Analog or digital ?

[pdxindy]

The interesting claim to me is rather that some analog synths may exhibit some (desirable) behaviours that VA emulation can not yet satisfactorily reproduce.

of course there are some "nuances" that have not been 100% faithfully digitally recreated, but it also goes the other way around (and even analog or VA internal- since most synths can sound "better" or "worse" on different material- as all instruments have their strengths and weaknesses)

I'm not sure that I understand your argument - analog synths can't fully recreate the sound of VA's? It's obviously true, but the whole raison d'etre of VA's is to capture the behaviour of analog synths - that is made absolutely explicit in the name Virtual Analog - and, as such, is it not perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits of VA's based in part upon how successfully they fulfil that criteria?

The which is more capable, or sounds better, has a wider timbrel range etc - which, it seems to me, is what you were drifting towards there - is a whole different argument.

Even another analog cannot necessarily faithfully recreate the sound of an analog example. So it is a steep hill to climb. To try to make an audio example so accurately match an existing audio example that people cannot tell the difference is exceptionally hard regardless if the synths are analog or hard or soft digital.

I hear qualities in analog examples that VA synths cannot match. It is still a technical issue. Developers first aim for the most musically useful characteristics with the limited cpu resources. As cpus get more powerful, we see something like D-Cam come out.

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances? When I compose a song, the bass is relatively monotonous. By that I mean it is as it is and there are not generally wild modulation swings etc. It is fulfilling a part in a greater composition. Under these circumstances, I believe VA holds up better than under the 'let's do every wild modulation to show how VA cannot keep up' method.

[Lossl]

The interesting claim to me is rather that some analog synths may exhibit some (desirable) behaviours that VA emulation can not yet satisfactorily reproduce.

of course there are some "nuances" that have not been 100% faithfully digitally recreated, but it also goes the other way around (and even analog or VA internal- since most synths can sound "better" or "worse" on different material- as all instruments have their strengths and weaknesses)

I'm not sure that I understand your argument - analog synths can't fully recreate the sound of VA's? It's obviously true, but the whole raison d'etre of VA's is to capture the behaviour of analog synths - that is made absolutely explicit in the name Virtual Analog - and, as such, is it not perfectly reasonable to discuss the merits of VA's based in part upon how successfully they fulfil that criteria?

The which is more capable, or sounds better, has a wider timbrel range etc - which, it seems to me, is what you were drifting towards there - is a whole different argument.

well of course it could be desirable if one VA sounded 100% like the synth it is modeling; at least if it tries to be an emulation - but there are also a lot VA's out there which do not try to emulate the jupiters, arps or moogs - instead they simply happen to share the same paradigm of how to shape a sound - hence the V in the VA.
so what i'm trying to say is that the term "VA" does not necessarily have to mean that it has to be a "perfect emulation" of one of our beloved analogs - instead they are instruments in their own rights, just like the moogs, sh-'s, etc...
albeit not as sexy (to me)

also: do analogs sound like analogs? there are not so few people who think that the prophet 8 sounds like a VA for instance

the Andromeda does not sound exactly like a Minimoog which does not sound like an ARP...

and most of the analog "emulations" i can think of at the moment are also said not to sound as "good" as their originals aswell

[zerocrossing]

Here's a point I'd like to make based on the idea that the point where analog synths shine is in areas that are not necessarily "musical." The point is an interesting one because it points to aesthetics which have really very little to do with notions of quality. Many moons ago my idea of analog synths was "Switched on Bach." Cheese. Real music was made with guitars, tube amps and orchestras. I was looking for synths to "emulate" acoustic and electro-acoustic instruments and they sucked. No matter how much I tried to get my Mattel Synsonics to sound like Moon's kit, I failed.

But like my friend Lao Tzu says, "Expectations suck."

A short while later I realized that I could take my crappy synth (some 80s Casio-tone) and run it though some guitar stomp boxes and make something magic. In an instant I realized that the source of my dissatisfaction had become the source of my infatuation. Now my Synsonics was brilliant.

Do not try and bend the spoon. That would be impossible. Instead... only try to realize the truth: There is no spoon.

Woah.</keanu>

So I consider the source of my VST induced bliss not my ignorance of analog synthesis but my disregard of it. I spent a semester messing about with Moog modulars back in the 80s in a synthesis class. I've owned a handful of old analog synths along the way. I've even owned the famous VA modeling analog synth the DSI MoPho. I know their deal. I guess I could spend a lot of time, money and effort obtaining those classic synths, or I could sit under my lotus tree and look at what I have.

I've got some kick ass sh*it grasshopper.

[hakey]

These tend to be the class of problems where "closing the gap fast" would require exponentially increasing computational capacity, which of course isn't happening.

But Moore's Law, which is closely related to (bang for the buck) computational performance, is an exponential rule.

Moore's Law is going to catch up to Heisenberg's Principal at some point and get bitch slapped unless we figure out how to do quantum computing.

Systems that grow exponentially do tend to go pop eventually!

[hakey]

@ pdxindy and Lossl

Just so that you know, though I still harbour a suspicion that there are some (desirable and, to my ears, musical) aspects of analog behaviour that digital emulation can not quite reach, I unquestioningly recognise the overwhelming benefits that digital synths offer in terms of timbrel range, ease of use, affordability etc I'm really far closer to the 'VA evangelist' position than that of the 'analog zealot'.

