The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Analogue where it matters
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #331
TJT
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucer View Post
It's always the most recent
Not for me. I A/B'd Arturia stuff in the past and the differences were pretty obvious. Not so much with a handful of recent vsts. Back to the OP, it might have something to do with the frequency scaling of the oscillators.
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #332
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraze View Post
That's as strawman argument as it can ever get.

The fair question should be "Diva and Boog are both created to sound like a Model D, but which one of them sounds closer?".
Both (well at least a huge chunk of the former) are made with a specific task in mind. One is virtual analog, the other is analog.
The flaw in your statement is that Diva is created to sound like a Model D, and that’s not true. Urs has said that Diva was made as a synth “inspired by” vintage analogs, but that he made design decisions based on his personal preferences and so that each module model could work together in a single framework. So, Diva ends up being sort of “vintage flavored.” Now, if you have a look at Repro, that was where he strove to directly copy the Pro 1, and it’s a noticeable difference. I don’t have a Pro 1, or a Prophet 5, but I do have a Prophet 6, and I can say that in many circumstances the Prophet 6 is very close to the Prophet 5. Note this demo:



To my ears, there’s a ton of times that they sound identical, and when they don’t, I often don’t think either one sounds particularly better. The only thing that can be said is that the Prophet 6 doesn’t perfectly sound like the 10 r4, but often it’s indistinguishable. So, with that “math” I will assume that the Prophet 6 will sound similarly similar to the original. Not perfect, but very close in many situations. I have compared my 6 to Repro, and again, there are many cases where I can’t really tell the difference and more times when there is a difference but I couldn’t point to one that I thought was specifically “better,” like I can when I look at Diva trying to do filter FM of it’s Moog ladder emulation. It plain and simply fails in a way that I think everyone would think is not as good. What’s funny is that I got beaten up for saying this, even Urs piled on, only to later in the conversation admit that he made certain concessions with audio rate modulation stuff to obtain 16 voices on a typical CPU of the time of release. It makes sense, though, because that’s what Diva really is. A 16 voice digital synth inspired by classics, including the all digital Roland JP-8000. Can it go up against a classic analog? Evidently, yes. In some cases at least.

What I think is a shame is that people can’t stop focusing on the differences as if the differences are always bad. So there’s only a subset of settings that let Diva get super close to an OB-8... would you not enjoy an OB-8 with 16 voices and a lot of other interesting features like the modifiers? The trade off is it’s not perfect all the time, but for so little money, seems like a great deal. Not a replacement for your OB-8, but as an extension.
1
Share
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #333
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
*snip*
Of course it's great that virtual analog is making advances.
But to me the point isn't that it emulates something right or wrong, but rather while - yes - in some scenarios it sounds indistinguishable from an analog synth - there's still a specific set of the same scenarios where virtual analog sounds subjectively less "lively" than any analog.

An example of a typical scenario like that would involve moving/modulating cutoff with a notable chunk of resonance and long release time on an amp envelope - the digital representation still lacks something there compared to even cheap(er) DCO stuff.

And, again, the argument isn't that virtual analog sounds bad (it most definitely sounds good) - it's that those extra 10% or even 5% of subjective "sound" is what is important (and available) to me and why I would chose real analog over virtual analog. And it certainly ain't marketing.
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #334
TJT
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraze View Post
Of course it's great that virtual analog is making advances.
But to me the point isn't that it emulates something right or wrong, but rather while - yes - in some scenarios it sounds indistinguishable from an analog synth - there's still a specific set of the same scenarios where virtual analog sounds subjectively less "lively" than any analog.

An example of a typical scenario like that would involve moving/modulating cutoff with a notable chunk of resonance and long release time on an amp envelope - the digital representation still lacks something there compared to even cheap(er) DCO stuff.

And, again, the argument isn't that virtual analog sounds bad (it most definitely sounds good) - it's that those extra 10% or even 5% of subjective "sound" is what is important (and available) to me and why I would chose real analog over virtual analog. And it certainly ain't marketing.

