What is analog sound? Examples plz

How to make that sound...
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

dark water wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 10:14 pm Can you define an 'analog' versus 'non-analog' sound?
The easiest and most objective way to do this is by doing something that is extremely difficult to do in the digital domain while being very easy to achieve in the analogue domain. This means complex frequency modulation and all kinds of foldback distortions.. then do this at high pitches. You literally need to be in the gigahertz region of sampling rate to be anywhere near similar results in the digital domain.

.. now run those results through a series of 5 different stomp boxes to further try to duplicate the same sound in digital (you could pick some super common boxes that have been emulated numerous times).

Personally I think it's all rather simple. As long as you have sounds where aliasing and other digital artifacts come into the audible range very quickly, you'll be much better off doing it in the analogue domain. Thus that sound in turn is "analog" vs "non-analog".


.. but are those sounds actually useful and musical? I have absolutely no idea. That's an entirely subjective discussion. :D
"Wisdom is wisdom, regardless of the idiot who said it." -an idiot

"They don't ban hate speech; they ban speech they hate." -an oracle

Post

dark water wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 10:14 pm
HAL76 wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 8:17 pm
dark water wrote: Sat Apr 16, 2022 4:19 pm
A Youtube clip of a 2013 song, made on Daniel Avery's hybrid setup, is certainly not a good example of 'analog sound' !
Sorry but that is a subjective point of view, isn´t it? May I ask how old you are? ;-)

Many ppl tday think the´d know since they have an analogue synth. People who have lived in a 100% analog world might just smile :)

To evade further complications: I have said nowhere that he´s really made the track with analog synths. I don´t know. He seems to make lots of post processing and what ever. But the track sound like back then, lying on the sofa - half dead - grinning ´bout those vibes from our stereo ;-) But to be honest: I have read many promises. I have read too many assemssments. And I have heard like nothing yet that would really have convinced me that this type of sound is possible without good old Roland analogue gear ...
To answer you directly:
I'm 44 years old.
I can truly remember listening to music, including electronic music (via my dad's interests in JMJ etc), from around 1980 onwards - experiencing first-hand the excitement (!) around gradual 'digital technology' changes with regards to music, home computer systems and other forms of entertainment throughout that decade.

I started making music via digital software NoiseTracker for the Amiga in 1989 and via PCs in the 1990s, I was out enjoying music in Midlands nightclubs from 1992 onwards (which is why I questioned your statement about music sounding analog because it is "from 1994"), and I was DJ-ing professionally at the weekends for 4 years in Cardiff nightclubs during the mid-late 1990s.

I'm no stranger to tracks made via analog equipment, digital equipment or a hybrid of both :phones:


Likewise, now may I ask how old you are?


In terms of Daniel Avery, factually his setup includes several analog synths but the production for Drone Logic was done using a combination of hardware and digital software by him and his producer mate Erol Alkan.
This information is readily available via the internet.

That is why I know 'Drone Logic' does not offer an 'analog sound', because it uses a hybrid (digital and analog) range of sounds and FX to achieve its final sound, as Avery and Alkan have explained publicly.


And so how can we say that something has an 'analog sound' if it has been partly made with digital sounds and equipment?

As said before, I am very familiar with Daniel Avery's music (which is why I recommended his follow-up album to you, which you ignored).
Yes, I am sure that a SIMILAR sound to the record can be done via 'good old Roland gear'.
But Drone Logic was not done like that - it was done using digital as well as analog gear.



You started this thread asking for examples of 'analog sound'.
You then gave as your example a Youtube digitally-processed (and arguably YT distortion-affected) clip of a digital/analog 2013 track called Drone Logic.

Do you really not understand why I questioned your selection? @_@!!


To answer one of your previous questions, my suggestion for an 'analog sound' would be one that is the outcome of using all analog instruments and equipment, such as a 1960s vinyl pressing of Jamaican ska/reggae music (which I enjoy).
I wouldn't attach any intrinsic subjective values to an 'analog sound' beyond it being purely the product of analog gear.


But you apparently think that there is an 'analog sound'.
So let's see if you will answer the question that I asked of you previously:

Can you define an 'analog' versus 'non-analog' sound?

TBF, you chose the thread title "What is analog sound?" so why not try to explain it yourself clearly? :tu:
I could be wrong but think he’s admitting as much as you’ve claimed. Not necessarily trolling (or still could be) but gauging what people will say.

I didn’t even listen to the video because I don’t see the point of that. I’ve said as much earlier too.

These threads used to be brutal when I first joined KVR. These days I don’t see the point so much. There’s still like maybe one here that has that old school way of mystifying what analog sound is.