I bought my first (digital rompler) synth in the early 90's, the first music software I used was Octamed on the Amiga, from that perspective what can now be easily and cheaply done in the digital realm and just the sheer breadth of possibility is absolutely amazing - and it's getting better all the time and at an accelerating rate!

I do think the discussion about how successful VA emulations of analog are is still an interesting one, and one that yet has some legs, but I really don't think it's all that important. Anyway, all I'm saying is, don't take me for an analog zealot .

[herodotus]

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances?

You really should purge your mind of this silly 'musical instruments are for making music' notion.

These tools are clearly made to amuse gear afficionados who do precisely these sorts of tests and comparisons. The same goes for equalizers and (especially) compressors. The point isn't to ask 'are they useful for making music?', but rather, to ask how they stand up to comparison with some mythical perfect vintage source of magic pixie dust, and then to do a thousand 'tests' that are never really conclusive, but which give people lots of opportunities to insult each others listening skills.

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.

[jopy]

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings).

Ah ha! Very good!

[Kire]

Interesting discussion here!


Here's a little tune I made today with heavy influences from Vangelis.

http://www.kiresounds.se/downloads/Bladevaz.mp3

Some analog vibes going on I think. But is it analog??

[pdxindy]

Interesting discussion here!


Here's a little tune I made today with heavy influences from Vangelis.

http://www.kiresounds.se/downloads/Bladevaz.mp3

Some analog vibes going on I think. But is it analog??

It is all digital (which would include sample based)

[Kire]

That's right!

Vaz Modular on typical analog sounds
Sonic synth 2 on digital sounds

and True pianos on piano

[Lossl]

Just so that you know, though I still harbour a suspicion that there are some (desirable and, to my ears, musical) aspects of analog behaviour that digital emulation can not quite reach

yes, this is of course true- especially when it comes to stuff like distortion and saturation- but as pdxindy already has pointed out: a lot of this "stuff" is not necessarily needed when it comes to the musical part.

there are already some great plugins which can emulate such stuff pretty good nevertheless and i would not want to participate in a blind test since i am sure i would fail miserably if someone dialed in the right values- it is just harder to achieve this digitally in my oppinion whereas it is often very easy to do the analog way (and on extreme settings still better sounding)

[Lotuzia]

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances?

You really should purge your mind of this silly 'musical instruments are for making music' notion.

These tools are clearly made to amuse gear afficionados who do precisely these sorts of tests and comparisons. The same goes for equalizers and (especially) compressors. The point isn't to ask 'are they useful for making music?', but rather, to ask how they stand up to comparison with some mythical perfect vintage source of magic pixie dust, and then to do a thousand 'tests' that are never really conclusive, but which give people lots of opportunities to insult each others listening skills.

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.

Well when I'm playing on one of my old vintage ladies, until now I had merely the impression that I was playing music .........

Now if you tell me that I'm just entering a sect ....

LtZ

[hakey]

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.

With all due respect - bollocks!

Long story short: I first fell for the sound of analog synths in 1989 upon hearing 'I Feel Love' properly for the first time (this was in a nightclub somewhere in the north of England back in the early days of the British warehouse/rave era, so you can probably guess the sub text there ) and it was the beautiful, unearthly musical qualities of 'the analog sound' that I fell in love with then and still love now.

The difference is back then nothing other than an analog synth sounded like an analog synth - luckily for me and others who share my predilection things are a little different now

[pschelfh]

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances?

You really should purge your mind of this silly 'musical instruments are for making music' notion.

These tools are clearly made to amuse gear afficionados who do precisely these sorts of tests and comparisons. The same goes for equalizers and (especially) compressors. The point isn't to ask 'are they useful for making music?', but rather, to ask how they stand up to comparison with some mythical perfect vintage source of magic pixie dust, and then to do a thousand 'tests' that are never really conclusive, but which give people lots of opportunities to insult each others listening skills.

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.

Well when I'm playing on one of my old vintage ladies, until now I had merely the impression that I was playing music .........

Now if you tell me that I'm just entering a sect ....

LtZ

Count me in Laurent! We should start an obscure sect and kiss turkey's behinds (from 'The thin blue line')!!
Things will never be the same when I play my old analogs now.

Peter.

[psychematic]

One thing I note, is that the analog examples that get posted in these threads are not usually trying to be musical. Let's hear an analog/VA comparison as it would be played in a song (without the foray into radical resonance settings and envelop swings). Under those extreme circumstances it is easy to hear the analog difference, but how about in more musical circumstances?

You really should purge your mind of this silly 'musical instruments are for making music' notion.

These tools are clearly made to amuse gear afficionados who do precisely these sorts of tests and comparisons. The same goes for equalizers and (especially) compressors. The point isn't to ask 'are they useful for making music?', but rather, to ask how they stand up to comparison with some mythical perfect vintage source of magic pixie dust, and then to do a thousand 'tests' that are never really conclusive, but which give people lots of opportunities to insult each others listening skills.

In other words, these things are totems of a nascent religion. An obscure religion to be sure, but a religion nonetheless.

Music has nothing to do with it.

Thing is, the whole point of this thread was that it was started by someone who could barely tell the difference between a real analog synth and a VA synth. And not only that but the VA synth example was done by one of the very designers of that VA synth... a VA synth that is currently marketed as being one of the best VAs out there with CPU-eating component modeling and the like.

And in the end it fell pretty short. This isn't about whether analog is better, it was more about how the marketing of a new VA is a bit more hype than reality.

Unless someone wants to post an example of Synth Squad that does a better job of showing how it's comparable. Right now I'm not convinced it's capable.