Why even modern VST Synths can't sound like 20 year-old Hardware VA Synths?

[recursive one]

Well, to make this thread a bit more specific.

Here is a comparison of Virus TI and Viper made by the Viper's dev himself. Viper is hands down the closest thing to Virus and overall I think it's the the synth having the most authentic "early 00s hardware VA sound"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqHgQcfV33E

You can hear the difference. It's not the kind of difference that would make one of them much better than another one or matter a lot in an actual mix but it's here. I'd say Virus is thicker and in your face, the sound keeps more integrity upon modulations. Minuscule differences but they can be heard and probably can be meausred.

No converters here, the Virus sound goes straight over USB i think.

[JO512]

Modern processors have computing power like supercomputers of 2000
...
What's the problem?

Perhaps the higher performance of modern digital systems is precisely the problem.

I don't know much about those synths, but one thing that occurs to me is that older hardware, with its limitations, with features that would be technically considered to be of lower quality, can impart a character to the sound that we find pleasing. Consider distortion. Technically, it is a problem. But people found that it does something interesting to the sound, adding all those harmonics, all that edginess and emotion. So people started adding it on purpose. And that contributed hugely to rock 'n' roll, maybe becoming its essential feature.

Recently, I've become fascinated with sample-rate reduction, bit-depth reduction, sample-and-hold applied to oscillators, the sounds generated by old video game hardware like the Gameboy, and so on. Previously, I wondered why people like the degraded sound of old samplers like the Fairlight CMI, but I am beginning to get it. For one thing, with low sample rates and bit depth, the waveform produced is stair-steppy, and has a crispy, crunchy, square-wavey sound that brings words like sugar to mind. Among other things, it adds harmonics. There is something about the crunchiness and fizz! You can replicate such sound character with, for example, Serum, by using the grid in the wavetable editor to draw a waveform that is stair-steppy. And just using a bitcrusher doesn't always yield the same thing as generating the sound from the ground up at low-resolution. And you don't need a real Gameboy to get its sound character. You can get it with an emulation of its sound chip.

Notice that low-resolution digital synthesis and the distortion applied to guitars have something in common: sharp corners in the waveform. When you clip a signal hard, you generate a square wave. A low resolution digital signal also has squareness in it.

I am not a huge fan of pure chiptunes, where the whole track is generated on such hardware and is very 80s-Japanese-video-game in style. But the sounds generated by that hardware have a tone color I might like to use from time to time, as it has a feel that can't be produced by "high-quality" algorithms.

Many people like film for photography, and for good reason, and not because it is technically higher quality. Some even want very grainy black and white film. Some want all the accidental flaws imparted by something like the primitive collodion process. People like the sound of tape, and not necessarily because it is higher quality. Consider that lots of people like the sound of a Mellotron! Certainly not because it is a "high-quality" sampler! All these things have a certain character that happens to be pleasing to some of us, maybe partly because of nostalgia, maybe partly because there is actually something special about its sound character.

I wonder if it might be that some of these older digital synths have a lower bit rate and bit depth and so have that discrete, steppy waveform with all the additional harmonics that such a shape produces. If it does, that would mean it has a bit of edge, or fizz, or crispiness, that a smoother, more modern, "high-quality" waveform will lack. I would guess that this is the case. It is certainly not as low-resolution as a Gameboy though! The sound might also have other forms of distortion that contribute to what you are hearing.

Higher fidelity and cleaner signals do not necessarily mean more pleasing sound character. Different, not necessarily better. And a lot of this is a matter of taste. Don't let anyone else tell you what you should like. Some people will never appreciate why some of us love grainy film or the loose, broad brushwork in an impressionist painting, or even the wrinkles in the face of an old man.

Also, context is important. You don't want a Mellotron choir in a proper performance of Mozart's Requiem. There are also places where a pristine recording of a choir performance wouldn't serve the purpose nearly as well as a wobbly Mellotron part. And I would never put a bitcrusher on a sensitive violin performance!

[recursive one]

Awesome post, JO512!

Indeed, synths are for making music and music is about emotion, it's not some purely technical task that would always require the most perfect waveforms and the cleanest signal path.

