VA Vs A

[mztk]

ok, so i would never have got into synths at all were it not
for analogue, because everything else around at the time
either sounded crap for what i wanted or was murder to
program and sounded nasty for 80% of its range (or wrong).

initial demoing of all the first VAs left me wanting none of
them. mm, maybe the jp8080 could be coaxed into sounding
roland but they all left me looking for that 'analogueness', and
mainly seemed expensive and not fascinating compared to
what they were supposed to emulate.
ok, so there are loads now, and VST counts as VA. but everything
i did with the first rash of VST was mainly about trying to get
('that sound') and failing. i sort of ended up feeling confused:
on the one hand the total sonic freedom you imagine when you
first discover MIDI and music technology, but then i found it
'wasn't the right kind of freedom' ...

[ghettosynth]

The Jupiter 8 had strange presets, it seems. The brass pads and basses are my favorites, but just like with most software synths most factory presets sucked.

Depends on what you're after. Its the sound of an era, and part of the synthesizer culture. Its good that these examples are here to remind some people who have never played one of these synths what analog synthesizers were about when they were released.( just judging by the number of threads were the words *analog* and *synths* appear here in Kvr, or other forums )

Seriously, IMNSHO, the only people who care about matching presets are those that don't really understand the issues in the first place. Zerocrossing has given you some good detail, but in general, the important differences aren't usually revealed in presets, especially those presented by people with a vested interest in proving similarity.

An A/B test would be challenging, because, you would really need to be able to program and control the synth blindly and without prejudice. That is, I believe that the tester must be presented with the full synth interface in the form of a controller. That controller is then fed blindly do either an analog or a VA variant of the synth and the tester should be able to choose them at will, e.g., from an A/B button on the controller. The controller should not at all resemble either the analog or its VA unless they are intended to be precise clones. Strictly speaking, that isn't necessary. You could test, for example, Diva vs Pro-8 by providing a generic controller that has only the controls which are subset of both. I really don't think that the specific synth is as important as some do. The analog quality stands above, it's about the technologies used, not about pedantic simulation. For example, I think that Diva better captures the analog nature of many synths than most of the Arturia products that are intended to be precise emulations (to some degree of precision).

You should randomize which synth that A/B points to for each tester, but they should obviously be consistent across all changes for an individual test session.

So, I walk up to the synth and I start playing it, I then switch to B and play some more, back to A, tweak some knobs, back to B, play some more, etc. etc. This will reveal statistically, whether or not a person can tell the difference in a single synth for a single set of voices. It does not reveal whether that same person could tell the difference in aggregate even if he can't in a single voice. You could have him create a track each with A and B, and as a result of that ask him to tell you which is analog and which is digital.

This eliminates many biases because both synths are controlled in exactly the same way. Visual bias is extremely important. This has been well documented. If you see a better product, you might actually believe that it sounds better, to be clear, it will ACTUALLY sound better to you even though their might be no actual difference. This is precisely how high end audio hifi gear is sold and is really the answer to the question of gullibility of the customers; they are just like you and me, except that they allow themselves to be manipulated. If, statistically, most people can't tell the difference, then you could certainly argue that VA technology is able to emulate a particular set of analog technologies and architecture reasonably well.

Talking about whether end users can hear it in the record is of no value to me and most synth lovers. We are the customers and what we can actually hear is the only thing that matters. It might be as simple as if we believe that we can tell a difference, then we won't perform as well with the synth that we believe is of lesser quality. Thus, even our belief that analog is better can lead to a better end product, perpetuating the cycle. If you want to convince synthheads that there is no difference, you must test the product within the context that it will be used.

Whether it's digitized in the end also really doesn't matter. In fact, I would think that, in terms of a first test, you would want to run the analog synth through a digital delay to match the latency of the VA. You could also feed the actual background noise from the analog synth into the VA. This way, these aren't the issues that are being tested, if one can still tell a difference, that's not the reason why. If one can't tell a difference, then you start removing those constraints and see if a difference could then be discerned. To be clear, I don't think that those differences matter. I think that VAs sound better without added noise and that their character still comes through after the sound has been digitally recorded. Those are just distractions from the discussion of synth technology and architecture.

