VA Vs A

[aciddose]

And I have been talking with some people about the old envelopes (the ones on the older synths, like the first Moogs and ARPs, and Obies) and they all told me that the envelopes may behave quite differently from each other (between manufacturers, mostly).

So different things will behave differently?

Gasp!

[aciddose]

What I'm referring to by "fantasy" is that you seem to be taking some very, very simple facts on one hand and then from there making wild assumptions about the consequences of those facts without first understanding how these things work.

So you want to continue using an out-of-tune synthesizer, this is fine. Just please don't assume and spread the word that there are "wide variations" between "even the same synthesizer" due to "component tolerances" because every portion of this statement will be incorrect.

There are minor variations between components in the same synthesizer which are inconsequential the majority of the time or can be tuned away. True.

Electronics can deteriorate over time leading to malfunction. True.

Poorly designed or uncompensated/untrimmed circuits exist in consumer products. True.

The meaning behind these statements of fact is just slightly different. From these you can't say there is a difference between analog subtractive synthesizers and software versions of the same thing or between two instances of the same hardware in general.

You can make that statement only by adding "in the case of faults".

[aciddose]

"Poorly designed or uncompensated/untrimmed circuits exist in consumer products. True."

An example of this in an analog subtractive synthesizer is the famous pulse shaping circuit in the tb-303. There are a few other places where the factory tolerances were simply too high for every portion of the circuits to be considered fine-tuned, and very few of these variations could be trimmed away.

The consequence of this is that one tb-303 can happen to be "in tune" for the particular timbre desired while another may be incapable of producing that timbre. Keep in mind there is no "pulse width" control on the original circuit much like on the minimoog, for example. If the trim of the circuit happened to be set in an undesirable position you are from the front-panel completely stuck with it.

Consider the intended use of the circuit however before you jump to the conclusion this provides some evidence that synthesizers in general have wild variations in performance.

In the case that the synthesizer had been used to produce plucked bass-guitar sounds for accompaniment during practice, many of these variations would be inconsequential. If they had been considered critical parameters you could have expected that trimming capability would have been added to the circuits as they have been added in modern variations.

If you buy a xoxbox for yourself it is entirely possible to trim it to get exactly the same sounds you want, just as it is possible to modify and trim the original circuit in the same way.

So this only demonstrates the truth of the statement at the beginning of this post, nothing more.

[fmr]

What I'm referring to by "fantasy" is that you seem to be taking some very, very simple facts on one hand and then from there making wild assumptions about the consequences of those facts without first understanding how these things work.

So you want to continue using an out-of-tune synthesizer, this is fine. Just please don't assume and spread the word that there are "wide variations" between "even the same synthesizer" due to "component tolerances" because every portion of this statement will be incorrect.

What I said:

As we all know, even when the hardware is of the same revision or model series there are always some "peculiarities" to the sound of each single unit (especially when they are old, as happens nowadays, and more noticeable in the older units), which makes them sound different from each other. THAT is something an "analogue modelling" synthesizer will not emulate, and sometimes I see people arguing about some "flaws" in emulations that I think are due to the fact that the unit used for the emulation does not bahave the same way the one they have access to.

What you say I said:

...don't assume and spread the word that there are "wide variations" between "even the same synthesizer" due to "component tolerances" because every portion of this statement will be incorrect

So, maybe this was due to some "faulty" component on you, but care to tell where did I assume and say that there are "wide variations" between "even the same synthesizer" due to "component tolerances" ? Or did you read "peculiarities" ... that make them sound different as "wide variations"?

Regarding my unit, it isn't "ou of tune", thank you very much. It plays perfectly in tune, and a piano sound plays like a piano sound, not like a violin or something. It may be, and I already agreed that it may be in need of service to "calibrate" some components, namely the envelope, due to its age, but may I ask you what would you use as the reference to calibrate it? AFAIK, there are no new JUNO-60s, so, is there some sort of standard table to calibrate the components, or does everyone calibrate them according to their own taste or sound goal? Which one is right and which one is wrong?

