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 does older analog synths sounds better than newer? Keyboard Synthesizers
Old 27th July 2014
  #61
Lives for gear
 
The Hamburglar's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azurebirch View Post
I don't know, I've got a theory: back in the day the manufacturers aimed to voice the synths so that they mimic the rich sound of acoustic instruments and they failed deliciously.

Nowadays, they voice them to mimic Skrillex! Unfortunately, they succeed every time.

So on the money.
Old 27th July 2014
  #62
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekrafty View Post
Old synths sound better because they have been played for a few decades.

My analogy is the same for guitars.
A guitar is a piece of wood when it starts out, but after many years
of playing there is a stetted resonance to the wood that makes it a special guitar.

New guitars don't know they are guitars yet, but older ones do.

same for synths
The wooden panel of my Oberheim Xpander has been stretched out and resonance, sounds great now. The wooden panel of my Voyager has not been stretched out yet, no resonance, but it comes and then it will sound like my former Model D. I knew it: There is something special with wooden panels!
Old 27th July 2014
  #63
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by azone2 View Post
I think a lot of the people bitching about the nonsense of vintage analog have actually never played some of these instruments.
Even if not the most sought after classics I have actually played and owned quite a few analog synths such as Juno-60, Juno-106, SH-101 etc. My experience with them is that they are just extremely limited and that's why I find it surreal that they are so praised.

I actually played with one of the classics a while a ago and the first thing I thought was to modulate the filter cutoff with velocity to make the patch more lively - and then remembered that that darn thing doesn't even recognise velocity. Ok, you can play pretty convincing 'Jump' with it like all those zillion keyboard salesmen have done over 30 years when demonstrating the synth but personally I like to be more forward-thinking with my music.
Old 27th July 2014
  #64
Lives for gear
 

Isn't the real reason some people just want to complain?

The thing is that if any manufacturer builds a poly analog up to 70ies specs hardly anyone would be willing to put down the big sum of monies and instead would most likely go for two modern day synths.
Old 27th July 2014
  #65
Gear Guru
 
Karloff70's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Even if not the most sought after classics I have actually played and owned quite a few analog synths such as Juno-60, Juno-106, SH-101 etc. My experience with them is that they are just extremely limited and that's why I find it surreal that they are so praised.

I actually played with one of the classics a while a ago and the first thing I thought was to modulate the filter cutoff with velocity to make the patch more lively - and then remembered that that darn thing doesn't even recognise velocity. Ok, you can play pretty convincing 'Jump' with it like all those zillion keyboard salesmen have done over 30 years when demonstrating the synth but personally I like to be more forward-thinking with my music.
It's because of the basic tone, obviously.

So now what would be nice is more people building new, affordable synths WITH great basic tone and also modern modulation possibilities. Unless Ken MacBeth has bought all those nice old transistors....
Old 27th July 2014
  #66
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Even if not the most sought after classics I have actually played and owned quite a few analog synths such as Juno-60, Juno-106, SH-101 etc. My experience with them is that they are just extremely limited and that's why I find it surreal that they are so praised.

I actually played with one of the classics a while a ago and the first thing I thought was to modulate the filter cutoff with velocity to make the patch more lively - and then remembered that that darn thing doesn't even recognize velocity. Ok, you can play pretty convincing 'Jump' with it like all those zillion keyboard salesmen have done over 30 years when demonstrating the synth but personally I like to be more forward-thinking with my music.
Yes I get this 100%. If you're not after that sound and/or don't think it's better for you then the limitations can be a pain if you're used to modern digitally controlled stuff that basically have no limitation regarding modulations etc..

..when I chime in an argue is when people say that software emulating certain hardware is indistinguishable, and the only reason we use the hardware is because we're following someone else's lead, or collecting, or whatever. That is simply not true IMO. And it has nothing to do with nostalgia or whatever, I wasn't even around or paying attention when they were used the first time around... I think certain analog synths (some old) just sound f'ing kick ass in electronic music and give me something that software can't for me.

