Analog or digital ?

[Urs]

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.

Your ears are fine. It wasn't easy for me either. I looked for certain properties in each file and found them. If we had however not known that one was digital and one was analogue (as in "is any of these made with an analogue synth?"), then I wouldn't have dared to bite so quickly

[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 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.

Yeah JP8 a poll might have given different results.

And its true that emulation are gettin closer nowadays ( nthough the Korg LCAE and the IMP' for example are quite old and are -imvho- very good emulation too, as Alchemy wich surprinsingly can sound very warmish-analoguish aso ).

Now if you had not made such long clips it would have made it much more difficult to detect the clones so thanks for that and . Like I said in some parts of the clips, and when sounds are more well let's say mostly "static", the instruments are quite closed, and maybe thats the parts you put your focus on. The modulations really make the difference imho

Btw I have 6 vintage Roland units, including a CS-1000 wich is really really ....... venerable. But I was amazed of how my yet simple Juno-60 sounds close to your example, in some parts of the clip. Might be why I detected it. I really have this Roland sound printed in a part of my head

But indeed the test was very interesting and well made. It was long enough to really give the opportunity to compare different movements, and the movements were well done.

And I remember some other subjects were you were right and I was wrong ( Including one on the Rolanda D50, a synth that I own )

So no offense here m8

Cheers,

LtZ

[jopy]

I don't think this particular test proves any global point. It shows Cypher doesn't sound like a J6 to most people, with this specific patch, in the context of the synth hanging out by itself without any other instruments. I did this thinking that once again, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference; in the past I've had difficulty telling the difference between "virtual tubes" like the Vox AD30 and real tube amps, or between digital and analog synths. These two examples just really sounded different to me, and the first one sounded much better to my ears.

Is this the point in the thread where someone says, "For example, I think Zebra could easily pass for a good analog synth to my ears on some patches?" If it is, then I just said it. If it isn't that point yet, then I was just asking.

[todd_r]

...I was amazed of how my yet simple Juno-60 sounds close to your example...

I thought the same (have a Juno 6), then it started doing things the Juno can't do, hence I guessed at a Jupiter. I wouldn't say it was easy exactly, but certainly not hard, and I was only listening on crappy laptop soundcard and earbuds.

I think what maybe threw some people is that Rolands don't really have that "warm fat" type of sound some people may have been expecting if they're used to, or expecting to hear a Moog type of sound, and the second example sounds a little more rounded.

[JPQ]

I mostly think 1 is analog. and i think both have good areas timeline. But want know what synth used.

[jupiter8]

I mostly think 1 is analog. and i think both have good areas timeline. But want know what synth used.

Nr 1 was:


Nr 2 was FXPansion Cypher

[mao]

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

+1

A very useful thing to try is to make a little tune (using 3-4 tracks) using only VSTs. Then the same tune using only analogs. Forget to try emulating the sounds, use whatever sound you want for the vst and whatever inspire you for the analog one.

wait some days and listen to the two tunes. You'll probably find really a different taste. I always liked the analog one more, giving more vibrant and organic overall sound.

I found that mixing vst (with some exception) and analogs on the same tune is really difficult... but that's probably my fault.

[zerocrossing]

Music needs all types of instruments and rely on diversity.

That's what I tell myself to justify my G.A.S.

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

I think this last sentence maybe should read, "There IS a difference in these two examples."

For me, the difference, if there is one, is only evident when emulating the point where the components are pushed past their normal operating range. One of the things I like about the MoPho is that while it's fine when playing a basic filter sweep sound, it really perks up with you crank up that feedback and make it scream a bit. (I don't think the Prophet '08 has that feedback) When I got it, my knee jerk reaction was "This reminds me of Olga (a digital VA)" so I went head to head with the two. My final conclusion was that Olga was every bit as "good" (desirable?) as the MoPHo but that the two were different enough that the MoPho was worth keeping and, of course, the MoPho has a near zero impact on my CPU.

So, I'm still sticking to my idea that analog doesn't have some sort of magic that's impossible to emulate, though I think that many VAs don't emulate those points where things "break." Why? I think of it like a plastic vase vs a ceramic vase. Let's say I can make two vases that are more or less identical to the eye. When using them to hold some flowers, the plastic one can only be detected due to it's lower weight and maybe slight flexibility when bent. Sitting on the shelf with the rose it it, the difference is inperceptable.

