I was looking for truth and here is my thought what truth can be:
Computer plugins never will be as good as analog or better.
Talking like this or that plugin sound the same as analog or it cannot be picked up any difference between a plugin and the real analog thing is not true and this talking come from deaf people and who have no access to the best audio playback equipment or people lair on purpose.
And here is why computer's plugins will never be as good or better then real analog:
1)Modern computers are based on mathematic. And mathematic cannot replicate our world exectly as it is. It alwas does it approximately.
2)Real world has so many parameters going on that modern human knowladge has no clue of.
3)But even if all that was known to people how they can code billions of billions parameters which in addition interact with each other in no linear way?
Solution to the problem i see:
Computers have to be based not on mathematic but on something which can replicate our word as it is. But even if that done 2 and 3 is still look like impossible to achieve.
So for now the only valid solution i see to resurrect high quality 100% sound path analog music equipment and instruments.
And recordings or performances are made at 100% analog path.
And the final mix down will go to:
1. The best in the world converters and the best digital audio formats for storage on computers so people can listen that on modern computers.
2. Restore production of high end tapes and high end vinyl for studio use and consumers listenings.
3. Develop better analog audio storage medium then tape which will fix some problems of it for example to increas dynamic and frequency range, reduce noise, longer playback time but also be more portable for studio use and consumers listenings.
Computer plugins never will be as good as analog or better.
-
- KVRian
- Topic Starter
- 694 posts since 8 Apr, 2012 from planet Earth
https://слово-божье.рф
-
- KVRAF
- 4353 posts since 30 Aug, 2012 from Sweden
First thing first. Hardware synths have been around like 50 years and vst like 15 years or so. Come back in like 35 years and we will see... 
Can you play and make music people really like? That's more important than HW vs VST debate. The average listener, like 90% of the population don't care a dime if it's HW or VST. All they care about is if the music is good or not.
Can you play and make music people really like? That's more important than HW vs VST debate. The average listener, like 90% of the population don't care a dime if it's HW or VST. All they care about is if the music is good or not.
-
- KVRAF
- 8406 posts since 2 Aug, 2005 from Guitar Land, USA
I don't care a lyck,
I mean I was at the Pheonix cafe (not Nix) and I was out rockin and making it good but its real !
-get a good start
I mean I was at the Pheonix cafe (not Nix) and I was out rockin and making it good but its real !
-get a good start
The only site for experimental amp sim freeware & MIDI FX: http://runbeerrun.blogspot.com
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCprNcvVH6aPTehLv8J5xokA -Youtube jams
https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCprNcvVH6aPTehLv8J5xokA -Youtube jams
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33163 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
Ah, yes, of course, that pathetic fallacy.chilly7 wrote:Talking like this or that plugin sound the same as analog or it cannot be picked up any difference between a plugin and the real analog thing is not true and this talking come from deaf people and who have no access to the best audio playback equipment or people lair on purpose.
No, modern computers are based on analog components called 'transistors'.1)Modern computers are based on mathematic.
By your own argument, that's not a valid solution; there's no capability for replicating an analog signal exactly as it is in the analog domain either.So for now the only valid solution i see to resurrect high quality 100% sound path analog music equipment and instruments.
Anyway, nice to see you'll no longer be hanging round here since you'll be off on all those analog recording forums, so far less muppetry for us to endure. Byebye.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRian
- 927 posts since 26 Oct, 2005 from Canada City
Man, this is some seriously uninformed BS. Maybe crack a book or two on electronics and signal theory before just spouting random nonsense on the DSP forum.
-
Dean Aka Nekro Dean Aka Nekro https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&u=162100 - KVRAF
- 6178 posts since 4 Oct, 2007 from Escaped At Last
The most simple way around the OP's grievances is to use both, It is what the majority of people do as both have their benefits.
Vinyl is a horrible medium, The more you use it the more the sound is degraded.
Reviving old tape machines alone is only something hardcore purists do, I do not hear anything so special on the material they've worked on, It is not due to having a rubbish listening setup either.
Reviving reel to reel machines is one thing but a business that is prepared to put in the time and money to develop something like analogue tape but superior is just not going to happen.