...on another note I think there's two camps of us here in these analog debates. There's guys that are using these things for electronic music, dance, techno, edm whatever you want to call it, and then there are those using them for rock, or progressive, jingles, moog solo's or whatever. In the latter case I would probably most definitely be using software. But with electronic music it's all about the tone and many analog synths just make me jump up and down
Old 27th July 2014
  #67
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
^ really depends man... many would argue the opposite.. that rock/progressive is all about tone.. and electronic music is all about features such as modulation etc..

as for coffee's above comment, it's also all very subjective.. what you find limited others find liberating... you know less is more..etc.. also what you may find cheesy others are nostalgic about.. the 'jump' reference is a bit stereotypical.. opposite could easily be said about modern synths: their only good at playing pretty convincing 'skrillex bass' & 'Tiesto' arps"
Old 27th July 2014
  #68
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekrafty View Post
Old synths sound better because they have been played for a few decades.

My analogy is the same for guitars.
A guitar is a piece of wood when it starts out, but after many years
of playing there is a stetted resonance to the wood that makes it a special guitar.

New guitars don't know they are guitars yet, but older ones do.

same for synths
Wow - what's next? Reading the horoscope?
Old 27th July 2014
  #69
Gear Addict
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post
^ really depends man... many would argue the opposite.. that rock/progressive is all about tone.. and electronic music is all about features such as modulation etc..
I see your point, maybe I was being unfair to the other camp! But I'm sure you know what I mean as well.
Old 27th July 2014
  #70
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
The only of my synths I remember the "final inspection date" turned out to be Aries. Today's horoscope suggested: "Listening is today most important". Does that mean I should use its external input rather than the internal VCO's today?

Old 27th July 2014
  #71
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
.... My experience with them is that they are just extremely limited and that's why I find it surreal that they are so praised.
It looks like you miss the whole point (or that I misunderstand you): The whole thing with older analog synths is the sound, period. The rest of no limits of pony tricks is taken care of by modern, powerful computers and sophisticated software that makes old synths fly high, somewhere over the rainbow, if needed.
Old 27th July 2014
  #72
Lives for gear
 
danielb's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekrafty View Post
Old synths sound better because they have been played for a few decades.

My analogy is the same for guitars.
A guitar is a piece of wood when it starts out, but after many years
of playing there is a stetted resonance to the wood that makes it a special guitar.

New guitars don't know they are guitars yet, but older ones do.

same for synths
Is this supposed to be a serious comment?



D.
Old 27th July 2014
  #73
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Prophet View Post
It looks like you miss the whole point (or that I misunderstand you): The whole thing with older analog synths is the sound, period. The rest of no limits of pony tricks is taken care of by modern, powerful computers and sophisticated software that makes old synths fly high above the rainbow if needed.
for me it isn't only about "sound, period". a lot of vintage gear have quirky little features that you actually don't find in modern stuff.. even the timing of an arp, or swing of an old drum machine can be special.. and then of course you have the unique interfaces that can be very appealing as well.. all that's part of what makes a lot of vintage synths feel like instruments instead of just tools imo..
Old 27th July 2014
  #74
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post
for me it isn't only about "sound, period". a lot of vintage gear have quirky little features that you actually don't find in modern stuff.. even the timing of an arp, or swing of an old drum machine can be special.. and then of course you have the unique interfaces that can be very appealing as well.. all that's part of what makes a lot of vintage synths feel like instruments instead of just tools imo..
That's a good point too. Older clocks (for arps, swing in drum machines etc) were sounding different and it looks that no one makes that kind of clocks with a little bit personality to the sound any longer. At least put in as an option in modern clock based devices (yes I'm aware of some stuff such some DAWs etc EMULATES it, but doesn't has it).
Old 27th July 2014
  #75
it sounds better cuz people are used to it... whoever shows up first gets to define the rules/genre.
and most just follow the flow... why listen for yourself when so many others have already explained why they are right and you are wrong.
Old 27th July 2014
  #76
142977
Guest
They sound 'better' because they've been on the records you grew up with!
Old 27th July 2014
  #77
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by azone2 View Post
I thought VAZ Modular sounded pretty good.. until I got my hands on a FVS-1 and Odyssey.
Maybe ironic but VAZ Modular was originally started to do things my Odyssey couldn't...
Old 27th July 2014
  #78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Prophet View Post
That's a good point too. Older clocks (for arps, swing in drum machines etc) were sounding different and it looks that no one makes that kind of clocks with a little bit personality to the sound any longer. At least put in as an option in modern clock based devices (yes I'm aware of some stuff such some DAWs etc EMULATES it, but doesn't has it).
I have the same impression - what I'm missing with the modern simulations of the TR-808 for instance, is its groove. Roland nailed the sound with the TR-8 very well but it doesn't have the same groove. The original swings in certain way. Never bothered to analyze this though.

