Analogue discussion

[Grizzellda]

i would consider the increase in analog offering as a success of marketing not the actual demand. same as a few years ago buzzwords like "valve" and "tube" managed to sell quite a lot of average stuff.

Well, the small modular stuff is popular isn't it? Like the EuroRack stuff. Of course marketing plays a role, that is just our modern economic world. But if people like this stuff, then they buy it.

And if you meant the Roland V-Synth, yeah, they are super cool!

[Batty]

The secret to analog is our own ears.
We have been born to be analog and that's why so many 'feel' the analog to sound better, when in fact it is just flawed (or 'flavoured') as our own soundsystem is (ears).

It's like a puzzle, where the nipple of the piece looks like that: ]
and our ears, which is the piece with the receiving hole, that looks like this: } (for example)
It can be put in....]}but it doesn't fit too well - it sounds clinical.
But the flawed analog: }} fits well. That's why analog is preferred....BUT
in the digital world you have more than analog and it's easier to make digital to sound analog than the other way around. And at the end some even prefer digital. It's all taste at the end of the day.

[MeldaProduction]

Burillo: Damn, I'd swear we were told about Gallileo! Seems our school education failed again .

Grizzellda: That's the problem - I'm not expecting MMDistortion to sound as Marshall, because I don't think Marshall is the top limit. Well, it definitely isn't. I simply say that every time there was a guitarist and I tried to use this simple thing, he eventually wasn't able to tell which is better. I could say anyway, I'm not a guitarist, not good anyway .
Anyway as I said, the actual physical devices are something very different, since they actually produce the sound, but analogue means analogue electronics, which is simply an old way to process signals.
As for "physical modeling" - the other word for it is convolution... That's how these things are "simulated". But of course they cannot tell you that, because convolution is a primitive approach, while "physical modeling" sounds like it is not. Of course part of it also is simulating the circuits, but physical modeling sounds better as well, doesn't it? And that's what it is all about... well done marketing.

Batty: Nope, that's exactly how it is not. But this is the typical misconception. Just because it is easier for people to grasp the voltage coming through wires getting transformed somehow, doesn't make it better than lots of maths in computers, which is just harder to imagine for most. But the mathematical base is actually the same for both! It's just that both have some limitations and problems, but eventually digital has much less of them.
You would be right if it would be about processing sound itself. E.g. church organ. Imagine you'd want to simulate that. There are no electronics, it's something that generates air pressure and some steel pipes that resonate somehow. You'd need to simulate the molecules of air to do that properly. And that's what should be called physical modeling!! But nobody can do that...yet... and here I don't really say I'm up to that . But electricity is just another form of measurement unit, just like digital numbers...

[steve2KVR]

...so let me get this straight...it's a little confusing...at first...so, just how many plugins will fit on the head of a pin? ...and does it matter if they are analogue or digital? ......just had to do it .../s~

[Grizzellda]

As for "physical modeling" - the other word for it is convolution... That's how these things are "simulated". But of course they cannot tell you that, because convolution is a primitive approach, while "physical modeling" sounds like it is not. Of course part of it also is simulating the circuits, but physical modeling sounds better as well, doesn't it? And that's what it is all about... well done marketing.

I thought convolution was static, superimposing one type of sound on another. Whereas modelling is dynamic, changing math & algo's in real time.

Anyhow, you are way too interested in talking about marketing Vojtech. All your posts end with some comment about marketing, insinuating that people (me??? ) believe all that stuff! Hey man, I don't believe every "marketing blurb" I hear...please (PLEASE) try to get that, okay?

I think UAD is for real, and they are doing solid, meaningful stuff, period.

And I think that Batty's post was really cool, makes alot of sense. I don't think you even read it closely...

