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 28th July 2014
  #181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mace Clef View Post
I think they start to sound better a short time after they go out of production.
Haaah !! Sharp as a razors edge

We need more of this kind of thinking
Old 28th July 2014
  #182
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
^ i think there is some truth to that as well... take the PEK, when it came out everybody was moaning it had AD/DA conversion, bad aliasing, digital HPF etc.. the day it was announced to be discontinued, people here started rushing to buy one.. and now today it's considered a great classic and to many DSi's finest sounding synth

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
There are NO and there were NO synths in the past that sounded like Macbeth. So whoever points to nostalgia factor is a complete clod. (not looking at you xanax)
that's ok we don't have to agree on everything.. but i'm just trying to get to the bottom of it: imo the nostalgic factor mainly concerns vintage synths not so much modern ones.. but the macbeth example is actually perhaps not the best.. i mean the micromac-d doesn't hide the fact it's a model d clone, that according to some sounds closer to vintage moogs than modern moogs thanks to sourcing of original rare parts and complete through hole assembly. ken seems to be very old-school minded.. now i won't argue that the new Elements sounds rather unique & mind-blowing.. but that's perhaps more due to the esoteric specs & aforementioned boutique quality.. looking at his notes even he takes cues from old designs: "i also thought that i'd like to go down the 'british look' style...from my very early days i had always like the looks of two british synthesizers of old- the dewtron synthesizer and the ems. finding that those and indeed, radio ham equipment were the traditional vernier dial- plus the availability of real cliff knobs...i set about making element one!" perhaps not the most forward-thinking approach after all.. ken actually sounds pretty nostalgic to me!
Old 28th July 2014
  #183
Registered User
Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post

This is a very good video, but they don't always play the same sounds on each.

Regardless, what always comes to my mind with these things (and other old vs new or hard vs soft comparisons) is that they're at least 95% the same. Maybe 97% to my ears. And in the mix of a tune, or through the ears of a general listener (and not a synthesizer fanatic) there would be no perceivable difference at all.

Combine that with the fact that the Voyager has MIDI and patch memory, and that different does not always equal "better", and as a new instrument it is unlikely to have maintenance issues, I'd buy the Voyager over the Model D every single time.
Old 28th July 2014
  #184
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDGEK8D View Post
There is an ongoing theme lately here on gearslutz that people seem to think that they are above the basic psychological practices that all people partake in. Everyone seems to take offense that anyone would suggest that it may be possible for one to be influenced by such a thing as nostalgia or confirmation bias. It is not a weakness, it is HUMAN.

the ongoing theme is that people with experience of gear and say it has subtle qualities they like - get told that its confirmation bias - by people with less or no experience with that gear who would prefer to believe otherwise. Confirmation bias is not the only explanation for the difference in what people can hear in different tools - yet it gets cranked out more and more often to shut down or deny what other people say they hear - with little or no evidence to back it up. CB is the only explanation for what someone hears - its quite possible that what people say they hear - is indeed happening.

What makes it such an obviously unobjective assessment is that its almost always people with little or no experience on the subject matter - on one polar side of the argument - that use it as a tool to dismantle an argument.

In a discussion recently on the topic of analogue compressors and plugins I was told it was confirmation bias - that I said I could hear a difference. This was by someone who had never tried a hardware compressor - and failed a A/B test - that I passed showing I could hear it. Still - he was adamant - that it was confirmation bias despite failing to hear it himself (and admitting he had no experience).

And they think 'we' are the biased ones...lol. Anyone who uses confirmation bias in a discussion better check their own bias first IMO. We are working in the field of music and pro audio - our ears are inportant - and to suggest what we hear is an implicit bias - should IMO be a last resort based on evidence only. Not a weapon for a disgruntled plugin user who would simply prefer to hang onto his beliefs and call into question someones hearing.
Old 28th July 2014
  #185
Jose Ramón Alvarado Villa
 
Don Solaris's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_apprentice View Post
So what is it in plain objective terms that you like about say the P08 vs. Pro5 or Mini D vs. Voyager?
I played p08 and some of the sounds were ok, but once ive opened the filter it didnt do a thing for me. It was kinda harsh tone. Ironicaly right below it in the store was Nord Lead 2X and that thing just sounded fantastic.