Now take both vases and throw them on the floor. Here the differences become evident. The way they break gives away their nature. Maybe the plastic one doesn't break at all. The manufacturer would most likely say that's a feature and a benefit. The ceramic collector will lament that the heft and brittle nature make it special. If you're tossing your vases around, there's no choice, you have to go ceramic.

But I'm saying that some VAs have become very good at "breaking" like you want them too. I upgraded my computer recently and I find the need to go with the harder to use MoPho is a lot less. One of the reasons I kept it was that I was told a VST interface was on the way for it. I realize now it's vaporware. Oh well. It sure looks cute sitting there with it's silly "push" button. When I look for "vintage analog sound" I'm just as likely to find what I'm looking for in the KLC, Minimonsta, Sawer and Poly-ana.

Anyway, my complaint is this a/b test failed because the sounds themselves were too different. I also heard an a/b between the Andromeda and Synth Squad that seemed like a commercial for the Andromeda. It would lead me to conclude that Synth Squad was nothing special, but I won't go on these anecdotal evidence.

[pschelfh]

One of the reasons I kept it was that I was told a VST interface was on the way for it. I realize now it's vaporware. Oh well.

Why would you need a VST interface? You can open and tweak the Soundtower editor while you're working in your sequencer software.

Peter.

[pdxindy]

So, I'm still sticking to my idea that analog doesn't have some sort of magic that's impossible to emulate, though I think that many VAs don't emulate those points where things "break." Why?

because the majority of commercial music doesn't need it... look at the best selling digital synths over the years

it is a small subset of a small subset of people even interested in the topic

[JPQ]

I mostly think 1 is analog. and i think both have good areas timeline. But want know what synth used.

Nr 1 was:


Nr 2 was FXPansion Cypher

Jupiter -6 is one my favorites based what i heared if rember corretly. Actually if i can choose (actually i cannot) 4 analog i want jupiter-6/8,Prophet 5 and aRP Oddysey and one Oberheim which modelnumber is maybe ob xa tai something similar. ps. if depends me i going buy dsi tetra sorry offtopic.

[JPQ]

I mostly think 1 is analog. and i think both have good areas timeline. But want know what synth used.

Nr 1 was:


Nr 2 was FXPansion Cypher

Jupiter -6 is one my favorites based what i heared if rember corretly. Actually if i can choose (actually i cannot) 5 analog i want jupiter-6/8,Prophet 5 and aRP Oddysey,roland sh-101 and one Oberheim which modelnumber is maybe ob xa tai something similar. ps. if depends me i going buy dsi tetra sorry offtopic.
ps. to me Cypher in manufacturer demos sounds clearly digital.

[psychematic]

I recognised the first being analog right away and like many others thought "If this is a VST then I want it." That being said, I have two analogs (Andromeda and Pulse) and I regularly push them to get all those characteristics that only analog can do so I'm very familiar with that sound and what to listen for.

If I didn't have those two analogs I'd probably have a harder time separating the analog from the digital... I'd probably think all that analog magic was a "bug" and not a "feature." Or bad mp3 encoding when it came to the presence of the bass, etc...

That being said, this was a great example of the differences between real analog and VA, so if you're on the fence with wanting the real deal or just a VA then listen to these two examples for some sort of guidance.

[JPQ]

I recognised the first being analog right away and like many others thought "If this is a VST then I want it." That being said, I have two analogs (Andromeda and Pulse) and I regularly push them to get all those characteristics that only analog can do so I'm very familiar with that sound and what to listen for.

If I didn't have those two analogs I'd probably have a harder time separating the analog from the digital... I'd probably think all that analog magic was a "bug" and not a "feature." Or bad mp3 encoding when it came to the presence of the bass, etc...

That being said, this was a great example of the differences between real analog and VA, so if you're on the fence with wanting the real deal or just a VA then listen to these two examples for some sort of guidance.

To me i think reason why í spot analog is my music taste mainly its age when only realstic choir sounds are vako orchestron and mellotron etc... and i tested some analogs and listed more analogs years ago.

[pdxindy]

That being said, this was a great example of the differences between real analog and VA, so if you're on the fence with wanting the real deal or just a VA then listen to these two examples for some sort of guidance.

hehehe... clearly an unbiased opinion