In terms of analog 'warmth', the Xils stuff comes closest. Omni's next. Razor can be very nice, also (No, I haven't tried DIVA). Gladiator can stand on it's own (but I wish it had more filter options) Blade can sound really nice, but I can't help think there's more to come. I can't wait to see what v2 brings.
Saurus does the best analog buzziness, you know the screechy edge so many people want. It also plays really low notes better than any synth I've ever played with.
But there's always Kontakt and wonderful people like Pink Noise Studios, but you can't really sound design with that.
How come "Hardware" VA's 16 years ago sounded so good like the AN1x and now....
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
OOps. Honorable mention to AlchemY.... 
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Thread has lost its way ... This isn't Analog vs Digital .. This is why old VAs sound better and were more efficient.
I think both parts of that statement are false.
VA's didn't/don't sound better/worse. The end signal path you listen on is different resulting in a different experience.
90's VAs are not more efficient. They had dedicated architectures.
I think both parts of that statement are false.
VA's didn't/don't sound better/worse. The end signal path you listen on is different resulting in a different experience.
90's VAs are not more efficient. They had dedicated architectures.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
That's why the bass on an Andromeda can shake walls???
What end signal path are you referring to? Speakers? You mean because it comes through a soundcard, it sounds different?
Help me understand.
What end signal path are you referring to? Speakers? You mean because it comes through a soundcard, it sounds different?
Help me understand.
-
- KVRAF
- 35671 posts since 11 Apr, 2010 from Germany
I think that the impression that they did sound better mostly has to do with the companies producing them. They mostly have a large experience, have sold many units, and simply know how to nail that sound. Plus i think the impression that "something sounds better" mostly comes due to the fact you heard the popular synths in many productions. When i play with Dune for example, i sometimes find myself thinking "hm... it's pretty close, but it just doesn't nail it...". That's of course more because it just sounds different, than that it sounds worse. But hey, for many people sounding different and sounding worse is kind of the same thing.SJ_Digriz wrote: VA's didn't/don't sound better/worse. The end signal path you listen on is different resulting in a different experience.
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
I love the sound of DUNE, but it just doesn't shake/fill my headphones like, say Razor.
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
err... yes it can .. what does that have to do with anything?osiris wrote:That's why the bass on an Andromeda can shake walls???
VAs signal path when people first started listening (and still largely today)What end signal path are you referring to? Speakers? You mean because it comes through a soundcard, it sounds different?
VA -> Headphones
VA -> Mixer-> amplification -> Monitors/PA
VA -> Amplifier/Cab
RARELY at the time did someone go
VA -> DI-ADC -> DAW -> DAC -> Monitor/Headphone
A VSTi is always
HOST -> DAC -> whatever
That signal path is a HUGE factor in your perception of what an external synth sounds like. In no case are you just hearing the synth, unless it is on the headphone jack of the hardware VA. And, I would argue, that the headphone out on a VA is usually a bad way to experience their sound.
Last edited by SJ_Digriz on Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Also, intrinsic to a VA's sound are the internal amps, transformers etc... You don't get that with VSTi.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- Banned
- Topic Starter
- 22457 posts since 5 Sep, 2001
[DELETED]
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
I don't disagree ... Again, we are jumping from objective to subjective though. I have nothing against VAs. I'm saying #1: they were not more efficient when you look at what they are doing compared to what a computer is doing.ttoz wrote: Loved them all, i listen to my music from back then and don't feel it sounded "weak" or "shit" or "aliasing"
#2: I'm not saying they sound good/bad. Just that the audio qualities you are attributing to the synth are actually the sum of a lot of different factors in the audio chain.
I still have a Korg DSS-1 for example. The bass I can get with it is bone crunching. And, the leads can rip the paint off the wall. However, it doesn't translate well if I go DI. I have to go amp->DI or better yet amp->desk->DI.