Post

@ bmanic

An excellent, technical explanation of 'analog vs non analog' based on distortion characteristics :)
And as you say, it would be extremely difficult to replicate this digitally.


I would easily define an 'analog sound' as being something produced as the outcome from solely using analog equipment (a bit like ANX did with his example of an analog synth etc).
Likewise, non-analog sound is sound produced by equipment which is not only analog / not at all analog.
A rather to-the-point, if somewhat unimaginative, definition I grant you :hihi:

However, as per his post (further down the page on Page1), the OP appears to be looking for some definition of 'analog sound' based on intrinsic, generalized qualities such as:
HAL76 wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 9:02 pm...
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"...
I asked him if it's possible for competent engineers to use digital gear to EQ tracks so as to reduce harshness and presence in the mix, as well as being 'dampened somehow'?

I also asked if analog tracks really sound 'smoother and fuller' compared to hybrid or digital tracks?
However, he is yet to reply...


His choice of that digital/analog hybrid track Drone Logic, uploaded via Youtube's digital site (with likely YT compression and distortion effects), as an example of 'analog sound' is curious to say the least.

Indeed, his suggestion of Drone Logic proves that the OP, and indeed all of us(?), might be fooled into believing there is some mythical 'analog sound' when we sometimes/often listen to (part) digitally-produced or digitally-affected music.
Secondly, of course, analog recordings can and often do sound very different from each other (as a result of being produced with so many different types of analog instruments / equipment).

That being the case, what is this definable 'analog sound' (or its handful of intrinsic qualities) that the OP refers to?
I would be interested to hear him elaborate on his idea further!

------------------------------------------

@ elxsound: I think you're quite right (and wise!) to take that view :)

TBH, the OP now seems to have changed his tone during the past couple of posts - at least compared to how he set out responding to (very few) people on pages 1 and 2 in a rather vague and somewhat ill-humoured manner ("Head Dick" etc).
It isn't unlike what a troll might do after choosing a similarly-titled thread (with a well-trodden theme here at KVR) as this one and then trying to get people into arguments for the sake of the troll's amusement.

Either way, let's see if the OP still agrees with his post midway down page1 about those 'analog sound' qualities he suggested (as per the quote above)!

:phones:

Post

analog sound doesnt necessarily just come from purely analog gear, it can be from a mixture of analog and digital and usually is, as most people digitally record synths into daws these days and do digital effects etc (at least digital reverb), some synths use dcos but use analog filters and mixers etc to get an analog sound

as per my post about analog vs digital art, you can clearly see a difference between digital photos vs film photos, even if the film photo is scanned and edited digitally.
And you could see the difference between a painting that has been digitally edited vs a digital painting on microsoft paint, digital effects dont always take away the character of the analog original (but sometimes does)

some virtual analog stuff has close to an analog sound too

its like comparing digital physical modelling to real world instrument sounds, there are millions of different real world instrument sounds but they all have a quality that is intrinsic to real recordings when compared with physical modelling of those instruments, they sound more natural, just because each sound is different doesnt mean a medium cant have intrinsic qualities, but ofc a physical model of a guitar will sound closer to a real guitar than a real saxophone will
Last edited by j wazza on Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:52 am, edited 2 times in total.

Post

^^ it's a fair reply j wazza, and I've got no objections to the fact you hold that viewpoint.
After all, different people will have different ideas about whether there can be an 'analog sound' or not.


But, to play devil's advocate, what would you say are the clearly distinguishable sonic / audible qualities of 'analog sound'?

And if these qualities can be reproduced via (partly or fully) digital gear - or even if what we believe to be 'analog sound' actually gets affected via digital compression / distortion artifacts via online music sites before it comes to our ears- then how can we justify the claim that what we believe to be intriniscally 'analog sound' is indeed so?


(You might not accept the premise of the last line above, in which case I would ask why you think it is impossible for competent engineers to not be able to use digital gear / technology to replicate such 'analog sound' qualities).

-------------------------

ps, I am aware that this is all one pointless distraction, as frankly it won't make a difference to the music I make.
As long as the sounds I choose for a track are good and fit the song, I don't particularly care if I'm using my analog gear (such as my 1974 Roland SH-3 etc) or my digital equipment :)

Still, in terms of this philosophical debate around 'analog sound' - and because I truly believe that it is impossible to define 'analog sound' qualities - I shall play devil's avocate with your viewpoint :P

Post

dark water wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 10:45 am ^^ it's a fair reply j wazza, and I've got no objections to the fact you hold that viewpoint.
After all, different people will have different ideas about whether there can be an 'analog sound' or not.

But, to play devil's advocate, what would you say are the clearly distinguishable sonic / audible qualities of 'analog sound'?

