pedals out there, in fact there's more of them than in the 1980s and they even cost less. Cost, after all, is probably digital's biggest advantage today.

IMHO what really happened (just like the digital synths of the time) is that the sound and feature list kept improving. The latest trend in pedal units is loopers and USB audio interfaces built in. Every year another generation comes out so last year's model immediately loses value.

For that matter, DSP multiFX and modeling are showing up in more and more amps all the time (again at the low end).
Old 15th September 2011
  #93
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomeProducer View Post
that's what you want to believe, but I think its BS.
wasnt you the guy that thinks mp3´s do sound best?
Old 15th September 2011
  #94
Lives for gear
 
Ben B's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
Hahaha. Too funny. Screw physics!
Apparently he doesn't understand that the signal out of a DAC is 100% analog, and completely free of the supposed "steps." The reconstruction filter takes care of that.

Folks, there is no stair case effect in the signal reproduced through a competently designed DAC.

-Ben B
Old 15th September 2011
  #95
Lives for gear
 

What the **** is a digital fraction?
Old 15th September 2011
  #96
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben B View Post
Apparently he doesn't understand that the signal out of a DAC is 100% analog, and completely free of the supposed "steps." The reconstruction filter takes care of that.

Folks, there is no stair case effect in the signal reproduced through a competently designed DAC.

-Ben B
and what is when the waveform you record is a staircase one.. what will your reconstruction filter make out of that?


please try it and have a look in the oscilloscope.. you will be surprised... but i forgot..its not about waveform accuracy its about frequncy response between 20hz and 20 khz... just too bad that theese bloody waveforms dont care about theese limits.. That applies to natural instruments and synthezisers.
Old 15th September 2011
  #97
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
wasnt you the guy that thinks mp3´s do sound best?
not me, the kids think that
Old 16th September 2011
  #98
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by charlieclouser View Post
The documentary was made by Ryan Page and the guy in the middle of this photo, Hans Fjellestad. This pic is from the filming of the scene with Money Mark playing my Voyager at my old house in Hollywood around 2003 or so - L to R is Beastie Boys keyboardist Money Mark, Bob Moog, filmmaker and musician Hans Fjellestad, me, and engineer Paula Jones.
Hans Fjellestad? Small world.

I met Hans on several occasions, I took his place when he left Pro Sound in San Diego. He was the guy who taught me how to play your effects processor like an instrument. Sorry for the off topic post, but I'm glad to see he's still in the game.
Old 16th September 2011
  #99
Lives for gear
 

over and over and over and over and over
like a monkey with a miniature cymbal
the joy of repetition really is in you
under and under and under and under and under
the smell of repetition really is on you
Old 16th September 2011
  #100
Lives for gear
 

There is only one final word for this debate. It is not English but it is the only and final answer to this debate.


MU


Old 16th September 2011
  #101
Lives for gear
 

,eruS tub s'ti ecin ot evah a noissucsid
Old 16th September 2011
  #102
Lives for gear
 
wwjd's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by jupiter8 View Post
The notion that differences in air pressure being converted into electricity used to magnetically align iron oxide particles is somehow more natural than anything else is simply absurd.

THAT is the best answer anywhere. Tape is all over the place with pathetic inaccuracy... digital is too perfect for us to accept? Both are crazy methods when you look at the PHYSICS backing them. One is just way more stable.
Old 16th September 2011
  #103
Lives for gear
 
shadowfac's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
and what is when the waveform you record is a staircase one.. what will your reconstruction filter make out of that?
Actually, if you feed a staircase-shaped signal through a DAC, the limited bandwidth of the DAC will most likely smooth the steps of the signal. In other words, it is much more easier to have fast transitions (such as stair steps) in the analog domain than in the digital domain.

What many people fail to see is that a digital signal is a representation of a smooth, continuous signal. The sampling process does not add discontinuities or fast transitions to a signal... on the contrary, it fails to represent them accurately. But that does not mean that the signal it represents is less analog than the original signal.