I did a comparison of the Re-Pro to an old recording I made of a Rev.3 Prophet 5. The patch that I couldn't get to quite match was a Poly-Mod sound. Sounded good, but didn't have the same "oomph" (another marketing term). I think Re-Pro sounds amazing though. But, I think audio rate modulation is always tricky in software.
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #335
i'll just note, the statement "there is no such thing as analog sound" is basically correct.

The why is simple, said this before but will repeat it:

NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD A DIGITAL SOUND.
full stop.

The speaker cone moves in and out
it works in accordance with Fourier and it DOES NOT and NEVER HAS performed a single Walsh function. The speaker cone does not go from fully collapsed to fully extended with nothing in between and sound itself just doesn't work that way.
FULL STOP.

This means EVERY sound one has ever heard in the physical realm has been analog. Every single one of them. Even the voice of Siri is analog as can be.
Full Stop.

So the statement "analog sound" as any sort of true statement is a given regarding sound and otherwise a non sequitur.
Full stop.

Now, given that every single sound heard is an "analog sound", what remains in the given case are a set of sounds generally known to originate/come from analog circuit based devices (and even more so "acoustic" devices). Emphasis on "generally known".
To similar end "sounds digital" simply speaks to a set of timbres not known to generally originate from acoustic or analog circuit based devices.
Toward such end, Musique Concrete is made completely by analog means but "sounds digital" in as much that it frequently yields results not known to come from acoustic or analog circuit based synthesizers. It's about as close to a perfect case I can think of "analog emulating digital better than digital can emulate digital" (which sounds about as sensible as digital emulating analog better than analog because it is just as sensible). To similar order, there's no one specific sound analog can do that digital can't. At no point does the speaker say "This current came from a DAC so I'm going on strike and refuse to give any response". This just doesn't happen.
Now, in respect to offering specific "analog behavior" (aka emulation), digital by it's very nature is always chasing the dragon. Walsh pursues perfect Fourier fidelity into infinity. Full stop. (the converse is also true)
What is referred to as "High Definition" is bound to rendered sloppy poor definition as fidelity rates increase. "High Definition" is a marketing term, it is not something that exist in hard reality.

There's nothing to be debated on any of the above, they're just end results of what things are and how they work.

So there is NO, zilch, NADA, magic analog sound that digital can't do; notably within the freq response bandwidth limits of speaker systems as they exist. No matter how badly one would like the speaker cone to go on strike against digital related causes or for the air/pressure waves to join in on the DAC strike, to date, the speakers and air and waves remain complete witting participants on the DACs will sound analog conspiracy.
Now, digital "modelling" specified Analog Behaviors is another matter, and toward such end, it's inherent that any given "emulation" is flawed in comparison to the original otherwise it wouldn't be an emulation. Full stop.
That goes for analog emulating analog, digital emulating digital, digital emulating analog, and analog emulating digital (but I tell ya, that darn analog Musique Concrete emulates digital so damn good it's like "I can't believe it's not digital!")
Eventually emulation stops being emulation and crosses the line into "I AM THE SPECIFIED THING". So if ones ears can't spot an emulation, less that emulation be "the thing", it simply means ones senses aren't keen enough to spot the differences the emulation assuredly has.

anyhow.....
i'm sure this will all be ignored....
so as you were
resume arguments on nothing
and references to the the mythical digital sound no ones ever heard and how it doesn't sound analog. here's to hoping one day that "analog sound" will surely be found.....

the linguistic portion of this thread was more interesting than the "but my analog sounds more analog than analog" carrying on. "Analog sound"..... meh
nonsense.
1
Share
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #336
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
Tell me more about this wonderful “turning table randomizer.”
well, it's a simple MTS editor that comes with the P12 and Peak synth editors in my sequencer.
You can import Anamark .tun files, edit the note frequencies (coarse+fine), randomize them (not too useful) but there's also an additional "detune2" setting for each note that can also be randomized (0..100%).

