Analog or digital ?

[james0tucson]

I remember on one or more of the Queen albums that they stated "No synths used on this album" Later on they used synths lol

Boston did the same thing -- I remember being very, very disappointed by that.

[james0tucson]

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?

It's a regional term for "skank."

[living sounds]

He most defeintely does not say that analogues are better than synth squad - he says they are better than hardware VA's and then goes onto to demonstrate how synth squad can be set up to have a more analogue sound. It's soooo not what you are saying he said

He says it somewhere else in the thread, I think.

[living sounds]

as soon as you know that vsts have been used, that is. you could found a vst free record label - maybe there is a target group for this.

I wouldn't be able to publish my own music on that lable, since I use plugins on every song and most of the tracks. You've only got to know when not to use one.

[Epiphany]

But you don't stop there. No, you actually have to go and tell Angus from FXpansion that his products 'aren't there yet'. Hell, you compared them to 'I can't believe its not butter'. That is an insult. A major software developer contributes to a thread, and you reply with an insult.

What I am saying is that, rather than hanging out here and insulting the developers whose presence makes this place interesting, why don't you go someplace where people agree with you? Or if you are going to stay, find a more respectful and less vague way of talking about this stuff.

Because the presence of people such as yourself discourages these developers from posting as much as they used to. And to be honest, I am more interested in their insights than yours. That's why I come here and avoid gearslutz. Though, to be frank, this place gets less interesting every day.

So, are FXpansion and other notable proponents within the plugin "scene" so insecure that strong, brusque and even brutal criticism frightens them off? In that case, perhaps the only reason they begun posting here was for the never-ending stream of ingratiating acolytes and software obsessives patting them on the back, and the consequential commercial benefits... but let's hope not, eh?

Still, you are absolutely right of course: we need to deport any hardware Luddites to Gearslutz immediately. Sod it, let's outright burn these heretics at the stake; whatever it takes to keep KVR a nice, uncritical monoculture. You'd like that, wouldn't you - as would all those delicate souls selling software as the emperor's new clothes.

(Which, as an aside, I don't believe includes FXpansion/Andy, actually. IIRC, they've been perfectly transparent in their belief that analogue modelling still has a significant way to go. Infact, it's only the particularly blinkered fanboys that don't accept that.)

[djanthonyw]

What would you rather have... an analog or digital STD?

[Urs]

So, are FXpansion and other notable proponents within the plugin "scene" so insecure that strong, brusque and even brutal criticism frightens them off?

Nah, why bother even? Two people find analogue synths easier to mix. That's hardly "brutal criticism", it just goes to show that it helps to implement monophonic modes in softsynths too.

[HanafiH]

the never-ending stream of ingratiating acolytes and software obsessives

You left out the psychopaths. I'm sensitive about that.

[Epiphany]

Nah, why bother even? Two people find analogue synths easier to mix. That's hardly "brutal criticism", it just goes to show that it helps to implement monophonic modes in softsynths too.

It's hardly "two people finding analogue synths easier to mix", is it. That may be about the sum total you'll find in the fanatical monoculture that some would like KVR to be, but there's thousands of knowledgeable, experienced producers and engineers that feel exactly the same, and would never dream of posting here. That doesn't make them infallible or "more right" of course, but to dismiss their opinion on the basis of their rarity here is absurd.

Even taking into account the army of equally fanatical fairy dust conspirators (of which there are many) the fact half this forum is still consumed with discussion on the latest, most accurate capture of "analogue behaviour" says all you need to know. Moreover I reckon most rational folk still accept there is something worth capturing, monophonic or otherwise.

[Urs]

Nah, why bother even? Two people find analogue synths easier to mix. That's hardly "brutal criticism", it just goes to show that it helps to implement monophonic modes in softsynths too.

It's hardly "two people finding analogue synths easier to mix", is it.

Sorry, but that is really the only resonable argument I have read in this thread.