So the key word here would be sweet spot, not nostalgia.
Old 28th July 2014
  #186
when making in-brand comparisons such as old moog vs new moog etc. it's advised to keep in mind that companies are often not trying to replicate their old models (nor their sound for that matter)...therefor each synth (even from the same manufacturer) will obviously have it's own character/timbre to it..and then between these which one is "better" is just a matter of personal taste I guess..

now, that said I will happily participate in the debate of virtual vs analog synths in terms of sound quality but that's that really..The rest is just the character of a synth and who is to say which one is better than the other ? IMHO . ..
Old 28th July 2014
  #187
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by keybdwizrd View Post

Regardless, what always comes to my mind with these things (and other old vs new or hard vs soft comparisons) is that they're at least 95% the same. Maybe 97% to my ears. And in the mix of a tune, or through the ears of a general listener (and not a synthesizer fanatic) there would be no perceivable difference at all.

Combine that with the fact that the Voyager has MIDI and patch memory, and that different does not always equal "better", and as a new instrument it is unlikely to have maintenance issues, I'd buy the Voyager over the Model D every single time.
also factor in that the extra modulation, second filter, X/Y tactile control & semi-modularity can take the voyager to a galaxy far far away from the Model D.. I just feel like I can get so much more out of it than your basic moog bass & leads..

Here is another comparing Source vs Sub37: Moog Source VS Sub Phatty - YouTube

IMO the difference isn't as big as people often make it to be..
Old 28th July 2014
  #188
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
the ongoing theme is that people with experience of gear and say it has subtle qualities they like - get told that its confirmation bias - by people with less or no experience with that gear who would prefer to believe otherwise. Confirmation bias is not the only explanation for the difference in what people can hear in different tools - yet it gets cranked out more and more often to shut down or deny what other people say they hear - with little or no evidence to back it up. CB is the only explanation for what someone hears - its quite possible that what people say they hear - is indeed happening.

What makes it such an obviously unobjective assessment is that its almost always people with little or no experience on the subject matter - on one polar side of the argument - that use it as a tool to dismantle an argument.

In a discussion recently on the topic of analogue compressors and plugins I was told it was confirmation bias - that I said I could hear a difference. This was by someone who had never tried a hardware compressor - and failed a A/B test - that I passed showing I could hear it. Still - he was adamant - that it was confirmation bias despite failing to hear it himself (and admitting he had no experience).

And they think 'we' are the biased ones...lol. Anyone who uses confirmation bias in a discussion better check their own bias first IMO. We are working in the field of music and pro audio - our ears are inportant - and to suggest what we hear is an implicit bias - should IMO be a last resort based on evidence only. Not a weapon for a disgruntled plugin user who would simply prefer to hang onto his beliefs and call into question someones hearing.
The irony is you're practicing confirmation bias with this post - please read:

What Is a Confirmation Bias?

You have a set belief (and you've repeated it numerous times on different posts and threads) and in this post above, even provide us with an anecdotal example to support it. Classic CB.

Confirmation bias is human, we ALL suffer from it, it's nothing to be pissed about, it is, however, something to be aware about and try to avoid practicing.
Old 28th July 2014
  #189
142977
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
I played p08 and some of the sounds were ok, but once ive opened the filter it didnt do a thing for me. It was kinda harsh tone. Ironicaly right below it in the store was Nord Lead 2X and that thing just sounded fantastic.

So the key word here would be sweet spot, not nostalgia.
Sweet spot, yeah. So bascially psycho-acoustics. When I go about my gear choices I'm trying to decide on those more rational terms as well, but more in the sense of what is missing in my palette.