And if these qualities can be reproduced via (partly or fully) digital gear - or even if what we believe to be 'analog sound' actually gets affected via digital compression / distortion artifacts via online music sites before it comes to our ears- then how can we justify the claim that what we believe to be intriniscally 'analog sound' is indeed so?

(You might not accept the premise of the last line above, in which case I would ask why you think it is impossible for competent engineers to not be able to use digital gear / technology to replicate such 'analog sound' qualities).

-------------------------

ps, I am aware that this is all one pointless distraction, as frankly it won't make a difference to the music I make.
As long as the sounds I choose for a track are good and fit the song, I don't particularly care if I'm using my analog gear (such as my 1974 Roland SH-3 etc) or my digital equipment :)

Still, in terms of this philosophical debate around 'analog sound' - and because I truly believe that it is impossible to define 'analog sound' qualities - I shall play devil's avocate with your viewpoint :P
i said in this earlier post what i think these qualities are
j wazza wrote: Fri Apr 15, 2022 3:30 am analog can sound very different from other analog, warm or cold etc, but it all has certain qualities compared to digital like more depth, fullness, thickness, richness and more texture and imperfections, this means it sounds closer to real world instrument sounds that all also have these qualities compared to digital, even though instruments sound very different from each other too

these qualities are a result of the sound being in a physical medium, like air in a room or electricity in a synth, tape or vinyl etc, rather than code
ive even tried running digital synths through my eurorack, like through the mixer etc without mixing it with anything, recording it without actively changing the sound with any analog effects, and i could hear some added depth and fullness

its possible to reproduce it digitally, at least to get close, if you can model the exact waveforms and harmonics of an analog sound and the complex way it changes over time, cos of sample rates you cant get exact though, but with high sample rates you could get close enough for us to not notice a difference, but just because it can be modelled with a lot of work doesnt take away from the fact that analog affects the waveform, harmonics, sound and changes over time intrinically, without any work
its like how with a lot of work something like microsoft paint or similar software could be made to look pretty much exactly like a real painting, that doesnt take away from the fact that paint has a particular character that it has intrinsically, without any work

i think ive already addressed the point about digital post processing

ofc we can have our own opinions and i also like a mixture of analog and digital gear

Post

^^ We will have to agree to disagree :)
'analog sound' has certain qualities compared to digital like more depth, fullness, thickness, richness and more texture and imperfections.
1) I'm happy to accept that digital hardware synths / equipment do not have the imperfections of analog synths / equipment.

But are your other 'qualities' purely subjective values, or can they be measured objectively (and if so, how)?

2) Does your comparison apply always and to all purely analog instruments versus all other instruments?

For example, many synth lovers might argue that some digital synths such as the pad-monster Roland D50 provide plenty of 'fullness';
or that analog synths do not neccessarily have 'more texture' (whatever that means to someone) than digital instruments such as the Fairlight CMI:


And what do we make of hybrid digital synths such as the Elka Synthex which some musicians might say can have plenty of 'richness' it its sounds?
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/elka-synthex/4443


Even more controversially(!), how closely can softsynths such as u-he's Diva convince listeners that they are hearing an analog synth in a song (not least with 'imperfections' such as 'drift' etc now being factored into the software), even though we as the producers of such tracks would know that Diva does not produce analog sounds?
If digitally-produced music can fool people into believing that what they are hearing is an 'analog sound', then what does that tell us?

-----

Ultimately, it's a well-trodden debate that has been argued about here at KVR, Gearspace and on other musical forums MANY times before, for example:

viewtopic.php?t=105596&hilit=analog+digital&start=90

https://gearspace.com/board/so-much-gea ... ital+sound

https://www.juliusdobos.com/the-philoso ... rs-debate/

viewtopic.php?t=262225&hilit=analog+digital&start=555


There is no major consensus about what the intrinsic qualities of 'analog sound' might be objectively.

YMMV, but have a look at the previous discussions (and many more on those forums etc) involving plenty of other musicians.


-------

Lastly, with my point about the music tracks (some made at least part-digitally as per the OP's suggested 'Drone Logic') which have been uploaded to YT etc (and then highly likely affected by compression / distortion artefacts on those digital sites) before being linked to this thread as shining examples of 'analog sound':

From your previous post, it seems that you think those music links (which are highly likely to have been altered by YT artefacts etc) still provide the 'analog sound' ?
Fair enough, but I would strongly disagree.


Anyway that's me done here: some people might believe that 'analog sound' has intrinsic qualities (which digital technology can't mimic, or can't adversely affect in the case of uploading to digital streaming sites etc) but many musicians might well disagree.


Back to the music-making!
Cheers :phones:

Post

dark water wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 1:51 pm
1) I'm happy to accept that digital hardware synths / equipment do not have the imperfections of analog synths / equipment.

