Vintage is overrated. Lesson learned(rant)

[living sounds]

however, to stay inside the analogy, only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

I don't think this analogy holds true. Cars are ubiquitous and still in development all the time. High end analog synths had their high time 30 years ago and many musicians don't really know anymore how good things can sound if corners aren't cut all the time.

For excample, I upgraded the op amps in my monitors today, less than 30 EUR in parts for the replacements, and the difference is staggering. Really night and day. I found this the same building and modding all kinds of gear. The prosumer stuff you can buy today is almost always compromised, very often severely. They could use modern op amps, but they use the cheapest availible, crappy sounding, ancient part. Bad capacitors in the signal path. Badly filtered power supplies. The list goes on and on.

If sound quality was as easily (or even as thoroughly) measured as fuel efficiency, wear and tear, roadholding, acceleration, cargo space or whatever in a car, competition would see to it that the essential things were done. Instead manufacturers mostly use features and meaningless specs to sell their products to their mostly unaware clients.

[Uncle E]

After modding the analog output stage it sounded even better.

Isn't the gritty output stage supposed to be part of the appeal, at least in the case of first generation DX100's? I would think that improving it would make it *more* like a softsynth, in that it's become a purer representation of the algorithms. Does that make any sense?

[Uncle E]

I've got a very old cheap mostly discrete analog piano (half dead, unfortunately) lying around somewhere, this thing has the best piano envelopes I've heard on anything other than a Rhodes.

Better than Pianoteq or samples? While I don't necessarily agree with the post you're responding to, I also don't see much point in using an analog synth - be it hardware or software - to emulate a Rhodes. I once gave away an awful Crumar Roadrunner that had been given to me by someone who also recognized its pointlessness.

For excample, I upgraded the op amps in my monitors today, less than 30 EUR in parts for the replacements, and the difference is staggering.

Which monitors? What op amps did you put in? One of the JRR guys' ASP8's are out of balance, do you think swapping in new op amps could solve that?

btw, I once had a customer who blew out the tweeters of his ASP8's and NS10M's at the same time. The NS10M replacement tweeter was solid and as heavy as a tube amp output transformer, the ASP8 tweeter felt like a refrigerator magnet in comparison. As much as I also like swapping op amps, there are some things that just can't help.

[living sounds]

Isn't the gritty output stage supposed to be part of the appeal, at least in the case of first generation DX100's? I would think that improving it would make it *more* like a softsynth, in that it's become a purer representation of the algorithms. Does that make any sense?

At least it's not the analog output stage. There's nothing great about a NJM4556 followed by an elctrolytic cap. You just loose transients, details and get nasty distortion. There are some old samplers where the analog stage could play an important part (the Synclavier had a discrete output stage I think), but mostly it's what's going on inside the unit itself, I think. Some old Samplers (Roland notably) used better Ics in their analog stages than virtually every prosumer soundcard on the market today.

[living sounds]

Better than Pianoteq or samples? While I don't necessarily agree with the post you're responding to, I also don't see much point in using an analog synth - be it hardware or software - to emulate a Rhodes. I once gave away an awful Crumar Roadrunner that had been given to me by someone who also recognized its pointlessness.

I was only talking about the envelopes. While sounding very cool and very vintage, it doesn't sound much like a Piano or a Rhodes. But it's got this very immediate sound in the envelopes and a vintage creamyness in the tone that remindes me very much of the Minimoog. Very fast, very natural, thick, exciting.

Which monitors? What op amps did you put in? One of the JRR guys' ASP8's are out of balance, do you think swapping in new op amps could solve that?

Adam A7. Great for mixing, translate very well, but with a nasty high end. Now they've got at least as much high end as before, but sound much more relaxed, detailed and dynamic. The stock version sounds small and compressed in comparison, I could even mix without the subwoofer now. I put in LME49723, which didn't require any changes to the circuit and are also very inexpensive. There are 28 op amps in the pair, so using mnuch pricier op amps like the OPA2211A wouldn't have made much since given the cost of the monitors.

Can't tell you anything about fixing the ASP8s though, sorry.

[zerocrossing]

however, to stay inside the analogy, only few people would argue that using old cars they will arrive faster and more comfortably or that antique vases keep the flowers fresher than new ones.

I don't think this analogy holds true. Cars are ubiquitous and still in development all the time. High end analog synths had their high time 30 years ago and many musicians don't really know anymore how good things can sound if corners aren't cut all the time.

For excample, I upgraded the op amps in my monitors today,...

I too think it's fairly pointless to compare instruments to cars. 90% of cars made are designed for fuel efficiency, safety and basic comfort. Pure transportation. Synths on the other hand, have no practical application in our context.

But the second part, about replacing the op amps, makes my head hurt. I don't know what you do for a living, but after a 40-50 hr work week plus another 5 in commute time, the last thing I want to do is start a soldering project. All I'm saying is that if you chase the perfect sound you're likely to end up spending a lot of time chasing and little time playing. Unlike you, the majority of musicians have to strike a balance between quality of sound and convenience. Even a gigging musician is better off with a Voyager/Little Phatty or even a decent VA because futzing around with an SH-2 makes no sense.

Owning a SH-2 also means that you're now designing a patch each time you use it, which also cuts into play time. No MIDI either, though I guess you could do a conversion kit.

So for the sake of argument, let's say that for pure sonic bliss, a vintage analog is it. That would be that if it were not for all the other considerations a musician has to make when selecting an instrument. The truth is that most of us have to consider a lot more.

[living sounds]

But the second part, about replacing the op amps, makes my head hurt. I don't know what you do for a living, but after a 40-50 hr work week plus another 5 in commute time, the last thing I want to do is start a soldering project. All I'm saying is that if you chase the perfect sound you're likely to end up spending a lot of time chasing and little time playing. Unlike you, the majority of musicians have to strike a balance between quality of sound and convenience. Even a gigging musician is better off with a Voyager/Little Phatty or even a decent VA because futzing around with an SH-2 makes no sense.