Here's another demo (using the Peak this time. 8 tables again):
Attached Files
1
Share
Old 26th November 2020 | Show parent
  #337
Lives for gear
 
string6theory's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien23 View Post
i'll just note, the statement "there is no such thing as analog sound" is basically correct.

The why is simple, said this before but will repeat it:

NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD A DIGITAL SOUND.
full stop.

...

anyhow.....
i'm sure this will all be ignored....
so as you were
resume arguments on nothing
and references to the the mythical digital sound no ones ever heard and how it doesn't sound analog. here's to hoping one day that "analog sound" will surely be found.....

the linguistic portion of this thread was more interesting than the "but my analog sounds more analog than analog" carrying on. "Analog sound"..... meh
nonsense.

It's funny, I decided to peruse this thread and had the exact same thought as you... was contemplating posting it, then read yours.

So, now, I will argue with myself... and our like-minded thoughts on the matter;


It's like saying no one can taste the difference between a 1/2 chicken cooked in a microwave vs the other 1/2 baked in an oven.


So, I guess what I'm saying is when it comes to digital vs analog DERIVED sound, we're still chewing chicken.




As far as synths go, the Hydrasynth has definitely influenced my perception of digital vs analog filters, in that their digital emulations of analog filters can sound very convincingly like chicken.

Then again, I'm glad the MicroFreak has its analog filters because they're like nicely browned, oven-baked, soft and crispy sonic chicken skin.



Moral of the story?

Where and how a sound is generated is completely besides the point when it comes to making music with it.

We also breed and slaughter way too many chickens.
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #338
Lives for gear
 
steelyfan's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
More music, less chatter.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #339
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by TJT View Post
I would say, if I had to live with making tracks with Monark, it would be okay. But, it takes a decent amount of CPU, and there is no hands on control beyond a Komplete Kontrol, which is not the same thing. There is nothing that matches the sound of the Voyager and has the modulation. And the Odyssey Vsts are also not quite there, I've A/B'd them. Once you get into audio rate modulation, they don't match at all.

I don't think there is anything in software that matches my Tetras. I'll be working on a line with Lush 101, and can't find that sweet spot for what i want, and it's instantaneous once I switch to the Tetra. It just sounds "big." (marketing term). So, if you want an analog sound with hands on control, but you want extensive modulation capabilities without compromising the overall sound and bringing your cpu to a grinding halt (with oversampling enabled), get a Rev.2. I think the new Massive is supposed to sound good, but I don't think it has 8 lfo's, and I think it's a cpu hog.

So, yeah, agree to disagree.
This has been my stance for a long time. If my wife and I lost our jobs and had to scramble for a place to live, I could easily continue making music with my software and controllers on a small desk... but nothing sounds like my my hardware synths. Sure, I could get somewhat close. I once tried copying one of my ATC-X patches on Legend and got scarily close, but the ATC-X has 2 dedicated LFOS, three EGs, etc. Oh, and if I use the Monark Blocks in Reaktor I can have as many LFOs and whatnot as I like, but if you try and run that .ens at double your project sample rate, be prepared to run out of CPU if you’ve got a bunch of other things going on. Even with a room full of hardware synths, I still picked up a UAD Apollo to run effects plugins for when I’m using hungrier plugins. That can definitely be an issue and if you like to jam live in a DAW environment, you need to run at low buffer sizes.

My advice is to try not to think about the tech behind your instrument and instead think about how it sounds and what it can do. Analog is great, but plenty of great music has been made without it too. There’s great cheap analog now too, great plugins that do a good impersonation, and great hardware VA, and hybrids.
5
Share
Old 27th November 2020
  #340
Lives for gear
 
cogsy's Avatar
 
🎧 5 years
Who, other than synth players, is asked to justify buying and playing a hardware instrument? If wager that exactly ZERO times has one trombone player said to another, "You know, Heinrich, you don't need an actual trombone. This trombone VST sounds just as good. It has slide rate control, multiple mute settings, and fully rendered digital spit valve emulation. Only a sucker would buy a real trombone."
6
Share
Old 27th November 2020
  #341
Lives for gear
 
