What is analog sound? Examples plz

[BertKoor]

He won't say what it is to him, apart from the example. Because his question is:

it might be interesting to ask here what is analog sound for you?

[dark water]

True Bert.
(albeit, he has had a stab at defining 'analog' later down on page 1).

But in fairness, whenever you or I start a thread, we usually might make an effort to define what we want to know more about (even if our definition is not clearly realized).
We can then have some form of dialogue with others, whom we would then engage with (or at least the serious answers),
rather than rudely ignoring people's (serious) responses.


Also, he must have some notion of 'analog': why the hell would you start a topic on KVR without at least doing a LITTLE bit of research online beforehand?
And he's not completely new around here, as you can see from his joining date.

If you wanted to troll KVR members into some form of pointless, much-trodden argument over the Easter holiday, a thread about 'what is analog sound' would be fairly high up your list!

The OP's lack of willingness to define the quality that he seeks, his avoidance of serious answers such as Bmanic's and others' in response to his request, and the well-exhausted topic theme of 'analog' at KVR leads me to believe that he's just trolling.

His ill-tempered answers (such as 'head dick') to light-hearted posts also seem rather curious for someone not wishing to argue with and troll others...

Either way, the OP's suggestion that a 2013 record sounds 'analog' because it sounds (somehow!) like it's from 1994 - when arguably many of the top electronic releases were being made largely with digital equipment - that it lacks 'harshness' and 'presence' (terms often used by engineers relating to the sound of specific frequency ranges), and that it is 'full' and 'smooth' (as opposed to a digital record not being able to sound 'smooth' and 'full' to use those ill-defined terms ?) certainly warrants further explanation by him!

[HAL76]

He won't say what it is to him, apart from the example. Because his question is:

it might be interesting to ask here what is analog sound for you?

Why should I? I just want to know what it means to others. I have my own opinion, but unfortunately my ears can´t speak and don´t trust each others anyway.

[HAL76]

True Bert.
(albeit, he has had a stab at defining 'analog' later down on page 1).

But in fairness, whenever you or I start a thread, we usually might make an effort to define what we want to know more about (even if our definition is not clearly realized).
We can then have some form of dialogue with others, whom we would then engage with (or at least the serious answers),
rather than rudely ignoring people's (serious) responses.


Also, he must have some notion of 'analog': why the hell would you start a topic on KVR without at least doing a LITTLE bit of research online beforehand?
And he's not completely new around here, as you can see from his joining date.

If you wanted to troll KVR members into some form of pointless, much-trodden argument over the Easter holiday, a thread about 'what is analog sound' would be fairly high up your list!

The OP's lack of willingness to define the quality that he seeks, his avoidance of serious answers such as Bmanic's and others' in response to his request, and the well-exhausted topic theme of 'analog' at KVR leads me to believe that he's just trolling.

His ill-tempered answers (such as 'head dick') to light-hearted posts also seem rather curious for someone not wishing to argue with and troll others...

Either way, the OP's suggestion that a 2013 record sounds 'analog' because it sounds (somehow!) like it's from 1994 - when arguably many of the top electronic releases were being made largely with digital equipment - that it lacks 'harshness' and 'presence' (terms often used by engineers relating to the sound of specific frequency ranges), and that it is 'full' and 'smooth' (as opposed to a digital record not being able to sound 'smooth' and 'full' to use those ill-defined terms ?) certainly warrants further explanation by him!

Boy I just want to learn about your opinion and I don´t really take mine serious. Really. I´m just a collector who is interested in examples - and maybe also human thinking and behaviour.

[HAL76]

What is "insert-random-adjective-here" sound?

Hard to say, isn't it? Hard to describe sound. Without resorting to terms which people will call non-descriptive again.

If you don't know what analog sound is, then you don't care for it. Which is fine. Those who do know what it is.

But it is definitely interesting to ask this question since it´s the only way to see if the subjective opinions have something in common and get some - probably more or less interesting and usable - audible examples that may also deliver insights into the way that people perceive and describe audio.

[HAL76]

To me analogue sound is just the chaotic variance of constant changes, even when sounds are really "tight" and stable, they are somehow powerfully vibrant and "alive". Also the envelope generators can be sometimes really snappy somehow, in a way that is difficult to achieve with various digital recreations, even if the analogue synth itself has digital envelopes or LFO.. just because the way they modulate the target of an analogue oscillator or filter it becomes "different" in the way the attack of the modulation sounds.

Some audio clips from my DeepMind 12D and a long random glitch thing from the Neutron at the end:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eLvYdO ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kwJtcp ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zGWLTe ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W2nSNj ... sp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jKNaCI ... sp=sharing

Great examples. Thank you!

https://soundcloud.com/r-diger-gaenslen/jp-6-christmas2

[HAL76]

In this post-truth world, analog is less a thing and more an emotion.


Ps, Daniel Avery's "Song for Alpha" album is also truly excellent.
But what does 'truly' mean in this post-truth world? Garrrrrghhhhh!!

Subjects often use this term to their statement more importance. It expresses that it seems true for them - respectively that they want you to think that they'd think that way.

It lastly means that they still live in Hobbit land and don't really mind bout the problems of other people.

I call them "trulys", they are relatives of the trolls.

Hal76 - is this a serious thread or are you simply bored at Easter and wanting to troll people with a pointlessly open-ended and often-exhausted KVR theme about 'analog'?

