What is analog sound? Examples plz

[HAL76]

Stop talk - gruuv now.

[j wazza]

while debating analog vs digital is a bit pointless (though it can be interesting when its reasonable and in good faith), it can still be useful to think about what the difference in sound is to you when trying to emulate it itb, eg which plugins capture which aspect of the sound, psp and uhe nail the smooth analog sound, others like soundtoys decapitator have a bit more of that grit that can be heard in some analog sounds etc, so maybe this thread isnt completely pointless, only mostly

[HAL76]

while debating analog vs digital is a bit pointless (though it can be interesting when its reasonable and in good faith), it can still be useful to think about what the difference in sound is to you when trying to emulate it itb, eg which plugins capture which aspect of the sound, psp and uhe nail the smooth analog sound, others like soundtoys decapitator have a bit more of that grit that can be heard in some analog sounds etc, so maybe this thread isnt completely pointless, only mostly

Your shoes boy

[j wazza]

Your shoes boy

what?

[vurt]

i think he's been at the old waccy baccy

[dark water]

'What is anaclog sound' ?




Traditionally-speaking, 'anaclog sound' is the sound of Dutch shoes tapping against tulip-pickers' toes.
Digital sound is the sound of tapping on their fingers and toes.
Hybrid is when they wear the clogs on their hands and go off a-tappin'.

[zerocrossing]

I guess my point is, I buy what sounds good to me and has features that I find inspiring. If I was to crack open my PolyBrute and find out that Arturia lied to me about its analog nature, I’d shrug and say, “huh.” It really doesn’t matter. I got it because I like the sound and how they got to that sound is really irrelevant to me, just like I got the OB-E because I like the sound.

We are pretty much on the same page here

We’re the coolest.

[Unaspected]

Technically, we are hearing both: The analogue signal shaped by the digital.

The irony is that all signals are analog (at least according to this video):

Not that it matters much. I also agree that we may consider the acrchitecture as "hybrid", even though I usually keep that term for synths like the PPG, for example, which have truly digital oscillators.

Had written a proper reply but Ctrl stuck and then I hit something that killed the browser window. Sleep is long overdue. So this will be shorter. I've bookmarked his channel for further watching as I quite enjoyed that.

As long as the Bender / LFO input to the DCO isn't digitally controlled then it does look like the Juno 60 has fully analogue oscillators. I can see some logic in calling them DCOs even if the clock is analogue - being that it performs the same duty and could be swapped for a digital clock. Then it is maybe more, a digital method.

This does matter in terms of expectations for the designer but not necessarily those of the end user. Though it is interesting.

[zerocrossing]

while debating analog vs digital is a bit pointless (though it can be interesting when its reasonable and in good faith), it can still be useful to think about what the difference in sound is to you when trying to emulate it itb, eg which plugins capture which aspect of the sound, psp and uhe nail the smooth analog sound, others like soundtoys decapitator have a bit more of that grit that can be heard in some analog sounds etc, so maybe this thread isnt completely pointless, only mostly

To me it’s like watching the Star Wars series starting from 4-6, 1-3 and finally 7-9. No one looks at A New Hope and says, “well that’s not realistic,” though a lot of it is pretty hokey, special effects wise (and otherwise, but that’s a different debate ) but then when you hit the prequels, it in some ways gets better, but also worse because the digital tech was still fairly new. Then when you watch J.J’s episodes, where he’s got the budget to do practical effects right and the tech and know-how to do CGI right… and it’s “perfect in the mix.” Now, if you actually took footage of a woman floating in space, you’d then look at it and say (spoiler alert), “ah, that General Leila does look a bit fake as she’s Force willing herself back into the ship,” but it’s art. In the end, it’s art as it is in music.

So, Diva might not hold up next to some actual analogs, but if you lean into it for what it is, you can let your artistic vision lead you to something that works in the music. Inversely, if you’re looking for a specific “analog” sound that’s a focal point of your track, Diva might sound too clean and polished, or a bit weak when doing osc sync and filter FM. Easy enough to avoid, though. Like when you tell the doctor “it hurts when I do this,” and they respond, “don’t do that.” There’s an equal amount of “that” that Diva does that sounds good that analog can’t touch. Just choose the right tool for the job. If software sounds analog enough to you for your personal tastes, then use that. If it doesn’t, then buy an analog. It’s not 2005 when analogs were expensive and rare. You can get a good analog synth for less than a license of Omnisphere.