Each thread about analogue vs. digital (or hardware vs. software) tends to create a new "Last Resort" for the ones who are in favour of the more expensive solution. In this thread this last resort is "mixing". In other threads I've seen the complete opposite, which is "softsynths sound pre-produced already and thus less lively".

The arguments are being interchanged arbitrarily from thread to thread. Every time it occurrs to me like an opportune way to justify expenses for some sort of, yes, pixie dust.

Regarding the thousands of knowledgeable, experienced producers and engineers that feel exactly the same, where did you get that number from? All I can say is that hundreds of extraordinarily successful producers happily use software without the need to find mental excuses, based on the feedback I get.

[a6jamp]

just as an opinion to this question=Digital

[jupiter8]

I remember on one or more of the Queen albums that they stated "No synths used on this album" Later on they used synths lol

Boston did the same thing -- I remember being very, very disappointed by that.

their albums featured a distinctive "No Synthesisers were used on this Album" sleevenote. The note is widely assumed to reflect an anti-synth, pro-"hard"-rock stance by the band, but was later revealed by producer Roy Thomas Baker to be an attempt to clarify that those albums' multi-layered solos were created with guitars, not synths, as record company executives kept assuming at the time.

[emdot_ambient]

I remember on one or more of the Queen albums that they stated "No synths used on this album" Later on they used synths lol

Boston did the same thing -- I remember being very, very disappointed by that.

Synergy's first LP had a "and nobody played guitars" comment on it in retaliation against Queen. (Synergy is Larry Fast)
http://www.aural-innovations.com/issues ... lfast.html

AI: I'm curious, on your first CD's you boast "no guitars" and then we get to "Cords" and it's "finally guitars", and then I think after "Cords" it was no guitars again. What was there about "Cords"? Was it just an experiment?

LF: Well the guitars on "Cords" is really guitar synthesis so there's no guitars per se. There's a guitar controller controlling the Moog. And that was an old friend of mine Pete Sobel who had been a guitarist in a band I'd been in years before who's another good technologist and a great player. But that whole thing - "and nobody played guitar" - was something that Marty Scott, who was the president of Passport Records, really wanted to put on the first Synergy album because it was an answer to a statement on the first Queen album which said "and nobody played synthesizers". They made a big deal about that, that there were no synthesizers on the record. I think on the first one we used the exact phrasing from the Queen album. And on "Cords" it was "finally guitars... sort of". And that was because, yes this thing had six strings but you never hear those steel strings anywhere on the record. It's always using that to control the oscillators. And it was kind of an experiment and I thought it worked very well.

[Epiphany]

The arguments are being interchanged arbitrarily from thread to thread. Every time it occurrs to me like an opportune way to justify expenses for some sort of, yes, pixie dust.

Just because there may be multiple differentiating characteristics expressed by different people at different times, doesn't mean some shared argument is being changed arbitrarily! There is no common enemy here attacking you as a software developer, there are merely interested parties who wish to experience their subjectively-preferred sonic characterictics in software - and to those people, right now, that isn't currently possible.

In addition, although probably to a lesser degree, you'll see those who have assumed a staunch pro-software stance also seek to justify that investment - not really a financial one, but an (empty and pointless) "ideological" investment. Part of that is subscribing to the cult of KVR, the criticism of which is where I started and all I'm really interested in challenging; not wade once again into this futile, specious hellhole of a debate.

Regarding the thousands of knowledgeable, experienced producers and engineers that feel exactly the same, where did you get that number from? All I can say is that hundreds of extraordinarily successful producers happily use software without the need to find mental excuses, based on the feedback I get.

Again, there is no common enemy. And there's no point in sharing anecdotes to justify our own (empty and pointless) "ideological" position.

[Urs]

Again, there is no common enemy. And there's no point in sharing anecdotes to justify our own (empty and pointless) "ideological" position.

Ah, I see. I stop posting now.