If we are to assume that you're not actually trolling (albeit you have rudely ignored several other people, such as Bmanic's attempts, to answer your question seriously), then explain to us what specific elements of 'analog' sound does Daniel Avery's "Drone Logic" contain for you?

I stumbeled over the track below yesterday and thought wow, since it sounds like a record from 1994. For me it´s a perfect example of analog sound and since I collect sound examples I thought it might be interesting to ask here what is analog sound for you?

I also saw an other video from insides his studio. I could recognize an SH-101 and there were some others around.

Daniel Avery - Drone Logic...

We can all post some YT clips here, but what's the point if we don't know what 'analog' quality you are referring to because you haven't qualified it?

Saying something is "a perfect example of analog sound" is far too vague to have any meaning about a specific quality (in this case 'analog sound').

Also, "a record from 1994" has no particular connection to an analog sound: a hell of a lot of the electronic tracks around that time were made partly, if not totally, with digital synths and other equipment (and indeed digital synths / equipment had been used on countless successful records for several years prior to 1994).


On page 1 you wrote:

What I like most about the "old" and analog sound ist that it isn´t that "present" and "harsh". Often damped somehow.
It´s smoother and "fuller". Just like in the example.

But any track (made with digital instruments / equipment) can easily have harshness / presence reduced by the use of an EQ filter:
after all, harshness and presence are common terms used by professional mix engineers to denote particular frequency ranges.

So your idea here of 'analog sound' being related to a reduced or dampened frequency range, so the sound "isn't that present and harsh" doesn't cut the mustard, as this could follow on from digital technology as well.

As for "smoother and fuller" - are you arguing that digital instruments and equipment can not create a full or smooth mix?
If so, explain further...


Many of us like Daniel Avery's music: he's far from unknown around here.
(Hence my suggestion about how you might like his later excellent album - a suggestion which you simply ignored, as per your pattern with most other responses here).

Notably, Daniel Avery uses a mixture of analog and digital equipment to make his tracks, and 'Drone Logic' (released in 2013) was no exception.

So tell us clearly, how did "Drone Logic" sound 'analog' to you as opposed to 'non-analog'?

Failing that, it's fairly clear that with your refusal to courteously respond to some people's serious answers here - as well as with your ill-tempered responses to other people's light-hearted attempts at humour - that you are simply trolling.

[HAL76]

Back to the topic:

[D-Fusion]

[dark water]

...

...

Looks like I was right folks about the OP being a troll then


OP ducks questions and refuses to engage with sensible posts / questions from several people.

OP gives deliberately and needlessly vague answers instead of sticking to the point.

OP is ill-humoured ("head dick") and snarky towards several people on this forum.

OP ignores people's serious responses (not mine, but posts by other people) on page 1 and 2 to his trolling topic.

He then 'suddenly realizes' on page 3 (after being challenged in public about this) that he needs to reply to at least one serious response!
What a coincidence


Ask yourselves this: if you wanted to honestly LEARN from answers to a question - which you'd gone to the trouble of posting publicly as a forum topic idea - would you not then engage in discussion with the serious / sensible answers?
@_@!!

Read through the OP's posts however and you'll see plenty of YT videos posted, some rather vague responses to a couple of people, and some ill-tempered replies to light-hearted humour.
There's no attempt at learning taking place in contrast to the OP's mock-earnest thread title question.


Result = OP is trolling you on this thread (and he's not a newbie by any means) with his immature game based around an unoriginal 'analog' topic idea..

He's not even good at trolling: far too obvious.

[HAL76]

And he we can observe what the real pros [...] among us are doing all day - analog sound par excellence. He surely knows even better:

[HAL76]

He's not even good at trolling: far too obvious.

you speak too much. Nobody asked for a discussion, verybody can contribute as he/she wants, no right nor wrong. And mainly: no more senseless attempts to express audio with meaningless words that most people never think about.

Clearly: I owe you nothing and didn´t ask YOU for a statement. Make it or don´t, but stop playing the judge here.

And if you insist on critisizing please deliver examples for relevant statements. Thx.

[BertKoor]

This to me sounds very cassette tape analog. Perhaps you can figure out why, I really don't know.

(Taggart theme, 2009)

[dark water]

@OP

So you want to treat this thread seriously now, rather than responding to questions with peurile and sarky YT videos (and a now-deleted 'fart' sound link in your most recent edited post to me above) ?

TBF, you did ask for people to discuss what is 'analog sound" for them in your opening post.

You believe there is an analog sound.
So define what it is compared to a recording made at least partly via digital means!

Clearly there are recordings which have been made purely with analog equipment (for example, one of my favourite genres, 1970s dub reggae, features many such tracks).
If you want, I'll link some YT tracks from the 1960s-1970s dub reggae scene - but in fairness, you can find these yourself.

So yes there are analog recordings.
But is there an 'analog sound' which can not be replicated, at least to a convincing degree, through the (part) use of digital instruments and technology nowadays?
I don't believe so.

Therefore, what is the 'analog sound' if it can be mimicked convincingly on a record that uses (at least some) digital technology nowadays?

But maybe you don't want to have a proper and serious conversation about this audio sound issue?
In which case, your choice of "Drone Logic" as an "analog sound 'cos it sounds like something from 1994" will forever remain highly dubious.

[chk071]

Check out the overdrive examples in this video:



I think the software completely fails to get close to the original there.