Some people think that the difference in sound between analog and digital synths is due to the different types of representation or storage of signals, and to some extent this is true, especially when the signals approach the Nyquist limit. For example, most VA's "give in" when performing audio rate modulation... because these kinds of modulations often create a great amount of harmonics which in the digital domain will cause aliasing. But for the most part, the difference is due to the vast amount of inaccuracies and nonlinearities introduced by imperfect analog components.
Old 16th September 2011
  #104
Lives for gear
 
enossified's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfac View Post
it is much easier to have fast transitions (such as stair steps) in the analog domain than in the digital domain.
Actually it's not. While amplifiers can easily have bandwidth beyond audibility in both directions (didn't Dynaco advertise freq. response out to 100KHz?), most of the other components in the chain cannot. Like tape, vinyl, mikes, loudspeakers, etc. Most analog components act as bandpass filters to varying degrees. Sharp transitions (esp. at higher frequencies) are difficult to reproduce simply because they contain lots of HF harmonics. Already in this thread people have been talking about slew rates, damping factors, etc.

There's still a lot of controversy over our ability to truly hear outside of the 20-20K band.
Old 16th September 2011
  #105
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by enossified View Post
Actually it's not. While amplifiers can easily have bandwidth beyond audibility in both directions (didn't Dynaco advertise freq. response out to 100KHz?), most of the other components in the chain cannot. Like tape, vinyl, mikes, loudspeakers, etc. Most analog components act as bandpass filters to varying degrees. Sharp transitions (esp. at higher frequencies) are difficult to reproduce simply because they contain lots of HF harmonics. Already in this thread people have been talking about slew rates, damping factors, etc.

There's still a lot of controversy over our ability to truly hear outside of the 20-20K band.
its not necessary to trully hear..its totally enough to feel it.. we are talking about music here ..

and experimetal research has show that even old people seem to sense freq. ranges way above 20k even when they cant conciously grasp and identify single sine tones above 10 k anymore.. There was statistical tetsts about preferences with around 80% preference for 30kHz enhanced recording of people up to or over 80 years of age... Thats way too much to be explained by accident. Of cause thats only scientivic proove when this gets repeated by other institutes. But it shows that research about human sound perception is still going on and far from being done and might hold some surprises the digital sound industry wasnt aware of when they claimed 44.1 k/16bit is totally enough to fool the human senses.

Its really a bit like the belive that monitor frequencys of 60 hz are totally enough because you can fool the eye with framerates of 24 pictures the second perfectly allready..
It just happened quickly that humans that had to sit all day before this monitors got sick... So by health protection laws such monitors are not allowed anymore.
I really hope that digital audio is not piercing our eardrums and we are the first generation to find out that this means to be totally deff in the age of 72.. Wouldnt really surprise me.. ooops.. we made a little mistake...

And it dont matters really that analoge circuits might have their limits.. the questions is whether a AD/DA conversion gives an real 100% representation of the source signal.. And the answer is: NO !
But us humans cant hear the difference anyway.. So they say.

Just.. when we cant hear a difference anyway why do we discuss the item since 30 years now?
Old 16th September 2011
  #106
Gear Guru
 
Yoozer's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
And it dont matters really that analoge circuits might have their limits.. the questions is whether a AD/DA conversion gives an real 100% representation of the source signal.. And the answer is: NO !
But us humans cant hear the difference anyway.. So they say.
So what does it say when most can't hear the difference between the CD and a 192kbps mp3?