[zerocrossing]

As an oldschool trance lover and an Access Virus owner I can totally see where you are coming from. The demos you posted sound awesome to my taste and I agree that it's not really that easy to get all these sounds form software with 100% authentic character - you can do something kinda similar with Spire or Dune, but then you process it, layer it, compress the hell of it and then it doesn't really matter what was the original synth

But i think it's not the matter of the lack of skills in the developers, rather the lack of interest and demand. These sounds went out of fashion 5-10 years ago, trance sounds different these days, the sound of Spire (mainstream trance) or Serum (psytrance) is the new norm. Also these synths are considered techncially inferior, with aliasing, bandlimited oscillators and other limitations of old digital tech which is now considered as flaws and drawbacks.

Viper is a really good effort to bring the sound of classic hardware VAs to modern DAW, it's not a perfect sonic replica of Virus but definitiely a step in the right direction. Maybe more developers will follow this route if they realize there is still some demand for this exact sound (Virus, JP8000, Nordlead, Yamaha AN1x).

I totally agree. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Kemper could write a Virus VST that included all the original algorithms and we’d end up with an exact replica of the Virus sound. I just think that he’s got no interest in doing that, and there’s probably not that much interest in having it done. People who love the sound of those instruments can just buy one.

I’m not a Trance fan, and to me, plugins from Tone2, Synapse, NI, etc, can get “that” sound. I just don’t happen to want it. I had a C and I found it to be a great sounding synth, but for the sounds I was making with it, I found that Zebra 2 was better. A few years ago I thought I’d try a TI, and I picked up a Snow. I was unimpressed. Not that it sounded bad, but the filter wasn’t anything to write home about, the oscillators showed a fair amount of aliasing, and the overall character of Dune sounded better to me. Since then, Dune 3 has hit the scene and... wow. The gulf has widened.

I don’t care about a VST Virus, JP8000, Nordlead, or AN1x. I’m not even sure I’d buy one if someone came out with it. I’ve moved on. My “white whale” vintage digital is the Ensoniq Fizmo, but I’m pretty sure no one’s going to tackle that one either. Sometimes I think that some day I’ll break down and pick one up, but that’s unlikely, as I have to admit to myself that I’m not even close to exhausting the capabilities of the hardware and software instruments that I already own.

[whyterabbyt]

Awesome post, JO512!

Just so I can grab all the credit, I actually referred to some of this beforehand:

What are these differences and how do they impact the sound?

Ah, well, that's easy. Technically, they use cruder algorithms, with more compromises.

Obviously I didnt weigh in on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, because it isnt either. But between the lines, there was a point I was making that fidelity/accuracy/perfection/whatever isnt necessarily correlatable towards sonic 'quality'. Theoretically poorer designs, objectively speaking, may sound subjectively better.
Which is fine. But the yardstick is transient, and more heavily impacted by other factors than just 'quality'. Nostalgia, in particular, seems unduly significant.

Ive said this several times before, but when classic analog synths were new to people, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to real instruments. And by the time DCO-based synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to VCO-based analog synths... By the time digital synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to analog synths... By the time software synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to hardware synths. yada yada.

[zerocrossing]

Or maybe it's just nostalgia. Why computer games are not as fun as 20 years ago? Well, because I'm 20 years older now :v

Nostalgia is a huge part of it. People are like ducklings. We “bond” to the instruments we were exposed to during our freshly hatched state. (Which I think goes from 0-25 years in humans. So if mamma seems to be a golden retriever, there you are. But that process is a feedback loop. The ducklings don’t bond to a snake. They bond to the dog because it’s friendly and gentle. While I’m not interested on this synths anymore, I don’t think anyone here would admit that they’re not great instruments.

[recursive one]

Just so I can grab all the credit, I actually referred to some of this beforehand:

What are these differences and how do they impact the sound?

Ah, well, that's easy. Technically, they use cruder algorithms, with more compromises.

Obviously I didnt weigh in on whether that was a good thing or a bad thing, because it isnt either. But between the lines, there was a point I was making that fidelity/accuracy/perfection/whatever isnt necessarily correlatable towards sonic 'quality'. Theoretically poorer designs, objectively speaking, may sound subjectively better.
Which is fine. But the yardstick is transient, and more heavily impacted by other factors than just 'quality'. Nostalgia, in particular, seems unduly significant.