Owning a SH-2 also means that you're now designing a patch each time you use it, which also cuts into play time. No MIDI either, though I guess you could do a conversion kit.

So for the sake of argument, let's say that for pure sonic bliss, a vintage analog is it. That would be that if it were not for all the other considerations a musician has to make when selecting an instrument. The truth is that most of us have to consider a lot more.

Well, it's true I had to invest a lot of time in getting the sound quality up to this standart, but it also means I can now get the results I want very quickly. I've fumbled around a lot longer trying to get results all ITB than I spent making and modding the gear. It's definitely not for everyone, and I'd much prefer it if the manufacturers made the gear without the compromises from the start, but it does work.

As for the SH-2, there is no need to "design" a patch. Just pull a few levers and whatever sound it's got in it is there within seconds. I've wasted lot's more time stepping through plugin patches or even the Little Phatty's patches, or trying to program the later ones. I guess I would have argued much like you a few years ago, but from my experience it's like that.

[Uncle E]

At least it's not the analog output stage. There's nothing great about a NJM4556 followed by an elctrolytic cap. You just loose transients, details and get nasty distortion.

Agreed, it just seems that these could be the things that distinguish the hardware FM synths from the software ones. Clearly, I'm reaching for straws here, I just can't find any other explanation for why the hardware sounds different.

There are some old samplers where the analog stage could play an important part (the Synclavier had a discrete output stage I think), but mostly it's what's going on inside the unit itself, I think. Some old Samplers (Roland notably) used better Ics in their analog stages than virtually every prosumer soundcard on the market today.

The Monomachine seems to be an example of that. I haven't confirmed this by opening one up but it just somehow *sounds* discrete. Hans Zimmer was famous for using different samplers for different tasks, notably stating in print that the Rolands were the best for strings.

[Uncle E]

Adam A7...There are 28 op amps in the pair, so using mnuch pricier op amps like the OPA2211A wouldn't have made much since given the cost of the monitors.

That's surprising to hear! I remember when ADAM's were first brought to the States, the President assured me then that their discrete amps were a big part of what separated them from other speaker companies. The cheap amps in most speakers is the reason I still use passives.

[Uncle E]

Even a gigging musician is better off with a Voyager/Little Phatty or even a decent VA because futzing around with an SH-2 makes no sense.

Quit being so pragmatic, that has no place here!

Seriously, though, how much does the "gigging musician" consideration really weigh in for most KvR'ers? If I were a gigging keyboardist, I'd play a Nord Stage because the pros far outweigh the cons in that scenario. However, as a home/studio musician, few of those pros apply and so the cons clearly take over.

[vurt]

Seriously, though, how much does the "gigging musician" consideration really weigh in for most KvR'ers?

there are quite a few of us here actually

[Uncle E]

As for the SH-2, there is no need to "design" a patch. Just pull a few levers and whatever sound it's got in it is there within seconds.

Agreed. Even with softsynths, Strobe and Minimonsta can be programmed more quickly than hunting through presets.

[himalaya]

Thanks for all the examples! But I don't think any sound quite as agressive in their envelope and balanced in the frequency department as well as nicely textured at the same time.

It's true that the trigger pulse in the SH-2 is much more audible. I like it, it adds "snap", but I can see where you're coming from.

Here it is again, the SH2 and a mystery software VA ( the same synth A in previous example).

http://www.electric-himalaya.com/stuff/ ... _synth.wav

Personally, I think they are very close and any difference is immaterial. With the only exception of the SH2 envelope flapping sound. Definitely a sound that is not aesthetically pleasing, and in this conversation, where every atom of a sound is taken apart, I fail to understand why you like it. It is separate to the sound, and does not bring any 'colour' that is pleasing.
It is a very audible artifact.

Notice the top end, it is identical in both synths. The only thing is, I just could not tune my synth to yours , as the tuning is broken! Yes, it is broken on a software VA! How vintage is that !

More complex sounds make it clearer as well.

That's the one! Hard Sync, FM, x-mod, the way it all interacts in a polyphonic setting...etc.

[living sounds]

Here it is again, the SH2 and a mystery software VA ( the same synth A in previous example).

http://www.electric-himalaya.com/stuff/ ... _synth.wav

Personally, I think they are very close and any difference is immaterial. With the only exception of the SH2 envelope flapping sound. Definitely a sound that is not aesthetically pleasing, and in this conversation, where every atom of a sound is taken apart, I fail to understand why you like it. It is separate to the sound, and does not bring any 'colour' that is pleasing.
It is a very audible artifact.

Notice the top end, it is identical in both synths. The only thing is, I just could not tune my synth to yours , as the tuning is broken! Yes, it is broken on a software VA! How vintage is that !

More complex sounds make it clearer as well.

That's the one! Hard Sync, FM, x-mod, the way it all interacts in a polyphonic setting...etc.

I still don't think it's that close, but on the other hand this high pitched open filter squarewave isn't really a great sound to begin with... I see if I can come up with a better example. The trigger pulse isn't that aesthetically pleasing here, I agree.
What really matters is how these synths behave making music, which cannot be properly put into audio examples, of course...

[living sounds]

Agreed, it just seems that these could be the things that distinguish the hardware FM synths from the software ones. Clearly, I'm reaching for straws here, I just can't find any other explanation for why the hardware sounds different.

We've discussed this to death here, and never come up with a clear answer. It seems obvious Yamaha used some proprietary algorithms, the sample rate is rather unusual, and I also think Native Instruments didn't do their homework properly.