Quote:
Just.. when we cant hear a difference anyway why do we discuss the item since 30 years now?
Because it also means a fundamentally different way to mix and set up your gain staging and work for the free benefits of pleasing distortion and glue that you'd otherwise get for free.
Old 16th September 2011
  #107
Lives for gear
 
lysander's Avatar
 

I've just read so much bull**** in this thread I want to scream.
I'll just say this to some of the vocal people here: if you've got no understanding of physics whatsoever, because you haven't studied it ( which is completely fine in itself ) then don't try to make up **** to argue against people who do.
If you can hear something that isn't explained by science that's fine, but just leave it at that instead of making up unicorn stories to justify your experience.
Old 16th September 2011
  #108
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfac View Post

Some people think that the difference in sound between analog and digital synths is due to the different types of representation or storage of signals, and to some extent this is true, especially when the signals approach the Nyquist limit. For example, most VA's "give in" when performing audio rate modulation... because these kinds of modulations often create a great amount of harmonics which in the digital domain will cause aliasing. But for the most part, the difference is due to the vast amount of inaccuracies and nonlinearities introduced by imperfect analog components.

There you have it.. we are on an electronic music forum here and the thread was mainly about the use of digital audio for synths..
And while freq and level modulation at audio rate are a big part of synth sound design you nailed the weakness of most digital systems here.. you need much higher samplingrates and antialisaing algos at any stage...

And regarding your imperfections of analoge components.. that is the factor that brings the sound alive.. perfect waveforms in nature on a fixed level without any modulation? They dont exsist..just the media of air does your imperfections already..thats nature and makes sounds rhich.

We are not in a lab..we dont need sterile test tones.

When you look at the circuits of a roland jx3p, juno 60. juno 106, jupiter 6 and 8... and compare them..you will realise that all this synths should almost sound the same..but far from it.. Just a few different components in the signal path.. A ****ty cmos switch here and there..a differnet op amp type or bipolar caps instead of polarized make a huge difference already.

They are all easy to identfy roland syths by their sound..they are related.
But each has a totally unique sonic signature. They separate easily in a mix without touching the eq...

now do that with 6 times the same plug in..

This little inaccuracies are actually a gift and are necessary.
And to really model an analoge synth is maybe possible.. maybe.
But you need to model a lot of these little inaccuracies down to component level really.

Sofar all this emulations are way to rough to really replace the analoge originals.
But of cause you can write good music with not so good sounding synth emulations.. Just as most use a juno 106 instead the actually really better sounding jupiter 8 when they do some roland style pads.

However.. to force the plugs to become as good sounding as the analog gear we shouldnt stop to critizise them aslong they are not there..

Somebody actually should sew aturia that they have to change theire gui´s to blank ones aslong they are still sofar away from the originals.. Feels a bit like fraud what they do.
Especially the prophet VS is really a bad joke... not even 10% close..
Old 16th September 2011
  #109
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander View Post
I've just read so much bull**** in this thread I want to scream.
I'll just say this to some of the vocal people here: if you've got no understanding of physics whatsoever, because you haven't studied it ( which is completely fine in itself ) then don't try to make up **** to argue against people who do.
If you can hear something that isn't explained by science that's fine, but just leave it at that instead of making up unicorn stories to justify your experience.

you overrate science at its actual state a bit.. just that you studied a few years the contemporary state of physics dont makes you to understand the world and even the physics you have learned in all aspects.

Theese unicorn storys are ways to look at the item maybe in a slight mystifying romantic way.. but that shows differnces.. digital technology is not just the same with different means.. That a rather blind view on the topic and qualifies even more as a unicorn story... The differences betwenn the 2 technologys or involved storrage systems are fundamental.

Any statements that try to disguise that are more missleading as phantastic analogys that show the differnces.. meat loaf versus filet is a valid aproach heh

And regarding the caruso thing. Maybe dicuss it a bit with your professor.. as higher the degrees in physics as more open people seem to get for this unicorn storys.
I tried.. please do yourself.. you might be surprised.
Old 16th September 2011
  #110
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoozer View Post
So what does it say when most can't hear the difference between the CD and a 192kbps mp3?


Because it also means a fundamentally different way to mix and set up your gain staging and work for the free benefits of pleasing distortion and glue that you'd otherwise get for free.
For free? what? a good sound? sure.. thats why we like some musical instruments better than others.. And thats what analoge friends say all the time..that digital gear dont sounds as good. Nobody ever said that it smells bad or is unpractical or looks ugly.