Same for the Fairlight CMI: a part of its unique sound was the extreme tightness of the sequencer. That's what I heard from the recordings and some Fairlight users told me that I was right.
Old 27th July 2014
  #79
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
^ yep.. i own 808/909.. as well as TR-8 and the groove is nothing like them.. same for modern MPC's vs early Linn units..

FWIW i've often requested low PPQ resolution options in clock based devices.. but i'm not aware of a single company that's done it yet..
Old 27th July 2014
  #80
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_apprentice View Post
They sound 'better' because they've been on the records you grew up with!
Quote:
Originally Posted by robwood View Post
it sounds better cuz people are used to it... whoever shows up first gets to define the rules/genre.
and most just follow the flow... why listen for yourself when so many others have already explained why they are right and you are wrong.
Although that, the older Moogs, Prophets, OBs, Yamahas, Arps, Rolands etc has another sound that appeal more to me. If you don't think so, I'm very grateful, so that the ridiculous prices can be lowered to a relevant price .... so that I can have them instead.
Old 27th July 2014
  #81
Lives for gear
 
lovekrafty's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by danielb View Post
Is this supposed to be a serious comment?



D.
No not really, half a bottle of jack Daniels made me wrote that

I do think that with guitars though.

I think it does have to do with the quality of components
Back then.

I picked up a Korg MS20 yesterday ( original )
Got it for a great price but was pretty filthy, crackly pots etc
So I totally disassembled it and gave it a good clean.

The pots came right back to life, nice sturdy metal shafts on the
Thing unlike the new mini.

Somehow I doubt the minis will be as robust in 40 years time
And contrary to what others say my new old ms20
Is less noisy and sounds better IMO to the new one.
Old 27th July 2014
  #82
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post
^ yep.. i own 808/909.. as well as TR-8 and the groove is nothing like them.. same for modern MPC's vs early Linn units..



FWIW i've often requested low PPQ resolution options in clock based devices.. but i'm not aware of a single company that's done it yet..
Isn't thar related to analog, not that exact, clocks as well, compared to high res digital clocks (that is preferable to digital mixing consoles, sound cards etc, that sound better, more focused with better phase the better the clock is)?
Old 27th July 2014
  #83
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
um.. the clocks on 808/909 are digital (NEC CPUs) but the sort of groovy sloppy timing has to do with the 24PPQ resolution and probably some small internal jitter... when using trig outs to clock external arps the timing on those can actually beat sequential MIDI though.. one of the rare cases when analog beats digital in numerical data!
Old 27th July 2014
  #84
Lives for gear
 
Teknobeam's Avatar
 

Make music with whatever you have.........forget this analog / digital madness... it's completely irrelevant.

If making it in the music industry was a s simple as achieving some Holy Grail sound......then everyone would be a huge hit.

You can make great music and flesh out amazing ideas on gear that others would consider complete crap.......I say F&&*%k them


lose the notion about gear.........fall back on what's really important......your creativity, and the music.
Old 27th July 2014
  #85
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekrafty View Post
No not really, half a bottle of jack Daniels made me wrote that

I do think that with guitars though.

I think it does have to do with the quality of components
Back then.

I picked up a Korg MS20 yesterday ( original )
Got it for a great price but was pretty filthy, crackly pots etc
So I totally disassembled it and gave it a good clean.

The pots came right back to life, nice sturdy metal shafts on the
Thing unlike the new mini.

Somehow I doubt the minis will be as robust in 40 years time
And contrary to what others say my new old ms20
Is less noisy and sounds better IMO to the new one.
And you still can write? Congratulations.

