KVR Audio

braj · Post by **braj** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 6:42 am

Not to mention many modern VA synths have near modular routings. It isn't like the "analog" pallette has been extinguished.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:32 am

Cannot see how any of this answer my question, which was about the preference for old limited analog patches, like those who are advertised here, compared to the scope of digital synths (including modular VAs). That analog synths are distinct and accessible don't explain the preference (digital synths are distinct and accessible too) and that VAs have modular routings doesn't compute at all with regard to the question. Neither JP8, Juno 106 nor JX3P are modular in that sense and certainly not with regard to the patches in the vids.

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:23 am

IncarnateX wrote:Cannot see how any of this answer my question, which was about the preference for old limited analog patches, like those who are advertised here, compared to the scope of digital synths (including modular VAs). That analog synths are distinct and accessible don't explain the preference (digital synths are distinct and accessible too) and that VAs have modular routings doesn't compute at all with regard to the question. Neither JP8, Juno 106 nor JX3P are modular in that sense and certainly not with regard to the patches in the vids.

My guess? Pure nostalgia. Not much else really can explain it.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:25 am

IncarnateX wrote:That makes me wonder: In how many millions of ways can you emulate a "Jupiter brass" , "Juno strings" or an "Sh101 bass" and still make a selling point of it? These sounds are in principle very limited timbre wise and extremely dated.

It doesn't seem rational compared to what modern digital synths can do, so why do people keep returning to these primitive patches? Enlighten me, plz

It is because these simple patches are actually useful for making songs.
They are to synth music what trumpets, guitars and pianos are to real instrument music.

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:17 pm

Mutant wrote: It is because these simple patches are actually useful for making songs.

....and complex digital patches are not useful in the same way because...?

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:20 pm

trimph1 wrote:My guess? Pure nostalgia. Not much else really can explain it.

Would be an explanation all right, but I wonder whether this goes for the young guns too that were not brought up with these sounds. Are their preferences different or the same for different reasons?

trimph1 · Post by **trimph1** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:28 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
trimph1 wrote:My guess? Pure nostalgia. Not much else really can explain it.
Would be an explanation all right, but I wonder whether this goes for the young guns too that were not brought up with these sounds. Are their preferences different or the same for different reasons?

Not too sure on that end..it would be interesting to know the market split there.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 2:51 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
Mutant wrote: It is because these simple patches are actually useful for making songs.
....and complex digital patches are not useful in the same way because...?

Because only us nerds like to play these patches.

I'll give you an example.
99% of modular (no matter if analog or digital) synth videos on Youtube.
A synth nerd goes wet between legs when listening to these wonderful blips and plops and purrs and whizzes, a normal music listener yells "wat da fok is dis horibol nois ?!?!?".

seamoss · Post by **seamoss** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 3:46 pm

Can someone be so kind as to letting me know what page the results are revealed?

I made it to page 21 and just couldn't be bothered anymore.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 4:07 pm

aciddose wrote: I find it amazingly ignorant to see comments from others disparaging this concept. It seems as if many of us are simply left completely oblivious.

In my opinion an artist is one who is a master of selection. One who is incapable of understanding the process of selection is not likely an artist and does not and could never understand art.

The rule known as "Sturgeon's revelation": "90% of everything is shit" applies.

While I agree with you on the types of instruments I like to play and hear, I think what you are missing is that a lot of what we think of as good comes from our experience and culture. When I was young, I had a Juno 106 that I shared with my brother. I loved the hell out of that synth, but I do remember initially thinking it didn't sound good. That assessment was based on what I was culturally conditioned to like. I was super into British Invasion/Psychedelia of the 60s. It wasn't until later when I started experimenting with the 106 that I saw it's potential, but I had to "unlearn" what an instrument was supposed to sound like. Anyway, when I left NJ, I had to abandon the Juno and it became a friend of my brother's synth. Yesterday I was talking to my brother about that synth and his friend and his remark was, "I never liked that synth. Sounded too corny." I asked if they ever programmed their own patches and the answer was, "no." They were purely going off of presets. Now, you can't call my brother "...an artist and does not and could never understand art." He's a Berklee music school graduate. He's great at performing and composition. He just doesn't find the analog synth aesthetic pleasing. His main keyboard is a Yamaha ROMpler with 88 key weighted action that he uses to approximate instruments he doesn't have at his disposal or can play.