You say it only dont sounds as good because the users dont make it sound good with the aid of just lately available tool programs...
That it´s not the digital technology, that nothing gets lost whatsoever and digirtal filters and compressors are just too perfect and therefore dont sound good to the human ear ..just the absence of colour of any kind makes them sound nasty.

maybe.. well possible.. But we produce for the human ear and not for technical ideals.
And it needed many people to critizise that absense for decades to create a situation where people like you have all this glueing tools available..

And i personally think that this is a good thing and thats too early to stop. Especially with drive racks in the clubs that sound like plastic..synth emulations that dont even get the enevlopes right, ableton daws that apply samplerate conversions on a random base.. And nobody is critizising that.
Without critical users that wont change.. So lets keep the debate going.. The last word about analoge versus digital is not said yet..

we are not there yet.


What was the question? whether analoge gear and especially synths sound better than digital ones?

So your answer was yes than? because you get the glue for free...right?
Old 16th September 2011
  #111
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
you overrate science at its actual state a bit.. just that you studied a few years the contemporary state of physics dont makes you to understand the world and even the physics you have learned in all aspects.
lysander is right ... and I would always let me correct by scientists and engineers when it's not the area of my own scientific field. Science can not be overrated and it's permanent condemning is a sign of lack in education.


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
.. meat loaf versus filet is a valid aproach heh
no, it's not ... it is just a silly game with metaphors ... you're victim of your own wording as it structures your thinking in a feedback loop.
A scientist would take any term very serious and not try to explain complex things with absurd metaphors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
as higher the degrees in physics as more open people seem to get for this unicorn storys.
I tried.. please do yourself.. you might be surprised.
Really? We seem to meet and read very different physicist then. Don't let it appear as something like the higher the scientific understanding is the more the scientists think like 3phase. That would be downright ridiculous.
Old 16th September 2011
  #112
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkf View Post
lysander is right ... and I would always let me correct by scientists and engineers when it's not the area of my own scientific field. Science can not be overrated and it's permanent condemning is a sign of lack in education.



no, it's not ... it is just a silly game with metaphors ... you're victim of your own wording as it structures your thinking in a feedback loop.
A scientist would take any term very serious and not try to explain complex things with absurd metaphors.



Really? We seem to meet and read very different physicist then. Don't let it appear as something like the higher the scientific understanding is the more the scientists think like 3phase. That would be downright ridiculous.
i havent said that.. it just appears that at least the professional ones i ve met was more open to what you call absurd ideas and metaphors than amateurs.
And the intersting question if some of the source energy emmision of Caruso can be found in a shellack record of that time is a question i dont claim to be able to answer.. i just ask the question.
And all answers i got from amateurs sofar was.. no way.. while the pro said..maybe.. cant be answered in non timeconsuming ways.. That was enough for me to keep it as an metaphor..
Dont needs to be true really to illustrate the differnce in the process of data storage here.

Just the digital data cant fade away but gets so easily lost is material for an philosophical article allready..

We are dealing here with rather new things.

And we all have learned since 1980 that the things in the digital realm are not so easy and perfect as people wanted to make us belive..

While the state of the physical science has changed so drastical since 1980.. things that are seen as facts now would have cost your head back than when beeing spoken out loud by a scientist... while you was able to read some of the stuff allready in scince fiction books from the 1950´s..

I knew an professional astro physican that refused to agree to the exsistance of planets outside of our solar systm before this was prooved. Even in private circles he reacted very rude on the topic..
After the thing was prooved that any normal human beeing has seen as fact for ages he apologized..
He was actually so rude because he had to deny in public what was so obvious just to keep his scientivic reputation in a leading position intact.. And that made him agressive,,

Please excuse that i cant take official science as the absolute measure of truth in this world.
I can give quite a few examples where it appears rather blind and stupid...waiting for a proove to be found to be allowed to belive into the obvious. Actually the techniques to avoid superstition sometimes create just that.