The best solution IMextremelyHumbleO if you must have tape is Endless Analog's CLASP solution http://www.endlessanalog.com/
It is by no means cheap but it does nail the whole tape thing whilst requiring very little maintenance, If you own a commercial studio then it is a no-brainer if you want the qualities tape offers but without the majority of headaches it brings.
The whole notion of something being superior to another in the case you are trying to make just does not work, Simply because it is all subjective. On paper digital recording is vastly superior to analogue tape.
Like many people I have a decent selection of analogue outboard which I use, It does not do the things that the selection of digital signal processing plugins do, It is daft to compare them or at least it is in my book it is. They all have a place and can/do work really well in conjunction with one another, Also complement one another extremely well often.
Hardware/outboard is capable of stuff that software is not and vice versa, I'm happy to play on each and exploit them both.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong chilly7, As it is your opinion but I beg to differ for above reasons along with plenty more except I do not feel like writing a load of things down and it end up being a tldr post.
Audiophiles are often sold snake oil and believe it, Just look at any of the amusing hi-fi publications where they cream over speakers amongst other things that cost more than a lot of respectable, Well known mastering houses and mastering engineers use, It's ridiculous and the law of diminishing returns gets insane. I do not understand such people that will pay tens of thousands of pounds on cable because of the buzz words it is given and praised for possessing, As sad as it is it's hilarious too.
Whatever floats your boat though, I wouldn't hold my breath on anything you would like becoming any type of standard, It isn't really viable, It's alright to dream though.
All the best everyone as always
Dean
Vinyl is a horrible medium, The more you use it the more the sound is degraded.
Reviving old tape machines alone is only something hardcore purists do, I do not hear anything so special on the material they've worked on, It is not due to having a rubbish listening setup either.
Reviving reel to reel machines is one thing but a business that is prepared to put in the time and money to develop something like analogue tape but superior is just not going to happen.
The best solution IMextremelyHumbleO if you must have tape is Endless Analog's CLASP solution http://www.endlessanalog.com/
It is by no means cheap but it does nail the whole tape thing whilst requiring very little maintenance, If you own a commercial studio then it is a no-brainer if you want the qualities tape offers but without the majority of headaches it brings.
The whole notion of something being superior to another in the case you are trying to make just does not work, Simply because it is all subjective. On paper digital recording is vastly superior to analogue tape.
Like many people I have a decent selection of analogue outboard which I use, It does not do the things that the selection of digital signal processing plugins do, It is daft to compare them or at least it is in my book it is. They all have a place and can/do work really well in conjunction with one another, Also complement one another extremely well often.
Hardware/outboard is capable of stuff that software is not and vice versa, I'm happy to play on each and exploit them both.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong chilly7, As it is your opinion but I beg to differ for above reasons along with plenty more except I do not feel like writing a load of things down and it end up being a tldr post.
Audiophiles are often sold snake oil and believe it, Just look at any of the amusing hi-fi publications where they cream over speakers amongst other things that cost more than a lot of respectable, Well known mastering houses and mastering engineers use, It's ridiculous and the law of diminishing returns gets insane. I do not understand such people that will pay tens of thousands of pounds on cable because of the buzz words it is given and praised for possessing, As sad as it is it's hilarious too.
Whatever floats your boat though, I wouldn't hold my breath on anything you would like becoming any type of standard, It isn't really viable, It's alright to dream though.
All the best everyone as always
Dean
-
- KVRian
- 653 posts since 4 Apr, 2010
misc thoughts:
1a. Analog audio gear is a constant work-around of flaws in the components (much of which can be characterized as "bad math"—ex.: you want linear amplification, but transistors behave...so you...)
1b. The flaws and work-arounds (and their shortcomings) that sounded good survived. Became classics. A Mellotron is a pretty sad attempt to sound like an orchestra. But it's a great sounding Mellotron. Yet the Orchestron, attempting to be a Mellotron with fewer mechanical problems, failed because the sonic flaws were too great. The Hammond organ tried to be a compact pipe organ, the electric guitar tried to be a loud acoustic guitar—they became something else, mostly.
1c. That's why we try to emulate them digitally—because they sounded so good that they survived. It took decades for analog audio, centuries and more for acoustic instruments to find out what would last. Check back in a decade or two and we're see what digital audio devices and products survived because they became classics—that never had an analog counterpart.