Bignatius's Avatar
Real > Virtual, always and forever.
2
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #342
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogsy View Post
Who, other than synth players, is asked to justify buying and playing a hardware instrument? If wager that exactly ZERO times has one trombone player said to another, "You know, Heinrich, you don't need an actual trombone. This trombone VST sounds just as good. It has slide rate control, multiple mute settings, and fully rendered digital spit valve emulation. Only a sucker would buy a real trombone."
I worked in a music shop that actually was also the largest publisher of trombone music in the world. Our general focus was orchestral instruments and I can assure you, what happens in that world with even more minute differences than what we talk about is very real.
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #343
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraze View Post
Of course it's great that virtual analog is making advances.
But to me the point isn't that it emulates something right or wrong, but rather while - yes - in some scenarios it sounds indistinguishable from an analog synth - there's still a specific set of the same scenarios where virtual analog sounds subjectively less "lively" than any analog.

An example of a typical scenario like that would involve moving/modulating cutoff with a notable chunk of resonance and long release time on an amp envelope - the digital representation still lacks something there compared to even cheap(er) DCO stuff.

And, again, the argument isn't that virtual analog sounds bad (it most definitely sounds good) - it's that those extra 10% or even 5% of subjective "sound" is what is important (and available) to me and why I would chose real analog over virtual analog. And it certainly ain't marketing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJT View Post
I did a comparison of the Re-Pro to an old recording I made of a Rev.3 Prophet 5. The patch that I couldn't get to quite match was a Poly-Mod sound. Sounded good, but didn't have the same "oomph" (another marketing term). I think Re-Pro sounds amazing though. But, I think audio rate modulation is always tricky in software.
I think it’s all a matter of processing speed. I think there are plenty of talented people who’ve made huge strides in the past 15 years. I think the “oomph” that TJT speaks of is a fair assessment, but I do think it’s not a matter of some super complicated phenomenon that is beyond human comprehension. I think the lack of ‘oomph” comes down to a decision to do things like limit the amount of over sampling of modulation signals.

The way I look at it, and I may be wrong, but they’ll soon catch up, which is great for a few reasons. What they’re going after now are pretty simple synths. The Prophet 5 isn’t a modulation powerhouse, neither is the Model D. This will hopefully spur companies like Sequential to make synths like the 6 mk2 that’s got all the vibe and tone of the 5 r4 but with a modulation engine similar to the 08. Then software will have to make another jump to deal with all the extra calculations all those extra modulation data requires.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #344
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alien23 View Post
i'll just note, the statement "there is no such thing as analog sound" is basically correct.

The why is simple, said this before but will repeat it:

NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD A DIGITAL SOUND.
full stop.

The speaker cone moves in and out
it works in accordance with Fourier and it DOES NOT and NEVER HAS performed a single Walsh function. The speaker cone does not go from fully collapsed to fully extended with nothing in between and sound itself just doesn't work that way.
FULL STOP.

This means EVERY sound one has ever heard in the physical realm has been analog. Every single one of them. Even the voice of Siri is analog as can be.
Full Stop.

So the statement "analog sound" as any sort of true statement is a given regarding sound and otherwise a non sequitur.
Full stop.

Now, given that every single sound heard is an "analog sound", what remains in the given case are a set of sounds generally known to originate/come from analog circuit based devices (and even more so "acoustic" devices). Emphasis on "generally known".
To similar end "sounds digital" simply speaks to a set of timbres not known to generally originate from acoustic or analog circuit based devices.
Toward such end, Musique Concrete is made completely by analog means but "sounds digital" in as much that it frequently yields results not known to come from acoustic or analog circuit based synthesizers. It's about as close to a perfect case I can think of "analog emulating digital better than digital can emulate digital" (which sounds about as sensible as digital emulating analog better than analog because it is just as sensible). To similar order, there's no one specific sound analog can do that digital can't. At no point does the speaker say "This current came from a DAC so I'm going on strike and refuse to give any response". This just doesn't happen.
Now, in respect to offering specific "analog behavior" (aka emulation), digital by it's very nature is always chasing the dragon. Walsh pursues perfect Fourier fidelity into infinity. Full stop. (the converse is also true)
What is referred to as "High Definition" is bound to rendered sloppy poor definition as fidelity rates increase. "High Definition" is a marketing term, it is not something that exist in hard reality.