Anyway
Art can be quicker than science because it dont needs to be exact or prooved.
Old 16th September 2011
  #113
nkf
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
And the intersting question if some of the source energy emmision of Caruso can be found in a shellack record of that time is a question i dont claim to be able to answer.. i just ask the question.
Whatever 'source energy' should mean ... AFAIK Caruso's success is made thru the recordings and his voice formants fit the recording medium at that time better than other voices. The other way round: the deficiencies of the recording medium leads to a preference of a particular performer.
In my archive I have a recording with full resynthesis of his voice singing new phrases and jokes (it's on analog tape from the 80ies from a French institute given to me by my mentor), never done by the original Caruso. In fact his voice is quite well analyzed and there is not any mysterious thing in it. Without the bad sounding recording chain of that time he probably would never been the big star.
Old 16th September 2011
  #114
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nkf View Post
Whatever 'source energy' should mean ... AFAIK Caruso's success is made thru the recordings and his voice formants fit the recording medium at that time better than other voices. The other way round: the deficiencies of the recording medium leads to a preference of a particular performer.
In my archive I have a recording with full resynthesis of his voice singing new phrases and jokes (it's on analog tape from the 80ies from a French institute given to me by my mentor), never done by the original Caruso. In fact his voice is quite well analyzed and there is not any mysterious thing in it. Without the bad sounding recording chain of that time he probably would never been the big star.
caruso was just an example.. the magic of clarence williams recordings would be more interesting for myself and there might some real vodoo be present ;-)...

Are you sure that caruso was just famous for a midrangy voice? i think concert halls was the main means of musical distribution back than.. Or was he just a hit on record?
Old 16th September 2011
  #115
Lives for gear
 
shadowfac's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
you overrate science at its actual state a bit.. just that you studied a few years the contemporary state of physics dont makes you to understand the world and even the physics you have learned in all aspects.
Ok, buddy. Way to dismiss other people's arguments... especially well founded arguments, in favor of your own subjective ideas.

Science can be challenged, of course. In fact, science welcomes being challenged. Even subjective ideas can be proven through statistics. But in order to challenge it, you must first understand it, because you're probably not the first one to challenge it. This means that many people before you have already tried to demonstrate the same thing as you do, and have not been successful. Maybe because they were wrong (and the current state of science is right), or maybe because they were not prepared enough.

And no one is claiming to understand all aspects of the physical world... but some people here actually have some experience in electronics and signal processing. Some may even have a PhD and make active research in related areas. These people tend not to sit with their arms crossed while someone spreads false knowledge they don't seem to understand.

I think most of us agree that there IS a difference in sound between analog and digital synths (in general, not specific models of synths). That's not what's being discussed. It is your explanation of this phenomenon what doesn't make any sense.

I also think some people did not quite "get" (or even read) the Moog interview. I didn't see anything un-scientific there; he just tried to explain the differences between digital and analog using a common language. He didn't even conclude that X was better than Y, he gave very valid arguments in favor of both, so I don't see how the OP can consider this the "last word".
Old 16th September 2011
  #116
Lives for gear
 
lysander's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfac View Post
Ok, buddy. Way to dismiss other people's arguments... especially well founded arguments, in favor of your own subjective ideas.

Science can be challenged, of course. In fact, science welcomes being challenged. Even subjective ideas can be proven through statistics. But in order to challenge it, you must first understand it, because you're probably not the first one to challenge it. This means that many people before you have already tried to demonstrate the same thing as you do, and have not been successful. Maybe because they were wrong (and the current state of science is right), or maybe because they were not prepared enough.

And no one is claiming to understand all aspects of the physical world... but some people here actually have some experience in electronics and signal processing. Some may even have a PhD and make active research in related areas. These people tend not to sit with their arms crossed while someone spreads false knowledge they don't seem to understand.