2. "Computer plugins never will be as good as analog or better."—apparently, a very narrow view. You could say that no digital reverb is better than the Symphony Hall in Boston...but that would be because you've put that hall up as perfection, so you could only get close in a reproduction. On the other hand, try making an analog version of Zynaptiq Adaptiverb—you can't. Same with EQ or compressors—to make an argument that digital can never be better is only valid if you pick an analog version and deem it perfect (for a given use). But none of the analog EQs and compressors can come remotely close to iZotope Neutron.
1a. Analog audio gear is a constant work-around of flaws in the components (much of which can be characterized as "bad math"—ex.: you want linear amplification, but transistors behave...so you...)
1b. The flaws and work-arounds (and their shortcomings) that sounded good survived. Became classics. A Mellotron is a pretty sad attempt to sound like an orchestra. But it's a great sounding Mellotron. Yet the Orchestron, attempting to be a Mellotron with fewer mechanical problems, failed because the sonic flaws were too great. The Hammond organ tried to be a compact pipe organ, the electric guitar tried to be a loud acoustic guitar—they became something else, mostly.
1c. That's why we try to emulate them digitally—because they sounded so good that they survived. It took decades for analog audio, centuries and more for acoustic instruments to find out what would last. Check back in a decade or two and we're see what digital audio devices and products survived because they became classics—that never had an analog counterpart.
2. "Computer plugins never will be as good as analog or better."—apparently, a very narrow view. You could say that no digital reverb is better than the Symphony Hall in Boston...but that would be because you've put that hall up as perfection, so you could only get close in a reproduction. On the other hand, try making an analog version of Zynaptiq Adaptiverb—you can't. Same with EQ or compressors—to make an argument that digital can never be better is only valid if you pick an analog version and deem it perfect (for a given use). But none of the analog EQs and compressors can come remotely close to iZotope Neutron.
My audio DSP blog: earlevel.com
-
- KVRAF
- 7540 posts since 7 Aug, 2003 from San Francisco Bay Area
Wow, what tremendous insight! And such a novel argument... it's amazing that no one ever thought of it before. Thanks for setting us all straight!
You probably won't hear from me again, because I'm going to degauss my hard drive and smash my laptop to bits now. In the future, all of my music will be created entirely with a wire coat hanger jammed directly into the A/C power lines. 'Cause analog, yo!
You probably won't hear from me again, because I'm going to degauss my hard drive and smash my laptop to bits now. In the future, all of my music will be created entirely with a wire coat hanger jammed directly into the A/C power lines. 'Cause analog, yo!
Incomplete list of my gear: 1/8" audio input jack.
-
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from betwixt
Ah the postmodern world of relative bullshitAnX wrote:The truth, is whatever you believe it to be.chilly7 wrote:I was looking for truth and here is my thought what truth can be:
-
- KVRAF
- 3477 posts since 27 Dec, 2002 from North East England
Jeez man, it's only analog. There's nothing particularly magical about it that can't be modelled. We've modelled plenty of significantly more difficult things. You'd think you were talking about people trying to model Jesus or something...
-
- KVRAF
- 2279 posts since 20 Dec, 2002 from The Benighted States of Trumpistan
A few semirandom responses to the OP:
1. If analog be inherently superior, why aren't we still using wax cylinders? Far more analog than tape and control voltages!
The answer is that analog technologies involves a staggering range of possibilities and compromises. How accurate of a reproduction do you want? How convenient do you want your medium to be? How reliable do you want it to be? Tape sounds warm to some people, but everything you do to it damages it and causes increasingly inaccurate results.
Please RTFM about the technologies.
2. As cron wisely wrote, it's already analog. To expand, all electrical components are already analog, and necessarily so. The math may be digital, but once you hit the realm of physical things, it becomes analog. It's all quantum; sure, some values seem to be purely digital, but everything is probabilistic. What we perceive as digital only becomes so because our senses are so poor and the technologies are based on differences which are much, much larger than ordinary fluctuations.
Digitizing (A>D) uses analog circuitry, comparing voltages to an analog standard (a difference between electron flows) and assigning a number which is stored and processed using analog technology. Transistors and capacitors are analog, lasers even more so. Even disc drives and CDs are ultimately analog. It's all quantum.