Ive said this several times before, but when classic analog synths were new to people, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to real instruments. And by the time DCO-based synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to VCO-based analog synths... By the time digital synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to analog synths... By the time software synths arrived, the classic dismissive comment was that they sounded thin and sterile compared to hardware synths. yada yada.

Good points, the OP made some claims that sounded, well ... polarizing. Essentially that software devs don't know f*ck how to code a synth and old hardware sounded much better.

But the bottom line is that some of that old digital hardware had something special in it's sound character which some people consider desirable even today, even if it came from the technical limitations and simplified algorithms, and which is under-represented in todays softsynths.

Judging from the amount of Moog and Oberheim emulations, nostalgia is not a bad selling factor anyway

I beileve yet another thing is that todays definition of "flagship" synth, that isn't meant to be a vintage emulation, seems to be focused on versatility and very deep editing as opposed to older hardware like Virus/Nord that was meant to sound great right out of the box.

[whyterabbyt]

I beileve yet another thing is that todays definition of "flagship" synth, that isn't meant to be a vintage emulation, seems to be focused on versatility and very deep editing as opposed to older hardware like Virus/Nord that was meant to sound great right out of the box.

That's a good point. I suspect it also relates to the relative sizes of the development companies involved, and the 'economy of scale' of that.
When you've got to invest a couple-hundred-thou in the production line alone, you've probably got the funds and capacity to focus your preset development alongside your 'device' development, and hire people who do nothing else, with an ongoing feedback loop between them and the development team from the moment it makes a sound. Although its not always the case, in the software world you could be talking about a very tiny development team (1-3 people) and a small handful of part-time preset-development freelancers who get access to the synth only a few months before it goes on sale and 99% of features and design are baked in.

[syntonica]

I clicked the bait.

Evolver?!?

[JoeCat]

Or maybe it's just nostalgia. Why computer games are not as fun as 20 years ago? Well, because I'm 20 years older now :v

Nostalgia is a huge part of it. People are like ducklings. We “bond” to the instruments we were exposed to during our freshly hatched state. (Which I think goes from 0-25 years in humans. So if mamma seems to be a golden retriever, there you are. But that process is a feedback loop. The ducklings don’t bond to a snake. They bond to the dog because it’s friendly and gentle. While I’m not interested on this synths anymore, I don’t think anyone here would admit that they’re not great instruments.

Late 70s this was my centerfold:



Still plan on getting a Karp, even though I have no real use for it. I'm aware of my weakness and won't pretend it's anything else

[zerocrossing]

Well, to make this thread a bit more specific.

Here is a comparison of Virus TI and Viper made by the Viper's dev himself. Viper is hands down the closest thing to Virus and overall I think it's the the synth having the most authentic "early 00s hardware VA sound"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqHgQcfV33E

You can hear the difference. It's not the kind of difference that would make one of them much better than another one or matter a lot in an actual mix but it's here. I'd say Virus is thicker and in your face, the sound keeps more integrity upon modulations. Minuscule differences but they can be heard and probably can be meausred.

No converters here, the Virus sound goes straight over USB i think.

I wonder difference could be because the software may have a wider bandwidth and less aliasing and therefore seems to register as louder on your meter than the software which has more midrange energy but less overall energy. The software definitely sounded louder to me, but I listened to it on B&O H4 Bluetooth headphones.

[zerocrossing]

Here’s a related anecdote. I used to have a Nord Lead 2x module in my setup. I really liked that synth a lot. I had Discovery Pro, but I didn’t feel it totally nailed the sound. Then he did an update where he said he fixed the filter algorithms so they were closer to the hardware. I installed the update and I still felt the 2x had a bit more bite and life to the sound. George reminded me to check my oversampling settings. I did, and when I turned them down... there it was. Basically an identical sound to my 2x... or as close as I felt it needed to be. I found a nice home for my 2x and there’s really not a day that I miss it.

