Analog or digital ?

[whyterabbyt]

Now would you admit, Jupiter8, that there IS a difference between true analog and VA

When did people deny there was a difference?

The claim that's actually disputed around here is that 'true analog' is automatically better than VA. And looking over this thread, of the folk that have expressed a preference its not as clear-cut as that.

[whyterabbyt]

On Moore's Law a 100* increase in CPU speed should take about 7 years.

Moore's law says nothing about CPU speed, Im afraid; it relates to transistor count.

[hakey]

On Moore's Law a 100* increase in CPU speed should take about 7 years.

Moore's law says nothing about CPU speed, Im afraid; it relates to transistor count.

Yes, you're right - it was a sloppy use of the term (as was the 7 years bit - probably more like 10?), but, pedantry aside, I think the sense of what I was saying was reasonably easy to discern.

From Wikipedia:

It is also common to cite Moore's law to refer to the rapidly continuing advance in computing performance per unit cost, because increase in transistor count is also a rough measure of computer processing performance

[Lotuzia]

Now would you admit, Jupiter8, that there IS a difference between true analog and VA

When did people deny there was a difference?

The claim that's actually disputed around here is that 'true analog' is automatically better than VA. And looking over this thread, of the folk that have expressed a preference its not as clear-cut as that.

To me it appears that according to JP8, the claim what that they were so similar that it was impossible to make a distinction between them. Maybe I missed something.

EDIT: Funny how some of you are so sure which is which. To me they sounds pretty much identical. It could be the same synth as far as i'm concerned. And maaybe it is. Maybe i'll need my ears checked. Or monitoring solution.

Then ( I compile the quotes, just because I'm too lazy)

So which one is which ? Which one has that analog depth that only analog can do and which one is the sterile VSTi ?

An opinion wich has been debated many times here or on other forums, and according to the high rate of people who detected the emul from the real thing, appears to be eventually less valid that it could have been.( At least with_this_example)

Wether some people prefered the digital one over the analog one is not really my concern, I still have a CZ101 wich sounds pretty digitalesque, and love it all the way. I've never been that much into Nostalgia to pretend that all the synths and synthesis methods invented after the Minimoog were just good enough to be put in a trash. Music needs all types of instruments and rely on diversity.

"Sounds better" is a very relative concept. Do Gibsons sounds better than Fenders ? Are Rhodes better than Wurlitzers ? Each one has for sure its own answer.

But yes you're right : There IS a difference. An audible one.

LtZ

[Emerald Tablet]

Ok guys

i didn't read through this thread. My two cents.

If someone makes a nice emulation of crackling transistors and other random or not random desired or undesired random bysounds or soundmanipulations from hardware synths or effects i see no reason why it would sound different.

Perhaps a techie can share some more in depth knowledge on why there should or should not be a difference.

I always like imperfaction so any way used to make sounds come out more dirty is apreciated by me (my fav. synth mandala comes to mind)
I can always use filters and EQ and amp-simulations if i want to make sounds smoother or dirty-er

Remco

[whyterabbyt]

Yes, you're right - it was a sloppy use of the term (as was the 7 years bit - probably more like 10?), but, pedantry aside, I think the sense of what I was saying was reasonably easy to discern.

indeed. the one thing i'd point out though, is that the increase in the possible number of transistors on mainstream CPUs primarily goes on L1 and L2 cacheing. whilst they have the effect of helping not slowing down the throughput of a CPU, they don't contribute to speeding it up, if you see what I mean. so i'd posit that even if moore's law holds, that core CPU speeds dont necessarily follow it; that's the primary rationale for multicore procssors; leveraging transistor density for aggregate speed increases.

but thats all going a bit OT, of course.

[whyterabbyt]

To me it appears that according to JP8, the claim what that they were so similar that it was impossible to make a distinction between them. Maybe I missed something.

the claim I see was that he found them so similar that it was impossible for him to make a distinction between them. he didnt actually insist that that made it a universal fact, though, which is a rarity around here sometimes.

[pschelfh]

Do Gibsons sounds better than Fenders ?
LtZ

Oh yes, they do, Gibsons sound warm and Fenders sound more digital!!

Peter.

[Lotuzia]

To me it appears that according to JP8, the claim what that they were so similar that it was impossible to make a distinction between them. Maybe I missed something.

the claim I see was that he found them so similar that it was impossible for him to make a distinction between them. he didnt actually insist that that made it a universal fact, though, which is a rarity around here sometimes.

Agree.

Well ........ Now ........ Not that I'm against any good sterile digital controversy but ....

[Lotuzia]

Do Gibsons sounds better than Fenders ?
LtZ

Oh yes, they do, Gibsons sound warm and Fenders sound more digital!!

Peter.

I bet you know more than me on that subject Peter.

Guitar still remains a very MYSTERIOUS instrument after all these years for me ( Yes its true )

But I love faking some ( Ahh the sweet sound of analog OR digital guitars )

LtZ

[rectus_dominus]

I think the discussion wouldn't be so easy if the digital one would have been a strict DCAM Jupiter6 emulation...

[jupiter8]

To me it appears that according to JP8, the claim what that they were so similar that it was impossible to make a distinction between them. Maybe I missed something.

The soundfiles obviously sounds a bit different because one was trying to mimic the first. It wasn't a side by side comparison where you can compare settings and such. So first i was really impressed how close came with the sound design.
I could never do that. I'm more of a happy accidents kind of guy.

Second of all if someone would have told me they were both done with a Jupiter 6 i would have easily bought it. Or say a J6 and a MKS 80. Or a J6 and J8.
Or a Juno 106 and Juno 60 (you get my point). To me they're that close.

But as i already mentioned maybe i need to get my ears checked as most of you guys seems to quite easily tell the difference.

One thing i thought of was making it a poll instead so people could'nt see how the others had "voted". It would have been interesting to see if the results had differed but that's another discussion at best and a cop out at worst.

Say 95% said "1 is analog and you're an idiot if you can't tell" and you thought differently. Can you say with absolute conviction that that would'nt affect you the slightest ? Maybe,maybe not.

[jupiter8]

he didnt actually insist that that made it a universal fact, though, which is a rarity around here sometimes.

No i forgot that. Sorry about that. I'll do better next time.

[olepro]

I still think that these two sound files is like wood and metal in comparison.

[djsubject]

But as i already mentioned maybe i need to get my ears checked as most of you guys seems to quite easily tell the difference.

the difference is so subtle 99.x% of standard listeners (EG, MP3 Ipod massive) would say they cant tell a difference,

what i noticed (& liked) was the transients randomly brake up in the analog file through some of the filter sweeps,

some of my presets in Fusor have some lovely smashing transients, if andy did this patch in fusor i'm sure he could have got even closer (but i guess that would be cheating)

Subz