[zerocrossing]

pretty obvious from the modern T.Dolby audio that the raw edge
of analogue isn't there. 'presence', whatever you call it, it's like
eating something that comes out of a tin compared to home cooking.
that doesn't have anything to do with VA though, it is about the
polite processed presets you get on workstations.

VA is ok, very convenient with lots of advantages over most old
analogue gear. just don't look at it as being 'the same'.

I think a lot of that comes from the venue and recording. I saw him a few years before this and he sounded excellent. I think he also may have been using a Virus Ti on that tour... though I'm not quite sure.

[mztk]

i'm just a bit suspicious of anything coming out of any kind of
workstation

[pdxindy]

VA is ok, very convenient with lots of advantages over most old
analogue gear. just don't look at it as being 'the same'.

Again, "the same" to what?

There were lots of analogue synths, and many I would not want them even for free. Analogue is a very vague and overrated word. I still have some analogues, and I would not mind to have some others, but there are not many I would want.

I agree, there are like 3 analog synths I would not mind having, the rest is just mediocre stuff that would only collect dust

So what are the 3 good anologue synths?

[fluffy_little_something]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

[mztk]

oenologue synths are for conoisseurs only!

[fluffy_little_something]

To me they are more a melancholy thingy, the sound of the 70's and early 80's.

[Lotuzia]

The Jupiter 8 had strange presets, it seems. The brass pads and basses are my favorites, but just like with most software synths most factory presets sucked.

Depends on what you're after. Its the sound of an era, and part of the synthesizer culture. Its good that these examples are here to remind some people who have never played one of these synths what analog synthesizers were about when they were released.( just judging by the number of threads were the words *analog* and *synths* appear here in Kvr, or other forums )

Seriously, IMNSHO, the only people who care about matching presets are those that don't really understand the issues in the first place. ..... You should randomize which synth that A/B points to for each tester, .... You could .... Yous could .......
To be clear, I don't think that those differences matter. I think that VAs sound better ....

Well, first, if you can do, and provide, better A/B test between a soft synth and an hw one than the 64 A/B clips I made playing the same parts, in isolation, .... just do it. The process can certainly be enhanced, though, to be clear, I've yet to find another soft synth who could benefit of such an extent of a/b clips.
Then, making this soundbank was very interesting for me, and as it seems for my customers (because it sold like pancakes, obviously for musicians that dont understand the *issues* -but like to make music nonetheless ). As to understand *the issues*, I still have 8 true olllldddddd analog synths, as well as a bunch of VAs. I will not however pretend I'm the messiah, but i certainly have a certain knowledge about the *issues* as you name them. And I know for example a certain number of things that are not only not properly emulated in VAs, but also not emulated at all. Then, I dont care taht much, because in my mind, in my work, in my studios, *va and a* can coexist in a very pacific, and productive way. I dont oppose them.
Besides this, we seem to have different opinions on a certain number of subjects. And well, thats it.

[Lotuzia]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

I'll add Cs-80, Matrix 12, Voyetra, Syrinx, Kobol, System 100, Synthex, Model D, Moog Modular, Jupiter 4, SEM, Yamaha GS, Cheetah, Dk-80, Synthi AKS, Ms-50, Prophet V, Pro One etc. To name a few oldies that I would not mind taking their place in my studio.

Agree 100% with the Rhodes Chroma. Already have an Odyssey.

[pdxindy]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

So then according to you, the Minimoog, Prophet 5, EMS VCS3, CS-80, Synthex and others are all mediocre...

[Lotuzia]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

So then according to you, the Minimoog, Prophet 5, EMS VCS3, CS-80, Synthex and others are all mediocre...

Hmmm no/ If I read well I had to mention the the good little monsters to add to Fluffy list ( or some of the good ones ).