A couple of years ago I felt it's time for a poly synth that's really harsh, nasty and cutting and my decision fell on the PEK. Yes, on its own it's maybe too harsh, but when a track needs that sound I know where to go. Put it low in the mix and it's enough or simply don't open up the filter completely. Of course the PEK can also be subtle and has that longing, melancholic quality as well. Even with slop it won't quite give me the wonky, each oscillator is slightly out of tune, quality of the MKS80 I have, but that's what that is for. I do also have a NL2x, but I wouldn't say it's particularly analog, especially using the resonance in full on the 24dB LP on the filter clearly doesn't do it for me. But it also works really well for some things and has some lush smooth pads, but generally it has a metal meets plastic type sound for the lack of better descriptors (and that's not a bad thing).
Old 28th July 2014
  #190
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
The irony is you're practicing confirmation bias with this post - please read:

What Is a Confirmation Bias?

You have a set belief (and you've repeated it numerous times on different posts and threads) and in this post above, even provide us with an anecdotal example to support it. Classic CB.

Confirmation bias is human, we ALL suffer from it, it's nothing to be pissed about, it is, however, something to be aware about and try to avoid practicing.
I agree we all suffer from confirmation bias and that it's best avoided. But that's easier said than done. It's well and good to talk of "objectivity" as a goal but in many ways this can conflict with other goals -- especially as an artist trying to develop a strong personal aesthetic. Bias is not the demon it's often made out to be. Bias can be good. It can help define who we are and what we stand for. Plus, it's essential if you ever want to get anything done! You can go positively cuckoo trying to be objective on all fronts, unbiased, open-minded, politically correct, etc. Sometimes you simply have to hunker down and be yourself in all your biased glory -- at least, long enough to get something done! Then you can sit back and re-evaluate.

And btw if anyone perceives bias in this post, please know it's intentional!
Old 28th July 2014
  #191
Lives for gear
 
kirkelein's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Yet I find a fixed-architecture analog synth the most boring source to sample. Using e.g. field recording, Csound or Pure Data as source material results in much more interesting textures. Analog just sounds boooring. Whenever I get GAS for any analog synths I just listen my old tapes from around '98 when I was a total noob, only had SH-101, Juno-106 and TR-707 and thought analog was the shizz! I realize there's really nothing more I could do with those instruments and I would be ashamed to still be doing that same old thing after all these years. Now someone of course mentions artists like Com Truise but all the post processing, slicing & dicing etc. is actually everything I hate about modern electronic music (in addition to EDM).
You seem to forget that sometimes a 'boring' old violin is the best choice for a part, because the music carries itself and timbres are only used to make it pretty, without really having any part of the creative process be sound design.

Sometimes all you need is a good brass patch. If the arrangement is right it won't be boring or cliché. It's a matter of what music you like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post
The topic isn't about High-end gear vs low-end gear choices.. plenty of threads on that already (not keen on revisiting them either) but it's about classic vintage analogs.. versus their modern equivalent.. like a Prophet-5 vs Prophet-8/12.. Model D vs Voyager.. 808/303 vs Miami/TT-03.. etc
The point is that there are few modern equivalents. There are two new Prophets but compared to the Prophet 5 they are cheap instruments. A new CS-80 would be astronomical in price (and indeed was at the time as well). The high end manufacturers of today, like MacBeth, posess many of the same qualities that people turn to these vintage instruments for. Much of the vintage quality we talk about can be attributed to expensive components and craftsmanship. I think it's quite fair to say so at any rate.

Of course there is nothing wrong with Voyager craftsmanship, but the components used are not the same as those of the Model D, given that the rest of the tech market dictates what resistors are available, and higher tolerance and lower price is always favoured in every other field.

Tubes vs. transistors, kind of.