Playback (D>A) works by using that number to apply streams of electrons to other streams of electrons to drive analog circuitry. There are no linear processes — there are no perfect amplifiers! — once you hit physical systems, because it's all quantum.
In short, the circuitry is analog — and so are the control signals. A quantum-mechanical world is inherently analog. Don't blame me; I didn't do it.
Please just RTFM about quantum mechanics and signal processing; the psychology of "just noticeable differences" is also relevant.
3. Ultimately, the whole "digital vs. analog" argument is more about choice of algorithm. Just because simple algorithms suck does not mean that more complex ones likewise suck! Sure, a single sawtooth with a single LFO is boring, but well-coded supersaws (which are still awfully simple) can be very nice indeed. One bandpass filter does little, but add a few in series and maybe an LFO or two and you have a Univibe. Just imagine what could be done with actual complexity. We may still be knapping flint as far as audio technology is concerned, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to travel to the Moon. (Apologies for the mixed, albeit thematically consistent, metaphors.)
1. If analog be inherently superior, why aren't we still using wax cylinders? Far more analog than tape and control voltages!
The answer is that analog technologies involves a staggering range of possibilities and compromises. How accurate of a reproduction do you want? How convenient do you want your medium to be? How reliable do you want it to be? Tape sounds warm to some people, but everything you do to it damages it and causes increasingly inaccurate results.
Please RTFM about the technologies.
2. As cron wisely wrote, it's already analog. To expand, all electrical components are already analog, and necessarily so. The math may be digital, but once you hit the realm of physical things, it becomes analog. It's all quantum; sure, some values seem to be purely digital, but everything is probabilistic. What we perceive as digital only becomes so because our senses are so poor and the technologies are based on differences which are much, much larger than ordinary fluctuations.
Digitizing (A>D) uses analog circuitry, comparing voltages to an analog standard (a difference between electron flows) and assigning a number which is stored and processed using analog technology. Transistors and capacitors are analog, lasers even more so. Even disc drives and CDs are ultimately analog. It's all quantum.
Playback (D>A) works by using that number to apply streams of electrons to other streams of electrons to drive analog circuitry. There are no linear processes — there are no perfect amplifiers! — once you hit physical systems, because it's all quantum.
In short, the circuitry is analog — and so are the control signals. A quantum-mechanical world is inherently analog. Don't blame me; I didn't do it.
Please just RTFM about quantum mechanics and signal processing; the psychology of "just noticeable differences" is also relevant.
3. Ultimately, the whole "digital vs. analog" argument is more about choice of algorithm. Just because simple algorithms suck does not mean that more complex ones likewise suck! Sure, a single sawtooth with a single LFO is boring, but well-coded supersaws (which are still awfully simple) can be very nice indeed. One bandpass filter does little, but add a few in series and maybe an LFO or two and you have a Univibe. Just imagine what could be done with actual complexity. We may still be knapping flint as far as audio technology is concerned, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to travel to the Moon. (Apologies for the mixed, albeit thematically consistent, metaphors.)
Wait... loot _then_ burn? D'oh!
-
- Beware the Quoth
- 33163 posts since 4 Sep, 2001 from R'lyeh Oceanic Amusement Park and Funfair
I love the irony of the fact that the OP is the guy who got miffed that Urs wont remove the noise modelling from the Satin tape emulator for him.
Of course, he also claims that analog tape machine noise can be removed completely as long as the tape machine is powered by a 'portable nuclear powerplant'.
Personally, I think Chernenkov radiation causes too much aliasing.
Of course, he also claims that analog tape machine noise can be removed completely as long as the tape machine is powered by a 'portable nuclear powerplant'.
Personally, I think Chernenkov radiation causes too much aliasing.
my other modular synth is a bugbrand
-
- KVRAF
- 3058 posts since 10 Nov, 2013 from Germany
What is "good"? That's completely subjective. No serious discussion possible.chilly7 wrote:Computer plugins never will be as good as analog or better.
Eg. I could say "noise is bad". For plugins a signal to noise ratio of 200 dB is no problem, inpossible for analog devices.
-
- KVRist
- 146 posts since 19 Mar, 2004 from Italy
The point is: do we really need analog stuff to do music?
I think we can do it with anything available
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ8R6VyP200
I think we can do it with anything available
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQ8R6VyP200