Anyway these are some of those that I want in my studio/

[jopy]

An A/B test would be challenging, because, you would really need to be able to program and control the synth blindly and without prejudice. That is, I believe that the tester must be presented with the full synth interface in the form of a controller. That controller is then fed blindly do either an analog or a VA variant of the synth and the tester should be able to choose them at will, e.g., from an A/B button on the controller. The controller should not at all resemble either the analog or its VA unless they are intended to be precise clones. Strictly speaking, that isn't necessary. You could test, for example, Diva vs Pro-8 by providing a generic controller that has only the controls which are subset of both. I really don't think that the specific synth is as important as some do. The analog quality stands above, it's about the technologies used, not about pedantic simulation. For example, I think that Diva better captures the analog nature of many synths than most of the Arturia products that are intended to be precise emulations (to some degree of precision).

Talking about whether end users can hear it in the record is of no value to me and most synth lovers. We are the customers and what we can actually hear is the only thing that matters. It might be as simple as if we believe that we can tell a difference, then we won't perform as well with the synth that we believe is of lesser quality. Thus, even our belief that analog is better can lead to a better end product, perpetuating the cycle. If you want to convince synthheads that there is no difference, you must test the product within the context that it will be used.

This is really, really spot on. A synthesizer is not a sound playback device, it's a musical instrument, and should be judged as such. I suspect you'd be able to feel the difference across instruments as a performer, which is what we're really into for the most part as KVRians. As I probably have said before, I don't think the VAs would come out worse in all respects; results would depend on what you prefer in terms of interactions, what sort of sounds you're going for, what you plan to mix with, and how much you'd need to change things up in real time. And I also am certain there'd be huge differences within each category.

[Lotuzia]

....This is really, really spot on. A synthesizer is not a sound playback device, it's a musical instrument, and should be judged as such. I suspect you'd be able to feel the difference across instruments as a performer, which is what we're really into for the most part as KVRians. As I probably have said before, I don't think the VAs would come out worse in all respects; results would depend on what you prefer in terms of interactions, what sort of sounds you're going for, what you plan to mix with, and how much you'd need to change things up in real time. And I also am certain there'd be huge differences within each category.

Same old story about *presets*.

Things as I see them are more complex than that. A synthesizer, AS YOU SEE IT, and as I also see them in an important part, is not -only, or not at all-, a soundplayback device.

Then my Sh-1000 ( first Roland synthesizer iirc 1973 ) has, .... and only has, 10 .... presets. ( and very few knobs, though you can tweak the filter and lfo etc ). Yamaha did produce some preset only analog machines also, as well as many other manufacturers. The first (analog) rythm units only had presets as well, as the minipops Jarre used on Oxygen. Then some modern workstations are mainly intended to be played for their presets. I also collect, between other things, vintage gear magazines and in each review of the 80s synths, a large part concerned ... the synth presets.

Well, a preset can be played *as it* if it inspires someone, or adapted to context to fit the track, or created from scratch. Also you can be inspired by a preset made by some1 else ( wich is often my case). Then some people hate presets, for more/less good reasons, and thats ok. Presets are a significant part of the history and culture of the synthesizers, but only a part of it. One can perfectly live without any of them. As I see it, My Sh-1000, or a TB-303 is no less musical instrument, or a *synth*, than a modular moog. Its just a *different instrument* A pinao is very costly and has only one one preset, as a saxophone. etc etc. My 0.002

[pdxindy]

It's four: ARP Odyssey, Memorymoog, Rhodes Chroma and OB-X

So then according to you, the Minimoog, Prophet 5, EMS VCS3, CS-80, Synthex and others are all mediocre...

Hmmm no/ If I read well I had to mention the the good little monsters to add to Fluffy list ( or some of the good ones ).

Anyway these are some of those that I want in my studio/

I wasn't talking to you. Fluffy said "there are like 3 analog synths I would not mind having, the rest is just mediocre stuff"

So according to him, all those others are mediocre.