Sooner or later somebody realises there is charm in the old "flawed" components, but in the synth market I guess we are too few, and the differences too small. We're still far away from getting new chips made, whilst nice old vacuum tubes never went out of production.
Old 28th July 2014
  #192
Lives for gear
 
kirkelein's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
I agree we all suffer from confirmation bias and that it's best avoided. But that's easier said than done. It's well and good to talk of "objectivity" as a goal but in many ways this can conflict with other goals -- especially as an artist trying to develop a strong personal aesthetic. Bias is not the demon it's often made out to be. Bias can be good. It can help define who we are and what we stand for. Plus, it's essential if you ever want to get anything done! You can go positively cuckoo trying to be objective on all fronts, unbiased, open-minded, politically correct, etc. Sometimes you simply have to hunker down and be yourself in all your biased glory -- at least, long enough to get something done! Then you can sit back and re-evaluate.
I quite like this sentiment.
Old 28th July 2014
  #193
Lives for gear
 
laikenf's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Solaris View Post
Most of the people that i know, including myself prefer the sound of (THIS synth) versus the sound of (THAT synth).

When did DSI Mopho came out? In 2008.
When did Elements came out? In 2014.

So it definitely must be nostalgia then. Wait. My nostalgia for what? 2014?

This whole synth nostalgia thing is somehow an insult to people who decide to choose better sounding gear (of which lot happens to be old) basically saying they are deaf, but very nostalgic. (??)

Beside being disrespectful towards other people, the idea is a total nonsense.
Unfair Don, you're comparing a $3,500 + synth to a $350 one
Old 28th July 2014
  #194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Karloff70 View Post
The potentially offensive part is the fact that it implies in the listener an inability to separate any nostalgia from what the thing actually sounds like, and also implies that the actual sound isn't 'the thing', when to many it is. Like they didn't know any better and as long as it's old it is perceived as good. That's is in fact pretty insulting, as it basically calls you an idiot.
Potentially offensive is a much better way to describe it. Personally, I don't think it offensive at all. No one is saying that nostalgia...or lets just call it what it is...."emotional influence", is the sole reason for something sounding good. It is just a factor, whether anyone likes it or not, in how we form our opinions, of what sounds good, and what doesn't. It can be a small factor, but present nonetheless.

After all, thats what this is all about. The opinion that vintage sounds better than modern. Those imperfections are preferential for some reason. If someone had never heard a synth in their life and we played a P12 and Jupiter8 for them and asked, "which one sounds better to you?" I have no idea, but I'm guessing at least some of these synth virgins would choose the P12.
Old 28th July 2014
  #195
Lives for gear
 
archfrenemy's Avatar
 

It is the imperfections and flaws of those older synths that give them a unique and beautiful sound. The tend to be much more pitchy, steppy, slurred, harsh, mellow, grainy, distorted, washy, raw and drifty... That is why I love them. Flawed sounds are complex, musical and inspiring.

Most modern synths are far too mellow for my taste. They lack the sizzle, scream, brittle, biting harshness that you can find in something like an older SCI synth. Everyone seems to want to deliver a pleasing "post processed" subdued sound. That is fine if you are playing it on its own, but I want that bright raw sparkling sound to cut through the mix at a low track volume so it doesn't step all over acoustic instruments. Yes... I can EQ a modern synth to get close, but it won't have the same depth and complexity. I would personally rather start with brighter / harsher sounds as they tend to mellow in the mix.
Old 28th July 2014
  #196
Lives for gear
 
Eigenwert's Avatar
My "best horse" doesn't even have the octave switches calibrated and also waveform switching will have a huge impact on oscillator tuning. However, I am too afraid that recapping and calibrating might change its sound, so I won't correct anything of that. I don't know why that thing sounds so good to me but I think I have to compare it to some MacBeth stuff at times to convince myself a correctly calibrated device with new capacitors may sound just as well

However that thing was waaaaay less on my pocket than a MacBeth would be
Old 28th July 2014
  #197
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Don't you think the tedious process of sampling, cutting, twisting and warping dismisses all the advantages of an accessible synth interface? On the other hand I enjoy the thought of using a cracked copy of Fruity Loops to mangle a sample from $10,000 synth

