Does the average listener really care if its analog?

[Ghostwave]

I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.

Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.

[GaryG]

And as soon as he started playing we noticed the iPhones spring up in the air and these front rowers turn their heads and start talking to each other without paying any real attention to the band or being polite enough for the few of us that were.

I don't like encouraging violent/disruptive behavior but this new 'sport' I've read of where people score points by knocking the phones out of people like this by lobbing things at them sounds like something I'd turn a blind eye to...

[Sendy]

And as soon as he started playing we noticed the iPhones spring up in the air and these front rowers turn their heads and start talking to each other without paying any real attention to the band or being polite enough for the few of us that were.

I don't like encouraging violent/disruptive behavior but this new 'sport' I've read of where people score points by knocking the phones out of people like this by lobbing things at them sounds like something I'd turn a blind eye to...

I'd turn a blind eye to them getting punched in the face. Mostly because people who disregard other's enjoyment of these events are selfish as all getup... and plus I'm a wuss

[zerocrossing]

I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.

Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.

Now, am I going to go out and dust off my film camera? Not a chance. Not sure where I'd even get film and processing from. (though I bet a Google search would quickly tell me) More importantly, I've long decided that the pain in the butt of chemical photography isn't worth the added quality. Photography isn't my main art form though, and if it was I might seek out the very best process to get the image quality I wanted.

So... VSTs are the digital camera of electronic music. They do stuff that traditional hardware synths can't and can sound very good, but as good as a great analog? I don't quite think so. Not yet at least. But I will say that they make sense to use because of the added functionality they provide which can spark inspiration just as well as a great sounding hardware analog.

[foosnark]

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.

I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.

My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.

[zerocrossing]

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.

I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.

My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.

What you're saying is that because you don't care no one should? It's true, most people don't care... because they don't take the time to care. The result is usually the crap-a-fication of everything. Don't poop on someone else's parade because you can't be bothered to walk.

[BBFG#]

I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.

My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.

Film gives what it gives partly because of its chemical limitations. 'Color' is broken down to the primaries of red, blue, green. Knowing your 'zones' helps create/manipulate the picture to trick our senses into believing something that is there because it's suppose to be there (interpolation is a wonderful thing). Digital captures more but leaves less to the person's interpretation by those interpolations. Paint often captures much by the mixture and values of its primaries and neutrals but still has the ability to leave much to the imagination.
And perhaps, digital vs. analog happens much in the same way for our ears. Equally, it could be said that DJs and molly in a rave bombard the senses in plurals to specifically overload their audience to submission.
My wife paints too (as do I), but the last thing foosnark said about A/B comparisons reminded me how she would bring me in to see these stages of her work and each time I would say they were great. When she was done, I would ask to see the six or seven paintings I saw her do and there would only be one because she kept painting it until she was content enough to let it go.
I told her what a waste. She got her feelings hurt that I thought she was wasting too much paint. I told her, "no, it's just that you aren't using enough canvas".
What digital gives me is the release from wasting tape like I did back in the early days before digital. (I also take 100 times more photos).
And the 'average listener' (still a misnomer or oxymoron to me) probably only wants a DJ to decide that for them.

[aciddose]

Yes.

Next question.

[pdxindy]

I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.

Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly better

[BBFG#]

I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.

Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly better

Not sure about that, Ansel Adams photography still stops me in my tracks. 90% of the time, digital is what you find at the local car wash and produces the 'nice, but so what' effect you just walk by.

[foosnark]

What you're saying is that because you don't care no one should?

No, what I'm saying is... what I said, surprisingly enough. Nothing hostile was intended.


If you want to use film cameras and analog synths, I'm not stopping you. Just don't judge other people's work based on whether they do the same.

If you think analog is better due to sound (or image), that's your opinion, but you should recognize that not everyone is going to share your opinion.

If you think analog is better because it encourages your creativity or gives you a better workflow, then by all means go for it! But understand that your audience only cares about the result, not the process or equipment.

[SODDI]

I don't think the average listener cares what instruments are on any recording whatsoever. Why should they? It is all part of the song as a whole and that is what they are listening to.

BBFG# mentioned paintings. Do you care what specific color of blue was used - cobalt or Prussian - in any painting?

Except for maybe guitar solos.

[Sendy]

I can't get enough Prussian blue in my guitar solos.

[pdxindy]

I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.

Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.

Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.

90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly better

Not sure about that, Ansel Adams photography still stops me in my tracks. 90% of the time, digital is what you find at the local car wash and produces the 'nice, but so what' effect you just walk by.

A great artist will do amazing work regardless...

Today, the photo quality of digital is better than film... particularly in color. You can get good skin tones with todays digital cameras under conditions that you would not even have bothered with on film. The color accuracy today far exceeds what you used to get with film under a wide range of conditions.

And back in the film days, I would carry multiple cameras with different speed film when on assignment. Now I can have one camera that can shoot under lighting conditions I would only have dreamed about back then.

You can take actions shots (people moving for example) in situations you could not have done with film.

[Kalamata Kid]

Keep in mind that audio aficionado’s prefer analog and are willing to pay big bucks for it. They are not however your average listener. On one occasion I did hear a LP played on an high equipment and was very impressed however an A/B test with a CD would have been more scientific.

I know the discussion is on music gear but made the comment to show that some people with discerning ears and lots of money prefer analog.