I think most of us agree that there IS a difference in sound between analog and digital synths (in general, not specific models of synths). That's not what's being discussed. It is your explanation of this phenomenon what doesn't make any sense.
Very well said, thank you.
Old 16th September 2011
  #117
Lives for gear
 
shadowfac's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3phase View Post
i havent said that.. it just appears that at least the professional ones i ve met was more open to what you call absurd ideas and metaphors than amateurs.
And it's good for them to be open to those ideas.... but there's a long, long way between "being open to ideas" and being actually able to prove (or disprove) them.
Old 16th September 2011
  #118
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfac View Post
Ok, buddy. Way to dismiss other people's arguments... especially well founded arguments, in favor of your own subjective ideas.
sorry..maybe i ve missed something.. what well founded arguments?
"I studied physics and this is all bull****" is not really an argument..
A bit deeper please...
But i agree that the caruso thing is about own subjective ideas.. i dont claim this to be a scientific fact..just an idea.

But its actually an idea that makes sense for me.. regardless what your physic book might say.. i actually doubt that your physics book says anything about the storrage process of acoustical energy. But there should be some articles about it.. At the time the gramophon was quite an invention. There must have been scientivic publikatons about it. One day i might look into what people have written about the process back than ;-)


When you cut a groove with the aid of energy and create a 3 dimensional footprint of the waveform this way.. and than applying an energy to that footprint to moove it along a needle.. with the result of a modulated energy that is the waveform again...

i see that you cant see a direct thermodynamic transformation of energy here... but ..

how would you describe that footprint of the waveform.. just information ??

and i am wrong even when the process of the cutting appears as such an archaic mountain moving brute act?

maybe..

but i am still a bit puzzled by the act of actually having a real footprint of that waveform in matter on the one side.. and just a list of 44100 numbers per second on the other side.

Just the topic of energy transformation into information.. And the interesting question..are soundwaves a form of energy? or are they just information from the start that is used to modulate external energies?
In this case i would be wrong and the energy was just used to transport the information from the media mooved air to the media scratched laquer plate.

maybe.. my missbelive that sound holds energy in itself.. can happen when you deal so much with it..

but when sound waves are just information.. and we say the universe is build on sound waves as some really belive... we would be really just software running.. parts of a huge computer program.. no souls no gods whatever.. just like digital sounds .. lol heh
Old 16th September 2011
  #119
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfac View Post
And it's good for them to be open to those ideas.... but there's a long, long way between "being open to ideas" and being actually able to prove (or disprove) them.
i understood him in exactly this way.. but that he just havent wiped it from the table from the starts as some physics in this round here do, made me sticking with that idea.. it has a bit the smell of unsolved mysterys for me .. but that might be just my vivid imagination..

in the end of the day.. i am an artist.. i am allowed to set bull**** ideas into the world ..thats actually part of the job . otherwise i would have become a scientist.
Old 16th September 2011
  #120
Lives for gear
 
Rust Creep's Avatar
 

you guys are throwing around a lot of fancy science talk

i'm sure it is important.. and it definitely seems to mean a lot to you really smart folk who know whats good and what is garbage

me?... i'm just a simple synth lover... too stupid to grasp the meaning of all the fancy jargon being used. i'm sure you guys are happy in your knowledge... i'd be impressed if it weren't over my head

all i know is that some **** sounds good... and some **** don't... as a simple person thats good enough for me... i guess if i were more intelligent i'd get some of that book learning you guys have... that way i would be able to better explain and defend my sonic preferences

but i kinda like not knowing if something is better than the other.. i mean.. when i found out that my FRXS and SEM were both discrete but the components were all surface mount instead of through hole... well i tell you what... finding that out made my heart "through hole" and a great sadness befell me

but then one day i chanced upon the true reason vintage analog synthesizers sound better than any other synthesizer could ever hope to be..analog or digital... nothing made today can hope to compete with the synths of yore... that is unless they channel the same omnipotent powers of the gods that the old synth manufacturers did

heres the proof. when they said analog was magic... these synth mystics were simply being blunt and honest.

heres the proof



here is a picture of some ancient magic words.
translated into english it says "ab ra ca dab ra"


so this is the actual last word

analog synthesizers are better... because they are instilled with actual magic
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