[frizzbee]

As for "physical modeling" - the other word for it is convolution... That's how these things are "simulated".

no this is how melda would do it. big difference

Anyhow, you are way too interested in talking about marketing Vojtech. All your posts end with some comment about marketing

of course he does. meldaproduction stuff is all about marketing. it starts with adressing problems no one has (like mpolysaturator). furthermore saying "can't be done for technical reasons" although he may has already fixed stuff or added features. its just about the impact of people "being impressed" how someone can do it anyway. i am also convinced that some bugs won't get fixed or features won't get added because it is a push, if someone creates another fr or bug thread on kvr

btw i couldn't get the same sound out of melda eq as i had with a massive passive. not even with mautoeq. so either way the melda eq is poor or theres really is something like analog sound or feeling.

[Grizzellda]

btw i couldn't get the same sound out of melda eq as i had with a massive passive. not even with mautoeq. so either way the melda eq is poor or theres really is something like analog sound or feeling.

Well, I wouldn't say Melda EQ's are poor, they are proudly digital! But I do think that he "brushes off" the analogue sound too lightly. All I've been saying is that it remains meaningful for lots of people.

[frizzbee]

I wouldn't say Melda EQ's are poor, they are proudly digital!

yeah imo in a bad way.

I do think that he "brushes off" the analogue sound too lightly

some time ago we made up a blind test with the guys and girls coming to our studio for daily business.
it was 1 song or 1 theme we sent through different processors or we made using synths. we had files from the "real" hardware, some software emulations and complete independent software.
for example we tested the massive passive and its uad emulation (which was pretty close but not perfect) as well as a freeware emulation and some other eqs. or roland synths and so on.

each file contained the same melody or song and was named like 1, 2, 3. same volume, same samplerate.
our customers heard the files and intenionally picked the analog gear as "the best sounding" (in about 75-80%).

its okay if someone can't hear the difference and therefore dont "believe" in it.

[bronxsound]

we tested the massive passive and its uad emulation (which was pretty close but not perfect) as well as a freeware emulation and some other eqs...

just out of curiosity what was the name of freeware MP emu? i have been looking for that for some time.

[Svama]

I think Vojtech does a great job. Please tell me one manufacturer who takes so much care about their users. Talking about his plugins on a forum. Nobody force you to buy melda plugins or to use them.
But you can try this with waves and uad. You have to email the support and get a respond within 48hrs, but without substance.
Free lifetime upgrades, I don't know where to find, inside Waves Wup system and uad prices are so heavy, because their is a big business behind this manufacturar and everyone wants some money to earn.
I don't know much about physic and analog stuff, but I think both works fine.
Vojtech's opinion about analog stuff goes a little bit overboard. After reading it, music in our radio should sound like crap, because of analog stuff.
Make music with stuff you like and which does the job for you. This thread will be a vicious circle.

[Batty]

Well I never said that analog -is- better, just read carefully. I just said that it is closer to our natural ears (normally, depends on training too).

But....is voltage (and relating components) really that mathematically perfect and straight all the time? Let me doubt that :p . The base is the same for both...but the components (starting with the energy grid)... oh well...but I agree with you: "...both have some limitations and problems, but eventually digital has much less of them."
It's just that as long as energy is >not< just on and off (1 and 0 = digital) it is subject to variations through influences, no matter what you do, even if it is only in the .00000000000001 +- quarter of a thousand and such lol.

For the church organ - it can and is simulated: as a snapshot it time.
And at least it sounds analog, although possibly a little less rich, but I wouldn't notice it anyway, if not compared directly.

One could really talk forever about these themes . For me the song decides what's apropriate: sometimes clinical, sometimes not.

[Grizzellda]

What these discussions can do is make people broaden their viewpoints, if they've got the notion.

Like I said earlier "different tools for different jobs"...what the song needs, as you guys are saying.