[BONES]

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

What a load of absolute bollocks. I can get far more of all those things from a softsynth than you can from any analogue hardware. As I've said dozens of times, I can stack 384 saw waves in ArcSyn for a depth, a fullness, a richness, a thickness and texture that will shame any analogue synth.

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

This is also completely ridiculous. Both use electricity, both make the air vibrate, via speakers, so you can hear their sound. I could play you a thousand different synth samples and you wouldn't be able to pick which were analogue and which were digital more than random chance would allow. This is just a simple, provable fact.

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.

Really? I think it just depends what you listen to. I thought the sounds in that example video were all terrible. This example is an OB-X or OB-Xa and to me it sounds very harsh and nowhere near thick or full enough. But it was probably the best they could get out of their analogue gear.

It's a f**king brilliant song, though!

[ghettosynth]

Technically, we are hearing both: The analogue signal shaped by the digital.

The irony is that all signals are analog (at least according to this video):

While that is an excellent video, it has a lot of bias, e.g. "this is why DCOs are preferred" and simplification for a general audience. Sure, all digital electronics is analog electronics that obeys a static discipline. You will learn this in your first circuits course. So what? However, with respect to his discussion of what makes a clock digital, he's not correct. We call master clocks a "digital clock," but even if they're crystal controlled, they're certainly still an analog circuit. His language might make you feel good, but it's completely irrelevant as every "master clock" in a "digital device" is analog. Some are simple RC clocks, some are crystal controlled. Some are far more complex, e.g., the HFOs in the Matrix 6.

Nobody here, however, is going to argue (hopefully) that a Korg M1 sounds "analog." Yet, it too has an analog master clock. Note that the same thing that he's claiming about DCOs can be said about an M1, that is, the only "electronic" oscillator(s) in an M1 is/are the master clock(s), yet that's not what we mean by oscillator when we talk about synthesizers. Synthesizer oscillators generate signals at musical pitch.

Moreover, the master clocks in virtually all DCO based synths are not "digitally controlled." Hence, that is not the oscillator that the manufacturer of a DCO synth is referring to either. No, clearly, the term oscillator applies to the entire circuit that takes pitch control as input and provides a signal at the musical frequency of interest. That is, it's the part of a synth that would stand in for a VCO. Let's call this a "musical oscillator" to avoid confusion.

So, in a DCO, the "musical oscillator" must include the divide down circuits as you cannot create a signal at musical pitch without them. Clearly, these are "digitally controlled." That is the minimum then for the core of the DCO. Note that this doesn't require the integrator. The output of the 8253 counter is a square wave at musical pitch. At this point, it's not even hybrid, it is a type of digital oscillator, again, see Hal Chamberlin, Chapter 17. What makes it hybrid is allowing the wave shaper to be viewed as a part of the "musical oscillator" circuit. This is fair because it is this part that allows the DCO to have a similar harmonic output as a VCO, which often have a sawtooth core, and is a part of what distinguishes a DCO from a DO in the context of a sawtooth oscillator. Also, this too must be under digital control, as we've seen. However, without the digital core, none of the analog circuits will oscillate at all, let alone at musical pitch.

Ergo: A DCO, as discussed here, is a hybrid oscillator circuit consisting of a digital oscillator core followed by a digitally controlled analogue wave-shaper.

I also agree that we may consider the acrchitecture as "hybrid", even though I usually keep that term for synths like the PPG, for example, which have truly digital oscillators.

Well, this is removed from "nobody ever called DCOs hybrid or digital." Yet, it still misses the point. The word hybrid is being used correctly in both contexts, yet you're conflating the contexts.

A PPG is a "hybrid" synthesizer that combines digital oscillators with analog filters.

A DCO is a "hybrid" oscillator that combines digital circuitry with analog circuitry.

A Juno 60 is a classic synthesizer with DCOs, hence, it's oscillators are neither purely analog nor digital, rather they are of a "hybrid" design.

Junos are seldom referred to as a hybrid synthesizer. It happens sometimes, context depending. We usually call them "analogs" even though they have DCOs. However, DCOs are definitely a hybrid analog/digital design. That is common language for electronics.

VCOs are analog, DCOs are less analog. No amount of word wrangling is going to change this. DCOs do not have the "best of analog and digital." They have aspects of analog and digital. Best is a value judgement. It is a widely held perspective that VCOs are preferred for their sound when people are looking for an "analog sound." This is specifically related to the characteristics of analog pitch control missing in a DCO. Trying to deny this is silly.