But are your other 'qualities' purely subjective values, or can they be measured objectively (and if so, how)?

2) Does your comparison apply always and to all purely analog instruments versus all other instruments?
...
it is mostly subjective but things like the imperfections and saturation can be seen objectively in the waveforms/spectrums etc

id say it applies to all analog synths that ive heard, but i havent heard all of them
but this doesnt mean that some digital synths cant also have those qualities, and especially hybrids that are partly analog
it also applies to good VAs and dont think they are a counter to this argument, they dont mean there is no analog sound, they are modelling analog sounds
digital can mimic analog, or have similar qualities without intentionally mimicking analog, and at other times with other gear digital can adversely affect analog sounds and make them digital, but this just means that there is an analog sound to mimic or digitalise in the first place (and if analog sounds can be digitalised, this means there is a digital sound too)
i think the comparison is clearest when you compare an analog synth to a synth like serum, which is what i think of as the most extreme example of digital and the furthest from analog

i think any counter argument would need to give examples of analog that doesnt have any of those qualities, i think no other example can be a counter to the argument that there is an analog sound

i wasnt talking about drone logic but think the example i posted is a good example of an analog synth sound, being digitally processed doesnt stop it being a sound of an analog synth, just like digital processing doesnt stop something from being a real guitar sample, especially with subtle processing that doesnt change much

this is an interesting debate, im not trying to change your mind, enjoy using whichever analog or non analog gear you like!
Last edited by j wazza on Sun Apr 17, 2022 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post

dark water wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 1:51 pm And what do we make of hybrid digital synths such as the Elka Synthex which some musicians might say can have plenty of 'richness' it its sounds?
https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/elka-synthex/4443
First, I have to say I agree with most of what's being written here, regarding the "alleged" qualities of analog, etc.. I certainly am not on the side of those that glorify and mysticize analog.

That said: How in heaven are you qualifying the Synthex as a "hybrid digital synth". AFAIK, it is completely analog. The only things that may be considered "digital" are the preset storage, sequencer, etc. But the sound circuits are based on Curtis chips (analog), the very same chips that are featured in the Oberheim Matrix-12 (also analog). Or am I missing something?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elka_Synthex
Fernando (FMR)

Post

i definitely don't mystify analog at all, maybe i glorify it in that i think a lot of analog stuff sounds good, but not apart from that and lots of digital stuff sounds good too

dark water accepted that analog has imperfections, these can be measured objectively, all these tiny imperfections add microscopic detail to the sound which is what gives it depth, richness etc (those qualities are subjective to me), thats basically it

Post

No worries j wazza: it's a fair counter-argument to make :)

(I don't agree with it on the whole, but then it's not like my own position in this argument is without flaws!
Hence why musicians have gone round and round arguing these matters for years :lol: )

----------------------

@ fmr: I sent you a PM as I'm trying to finish my involvement with this thread (!), but various websites class the Elka Synthex as partly digital and partly analog based on its architecture and in particular its DCOs:

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/el ... -retrozone

https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/elka-synthex/4443

https://www.synthark.org/Elka/Synthex.html


TBF, I personally always thought it was an analog synth until I read up on it recently.
However, am I (and indeed those synth articles by SoundonSound etc) incorrect?

I guess it could be argued that the Elka Synthex is an analog synth in the main with digital extras, but again this would seem to open up a debate!

Cheers.

Post

dark water wrote: Sun Apr 17, 2022 5:05 pm No worries j wazza: it's a fair counter-argument to make :)

(I don't agree with it on the whole, but then it's not like my own position in this argument is without flaws!
Hence why musicians have gone round and round arguing these matters for years :lol: )

----------------------

@ fmr: I sent you a PM as I'm trying to finish my involvement with this thread (!), but various websites class the Elka Synthex as partly digital and partly analog based on its architecture and in particular its DCOs:

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/el ... -retrozone

https://www.muzines.co.uk/articles/elka-synthex/4443

https://www.synthark.org/Elka/Synthex.html


TBF, I personally always thought it was an analog synth until I read up on it recently.
However, am I (and indeed those synth articles by SoundonSound etc) incorrect?

I guess it could be argued that the Elka Synthex is an analog synth in the main with digital extras, but again this would seem to open up a debate!

Cheers.
the signal chain is analogue but with digital control. dco is not a digital oscillator :)
:ud:

Post

Ah thank you.

Grrr!

How confusing :(

Post

you want to hear the difference between analogue and digital?

take your fgth relax first pressing 12" single and the cd of the tracks released more recently.
play them both on the same stereo system.
:ud:

Post

No, no, no!
Don't you try and get me involved in this thread anymore :x :x

Goodbye :P

Post Reply

Return to “Sound Design”