Yet I find a fixed-architecture analog synth the most boring source to sample. Using e.g. field recording, Csound or Pure Data as source material results in much more interesting textures.
That's what makes the music scene so exciting to me. Everybody has their own preferences, their own ideas. If you'd rather go off & be on the cutting edge, that's great. If you want to delve further into the tones of yesterday, that's great.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
Analog just sounds boooring. Whenever I get GAS for any analog synths I just listen my old tapes from around '98 when I was a total noob, only had SH-101, Juno-106 and TR-707 and thought analog was the shizz! I realize there's really nothing more I could do with those instruments and I would be ashamed to still be doing that same old thing after all these years. Now someone of course mentions artists like Com Truise but all the post processing, slicing & dicing etc. is actually everything I hate about modern electronic music (in addition to EDM).
I'm a guitar player. I prefer amps made in the late '70s, early '80s, or modern gear that try to capture that sound. It's more organic to me, more alive, more inspirational. There are many guitarist who, like you, think those tones are boring & played out.

That's ok.

Even though modern instruments, like the Motif, Fantom (Integra), Triton (Kronos) have been able to recreate the tones of the Jupiters & Junos, they don't do a very good job of recreating the experience. I don't think. I prefer to play a Juno, I prefer to play through a Mark II Boogie, I prefer to drive a '72 Camaro.

& while I may believe those are "better" than their modern counterparts, I really mean they are better for me.
Old 28th July 2014
  #198
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
I agree we all suffer from confirmation bias and that it's best avoided. But that's easier said than done. It's well and good to talk of "objectivity" as a goal but in many ways this can conflict with other goals -- especially as an artist trying to develop a strong personal aesthetic. Bias is not the demon it's often made out to be. Bias can be good. It helps define who we are and what we stand for. Plus, it's essential if you ever want to get anything done! You can go positively cuckoo trying to be objective on all fronts, unbiased, open-minded, politically correct, etc. Sometimes you simply have to hunker down and be yourself in all your biased glory -- at least, long enough to get something done! Then you can sit back and re-evaluate.

And btw if anyone perceives bias in this post, please know it's intentional!
Its true. It is impossible for anyone to be above it. It isn't shameful or embarrassing. It isn't even moderately insulting. It shapes our reality constantly. Yes, one would go bat-**** crazy trying to be supremely objective about everything.

True Story, bro:

I get visited by drug reps at my job. They are basically salesmen for mega pharmaceutical corporations. They bring me free samples, pens with their logo on it, colorful pamphlets with bar graphs and pie charts. They usually bring snacks too. They used to give family trips to the Bahamas, but that became illegal in the late 80's thankfully. Why do they do all of this? Because some University Social Psychologist told them to do so in an effort to sell their products. Are they really that nice? Do all of the drug reps need to be 5 foot 10 inch, 26 year old blonde women in pencil skirts and heels? Is that really the most qualified person to get me to use this drug on my patients. Of course not!

They are creating a pleasant experience, one that I will associate with the name of the drug when contemplating how to treat. I know what they are doing, they know what they are doing, and the world turns.

There was a massive study done by one of my Profs about ten years ago on bias/influence and drug rep practices.

The results were this. Doctors almost universally thought that they WERE NOT influenced by a drug rep practices. Doctors almost universally thought that other doctors WERE influenced by drug rep practices. The old, "Well, that wouldn't happen to me." The third finding was that Doctors almost universally WERE in fact influenced by drug rep practices. What they have been doing, and what they are doing, works. Its a mind-fuvk, I know. The only way to stay free of it is to not welcome them into your clinic. Then they just send you a huge box with all if the stuff in it and call you to ask if you got it.

That emotional experience, my delicious sandwich (man was I hungry), the cute blonde talking my ear off and being just flirty enough to keep my attention while not insulting the other ladies that work in the clinic, is all by design.

How can this be? I am intelligent, I take this seriously, how could I allow this to creep into my head and influence me? Because it happens subconsciously. Much the way any emotion influences the decisions we make everyday .

I don't give in though. Trying to remain objective is what separates us from the animals. They practice an instinct only decision making process. We have the ability to pause, analyze, and TRY to be objective. Sometimes we succeed, often tines we don't.

We are a complicated bunch, people.


I honestly mean no offense by bringing this matter to light. It is only a small part of our complex decision making process, rarely being the totality of our opinion.

