VA Vs A

[dcfac73]

I'm sure this question has been asked before, but has there been any blind a-b testing of the sound differences (if any) between any of the virtual analogue software emulations of specific analogue hardware and the real devices? Eg have any of the Arturia emulations been tested? I've done a quick Google search with nothing useful coming up.

[thetechnobear]

yes, a few .... most fun one was last year u-he Diva vs OB8 at gearslutz

(possibly worth pointing out, diva is not really an emulation of specific hardware)

[faxinadu]

/rolls eyes

[dcfac73]

/rolls eyes

why?

[trimph1]

/rolls eyes

: roll : =

No spacing between the : and the word 'roll'

I do get what he is saying here. This is just another one of those threads that get people argying about whose instrument is better than whose...

[dcfac73]

/rolls eyes

: roll : =

No spacing between the : and the word 'roll'

I do get what he is saying here. This is just another one of those threads that get people argying about whose instrument is better than whose...

That's not my intention at all. I'm simply interested in whether there is solid evidence that people can or can't hear a difference between a specific SW emulation and it's HW counter-part.
I totally get that people would be biased based on whether they own the SW or HW, but blind ab-ing would eliminate this bias.
I guess I'm just bringing up the age-old digital vs analogue debate.
I only visit this site sporadically so forgive me if this has been argued to death already.
A lot of people say they prefer the sound of analogue gear , but digital provides more features for the money.
My obvious question- if it's been scientifically proven that people can't hear the difference between them, then why buy analogue?
I'm not trying to start a flame thread, so I'm not asking for personal opinions. I'm simply asking if there's solid evidence either way.

[chk071]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

[dcfac73]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

[fmr]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

Compared to what?

[chk071]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

You mean the VSTi? The Bass Station 2 is the analog synth. But yeah, from what i always read, it's not supposed to be the best analog emulation ever. But i also read a couple of times the analog Bass Station 1 wasn't really that well sounding either, so...

[dcfac73]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

Compared to what?

Compared to Arturia Microbrute, which I ended up buying.

[dcfac73]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

You mean the VSTi? The Bass Station 2 is the analog synth. But yeah, from what i always read, it's not supposed to be the best analog emulation ever. But i also read a couple of times the analog Bass Station 1 wasn't really that well sounding either, so...

No, I meant the BS2 analogue hardware synth. But I guess this means that analogue doesn't necessarilly mean "fatter" or "warmer" and digital doesn't necessarilly mean "thinner" and "colder".

[Chapelle]

---

[pdxindy]

yes, a few ....

Understatement of the year. Just search a bit on the internet, there are loads of them. Usually the outcome is that about 60-70% think the soft synth is the analog synth. Sometimes more.

Ok thanks. Good to know.
I recently had a demo of Novation's Bass Station 2 and thought it sounded quite thin and "digital". Go figure.

It depends on what you are doing. A lot of tests are of fairly static easy to reproduce sounds. In that case it is common to sound close enough that any differences are more pedantic than practical.

But start pushing things and modulating things (especially at audio rate), and then it is easier to hear the difference. Analogue does not alias. Digital when pushed does. Analogue by the nature of being analogue also has non-linear behaviors that are cpu intensive to reproduce in digital. This means you get unexpected little sweet spots and lovely tonal variations as you modulate stuff. Also, as you tweak stuff, you never have to worry about digital clipping.

There is something enjoyable about the liveliness of a flexible analogue synth. Once recorded into a song, especially more typical music, people may not hear the difference... but one may still enjoy and find inspiration in that difference in the playing.

[fmr]

How would you scientifically prove it anyway?
A simple A/B audio example blind test wouldn't be sufficient.

If you put up example A from an analog synth and example B from a VA, and people prefer A, you can't conclude from that, that analog sounds better.

If you put up example C from an analog synth and example D from another analog synth, and people prefer C, would you conclude that analog sounds better than analog?

If you put up example E from an analog synth and example F from the same analog synth, and peopler prefer E, would you conclude that this particular analog synth sounds better than itself?

There are rules to conduct "scientific" studies, you know? Like in every other aspect that involves human perception and human sciences, you start by select a test universe that you find is broad enough and representative enough, and then conduct several tests, some of them are just checking tests, etc.

Anyway, if you'd want to compare an hardware synth with a software emulation, you would obviously choose the same patch played on both, like what was done in the past, for example with Arturia Jupiter-8 vs the real Jupiter-8, Tal U-NO-LX vs the Juno-60, or more recently the Matrix-12. Since one is the emulation of the other, this is a quite simple task.

Regarding your (somehow absurd) hypothesis, those would be only significant to test individual tastes and sound preferences, obviously. Would not be the ones chosen in an objective study.

So, to sum it up: You can just compare what is comparable, the rest is apples vs oranges.