And I like it the way it is, and considering that this unit basically never gigged, and was always indoors, and well cared by their respective owners (I know its history since it was new, although I am the third owner), it is in a very good shape, considering its age.

There are minor variations between components in the same synthesizer which are inconsequential the majority of the time or can be tuned away. True.

Electronics can deteriorate over time leading to malfunction. True.

Poorly designed or uncompensated/untrimmed circuits exist in consumer products. True.

The meaning behind these statements of fact is just slightly different. From these you can't say there is a difference between analog subtractive synthesizers and software versions of the same thing or between two instances of the same hardware in general.

You can make that statement only by adding "in the case of faults".

No, I can still make that statement. The degree to the difference is that, "in the case of faults" it can be wide, while in the case of perfectly functioning units, they can be very subtle or almost unnoticeable (assuming the emulation was well done, of course).

[pdxindy]

As we all know, even when the hardware is of the same revision or model series there are always some "peculiarities" to the sound of each single unit

I think Acidose is saying that your statement "As we all know" is not something we all do know and in fact is not true.

Which would make it the proverbial urban legend... based on old machines which are no longer in spec being extrapolated to some inherent characteristic of analogue components in general (which is what you are saying).

[Kriminal]

I thought the old 'every unit sounds different' was an excuse used by lazy coders for their 'different' software emulations

[aciddose]

Regardless of what it is, it's certainly incorrect

It's an issue of people not understanding the details of a thing, then making fantastic assumptions. Typical http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2 ... ger_effect

The consequence of this has been unfocused attempts by people who know very little in general to emulate something they do not understand, how hopeless is that?

Yet we've still made significant progress in these areas by working toward solving the real technical issues. Not all of us are quite so unfocused.

One side-note I'll add to this is I've observed that when I add filter saturation characteristics to software, users almost never (never that I've personally seen, or in presets I've seen) use the saturation in situations in which it actually makes any difference.

A lot of presets will be set up where they are ideal for application of the saturation, yet it will go unused.

Meanwhile, presets where the saturation does not have and could never have any audible effect have the saturation parameter maxed out!

This isn't a parameter that does something subtle, it does something quite obvious. Its effect is simply limited to specific situations. Understanding the applications and effect of a feature like this is important in order to allow proper use of the feature.

[zerocrossing]

And Patrick recognized that the envelope was one of the hardest parts to emulate.

Funny, I think about this all the time. One of my biggest complaints about most software emulations is that the envelopes don't seem to have the "bounce" that the hardware has. I think there's something in the attack that gets missed. One if the things I liked most about the KingKORG when I had it was the envelopes sounded perfect to me. Do did resonance. You could really get that Oberheim chirp from it. OP-X gets it too. Diva doesn't get it at all, but it does other things really well. Try to get that Van Halen 1984 bass sound out of Diva. You can't. But I don't look at Diva as something that can't do X sound, I look at it, and all synths, for what they can do.

Of course, I'm aware that every synth I mentioned is VA. But I've got a bunch of decent analogs so I'm not merely from memory or recordings.

Bounce, chirp - I wonder what such descriptions sound like I actually remember the 1984 album, it did have lots of synth sounds on it for that type of band, probably they tried to emulate foreigner's approach with their mix of rock and synths 2 years before. Anyway, could you specify which song you mean regarding the bass?
The intro is all synths, but a bit simplistic, even for 1984

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0mN7rvgb-4

Yup, that's the track I'm talking about. Simplistic but it does have what I'm talking about. Listen to that resonance. It's hard to get that in software... at least I don't hear many software synths that do it well. You could chalk it up to my lack of competence in programming, but I was able to get that sound out of two VAs, one software and one hardware. I was not able go get it out of Diva. It seems like I'm not the only one because I've never really heard a preset that does it either. My MoPho does it all day long, btw. Anyway, I'm just bringing this up as something I consider a big part of an aspect of analog sound that I don't often see for some reason.

As for envelopes... maybe I'm not sure what I'm trying to describe... it's almost like there's something just in the attack of the oscs of an actual analog synth that developers don't emulate. Even if you bypass the envelope it almost sounds like the sound we make when we say "p" or "b" as opposed to an "a" sound. I don't think it's a matter of free running vs retriggered oscs either. It makes for a very "punchy" kind of sound that's another thing lacking from a lot of VAs. Many sound "stiff" to me as opposed to "rubbery."

