Your VSTi sounds analog? - OK then emulate this!

[whyterabbyt]

Hard to find unprocessed audio of certain analog synths...

Even if it wasnt, the OP is relying on the difficulty of carrying out the emulation (ie discerning the original patch configuration, and then transliterating that into a completely different synth topology), in order to conflate the failure of emulation of a specific sound with a generic quality disparity in the two underlying classes of synth.

[IncarnateX]

Sorry, did I miss the bit where you defined 'reproduce' in terms of some sort of rigorous scientific standard or metric?

Because the way these kinda horsecock 'reproduce my synth' threads usually go is that the OP invariably intends to say 'no' to everything all along, entirely arbitrarily, whether it actually gets close or not.

Well I would die for a softsynth that could come close enough to my taste but yes, in principle I could reject any examples given, even if they were outright copies of the vids to fool me. However, my goal is not to demonstrate that it cannot be done, which is a claim that I believe cannot be proven. See my post to Hakey.

[suthnear]

kinda horsecock 'reproduce my synth' threads usually go is that the OP invariably intends to say 'no' to everything all along, entirely arbitrarily, whether it actually gets close or not.

Bingo. I love analogue synths and have many of them, but this pretty much settled this chestnut of a forum topic for me:

https://soundcloud.com/nativeinstrument ... comparison

[kmonkey]

Reproduce my examples plz! Anything else is opinionated bullshit. Now be a man and meet my challenge. Long egocentric speeches will convince me of nothing but at best bore me to death and make me back off quite naturally.

Thing is, the Leipzig doesn't sound like that either. The examples are clearly processed with delays and what not.

Agreed. There seem to be some FXs involved.

Hard to find unprocessed audio of certain analog synths and YouTube videos don't have great quality anyway...


Ingo

OP of that video posted that it's a dry example. Read comment on that video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEdj4A81 ... e=youtu.be

hello is the sound dry? ..impressive

rezfilter 7 months ago
Yes, t'was dry, thanks...

But i think i am hearing reverb as well

Anyway or other Youtube is perfectly able to deliver what people think in most of the cases. People should stop shitting about music compression on youtube. Good music still sounds good to me (even after compression)..i guess we will now turn this in to youtube shitparty offtopic thread..

[IncarnateX]

Thing is, the Leipzig doesn't sound like that either. The examples are clearly processed with delays and what not.

Then add a delay and what not. I just want the sound whether it is analog or analog processed with digital gear or even if it all is a hoax and the synths really are digital to the bone.

[whyterabbyt]

Thus it will remain an open question until someone proves that it can be done.

Again there is no qualifier as to what 'proof' actually entails here. Until you actually provide a concrete objective mechanism for making the comparison, and a standard by which success or failure can be measured, there is no real question in the first place.

Taking the opposite position because no one yet has proved it is actually a fallacy: "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". A variation of the argument from ignorance.

The only reason this would be the case is because of your refusal to provide scientific constraints. Once those constraints are properly defined, it would actually be possible to prove that this can or cannot be done at all.

[afreshcupofjoe]

OP of that video posted that it's a dry example. Read comment on that video

If you can't hear the reverb and delay in that clip you are f**king deaf. Seriously. "Dry" my ass.

This whole thing is such a stupid argument anyway. Keep on beating that dead horse, people.

[kmonkey]

OP of that video posted that it's a dry example. Read comment on that video

If you can't hear the reverb and delay in that clip you are f**king deaf. Seriously. "Dry" my ass.

This whole thing is such a stupid argument anyway. Keep on beating that dead horse, people.

Since you quoted me mind you to ask do you (f**king) know to read? I've just said that apart from delay which was mentioned i am hearing reverb as well..

And i am not finding it stupid since actually no one ever posted such example in software. Op just said it that he doesn't care if ivideo is digital or analog he just want to know with which software he can replicate it - alas noone can give good example. All they do is kinda : it's possible...

Sure..i heard that it's possible to rape pink elephant..anything is possible..So in exchange of "keep on beating dead horse" can you actually point to dead horse?

[Ingonator]

Well I would die for a softsynth that could come close enough to my taste but yes, in principle I could reject any examples given, even if they were outright copies of the vids to fool me. However, my goal is not to demonstrate that it cannot be done, which is a claim that I believe cannot be proven. See my post to Hakey.

Based on this statement your post sounds a bit strange:

I am not even an analog freak, I use software for everything and have some old analogs collecting dust at the roof. But these examples are in my ears. Analog Solutions has really nailed something here.

