Analog or digital ?

[james0tucson]

Digital:

Wow, the Three Stooges theme with a filter and reverb.

[thecontrolcentre]

Getting a drunken hosebag to dance is not an "analog versus digital" issue, though.

I thought we'd moved on to "hardware vs software" ... what's a hosebag anyway?

[vurt]

what's a hosebag anyway?

its the perfect gift for the fireman or woman who has everything.

[thecontrolcentre]

what's a hosebag anyway?

its the perfect gift for the fireman or woman who has everything.

That's very funny

[The Chase]

What made legendary synths legendary was legendary players. The rest is total hogwash. Take one synth, any synth, and work. That's what makes a synth great. The work. The music. Any synth of any type will do.

EG Rick Wakeman

RICK WAKEMAN EAT YOUR HEART OUT HERE WE GO....

I like analog but I got no interest in maintaining equipment, spending the money or making the space... I am happy with my soft synths... straight digital synth, no effects

http://draigathar.org/sounds/2.5.13.wav

Midrange hurts my ears, bass is muddy, no clear high end.

I really don't mean to make a stab at you, but judging by your post history, had he not declared that it was a VST before hand, you probably wouldn't be saying/hearing so. In fact, judging by your post history I would bet that if he said that it was an analog synth or even a digital hardware synth, you'd be pointing out sonic qualities in it that you'd say couldn't be achieved by VST's.

I've had the ol' debate about this and silly things like mixers/outboard gear with you over the years and it's just how it's gone.

[living sounds]

I really don't mean to make a stab at you, but judging by your post history, had he not declared that it was a VST before hand, you probably wouldn't be saying/hearing so. In fact, judging by your post history I would bet that if he said that it was an analog synth or even a digital hardware synth, you'd be pointing out sonic qualities in it that you'd say couldn't be achieved by VST's.

I've had the ol' debate about this and silly things like mixers/outboard gear with you over the years and it's just how it's gone.

You're entitled to whatever prejudice you might want to hold, but let me tell you I base my decisions on the sound, nothing else. The Prophet 08 is fully analog, look up what I've said about it if you like.


Other than that, this is another good thread gone south since the 'residents' took it over.

[fas1piano]

i like pdxindy sounds. some really nice stuff in there.

living sounds, your 4-8 bar synth beat loops posted here and in other debates likes this are fun, too. i don't think, though, that they are enough to back up your attitude. when you post you sound like some bob clearmountain himself - you should deliver more than loop cdrom content then. i certainly don't hear in the music what all this fuss is about.

[Kire]

Synthtweaking by me!

Please watch your speakervolume before listening.

www.kiresounds.se/downloads/synth.mp3

The day after my crazy recording, I think it sounds somewhere between a Prophet 5 and the ARP 2600. But that's just me

[WMP]

Hanfih, all those synths that you think sucked have still yet to be emualated with any real sonic authenticity to the original.

You missed the point.

He is saying that it doesn't matter. What matters is the musician.

This message is forever lost on gear aficionados.

Again I ask, why do you people frequent a software forum if you believe hardware is so superior?

Really, I am curious, why?

As I have said previously before... I love analog for doing analog sounds. And I love digital (be it hardware digital or virtual) for doing digital sounds.

As for

He is saying that it doesn't matter. What matters is the musician.

This message is forever lost on gear aficionados

I've had coming up for now 50 releases when you take into account paid remixes and original works...so I get the musiccian bit. Not everyone who likes analog for the sound is a hoarding bedroom anorak who just likes thepretty lights....some of us also (and this is the main reason) appreciate the sound quality and the ease in which they just seem to fit into a production without the hassle. It just works.

[hakey]

Actually I think you missed the point that we're not testing synthesizers but the ability of people to perceive and identify the differences between synth engines. To do that you need a statistically valid method, otherwise we just waste our time babbling about opinion and making smarmy remarks like yours.

So there

hmmm... I think that you missed the point that I just don't think it matters that much, (I have said that several times already) hence the comparison with cancer therapy, which matters a tiny bit more than how analog X VSTi sounds and for which the methods of statistical evaluation that you're talking about aren't completely out of all proportion to the importance of the subject.

And where I said 'worthwhile' I certainly did not mean that as synonym for 'statistically significant' (the meaning of which I am well aware).

[hakey]

....If you really want to do a rigorous double blind, control group, statistically significant trial, I suggest a 'Turing Test' kind of set up - some kind of a universal control interface that could be midi'd up to various analog synths or VA's with comparable feature sets - give the testers different random synths to play with VA or analog and see if they can, with any probability, tell one class from the other.

But still, I just don't think that it's all that important. For my money a really good digital synth can cover 95% of the sonic range of any analog, whereas the very best analog would be pushed to achieve 5% of the former.

[fas1piano]

....If you really want to do a rigorous double blind, control group, statistically significant trial[...]

But still, I just don't think that it's all that important. For my money a really good digital synth can cover 95% of the sonic range of any analog, [...]

so how can you know then

nothing wrong with loving particular instruments for one's own music, but why do people have this inner urge to state all the time that anybody knows that everybody knows that analog is 5 % mo betta - if in truth knobody knows anything?

[hakey]

....If you really want to do a rigorous double blind, control group, statistically significant trial[...]

But still, I just don't think that it's all that important. For my money a really good digital synth can cover 95% of the sonic range of any analog, [...]

so how can you know then

I don't 'know' it - the qualifier 'For my money' makes it fairly clear that what follows is a statement of belief or opinion rather than one of knowledge .

[living sounds]

nothing wrong with loving particular instruments for one's own music, but why do people have this inner urge to state all the time that anybody knows that everybody knows that analog is 5 % mo betta - if in truth knobody knows anything?

Who came up with this 5 % nonsense? For me it's - sonically - about music that I want to listen to and music that I don't, and also gear that will make a great mix and gear that doesn't.

[hakey]

nothing wrong with loving particular instruments for one's own music, but why do people have this inner urge to state all the time that anybody knows that everybody knows that analog is 5 % mo betta - if in truth knobody knows anything?

Who came up with this 5 % nonsense?

Oooh....! (I'd put a 'raises handbag in front of face' emoticon here if there was one )

I came up with the "5% nonsense", but, read it in its original context, it should be clear that it wasn't meant as a serious statement, or to be 'statistically significant', far from it (I was actually talking about why I don't think that any difference between digital VA's and analogs is all that important, which is pretty much what you're saying?) - certainly not worth getting all het up about