There's nothing to be debated on any of the above, they're just end results of what things are and how they work.

So there is NO, zilch, NADA, magic analog sound that digital can't do; notably within the freq response bandwidth limits of speaker systems as they exist. No matter how badly one would like the speaker cone to go on strike against digital related causes or for the air/pressure waves to join in on the DAC strike, to date, the speakers and air and waves remain complete witting participants on the DACs will sound analog conspiracy.
Now, digital "modelling" specified Analog Behaviors is another matter, and toward such end, it's inherent that any given "emulation" is flawed in comparison to the original otherwise it wouldn't be an emulation. Full stop.
That goes for analog emulating analog, digital emulating digital, digital emulating analog, and analog emulating digital (but I tell ya, that darn analog Musique Concrete emulates digital so damn good it's like "I can't believe it's not digital!")
Eventually emulation stops being emulation and crosses the line into "I AM THE SPECIFIED THING". So if ones ears can't spot an emulation, less that emulation be "the thing", it simply means ones senses aren't keen enough to spot the differences the emulation assuredly has.

anyhow.....
i'm sure this will all be ignored....
so as you were
resume arguments on nothing
and references to the the mythical digital sound no ones ever heard and how it doesn't sound analog. here's to hoping one day that "analog sound" will surely be found.....

the linguistic portion of this thread was more interesting than the "but my analog sounds more analog than analog" carrying on. "Analog sound"..... meh
nonsense.
You’re arguing a weird point. We all understand that by the time a DAC starts outputting a voltage we’re in an analog realm. “Analog sound” is just a term we’re using as basic shorthand to denote “characteristics associated with analog synthesizers.” For instance, there’s something about analog filters I noticed early on. When they’re going into self oscillation, some types rise in pitch. It’s actually annoying. So you can tune your resonance just so... and then it goes sharp. Digital filters don’t do this, unless they’re emulating that phenomenon. You can argue which is better, but that’s a different story.
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #345
Lives for gear
 
Not so sure. I can imagine that a Virtual psychotic reaction could in some instances be better than a real one. You know like 'I know kung fu' zzzzzzzzzpt! Get over your self. Finish with cleaning your teeth exit the bathroom with a smile on your face to a brand new day!

I love the smell of napalm first thing in the morning!




Quote:
Originally Posted by Bignatius View Post
Real > Virtual, always and forever.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #346
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
Did someone ever tell where analog matters? Must be quite individual and dependent of personal preferences like anything else, which is discussed as if it wasn't.

For my concern, analog has a place where it really matters, but it is actually only synthbass sounds. Pads, leads, chords are mainly food for my digitals, but my sonic memeories of the 80s; JJM, Yazoo, Human League and Depeche Mode basses just crave the sound from me. I spend years trying to achieve these with VSTis before the analog revivial, and though I can get close with some, I never hit the bell. In constrast, my analogs are but one big bell, and thus I cannot really miss it.

So thats where analog matters to me. How about ye?
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #347
Lives for gear
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bignatius View Post
Real > Virtual, always and forever.
Hmm. I 100% believe that there will come a point where it's indistinguishable. But, quite likely, it's more that people who care about "analog sound" will continue to fade away as the decades pass (not to mention that the machines will break down so few, if any, will exist... will there be 250 year-old Junos around still working and sounding original?).
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #348
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogsy View Post
Who, other than synth players, is asked to justify buying and playing a hardware instrument? If wager that exactly ZERO times has one trombone player said to another, "You know, Heinrich, you don't need an actual trombone. This trombone VST sounds just as good. It has slide rate control, multiple mute settings, and fully rendered digital spit valve emulation. Only a sucker would buy a real trombone."
No one wanting to work with genuine analog circuitry should ever have to justify not working with digital emulations instead.