[Kriminal]

The SH101 has the bounce. Its hard to describe, but its a fantastic part of the sound (bass sounds anyway)

Cant think of a single softsyth that has it.

[aciddose]

Not really particularly on-topic, but just some potentially interesting info...

The SH-101 has an attack asymptote of 200%.

So, the input voltage during the attack stage is 15 volts, but the threshold is only 7.5 volts. This means the slope of the attack (exponential decay) will be cut off half way through the curve. This makes it a lot closer to linear.

This is actually a lot more important than it may seem. It is not easy to tell simply listening to the envelope itself, but during playing and especially while very carefully adjusting envelope depth to get just the right "wow" or "wub" effect the asymptote makes a big difference. It is easy to tell the difference between 100%, 150%, 200% without a doubt in the right conditions.

A lot of other synthesizers will have attack asymptotes closer to 133% (10v vs. 7.5v), my "X1" synth uses 150% (15v vs. 10v) and some even more like 120% (12v vs. 10v).

Decay and release sections are almost always a full exponential decay.

The MC-202 appears to have an asymptote of 133% (5.333v vs. 4v) although I don't own one, nor have I run a spice model of this circuit to verify this.

Synthesizers like the SH-3 definitely require more than a glance to say for certain. (Seems to be 200% also.)

[zerocrossing]

The SH101 has the bounce. Its hard to describe, but its a fantastic part of the sound (bass sounds anyway)

Cant think of a single softsyth that has it.

No?

http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/TA ... emo-01.mp3

http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/sh ... p-test.mp3

http://kunz.corrupt.ch/downloads/mp3/TA ... -fm_01.mp3

https://soundcloud.com/kimik/kimik-tal- ... techno-and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWnApHTrgcg

Just saying... I'm no expert on the SH-101, but I do hear what I think is that hard to capture "bounce" but perhaps we're talking about different things... or have different standards.

[treebeard]

This whole arguing over the difference in sound between HW and SW synths's seem a little pedantic. I just don't really get it I suppose. Surely the day will come, if it has not already done so, whereby the sound is completely and perfectly replicated digitally?

If somebody records the sound of a real SH101 on a computer will the computer fail to capture the sound or fail to replay that sound in a way that sounds like a real 101?

If a computer can manage to playback an audio sample well enough what is stopping it from synthesizing a similar sound? Of course a sample and a modelled oscillator are not the same thing, but the system that both use is the same with the same limits and abilities.

The important differences are not so much the sound but the rest of the package - interface, immediacy, touch, feel, smell...illogical things that begin before you even play a note.

I'd love to see the software sound nay-sayers lined up and blind tested. Equally, I would love to see the hardware nay-sayers tested by some method used to measure the pleasure they felt when using a hw synth and a software version.

[aciddose]

I'd actually ask what on earth the purpose of duplicating a sh-101 would be, as it's the least distinct sounding synthesizer out there. It is probably the cleanest most perfect subtractive ever made, period. Lowest distortion, barely any effect from filter saturation, extremely pure oscillator waveforms.

treebeard: That isn't what this thread is about though. If it is, the content certainly doesn't reflect it.

This thread is on semantics.

[treebeard]

treebeard: That isn't what this thread is about though. If it is, the content certainly doesn't reflect it.

This thread is on semantics.

Apologies, I must have been misled by both the title and first post of this thread!

So this is a thread about the meaning of meanings eh!? Well good luck to you all on that one.

[david.beholder]

I'd actually ask what on earth the purpose of duplicating a sh-101 would be, as it's the least distinct sounding synthesizer out there. It is probably the cleanest most perfect subtractive ever made, period. Lowest distortion, barely any effect from filter saturation, extremely pure oscillator waveforms.

I believe because lot of famous tracks between 1995-2000 are featuring sh-101. I believe simple and accessible arp made it notorious among original users.
And now it's simple famous.