[zerocrossing]

Let’s also mention that when Hans Zimmer and Howard Scarr took on the soundtrack to The Dark Knight, they really had access (no pun intended) to pretty much any synth in the entire world. They knew the sounds would be played back on some of the most demanding audio systems (THX IMAX) in the world with far better specs than the ear buds that came with your iPhone, which is probably the most listened to speakers in the world, next to Alexia devices and the terrible Beats headphones. (Oddly the AirPod Pros my wife got me for my birthday sound pretty good... but I digress...) and they chose Zebra HZ (Zebra with Diva filters as requested by Hans). Not a Virus, AN1x, Nord... nothing. Maybe part of that choice was made because a plugin is so easily edited and manipulated in a quick-turnaround movie production environment, where edits are raining down on you, but I don’t think they would have made that choice if they felt the sound quality was compromised in any way.

[recursive one]

Let’s also mention that when Hans Zimmer and Howard Scarr took on the soundtrack to The Dark Knight, they really had access (no pun intended) to pretty much any synth in the entire world. They knew the sounds would be played back on some of the most demanding audio systems (THX IMAX) in the world with far better specs than the ear buds that came with your iPhone, which is probably the most listened to speakers in the world, next to Alexia devices and the terrible Beats headphones. (Oddly the AirPod Pros my wife got me for my birthday sound pretty good... but I digress...) and they chose Zebra HZ (Zebra with Diva filters as requested by Hans). Not a Virus, AN1x, Nord... nothing. Maybe part of that choice was made because a plugin is so easily edited and manipulated in a quick-turnaround movie production environment, where edits are raining down on you, but I don’t think they would have made that choice if they felt the sound quality was compromised in any way.

That kind of reductio at Batmanum argument that is often popping up here ... I don't quite get it. Not everyone want's to sound like Hans Zimmer. The fact that Zebra was used on Dark Knight doesn't automatically make it better than any synth that was not used at Dark Knight.

I personally don't think Zerba's sound quality is compromissed, I just have hard time getting the sounds out of it which I'd like myself. But my music sounds like anything but Hans Zimmer.

[zerocrossing]

Let’s also mention that when Hans Zimmer and Howard Scarr took on the soundtrack to The Dark Knight, they really had access (no pun intended) to pretty much any synth in the entire world. They knew the sounds would be played back on some of the most demanding audio systems (THX IMAX) in the world with far better specs than the ear buds that came with your iPhone, which is probably the most listened to speakers in the world, next to Alexia devices and the terrible Beats headphones. (Oddly the AirPod Pros my wife got me for my birthday sound pretty good... but I digress...) and they chose Zebra HZ (Zebra with Diva filters as requested by Hans). Not a Virus, AN1x, Nord... nothing. Maybe part of that choice was made because a plugin is so easily edited and manipulated in a quick-turnaround movie production environment, where edits are raining down on you, but I don’t think they would have made that choice if they felt the sound quality was compromised in any way.

That kind of reductio at Batmanum argument that is often popping up here ... I don't quite get it. Not everyone want's to sound like Hans Zimmer. The fact that Zebra was used on Dark Knight doesn't automatically make it better than any synth that was not used at Dark Knight.

I personally don't think Zerba's sound quality is compromissed, I just have hard time getting the sounds out of it which I'd like myself. But my music sounds like anything but Hans Zimmer.

You missed my point. The OP is postulating that software does not sound as good as old VA. You have to disregard personal tastes, because that’s a rabbit hole that goes on forever. I’m just saying that if you like the character of Zebra HZ, then it is every bit as “high quality” as your “20 year old hardware VA synths” and actually measurably better. I’m not saying that anyone has to like any synth. I’m just saying that if you’re pointing to something like “sound quality” then you’re in trouble because the sound quality available in software is very high. People bring up Zebra HZ because it is high quality and it’s easy to say, “made for a professional that you’ve heard of.”

Think of it like this. You maybe like the Virus because you like the sound of those aliasing waveforms, but that doesn’t make it a higher quality synth.

[edit] I do understand why people would have a hard time with Zebra, and especially the HZ version with it’s weird implementation of the Diva filters. Zebra is a bit of a mess, IMO, and I struggled with it for a while. Just the way modulations are assigned... always feels awkward to me, no matter how much time as gone by. I do feel it’s worth it, though. I can’t wait to see what Zebra 3 is like. Urs’ UIs have come a long way since Zebra.