Among the many benefits of working with genuine analog technology is that I can completely forget whether or not it sounds “real” or “authentic” and just get on with it.

It’s also become a lot less expensive to get good sounding analog instruments. Right now, for 265€, you can get a genuine analog Pro-1 clone that sounds real and authentic.

And get on with it.
6
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #349
Gear Maniac
 
Disharmonic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitocorleone123 View Post
But, quite likely, it's more that people who care about "analog sound" will continue to fade away as the decades pass (not to mention that the machines will break down so few, if any, will exist... will there be 250 year-old Junos around still working and sounding original?).
Perhaps mainstream interest fades away, but it's possible analog survives as a niche market in the future.
2
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #350
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitocorleone123 View Post
Hmm. I 100% believe that there will come a point where it's indistinguishable. But, quite likely, it's more that people who care about "analog sound" will continue to fade away as the decades pass (not to mention that the machines will break down so few, if any, will exist... will there be 250 year-old Junos around still working and sounding original?).
There won't be Junos, but there will be other synths.

Junos stand apart because no modern synth manufacturer thinks about sticking an analog chorus (another thing where the digital isn't quite succeeding at - and, ironically, in a way Roland acknowledged that with Waza Craft pedals) into their synth.

Make a synth with a great and simple control layout, put SSI2045 (or CoolAudio alternative) as a filter in there, add a fat analog chorus and undercut ebay pricing of Juno 106 - people will start recommending that over Juno in no time. It will turn into an exclusivity item/museum piece
2
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #351
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disharmonic View Post
Allow me to go a little technical here, just to give an example. The Colossus, made by Analogue Solutions is an expensive, impressive synth. It uses the RC4558, it's basically a dual 741 opamp. Old technology, the numbers in the datasheet are telling us that modern parts are superior. Why did the designer use those old, "crappy" opamps? Because he was designing a musical instrument, besides working with numbers he also listened with his ears and used the subjective experience so the instrument sings. It's science, engineering and art.
Indeed it is.

It's also why I think Ken Macbeth's instruments sound so good. Here's what he has to say about it:

“The work involved in the original X-Series modules took over a year and a half of research and development. Seeking that ‘fat’ sound was always the priority. I spent a lot of time analyzing ancient circuits, schematics and parts. I came to the conclusion that to synthesize the old sounds, one is ultimately going to use old part types. Luckily many are still currently, freely available. I’m talking about 5% and 10% tolerance Carbon Resistors. I’m also talking about basic Ceramic Plate Capacitors, Mylar and Polypropelene Capacitors. Tech Heads will indeed shake their heads and raise questions about the use of such out-moded parts. Surely these days we use Surface Mount Devices, no? No! It’s surprising but some of the world’s best loved analogue synths feature parts that were cheap and available. With a few exceptions, the latter day synthesizers contain what could only be considered as poor quality parts. But nonetheless these old instruments are considered the benchmark for today’s products.”

I don't have the expertise to debate his design philosophy on a technical level, but I do have experience with his instruments. They sound fantastic.

As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
4
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #352
Gear Maniac
 
Disharmonic's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
... Luckily many are still currently, freely available. ...
Yes, but finding old semiconductors is sometimes hard. A while ago I was lucky and found a bunch of old 709 opamps, old fashioned metal can package. Manufactured in 1973, they were sitting on the shelf where I bought them for several decades, probably. With a 709 you can make a CrackleBox.
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #353
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
"It’s surprising but some of the world’s best loved analogue synths feature parts that were cheap and available."
Yeah it was pretty fun realizing (when I had it serviced) that 110F is all off the shelf parts available in electronic parts stores in the year 1980.

