KVR Audio

Lawnmower Of The Damned · Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:18 am

I've been thinking about it lately, and I can't quite figure out what makes analog sound so... well, analog?

There's a certain something there that I can only really describe as airiness. What produces that sound? Here's a basic diagram of a synth:

Midi In->ADSR Envelope->Oscillator->Filter->Output

Now, lets say, for the sake of argument, that we have a little modular setup, which has each of these components, in both analog and digital.

We know that when we run all of the analog components together, we get that "airiness". We also know that if we run all of the digital components together, then that little extra something is missing.

But, what if we could mix and match? What if you took the digital setup, but replaced it's oscillator with the analog oscillator? Will this still sound analog despite the digital filter and such?

What if we take the all analog setup, but replace the oscillator with a digital one? Will we still have the analog sound from the filters and such?

Well, what does everyone here think? I'm sure that many of you must know of examples of hardware synths that have analog oscillators in an otherwise all digital setup, and vice versa as well. If you could link to sound samples then that would be wonderful.

Lunch Money · Post by **Lunch Money** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:27 am

I think a lot of it comes down to signal degradation.

Greg

Lawnmower Of The Damned · Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:30 am

Well signal degradation is easy enough to simulate. I would think that more VSTi's would have an analog sound if it was that easy. In my opinion, there must be more to it.

Could it be that a VSTi, with it's limited resources, has some issues with aliasing of the waveforms that causes the loss?

Rabid · Post by **Rabid** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:52 am

Processing rate. Digital systems cannot yet fully emulate true analog processing as digital still forces everything into a "grid" with the resolution of the processing rate. Analog does not have this restriction.

Robert

meister eder · Post by **meister eder** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:57 am

thornemaelstrom wrote:What makes analog so analog?

The theoretical possibility of instantaneous feedback.

nutekk · Post by **nutekk** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:00 am

digital will always be forced into that "grid"
analog is infinite

Z3R0T0N1N · Post by **Z3R0T0N1N** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:14 am

that grid is getting so high in resolution that soon it will be far beyond any human's ability to hear the artifacts. It is already there technologically but the average person does not have the money for the equipment. In five years time most will (and I am speaking of people like us. clearly my grandmother wont, so don't take me too literally here.)
At the same time there will always be people willing to say that they can hear the difference - possibly true with todays average teck, but when we are all running at 128 bit, 220 something Khz, well... I don't think they will be telling the truth. But I guess some things are possible.

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:18 am

Lunch Money wrote:I think a lot of it comes down to signal degradation.

Greg

Exactly mate. The distortion which is inherent in analog systems is what provides the 'sound'. I guess when engineers pioneered the digital systems they didnt bank on this distortion (the distortion which they tried so hard to eliminate) would become such a sought after comodity! I think many a top engineer now see's this distortion as the holly grail of analogue, as more and more digital tries to emulate it.

I know many might consider the continuous / discrete nature of analog / digital systems to play a part, but i really think imo thats insignificant. At 24 / 96 you can reproduce continuous signals with such precision that it would be difficult to notice a major difference (ofcourse this statement relies on quality AD conversion etc).

Just my opinion, might be bollocks! I just think that the noticable difference between digital and analogue must be down to more than the digitisation process itself.

meister eder · Post by **meister eder** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:19 am

spoonboiler wrote: [lots of good things]

But still instantaneous feedback will never be possible in the digital domain.

nutekk · Post by **nutekk** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:25 am

im not going to get into a analog vs digital debate...
but

it really doesnt matter how high the resolution gets
it will never be the same.

dont underestimate the brains ability.

tee boy · Post by **tee boy** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:35 am

I dont think anyone is after a VS type debate, rather a discussion over the source of the infamous 'analog' tone. It something that interests me greatly to be honest, because i do love the sound of analog gear! Again, i think its down to the distortions that are present in analog gear. Digital was designed from the ground up to solve such 'problems', so its hardly suprising that they are hard to replicate.

Jaeson Merrill · Post by **Jaeson Merrill** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 2:41 am

gain and phase distorsion = analog.

Lawnmower Of The Damned · Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:00 am

Well said Tee Boy, exactly right. I'm not trying to start a debate, I just want to know the source of the "analog" sound.

The probelm with the signal degradation = analog theory is that it's easy to slap a noise effect into a synth in Synth Edit, but that doesn't make it sound analog. There's something in the higher register, for one thing. I think it may be like vinyl records. There's just something extra in the high-end there, be it actual sound or just noise, that makes it feel a little more... analog.

My point is, I have never found (And I haven't even come close to checking them all out!) a VSTi that has that analog "thing". I'm NOT saying it can't be done, and I'm NOT saying the VSTi sound is bad! I'm just saying that if it was as simple as adding some noise, then someone, be it Native Instruments or some kid in Nebraska, would have made a VSTi that sounds analog by now.

Rabid, I dissagree that the cause of the difference
is the "sample rate grid". At 192 Khz I there shouldn't be any (I believe it's called) quantization noise going on. Yet the VSTi sound remains. Think of it this way, if your guess was right, then recording the output of an analog hardware synth at 44.1 Khz would sound like a VSTi, wouldn't it? Yet it doesn't, it still has that analog sound. Clearly the sample rate can't be the culprit. It just doesn't hold water.

Dr. Wackler, could you expand upon the instantaneous feedback? Do you mean the kind of feedback that I know and love as a guitarist, or do you mean zero latency, or something else altogether?

Jaeson Merrill · Post by **Jaeson Merrill** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:08 am

sampling rate (khz you speak of) has nothing to do with quantization, that is bitrate. Harmonic content is lost at lower sampling rates, however, quantization is an amplitude phenomenon.. its when varying levels of amplitude are "quantized", or restricted to a certain area of existance, it creates noise that is unremovable. It is most noticable at 16 and lower bitrates.

it is said there is alot more going on in realms higher than 20 khz (the top frequency of human hearing) it is said there are harmonics intertwining and mixing and affecting other frequencies in our spectrum of hearing.

could be true.

Jaeson Merrill · Post by **Jaeson Merrill** » Tue Sep 07, 2004 3:10 am

ahh i see, so you are referring to, not really recording, but to virtual analog vsti's!!! ooo ok..