Digital or analog?
-
- KVRer
- Topic Starter
- 8 posts since 22 Jun, 2017
The digital vs analog argument has been going on a long time, and in my mind it's not the same debate it used to be due to high bit/sample rates and cheap processors. With the emergence of 32bit audio and 64bit filters, can digital compete with analog in the synth world? What would convince an analog purist to buy digital?
-
- KVRAF
- 3477 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
We touched on this in another thread recently.
Repeating myself from that thread here, but a lot of people don't seem to grasp that analogue synths were often terrible, beaten by even the early VSTis and the VA modelling synths of the 90s. Very few people had a beautifully maintained Model D. They were more likely to have a crackly, beaten-up Davolisint. The 6-year-old Diva sounds better than most of the low-cost analogues of recent years.
The topic is so broad it's essentially meaningless when you take the actual synths out of the equation and just reduce it to 'digital' and 'analogue'. It's like asking if a car with a sunroof is better than a car without. Well, what's the rest of the car like? Are we talking about a Lada or a Lamborghini?
Repeating myself from that thread here, but a lot of people don't seem to grasp that analogue synths were often terrible, beaten by even the early VSTis and the VA modelling synths of the 90s. Very few people had a beautifully maintained Model D. They were more likely to have a crackly, beaten-up Davolisint. The 6-year-old Diva sounds better than most of the low-cost analogues of recent years.
The topic is so broad it's essentially meaningless when you take the actual synths out of the equation and just reduce it to 'digital' and 'analogue'. It's like asking if a car with a sunroof is better than a car without. Well, what's the rest of the car like? Are we talking about a Lada or a Lamborghini?
-
- KVRAF
- 7540 posts since 7 Aug, 2003 from San Francisco Bay Area
Which is better, a gas powered car or an electric vehicle? Well, better for what purpose? Which specific models are being compared?
Incomplete list of my gear: 1/8" audio input jack.
-
- KVRAF
- 5818 posts since 9 Jul, 2002 from Helsinki
If we stick to the forum subject, modular synthesis, a sensible comparison is between Reaktor Blocks and eurorack.
Soundwise there isn't much difference. They both can sound bad or good depending on the human operating them. They differ in possibilities and playability. With Blocks, you can have hundreds of modules at your disposal, from which you select a number for your patch. This many modules in hardware is very expensive, and if you own that many you're either rich or have spent a substantial amount of your income over several years to build such system.
However, with hardware you can actually use them at the same time- with Blocks your CPU is the limit. You can more directly interact with hardware modules, patch them physically and have an awesome blinking starship control panel under the incomprehensible cable spaghetti. With Blocks your cable spaghetti is neatly tucked behind the panels, which means you have two wildly different ways of getting completely lost with the routing.
With Blocks, you can save patches and build control and automation on top. With eurorack, you need to take photos and make notes and still struggle to recall a patch, and rely on pure CV or become an octopus to modulate the patch in the same way you can with VST automation... or combine it with Reaktor/Bitwig.
Personally, Blocks fullfill my actual musical needs as what comes to modular synthesis, and offers years of learning possibilities- getting the most out of modular synth is not so much a matter of technology or system as it is about human skills. I could get one module for the price of Reaktor6, which is of course way more than just Blocks.
Do I still consider a eurorack system? Yes, there's something super exciting about the whole build process, open-endness and having a flexible, tangible musical platform. Apparently I don't currently consider this worth the thousands (3-4Keur) of euros a decent setup costs.
Soundwise there isn't much difference. They both can sound bad or good depending on the human operating them. They differ in possibilities and playability. With Blocks, you can have hundreds of modules at your disposal, from which you select a number for your patch. This many modules in hardware is very expensive, and if you own that many you're either rich or have spent a substantial amount of your income over several years to build such system.
However, with hardware you can actually use them at the same time- with Blocks your CPU is the limit. You can more directly interact with hardware modules, patch them physically and have an awesome blinking starship control panel under the incomprehensible cable spaghetti. With Blocks your cable spaghetti is neatly tucked behind the panels, which means you have two wildly different ways of getting completely lost with the routing.
With Blocks, you can save patches and build control and automation on top. With eurorack, you need to take photos and make notes and still struggle to recall a patch, and rely on pure CV or become an octopus to modulate the patch in the same way you can with VST automation... or combine it with Reaktor/Bitwig.
Personally, Blocks fullfill my actual musical needs as what comes to modular synthesis, and offers years of learning possibilities- getting the most out of modular synth is not so much a matter of technology or system as it is about human skills. I could get one module for the price of Reaktor6, which is of course way more than just Blocks.
Do I still consider a eurorack system? Yes, there's something super exciting about the whole build process, open-endness and having a flexible, tangible musical platform. Apparently I don't currently consider this worth the thousands (3-4Keur) of euros a decent setup costs.