Like its fat filter is just 4 of these little guys stuck together in a ladder
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #354
Lives for gear
 
🎧 5 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by cogsy View Post
"You know, Heinrich, you don't need an actual trombone. This trombone VST sounds just as good.
Actually... In a full orchestra mix... In a piece without any strange trombone only solos... With some pro quality samples...
I don't think anyone would notice it was a VST playing.
https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Brass_I/Tenor_trombone#!Demos

So if Heinrich was a guy responsible for recording the orchestra and his trombone player didn't make it to the session for some reason, what you hypothetically quoted above would be very reasonable.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #355
Lives for gear
 
maisonvague's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraze View Post
...add a fat analog chorus...
This is among the many things Baloran got right on The River: integrating his analog tri-chorus rack device known as The Triko into the unit. It sounds amazing.

I’ve got the inputs connected to my patchbay so I can easily run other synths through it. The Triko can transform even the weakest sounding synths into something remarkable.

Earlier I mentioned the MFB Synth Pro. It’s a nice sounding synth, but the VCOs sound a bit dull and thin. Add some EQ, then run it through the tri-chorus, the difference is night and day.

Chorus would definitely fall into the “analog where it matters” category for me—not necessarily because it can’t be properly emulated digitally, but rather because it sounds so good as it is, I would go (and have gone) to the trouble of procuring genuine analog units before turning to digital.

If I had no other choice, and needed chorus, sure, I'd use a digital chorus. But since I do have a choice, I will go with what already sounds good and isn’t in need of emulation. This would apply to other gear as well.

Then, there are times when I'll purposefully go for a digital chorus/flanger effect. I have fond memories of my DeltaLabs Effectron, my first digital FX unit. That had the nastiest sounding digital flanger on the planet. It was awesome.
5
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #356
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by vitocorleone123 View Post
Hmm. I 100% believe that there will come a point where it's indistinguishable. But, quite likely, it's more that people who care about "analog sound" will continue to fade away as the decades pass (not to mention that the machines will break down so few, if any, will exist... will there be 250 year-old Junos around still working and sounding original?).
At some point it does start to sound like religion, doesn’t it?

Ultimately it’s all technology. Humans make stuff. I’m not an electronics expert, or a computer science engineer, but I did have a class in basic electronics where everything was expressed as math. I’m sure those simple equations wouldn’t explain everything going on in a synthesizer, but to say that there isn’t math that can 100% explain a Model D... I call b.s.

OTOH, what code can’t describe is how you feel when you’re sitting with an instrument. I get that, but let’s say that. I don’t have that feeling with any synthesizer, but I do have it with my guitars, but I’ve owned them for 30 years or more. Maybe when my Prophet 6 turns 20, I’ll have that kind of feeling about it.
1
Share
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #357
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
No one wanting to work with genuine analog circuitry should ever have to justify not working with digital emulations instead.
True. Is anyone saying otherwise? My only issue is that in an economic sense, there are plain and simply not enough classic synths to go around for everyone who wants one. When those instruments were first made, there were less humans on the planet, and a lot less electronic musicians, for sure. It’s nice to see that there are finally options for new gear, but I’d be wary of the quality and longevity of the cheap stuff.

Quote:
Among the many benefits of working with genuine analog technology is that I can completely forget whether or not it sounds “real” or “authentic” and just get on with it.
You can completely forget about that using digital emulations as well. Well, maybe you can’t, because that toothpaste will never get back into that tube, but for those of us with some more time since the last encounter with a classic synth, I find it pretty easy to just get lost in the merits of whatever I’m using. I often wonder what a guy like you would come up with if they spent an afternoon with Blade 2. It’s pretty much as far as one can get from “analog” so maybe you could just get into it for what it is. There’s a similar hardware synth called Vector, but for the cost of a dinner out, it’s worth it, IMO.

Quote:
It’s also become a lot less expensive to get good sounding analog instruments. Right now, for 265€, you can get a genuine analog Pro-1 clone that sounds real and authentic.