[plexuss]

Analogue is how we hear things. the digital conversion process, AD-DA, creates an approximation of the analogue signal. the analogue process distorts the analogue signal. there is no 100% accurate way to electrically commute an analogue signal - granted a wire is as close as you can get; a super-conducting wire. but said wire will still distort the signal to some degree. so with that out of the way, what we want is some way to do the least amount of "damage" to an analogue signal, unless of course you want to distort or approximate it for some kind of effect. the approximation that digital audio imposes is just another form of distortion. not all distortions are created equal - some are sonically hidden at a given level compared to others, and some sound bad. the distortion imposed by the digital conversion process is one of those that sounds bad.

so you can't say that "digital is perfect" - AD can not perfectly convert an analogue signal. once in the digitla domain, its now a distorted approximation of the analogue signal. next the DA conversion process further distorts the signal. and all that with no other processing. further processing in the digital domain increased the approximation distortion - much of DSP processing is done with floating point numbers and so there will be some data lost (eg. 1 divided by 3 = 0.3333 repeated but in the digital domain you can't represent 1/3 accurately - you have limit the number of decimal places and so it's an approximation).

the issue is how much of what kind of distortion a given person can hear. for most people CD quality is enough - hence why consumers jumped on CD and gave up every analogue format before it. most people can't hear the distortion present in digital audio at 44/16, or they hear it but it doesn't cognitively register as being an issue. my mother, for example, doesn't "get" HD television - she says "I don't see a difference" and its not possible to point out to her the differences because she is convinced there is no difference. she is uninterested in anything better because she doesn't care. SD video is fine by her. and so it goes with 44/16.

but for people that can hear the difference, and care, the higher the sample rate and bit depth, the more data there will be in reducing the distortion caused by approximation. but there are other issues with digital - the whole conversion process has a detrimental effect on the resulting analogue signal caused by compromises that have to be made when designing converters. see lavry et al for more info. in fact david lavry, and some other researchers, have concluded that 96/24 provides a decent enough resolution and a technology compromise that is more balanced towards less distorted converted audio. in fact, lavry concludes that anything greater than 96/24 risks imposing more audible distortion and the net effect of higher resolution is not enough to mask the distortion - in other words, going higher than 96/24 may be detrimental to the signal.

But all this matters only if you can hear it, and/or you care. but the facts are the facts - the more data the more resolution the less approximation distortion, and the better the converters the less distortion. and you really want to avoid conversion and approximation distortion because none of it sounds good.

In the analogue domain, you also get distortions, phase being one of the most destructive. noise is also an issue but less of one as the human brain processes noise pretty well (eg. doesn't perceive noise as being bad sounding), and of course various forms of harmonic and other temporal distortions. one way around this is by using high quality matched parts in the analogue design, good electronics design methods and circuit design that is optimized for quality (eg. reduced distortions) - the net effect is COST.

By keeping an analogue signal in the analogue domain and using high quality analogue processors, you are going to get a more accurate signal out the other end compared to digital. that's just a fact that numerous research papers have concluded (I can provide you with links, some are only available with an AES membership). *You* might not be able to hear it, or care, and so it doesn't matter. but for someone who can hear it and cares, analogue is the highest quality format for working with analogue, which is the way sound ultimately gets to our ears.

[goldglob]

I wish my brain had AD conversion so that I could process the data in order to remove the sounds of loud horrible music next door and hammering/angle grinders/circular saws across the street.

[werzel]

Question(s): Can't a digital EQ perfectly mimic ANY analogue EQ? (Insert any processor you like in place of EQ)

Look at the outrageous options of filter curves in our (Melda) EQs. The first thing we need to do is discover the coloring that whatever analogue EQ we are comparing it to does...usually it involves low passing to some extent, or at least low shelving...and then discover what filters/ slopes that they use for their nodes. Do we really think that the analogue cannot be duplicated by the digital?

The warmth that we all talk about can be created and enhanced, but it is not exclusive to the realm of analogue. Analogue accomplishes this through limitations, digital can as well, but does so by creating (er, recreating?)the limitations.

After reading Vojtek's comments again, I don't think that he is anti-analogue as much as he is anti-(the catch phrase)analogue. As a programmer working in the digital realm he is not subjected to the limitations of hardware but he's constantly asked to duplicate them. Don't you see how backwards that would feel?

I just replace the word Analogue with the word Jumbo or Ultimate or Beefy any time I see it when describing an effect or synth anyway, makes things more fun.