For most of us, music is an extremely emotion evoking thing, whether listening or creating. Goosebumps....that is what I strive for. To say that our emotions have no influence whatsoever with regards to our thoughts, decisions, and opinions on these matters of sound preference, is silly.

There is no objective sound preference. There is only opinion. Its like asking whether your favorite color is blue or red. That cant be measured. You can't say that red is better just cuz it is. Maybe more peeps prefer red, sure. But why? Not because it is factually better, but because opinions about red are perhaps more favorable for whatever reason.


Calling me Dr. Phil, now THAT is offensive!
Old 28th July 2014
  #199
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Not synth related, but nothing boring about these nostalgic tones

Old 28th July 2014
  #200
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkelein View Post
Sometimes all you need is a good brass patch. If the arrangement is right it won't be boring or cliché. It's a matter of what music you like.
You are absolutely correct in that it's really about the music we like since I would never use a brass patch (even good one) in my music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderkyss View Post
I'm a guitar player. I prefer amps made in the late '70s, early '80s, or modern gear that try to capture that sound. It's more organic to me, more alive, more inspirational. There are many guitarist who, like you, think those tones are boring & played out.
To me the false assumption in this thread is that using newer, more modern instruments would always end up in more clinical and breathless result. I like guitar based music too and own a semi-acoustic 335 copy but claiming a 335 would always be more organic and alive than a strat instead of what's being played is absurd. And even you talk about amps, not guitars.
Old 28th July 2014
  #201
Lives for gear
 
xanax's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirkelein View Post
The point is that there are few modern equivalents. There are two new Prophets but compared to the Prophet 5 they are cheap instruments. A new CS-80 would be astronomical in price (and indeed was at the time as well). The high end manufacturers of today, like MacBeth, posess many of the same qualities that people turn to these vintage instruments for. Much of the vintage quality we talk about can be attributed to expensive components and craftsmanship. I think it's quite fair to say so at any rate.

Of course there is nothing wrong with Voyager craftsmanship, but the components used are not the same as those of the Model D, given that the rest of the tech market dictates what resistors are available, and higher tolerance and lower price is always favoured in every other field.

Tubes vs. transistors, kind of.

Sooner or later somebody realises there is charm in the old "flawed" components, but in the synth market I guess we are too few, and the differences too small. We're still far away from getting new chips made, whilst nice old vacuum tubes never went out of production.
I'm well aware of all that but you also gotta be realistic.. Moog & DSi are in a large-scale global synth business, not the niche compressor business nor the high-end made-to-order business... and despite the obvious nods to their legacy instruments, they are forward thinking companies trying to innovate and can't afford to alienate their customers by releasing astronomically priced synths to satisfy the needs of a handful . May I remind you Moog & Sequential already went bankrupt while Yamaha, Korg & Roland were banking millions with their popular & affordable DCO, FM & later VA synths.. so there is a fine line for them to thread in order to stay relevant in the competitive synth market. They have a rather wide global presence & distribution network as well and would never be able to deliver synths on that scale if they had to source rare 30 year old parts or hand build using old-school techniques a la Macbeth.. so there has to be compromises.. I still find both companies are doing a good job building interesting quality instruments.. still made in the USA.. Moog still uses VCOs.. and DSi have just recreated SSM/CEM type filter chips for their new synth..
Old 28th July 2014
  #202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharp11 View Post
The irony is you're practicing confirmation bias with this post - please read:

Actually that claim is just as biased as my counter claim in that post. Your evidence is just as weak as mine. I could quote the exact posts I draw from just as you have done with mine. You have no real evidence Im practicing CB. That is the problem with the usage of this term - it just gets flung around speculatively.

You dont believe I understand what CB is and I have done for years - I simply dont agree with the prevalence of its usage in these debates - and I am explaining in a way that I can with the evidence I have seen. Ideally I would not have to do that - if people just trusted a little more in what others hear - rather than a knee-jerk reaction labelling as CB. By the way Im not saying CB is not potentially 'part' of the picture in these discussions - its that I doubt it universally explains what people say they hear.

We can go round and round all day making bias claims and counter claim. Your bias is towards looking for the bias in my claims to dismantle them - as opposed to listening to what Im saying or being willing to consider it. Its very boring.

The irony is that Im the one who produced the relatively bias free test - as opposed to posting about.com links on a music forum.

Quote:
a tendency to seek information that confirms their existing beliefs
this is the whole point. People assume too easily that there is significant CB happening - when in fact its just 'a tendency'. It does not mean it is always present and clouding objectivity - especially when you are aware of the bias you can take measures to control it.
Old 28th July 2014
  #203
Lives for gear
 
D_Davis's Avatar
 

It's weird to me how so many people here seem to think that it is the instrument that provides the soul, organic nature, liveliness, inspiration, or dynamic sound, when, in fact, it is the musician.

There is no such thing as a bad instrument, only a bad musician.

A good musician can make great music using anything as a tool.

Some of the best music I ever made was made with a broken 4-track, a broken guitar, a $5 Radioshack microphone, and some shoes tumbling in a dryer and pots and pans for percussion.
Old 28th July 2014
  #204
Lives for gear
 
Thunderkyss's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
To me the false assumption in this thread is that using newer, more modern instruments would always end up to more clinical and breathless result. I like guitar based music too and own a semi-acoustic 335 copy but claiming a 335 would always be more organic and alive than a strat instead of what's being played is absurd. And even you talk about amps, not guitars.
You make a good point.... my reply wasn't really "new vs old" even though I phrased it that way. I meant to address the "played out tone" of the classic instruments versus the newer techniques.

But yeah, there are plenty of manufacturers building new versions of those old designs, PRS amps, Category 5, & several other boutique builders & their products are just as organic as the vintage gear... more or less.


But I was replying to a guy who wants to sample stuff & mangle it.
Old 28th July 2014
  #205
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderkyss View Post
But I was replying to a guy who wants to sample stuff & mangle it.
If I'm not totally out of my mind I might have been the guy.

But you see, more traditional music and electronic music doesn't have that much in common and that's why I like electronic music. Traditional music is all about words, melodies, song structure etc. I understand most people like that tested and true formula.

But in dance music, techno music in particular, there are only two significant factors: good groove and "surprise value". Good groove makes you dance and the surprise value makes you smile, it is something that is completely off, something you couldn't expect. Analog, if capable of providing good groove, doesn't really cut for surprise value anymore.
Old 28th July 2014
  #206
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWAN808 View Post
Actually that claim is just as biased as my counter claim in that post. Your evidence is just as weak as mine. I could quote the exact posts I draw from just as you have done with mine. You have no real evidence Im practicing CB. That is the problem with the usage of this term - it just gets flung around speculatively.

You dont believe I understand what CB is and I have done for years - I simply dont agree with the prevalence of its usage in these debates - and I am explaining in a way that I can with the evidence I have seen. Ideally I would not have to do that - if people just trusted a little more in what others hear - rather than a knee-jerk reaction labelling as CB.

We can go round and round all day making bias claims and counter claim. Your bias is towards looking for the bias in my claims to dismantle them - as opposed to listening to what Im saying or being willing to consider it. Its very boring.

The irony is that Im the one who produced the relatively bias free test - as opposed to posting about.com links on a music forum.



this is the whole point. People assume too easily that there is significant CB happening - when in fact its just 'a tendency'. It does not mean it is always present and clouding objectivity - especially when you are aware of the bias you can take measures to control it.
I provided you a link, did you read it?

Yes, you created a test that was relatively bias free, except for the fact that it told listeners there would be a difference and pointed them to where those differences would be - then came a slew of CB-related posts to try and discredit the result.

Your CB comes in the form of believing those who disagree with your particular theory have "little experience" without any evidence to support this claim (and at the same time apparently being unwilling or unable to understand the statistical significance of your own test result), then you go off into anecdotal land to further try and confirm your bias, a sure example of logical fallacy.
Old 28th July 2014
  #207
Lives for gear
 
Sharp11's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
I agree we all suffer from confirmation bias and that it's best avoided. But that's easier said than done. It's well and good to talk of "objectivity" as a goal but in many ways this can conflict with other goals -- especially as an artist trying to develop a strong personal aesthetic. Bias is not the demon it's often made out to be. Bias can be good. It can help define who we are and what we stand for. Plus, it's essential if you ever want to get anything done! You can go positively cuckoo trying to be objective on all fronts, unbiased, open-minded, politically correct, etc. Sometimes you simply have to hunker down and be yourself in all your biased glory -- at least, long enough to get something done! Then you can sit back and re-evaluate.

And btw if anyone perceives bias in this post, please know it's intentional!
"Suffer" was a poor choice of words on my part; "engage" is better
Old 28th July 2014
  #208
Lives for gear
 
massimo's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Davis View Post
It's weird to me how so many people here seem to think that it is the instrument that provides the soul, organic nature, liveliness, inspiration, or dynamic sound, when, in fact, it is the musician.

There is no such thing as a bad instrument, only a bad musician.

A good musician can make great music using anything as a tool.

Some of the best music I ever made was made with a broken 4-track, a broken guitar, a $5 Radioshack microphone, and some shoes tumbling in a dryer and pots and pans for percussion.
Two entirely different concepts mixed here:
"A good musician can make great music using anything as a tool" - a big YES here!
"There is no such thing as a bad instrument, only a bad musician" - a big WRONG here!

Bad instruments do exist, definitely. Quality varies wildly (as much as retail price...) - just think of an acoustic guitar that doesn't keep intonation up the neck, or that sounds dead. A great instrument really connects to your soul, and can be a powerful source of inspiration. Then it may well be that one owns a great instrument, and is a bad musician or isn't skilled enough to take full advantage of it, but that's another story...
Old 28th July 2014
  #209
Quote:
Originally Posted by D_Davis View Post
It's weird to me how so many people here seem to think that it is the instrument that provides the soul, organic nature, liveliness, inspiration, or dynamic sound, when, in fact, it is the musician.

There is no such thing as a bad instrument, only a bad musician.

A good musician can make great music using anything as a tool.

Some of the best music I ever made was made with a broken 4-track, a broken guitar, a $5 Radioshack microphone, and some shoes tumbling in a dryer and pots and pans for percussion.
Yep.

Hell, all Ilhan Mimaroglu needed was a rubber band.
Old 28th July 2014
  #210
Lives for gear
 
kirkelein's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by coffee View Post
You are absolutely correct in that it's really about the music we like since I would never use a brass patch (even good one) in my music
I hide them in the mix so no one hears them More or less stacked with the guitars they make for a grander more orchestral feel, but cleaner and more sizzly than actual string samples. Perhaps not extremely original in theory but a use of an old clichéd patch that turns out a cool and unique sound nonetheless

Quote:
Originally Posted by xanax View Post
I'm well aware of all that but you also gotta be realistic.. Moog & DSi are in a large-scale global synth business, not the niche compressor business nor the high-end made-to-order business... and despite the obvious nods to their legacy instruments, they are forward thinking companies trying to innovate and can't afford to alienate their customers by releasing astronomically priced synths to satisfy the needs of a handful . May I remind you Moog & Sequential already went bankrupt while Yamaha, Korg & Roland were banking millions with their popular & affordable DCO, FM & later VA synths.. so there is a fine line for them to thread in order to stay relevant in the competitive synth market. They have a rather wide global presence & distribution network as well and would never be able to deliver synths on that scale if they had to source rare 30 year old parts or hand build using old-school techniques a la Macbeth.. so there has to be compromises.. I still find both companies are doing a good job building interesting quality instruments.. still made in the USA.. Moog still uses VCOs.. and DSi have just recreated SSM/CEM type filter chips for their new synth..
Quite right, and I have nothing bad to say about Moog or DSI. I'm not trying to complain, really. Markets change, both on the supply side and the demand side. Someday we will have fat old analogues again without the issues of the past. Maybe we don't have to wait too long; we already have it in spades in the modular realm.
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