And get on with it.
Are we not getting “on with it?” I think it’s wrong to mistake the machinations we read here with some sort of paralysis. I mean, I’ve read the posts of the person who seems to be waiting for some magic instrument before they can get to making their hit album, but those delusional people are few. Most of us are just getting on with whatever we can get our hands on, or if there are no limits, whatever we decide works best. The conversation is very different now, that Uli Behringer (from here on in, known as “Voldemort.” ) has made physical instruments that come in for not too much more than a plugin. I hope that whatever he’s doing doesn’t destroy companies like Moog, Sequential, etc, because those instruments don’t do anything for me. Not like I have a shortage of instruments, but I like that there’s a vibrant competition. I’d hate to see it destroyed as much as I like that there’s now things available to anyone.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #358
Gear Guru
 
zerocrossing's Avatar
 
🎧 10 years
Quote:
Originally Posted by kraze View Post
There won't be Junos, but there will be other synths.

Junos stand apart because no modern synth manufacturer thinks about sticking an analog chorus (another thing where the digital isn't quite succeeding at - and, ironically, in a way Roland acknowledged that with Waza Craft pedals) into their synth.

Make a synth with a great and simple control layout, put SSI2045 (or CoolAudio alternative) as a filter in there, add a fat analog chorus and undercut ebay pricing of Juno 106 - people will start recommending that over Juno in no time. It will turn into an exclusivity item/museum piece
I sometime wonder if modern synths will end up being the Junos, Jupiters, Prophet 5s (well that one...) of the future. I don’t think it’ll ever be like that, because those things were sort of the first wave of mass produced, commercially available instruments.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #359
Quote:
Originally Posted by zerocrossing View Post
I sometime wonder if modern synths will end up being the Junos, Jupiters, Prophet 5s (well that one...) of the future. I don’t think it’ll ever be like that, because those things were sort of the first wave of mass produced, commercially available instruments.
Sort of like the question of if there'd ever be another TB-303 incident....

I could actually see something like this happening, on analog sides just out of some odd components that ceased to have been getting used and on digital sides I can see incidents of just locked up and lost code leading to firmware that leads to a bizarre chasing of emulation down. (purely software I see this being much less of an issue for). The Sid Chip, Nintendo, and Megadrive synths I think may be "semi"-primed for some sort of thing like this to occur in the not to distant future..... the variety of odd analog synths (and even other hardware instruments) out there from independents that are of highly limited issue (if multiple issue at all) are other cases.
Old 27th November 2020 | Show parent
  #360
Lives for gear
 
NawSon's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by maisonvague View Post
Indeed it is.

It's also why I think Ken Macbeth's instruments sound so good. Here's what he has to say about it:

“The work involved in the original X-Series modules took over a year and a half of research and development. Seeking that ‘fat’ sound was always the priority. I spent a lot of time analyzing ancient circuits, schematics and parts. I came to the conclusion that to synthesize the old sounds, one is ultimately going to use old part types. Luckily many are still currently, freely available. I’m talking about 5% and 10% tolerance Carbon Resistors. I’m also talking about basic Ceramic Plate Capacitors, Mylar and Polypropelene Capacitors. Tech Heads will indeed shake their heads and raise questions about the use of such out-moded parts. Surely these days we use Surface Mount Devices, no? No! It’s surprising but some of the world’s best loved analogue synths feature parts that were cheap and available. With a few exceptions, the latter day synthesizers contain what could only be considered as poor quality parts. But nonetheless these old instruments are considered the benchmark for today’s products.”

I don't have the expertise to debate his design philosophy on a technical level, but I do have experience with his instruments. They sound fantastic.

As the saying goes, the proof is in the pudding.
Part of this is the mindset of Computers is the mindset behind VSTs and digital recreations and thus is more common and thus also affects modern analogs. This mindset is “faster and more precise = better”.

When it comes to synths it turns out this mindset can be very very incorrect.
2
Share
Closed
Topic:
🖨️ Show Printable Version
✉️ Email this Page
🔍 Search thread
🎙️ View mentioned gear
Forum Jump
Forum Jump