This means that CURRENTLY you are actually not using an analog synth yourself.
Those examples are not from YOU. It would have been bbetter if you would have posted audio demos of your own synths (those which are stored at the roof...).


I currently own (and use) two real analog synths myself and already mentioned i think only a few plugin could really nail the analog sound (e.g. Monark, TAL BassLine-101, Diva, TAL U-NO-LX etc.). Anyway it is still difficult to explain what "analog sound" really is without having experienced it yourself.

I could not be arsed to replicate that example from the video. I got lots of trouble here when posting a comparison of an analog synth with Diva in the past...
Also when posting audio demos of patches i had made on a Moog Slim Phatty most reactions were sarcastic or even worse.
KVR does not really seem to be the place for those "analog vs plugin" comparisons.

Anyway i had made A/B comparisons of Monark patches and raw samples of the corresponding Minimoog patches and could confirm those were sounding almost identical. Later this was confirmed by Klaus P. Rausch (the creator of the Minimoog patch book which cotained a CD with those samples) when i met him at the Musikmesse (i wasin contact with him before that).

Here are 4 A/B comparisons of patches i reprogrammed from the patch book and the corresponding samples (first Monark, then Minimoog):

Monark + Minimoog - 3 Osc Octave Bass
Monark + Minimoog - Brain Salad Surgery
Monark + Minimoog - Fattest Squares
Monark + Minimoog - Long Filter Sweep Lead



Ingo

[IncarnateX]

Again there is no qualifier as to what 'proof' actually entails here. Until you actually provide a concrete objective mechanism for making the comparison, and a standard by which success or failure can be measured, there is no real question in the first place.

The only reason this would be the case is because of your refusal to provide scientific constraints. Once those constraints are properly defined, it would actually be possible to prove that this can or cannot be done at all.

Come on. You complicate things more than necessary here. I am not a native English speaker but according to a few online dictionaries there are several definitions of proof:
1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
2.
a. The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions.
b. A statement or argument used in such a validation.
3.
a. Convincing or persuasive demonstration: was asked for proof of his identity; an employment history that was proof of her dependability.
b. The state of being convinced or persuaded by consideration of evidence.
4. Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
5. Law The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

I ask for something like 3a. and do not propose that I could provide any scientific constraints to a subject like this in the first place of the kind you are suggesting. That is confirmed by the statement "more or less precisely" in my OP, which certainly opens any demonstrations to a good deal of subjective interpretations and disagreements. However not even diversive subjective judgments can be executed without sound demonstrations.

[kmonkey]

Phew..Like i said, don't bother. If you want that sound order one of that synth, one cheap delay and Alesis midiverb and you are set to go in to your dreamland..Really..

[hakey]

Not possible, even using the same synths. /end thread?

Nope, because your proposition can not be tested. You cannot demonstrate that it cannot be done, but only demonstrate that it can.

There might be an invisible teapot in orbit around Mars - least ways, it can't be disproved, so we must consider it a serious possibility.

[IncarnateX]

This means that CURRENTLY you are actually not using an analog synth yourself.

Those examples are not from YOU. Let's speak again if you post some example of you own synths which are stored at the roof...

Why should I do that? You must have missed something here. I am not using analog synths but that doesn't mean I do not like to use a softsynth that will be able to reproduce the examples given. Where is the contradiction in that?

Basically I could afford a Telemark but like the convenience of software and that is certainly not incompatible with the wish for a softsynth that could emulate the Telemark and Leibzig S (which I do not own by the way).

Try again. And this time provide some emulations of some snippets from the vids.

[whyterabbyt]

Not possible, even using the same synths. /end thread?

Nope, because your proposition can not be tested. You cannot demonstrate that it cannot be done, but only demonstrate that it can.

There might be an invisible teapot in orbit around Mars - least ways, it can't be disproved, so we must consider it a serious possibility.

I, for one, welcom our new invisible martian teapot overlords.

[IncarnateX]

There might be an invisible teapot in orbit around Mars - least ways, it can't be disproved, so we must consider it a serious possibility.

Not quite. You only has to consider it a claim that can not be rejected by proof. Just like when people say "You can not prove the existence of God therefore he does not exist" or the opposite "you can not disprove the existence of God therefore he exist". According to simple rules of logic these are both fallacies. Thus whether any of the claims reveals a "serious possibility" is a question of believe. And I get your message. You do not believe it can be done. Fine. You are free to believe anything....

well maybe not on KVR but in principle!