So, similarly, I can see someone who's into synthesis not being particularly fond of the analog aesthetic to a point where not getting it "perfect" makes a difference. Not because they can't hear it, but because it doesn't really even show up on their radar.

I remember being surprised that Imogen Heap, an artist I really like both composition and production wise, is basically 100% ITB. Her albums sound great. If she were to move to actual analog synths, would her albums sound better? I'm not sure it would matter as I'm too busy being distracted by the quality of the composition.

Mutant · Post by **Mutant** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:02 pm

seamoss wrote:Can someone be so kind as to letting me know what page the results are revealed?

I made it to page 21 and just couldn't be bothered anymore.

A is Diva.
http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... &start=375

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 7:04 pm

IncarnateX wrote:
Mutant wrote: It is because these simple patches are actually useful for making songs.
....and complex digital patches are not useful in the same way because...?

I'm not going to jump in to the subjective side of that question, but I can add an anecdote. All the music I've ever enjoyed listening to has used simple, high quality sounds. "That sound" as I described in my previous post.

I have never once enjoyed music that used a sound I would describe as complex.

Music contains a low information entropy. The sounds are likewise low entropy.

"Complex" sounds are something I can only define as high entropy, relative to "simple" low entropy sounds.

By including high entropy content in music the over-all entropy of the music is increased, bringing it closer to noise.

This conclusion is theoretical: the higher the entropy of a musical piece the less likely it is to be enjoyed. There is an optimum point at which stimulation of the listener is maximized without increasing entropy beyond the point at which stimulation would become unfocused.

Similar to deadweight loss in some ways: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss

By adding needlessly complex sounds and increasing the entropy of a piece deadweight loss may exist. From this perspective a needlessly complex sound used to fill the gap of "that sound" which can not be achieved acts like a tax.

Think of this in terms of: "sometimes the most important part of a melody are the notes you don't play."

Fools ignore complexity. Pragmatists suffer it. Some can avoid it. Geniuses remove it.

People seem to spend an awful lot of time flicking through presets and adding needlessly complex modulations and effects, EQ and otherwise to their sounds when they may have been able to quickly patch up a sound on a juno-106 and use it right away. What are they attempting to make up for?

IncarnateX · Post by **IncarnateX** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 9:58 pm

Well, fortunately my taste for music is diverse and cannot be reduced to a question of analog vs digital, complex vs simple, entropy vs chaos theory or whatever. Whether I like "this" and "that" sound depends entirely on the musical context. Maybe I don't like a patch when played in isolation from everything else, but make it a part of an arrangement to a beautiful melody and I may love it. Maybe I love a certain patch but use it in a harmony progression I don't like and it looses all it's magic. To me music is thus more than the sum of it's parts. It is an emergent phenomena and therefore irreducible. It can be complex or simple, modern or retro and even highly noisy, for example "Einstürzende Neubauten", which I for reasons I never quite understood myself find somewhat genius.

And thank God for that. If I only loved music with "that" sound, I would be stuck in the 70s and 80s and wouldn't be able to adore music like this from the 90s and forward:

http://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic ... 4&t=444107

Funny thing about some of the first tunes I posted in that thread is that they periodically have some phasing effects on the drums that I usually would hate, but in these musical contexts they sound just right

[Edit: Erm...there may be exceptions to my golden rules here. I am pretty sure I'd hate supersaw trance leads no matter which musical context]

V0RT3X · Post by **V0RT3X** » Tue Oct 13, 2015 11:06 pm

I'm starting to lose my interest in the "analog" sounds of yesteryear. I bought Diva and A.c.e recently and as much as I love them, I am missing Zebra2 way more as it just seems to fill a much wider gap for my production needs.

Basically I think my pursuit for that "classic" sound or whatever is kind of slowing to a crawl, because now I just want to focus on making music. Honestly I'd rather work on song writing then trying to find the perfect plugin or w/e.

*Edited* Hmm never mind me wanting to sell that stuff, I promised myself I wouldn't resort to selling stuff for other things.

aciddose · Post by **aciddose** » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:07 am

You seem to misunderstand what "that sound" is defined as. I defined it as an abstract. It doesn't exist outside this definition based upon postulates such as music and auditory stimulus in relation to information entropy.

If you refuse to accept these axioms of course the whole thing won't make any sense. You need to understand the foundations of this concept before you discount or disregard meta-level portions of the structure.

Diva vs Analogue - a real world test