[j wazza]

To me it’s like watching the Star Wars series starting from 4-6, 1-3 and finally 7-9...

... If software sounds analog enough to you for your personal tastes, then use that. If it doesn’t, then buy an analog. It’s not 2005 when analogs were expensive and rare. You can get a good analog synth for less than a license of Omnisphere.

not sure i get how its like star wars but agree that theres a bunch of good virtual analog and theres a bunch of good software thats not meant to sound analog too

[j wazza]

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

What a load of absolute bollocks. I can get far more of all those things from a softsynth than you can from any analogue hardware. As I've said dozens of times, I can stack 384 saw waves in ArcSyn for a depth, a fullness, a richness, a thickness and texture that will shame any analogue synth.

quite arrogant, im not saying no softsynths can have those qualities, just that analog has a natural depth that things like a pure digital mathematical saw wave doesnt have. im not familiar with arcsyn, but looked it up and its a virtual analog, im comparing analog vs pure digital, and virtual analog vs digital is different in some of the same ways, but im not comparing analog vs virtual analog.

virtual analog sounds fuller than pure digital, which just proves the point that analog sounds fuller than pure digital

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

This is also completely ridiculous. Both use electricity, both make the air vibrate, via speakers, so you can hear their sound. I could play you a thousand different synth samples and you wouldn't be able to pick which were analogue and which were digital more than random chance would allow. This is just a simple, provable fact.

i guess its an extra layer of physicality with analog or real instrument sounds, if you think things like tape or where the sound source comes from have no effect on the sound then well have to agree to disagree, but feel free to post some synth samples if you can be bothered, as said before on here i think i could pick a plain, sustained analog saw wave vs a pure digital one like serum 100% of the time, but id be much less sure for real musical examples and analog vs virtual analog

[BONES]

im not saying no softsynths can have those qualities, just that analog has a natural depth that things like a pure digital mathematical saw wave doesnt have.

And I'm saying that is absolute bullshit. If what you are saying was even close to true, then every softsynth and digital hardware synth would essentially sound exactly the same but they quite clearly do not, so what you're saying is nonsense on the face of it. As an example, look at a synth like ArcSyn, which has a dozen or so different saw waves to choose from, rather than the single saw wave you can choose in a MiniMoog. If things were as you suggest, then all of those dozen saw waves would sound the same but they don't because the maths involved is not simple and can be tweaked in various ways to provide way more variety than you'll get from anything analogue. And if those variations can be modulated, then the sky's the limit in terms of a richness of sound no analogue circuit could hope to compete with.

im comparing analog vs pure digital, and virtual analog vs digital is different in some of the same ways, but im not comparing analog vs virtual analog.

A Virtual Analogue synth is 100% digital, it just mimics the feature set and signal path of an analogue subtractive synth. So if you are talking about digital saw waves, then you are definitely talking about V/A.

virtual analog sounds fuller than pure digital

They are the same thing. Name some of the synths you're talking about so we can continue the discussion.

i guess its an extra layer of physicality with analog or real instrument sounds, if you think things like tape or where the sound source comes from have no effect on the sound

Of course they have an effect but it's the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. They make things sound worse, not better. They are things studio engineers spend a lifetime trying to get rid of and you want to suggest they make things better - you have to be out of your mind.

i think i could pick a plain, sustained analog saw wave vs a pure digital one like serum 100% of the time

But Serum is a V/A synth so it is disqualified from your comparison, isn't it?

[j wazza]

...

virtual analog is not pure mathematical saw waves. i never said it sounds better. serum is mostly a wavetable synth with some analog wavetables, vital is another digital sounding synth, or you could use the mathematical saws in reaktor. some virtual analogs are almost indistingiushable from real analog. im talking about analog sound (which is captured well by some emulations but not others) vs what i think of as the most extreme digital opposite of the analog sound, a mathematical saw wave, if you want to keep purposefully missing that point and tell me im arguing a different point, i dont need to defend your straw man, theres no logic to saying this means everything must sound the same, i already said that lots of it sounds different

ive seen that youre always unreasonable, foul mouthed and over confident in all of your posts so i see no benefit to carrying on this conversation with you

if you want to see what i think you can read my other posts in this thread where i already addressed many of your points and wont repeat it all again