Also congratulations to the MS20. I have a MS20mini. I have not heard any A/B tests with the MS20 vs MS20 mini yet. At the other hand, all older instruments are slight different in sound, so the difference between a MS20 and a MS20mini can be as large as between two MS20. And yes, the original, non surface mounted, MS20 is more robust.
Old 27th July 2014
  #86
142977
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mesmerised View Post
I have the same impression - what I'm missing with the modern simulations of the TR-808 for instance, is its groove. Roland nailed the sound with the TR-8 very well but it doesn't have the same groove. The original swings in certain way. Never bothered to analyze this though.
There's always this list:
Innerclock Systems - Precision Midi Clock Din Sync and Tempo Synchronisation Solutions



Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Prophet View Post
Although that, the older Moogs, Prophets, OBs, Yamahas, Arps, Rolands etc has another sound that appeal more to me. If you don't think so, I'm very grateful, so that the ridiculous prices can be lowered to a relevant price .... so that I can have them instead.
Don't get me wrong, I like their sound and over time because it's been used again and again the specific sounds of those synths will become mainstay classics just like a Bechstein piano, a Strat or a set of Ludwig drums. But that will also happen to some of the newer synths like the PEK, P12, A6, Voyager, Nord Lead and some soft synths like Massive, Diva, etc. That is because a new generation will grow up with their sounds and will have fond memories of the songs that used them.

People tend to confuse different with worse or better. As long as it is pleasing to the ear it is good.
Old 27th July 2014
  #87
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Analog Prophet View Post
Also congratulations to the MS20. I have a MS20mini. I have not heard any A/B tests with the MS20 vs MS20 mini yet. At the other hand, all older instruments are slight different in sound, so the difference between a MS20 and a MS20mini can be as large as between two MS20. And yes, the original, non surface mounted, MS20 is more robust.
mmm.. i don't think the MS-20 mini even shares a single component with it's older brother, nothing discrete & the korg35 filter chip was recreated from scratch.. that being said Korg did a pretty good job overall and it's one of the rare modern analogs i've tried that captures the old-school modjo.. i'd still trade mine in a heartbeat for an OG
Old 27th July 2014
  #88
Deleted User
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teknobeam View Post
lose the notion about gear.........fall back on what's really important......your creativity, and the music.
No one more agree more to that than I do. At the end of the road it is about the music and the experience of it, not about the gear.

My wife, as an example, or anyone else not a gear maniac, wouldn't mind if the music she listen to at Spotify is made by older or newer analog gear, or whatever. She likes it or not likes it. That's how it is.

But I don't care if the lipstick of someone is Gucci, Guess, Armani or Happy Meal from. McDonalds as long it's good looking and shining to me... and gives me good experiences in her kisses. We have different preferences - I care of sound and sound is important to me. I know what I like and I go for it.
Old 27th July 2014
  #89
Lives for gear
 
ionian's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
I actually played with one of the classics a while a ago and the first thing I thought was to modulate the filter cutoff with velocity to make the patch more lively - and then remembered that that darn thing doesn't even recognise velocity. Ok, you can play pretty convincing 'Jump' with it like all those zillion keyboard salesmen have done over 30 years when demonstrating the synth but personally I like to be more forward-thinking with my music.
Lol...I was doing the "velocity to modulate filter cutoff" thing back in 1991 on my Emu Emax II (Velocity to Filter in the menu) so I wouldn't go so far as to call that gimmick "forward thinking"!


I think the Oberheim SEM remake sounds pretty amazing. I have one of those.

But my OB8 and my Pro One both sound fantastic. And both are capable of sounding modern. Not just locked into sounding "80s" - whatever that means. I lived through the 80s - I don't remember people sticking synths on a song and saying, "Hey man! Look! I wrote an 80s song!" like what seems to happen in droves today. A synth bass. Some synth chords. A synth lead and it's, "Hey! Look! I wrote an 80s song!" lol...

Between the modulations on the Pro One and the Page 2 options on the OB8 both machines are capable of amazingly modern stuff if you're creative enough.
Old 27th July 2014
  #90
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
^ i agree about Pro One but it is true some synths sound a lot more dated then others.. mainly DCO polys from the mid-80's
Topic:
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