And, none of these things are absolutes. The Nord for example was a tremendous jump in simplicity/sound/cost/form factor. It was really a brilliant little box.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
I might argue that one a bit with a few of those kit piecesttoz wrote: Novation Basstation/Drumstation/Supernova
Roland Jv2080 with Techno EXP, and Vintage Synth EXP
Korg Wavestation SR and an O5R/W
Yamaha AN1X, CS1X (eventually replaced by CS2X)
Emu Orbit ( i used it along with the drumstation for my drums)...
"aliasing"
At least one of them had filters with more of squelch than reso
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
Well, then it is Analog versus Digital, then?
Well, the little VST Nord put out to showcase what the rack could do was great. It chewed up CPU, but it sounded wonderful and was modular heaven...
(Too bad you can't put it in a DAW)
Well, the little VST Nord put out to showcase what the rack could do was great. It chewed up CPU, but it sounded wonderful and was modular heaven...
(Too bad you can't put it in a DAW)
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
Sorry to spam the thread ... Another aspect of recording in the late 80s and early 90s was automatic band limiting. Doesn't matter if you realized it or not, you were getting a defacto band pass EQing/compression of your external gear constantly. A lot of the mud and lack of clarity in modern recordings is based on the fact that ITB requires the mixer to band limit instruments that used to do it automagically. And they don't do it.
I actually think it is easier to record from miced amps/environments OTB than it is to go DI and work ITB. But, that's probably because I'm old.
I actually think it is easier to record from miced amps/environments OTB than it is to go DI and work ITB. But, that's probably because I'm old.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer
-
- KVRAF
- 14133 posts since 20 Nov, 2003 from Lost and Spaced
I don't think that's spam. I think it adds to the discussion. But looking at the all powerful Wiki:
Unlike digital audio systems, analog systems do not require filters for bandlimiting. These filters act to prevent aliasing distortions in digital equipment. Early digital systems may have suffered from a number of signal degradations related to the use of analog anti-aliasing filters, e.g., time dispersion, nonlinear distortion, temperature dependence of filters etc. (Hawksford 1991:8). Even with sophisticated anti-aliasing filters used in the recorder, it is still demanding for the player not to introduce more distortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... _recording
Unlike digital audio systems, analog systems do not require filters for bandlimiting. These filters act to prevent aliasing distortions in digital equipment. Early digital systems may have suffered from a number of signal degradations related to the use of analog anti-aliasing filters, e.g., time dispersion, nonlinear distortion, temperature dependence of filters etc. (Hawksford 1991:8). Even with sophisticated anti-aliasing filters used in the recorder, it is still demanding for the player not to introduce more distortion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison ... _recording
-
- KVRAF
- 6097 posts since 5 Jul, 2001 from Just about .... there
I could be wrong, but I'd place a small wager that if ttoz went back and did some analysis on those old tracks he likes, he'll find out a couple of things ..
The frequency range on his current tracks will be MUCH wider 20 to 20
He will have more dynamic range in his older tracks. Probably MUCH more.
He will have far more bass energy (80->400ish)in the lower registers on his current tracks.
The interval frequency response curve for the new and old will be wildly different. And, like pretty much all of us, we like the sound we learned first.
I prefer live recordings that have some space in the recording over studio recordings. I like older studio recordings that were primarily live with minor edits. These typically have significant dynamic content, but tend to be light in the overall bass register and of course they have a higher noise floor. This is a gross generalization. But, I tend to like dynamics over frequency response.
The frequency range on his current tracks will be MUCH wider 20 to 20
He will have more dynamic range in his older tracks. Probably MUCH more.
He will have far more bass energy (80->400ish)in the lower registers on his current tracks.
The interval frequency response curve for the new and old will be wildly different. And, like pretty much all of us, we like the sound we learned first.
I prefer live recordings that have some space in the recording over studio recordings. I like older studio recordings that were primarily live with minor edits. These typically have significant dynamic content, but tend to be light in the overall bass register and of course they have a higher noise floor. This is a gross generalization. But, I tend to like dynamics over frequency response.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer