What is analog sound? Examples plz

[zerocrossing]

I think in the end, we're confusing "different" and "better". Of course every synth is different but I don't subscribe to the belief that any one synth is intrinsically better than another, just because of what it is. I am always confident I can get whatever I need from whatever synth I have in front of me. What it almost always comes down to is how much effort one thing might require over another, not which will do the job better.

I read this as, “I honestly don’t care that much about how a synth sounds.” You’re like my brother. He’s had the same Yamaha ROMpler since forever and he doesn’t even think about getting anything else or anything different. He’s just focused on something else, which is fine, but you make the mistake of thinking that your perception is like everyone’s.

[ghettosynth]

If you want to know how to create a realistic anal-log sound, then look no further...

[crickey13]

Serum is a V/A - it has some oscillators that run through filters and into an amp. It just uses wavetables instead of generating simple waveforms. It's not that different, really, to something like an Ensoniq ESQ-1, just a lot more evolved. Many early VSTi V/As used wavetables to do things like variable pulse width (and PWM) because the processor overhead to generate/modulate a decent waveform in realtime was too high.

You're right in the way that all subtractive synthesizers feel quite similar as long as you use filters in a prominent fashion, even when using digital waveforms. Actually not too many people articulate this point often enough and it's kinda true.

If we ignore the fact that with a VA, you get the analog sound right out of the box, wavetable synths can sound totally like a VA if you tweak them long enough and implement them in a firmly subtractive context, but the thing is that you don't really need to use them in that subtractive context.

If you stick to modulating wavetables and predominantly use filters to tame the rough edges rather than to sculpt large chunks of harmonics like you would in the case of a VA, then it becomes its own thing. Which is kinda why they're called wavetable synths instead of subtractive.

They're subtractive among other things, true, but they're not just that. But you're right in a way. If you're using a wavetable synth and program it the way you would program a regular VA, then you're not really taking advantage of instrument's full potential and you're likely to get a very similar sound to a regular VA, heck, you might as well use a regular VA at that point, there is definitely some overlap.

[j wazza]

you raise some fair points here and for once didnt call me a dumbass so im happy to have this conversation

DX-7 isn't and Korg's M1 didn't have a resonant filter, either, so it's not a V/A. And as those are two of the biggest selling synths of all time, I'd suggest there are plenty of synths that aren't V/As.

even if you change it to a resonant filter, the vast majority of synths have oscillators, resonant filters and amps, this isnt enough to make something a VA, you could make this setup with mathematical saws and simple filters in reaktor with no attempt to model analog sounds, it has to at least try to sound like analog

this misses the point of what a mathematical saw wave means

No, it's you who is construing something as narrowly as possible, in an attempt to make a point that has no basis in reality. I've asked you to point to any VSTi that uses a perfect sawtooth wave and you have failed to provide one. Look as hard as you like, I doubt you'll find one. Every dev tries to make their sawtooth waves interesting. You're making an assumption that you simply cannot back up.

reaktor has them as already said, but still i was talking about saw waves which are a concept in maths/physics and responding with 'all synths use maths' is missing that point. i was just trying to find the most extreme and objective contrast between analog and pure digital, to make the comparison clearest and to avoid this confusion about VAs.

i wasnt meaning to compare analog to VAs, many VAs (like softube, omni, uhe) are so good that i often cant tell any difference, and are so good that i often dont even bother using my real analog.

im comparing analog vs pure digital, maybe to apply this to more synths ill just have to define it subjectively and go with analog (+ what i think of as convincing VAs) vs what sounds like digital to me, the synths that sound clearly different from analog
id say that serum, phase plant, vital, massive all sound quite digital to me, even though some of them have what they call VA oscillators, i can clearly tell a difference from analog and these synths, and think i would almost always tell the difference between them and analog

i like these synths anyway though, sometimes its the sound i want, it doesnt have to sound analog, phase plant is my favourite synth

analog waveforms are more complex

No, they aren't. They are simpler. Look at DS Thorn, for example and see how simple to complex a sawtooth wave can be using it's spectral synthesis.

to clarify, i mean that an analog sine is more complex than most digital non-convincing-VA sines, an analog saw is more complex than most digital non-convincing-VA saws, digital can make super complex sounds and i love synths like razor for that

if it was easy then all VAs would sound perfect

It's as easy as anything - just sample an analogue oscillator. Build a wavetable to capture drift and any other nuances you like and away you go.

im yet to hear an algorithm that sounds exactly like analog

"Analog (sic)" what? MiniMoog, or SEM or Juno6? Because if you can tell the difference between a MiniMoog and The Legend in all but the most extreme, non-musical settings, I'll be very, very impressed.

i was talking about algorithmic emulations saying it is not easy, i use sample based analog synths and analog wavetables all the time but thats analog not digital sound generation, and making those wavetables yourself isnt easy to keep the analog character of the sound, at least not as well as omnispheres wavetables keep the analog character, if you have a wavetable synth that can accurately make wavetables from analog synth samples id be interested to know

i just mean when im using VA synths i can at least sometimes hear a difference, this is all thats needed for them to not sound exactly the same

as said before in many musical examples i cant tell the difference between good VAs and analog, but often can only with sustained sounds, which isnt that extreme or non musical

im talking about analog in general, but obviously a moog emulation should be compared to a moog etc, but i think all analog synths and good VAs sound closer to each other than something like serum or massive

anyway it basically comes down to - to me, analog synths and good VAs tend to sound like they have more depth, more 3d, more full bodied, whereas digital synths like serum sound a bit flatter to me, and a bit thin, but on the other hand they cut through the mix better and have other advantages like the ones mentioned

they may not sound like that to you, but you cant disagree that they sound like that to me, and this thread seems to be going in circles a bit

[BONES]

I read this as, “I honestly don’t care that much about how a synth sounds.” You’re like my brother. He’s had the same Yamaha ROMpler since forever and he doesn’t even think about getting anything else or anything different. He’s just focused on something else, which is fine, but you make the mistake of thinking that your perception is like everyone’s.

How a synth sounds is not my primary concern. The only value it has for me is in what it can contribute to the song I am working on. I am pretty much always focused on the mix so as long as the choice of instrument works in the mix, then I really don't care what synth it is. But I don't think my ears are made of cloth and what you describe is not something that I can detect in any meaningful sense. If these subtle differences exist at all, they will be far too subtle for anyone to pick out of a mix, which makes them essentially worthless in the context of what we use this stuff for, doesn't it?

You're right in the way that all subtractive synthesizers feel quite similar as long as you use filters in a prominent fashion, even when using digital waveforms.

I don't often use the filters in a V/A in a "prominent fashion". I tend to like to keep the raw oscillator sound most of the time and where I do get heavy-handed with the filter, it's usually with lots of resonance, which is actually adding harmonics, not subtracting.

... you don't really need to use them in that subtractive context.

Also true of simple V/A style waves. You can use hard sync and FM to sculpt all manner of sounds without having to bother with the filter.

Which is kinda why they're called wavetable synths instead of subtractive.

No, they call them wavetable synths because it's a popular buzzword that sells more product and, AFAIK, nobody makes one that doesn't have a big filter section, so I'd suggest the filters are as integral a part of those instruments as they are to things we might describe as more traditional V/As.

reaktor has them as already said

Reaktor is a toolbox, of course it has all the basic building blocks.

i was just trying to find the most extreme and objective contrast between analog and pure digital, to make the comparison clearest and to avoid this confusion about VAs.

But you can't do that if you can't find an instrument that fits that bill, which is the point I am trying to make. In principle I agree with you 100% but in reality nobody makes a synth with that perfect saw wave, except maybe for LFOs.

im comparing analog vs pure digital, maybe to apply this to more synths ill just have to define it subjectively and go with analog (+ what i think of as convincing VAs) vs what sounds like digital to me, the synths that sound clearly different from analog

Like what? I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. Like I said, to me a DX-7 is a digital synth, as are most older ROMplers but even something as out there as TRK-01 Bass is a V/A to me, because I use it in the same way I'd use Korg's ARP Odyssey or bx_oberhausen or Vacuum Pro.

id say that serum, phase plant, vital, massive all sound quite digital to me, even though some of them have what they call VA oscillators, i can clearly tell a difference from analog and these synths, and think i would almost always tell the difference between them and analog

Massive is just a bad sounding synth but it's also ancient. PhasePlant's filters are not the greatest, so it's not as versatile as you might expect from something so vast. I don't know about Vital, I tried the demo and didn't think it had much to offer over what I already had/have. But the other side of this coin is that I can make any analogue synth sound very digital. After all, how many of them have a preset called "DigiBass" or something similar?

i like these synths anyway though, sometimes its the sound i want, it doesnt have to sound analog, phase plant is my favourite synth

analog waveforms are more complex

No, they aren't. They are simpler. Look at DS Thorn, for example and see how simple to complex a sawtooth wave can be using it's spectral synthesis.

to clarify, i mean that an analog sine is more complex than most digital non-convincing-VA sines, an analog saw is more complex than most digital non-convincing-VA saws

Again, where are these "non-convincing" synths. Every synth I've ever heard that's not convinced me has been because of the filter, not the oscillators, especially in the last few years. Your argument seems to be rooted in the past, when softsynths weren't anywhere near as good as they are today.



, digital can make super complex sounds and i love synths like razor for that

if it was easy then all VAs would sound perfect

It's as easy as anything - just sample an analogue oscillator. Build a wavetable to capture drift and any other nuances you like and away you go.

if you have a wavetable synth that can accurately make wavetables from analog synth samples id be interested to know

Of course I don't, it would be a fool's errand. I pretty much never use wavetables, I don't find them good for much at all.

i just mean when im using VA synths i can at least sometimes hear a difference, this is all thats needed for them to not sound exactly the same

Like zerocrossing, you're setting them up to fail. Why does digital have to sound like analogue? I don't understand the mindset. I just want things to sound good and, as far as I'm concerned, my best softsynths shit all over any and every analogue synth I've ever heard and they do it by being batter at what I like about analogue sounds than real analogue hardware can manage.

i think all analog synths and good VAs sound closer to each other than something like serum or massive

I think GR-8 and TRK-01 sound better than a MiniMoog and they're both free. It just depends how you want to set your benchmark.

to me, analog synths and good VAs tend to sound like they have more depth, more 3d, more full bodied

Then you're ignoring unison, which instantly catapults any softsynth to levels of "depth, more 3d, more full-bodied than any analogue synth. e.g. As great as a SEM sounds, bx_oberhausen will always beat the pants off it with 24 voice unison.

whereas digital synths like serum sound a bit flatter to me, and a bit thin

So turn up the number of unison voices and play with the unison detune and spread until they don't. Job done.

[zerocrossing]

I read this as, “I honestly don’t care that much about how a synth sounds.” You’re like my brother. He’s had the same Yamaha ROMpler since forever and he doesn’t even think about getting anything else or anything different. He’s just focused on something else, which is fine, but you make the mistake of thinking that your perception is like everyone’s.

How a synth sounds is not my primary concern. The only value it has for me is in what it can contribute to the song I am working on. I am pretty much always focused on the mix so as long as the choice of instrument works in the mix, then I really don't care what synth it is. But I don't think my ears are made of cloth and what you describe is not something that I can detect in any meaningful sense. If these subtle differences exist at all, they will be far too subtle for anyone to pick out of a mix, which makes them essentially worthless in the context of what we use this stuff for, doesn't it?

It depends on your approach. See, I’m also like you, in a sense. When I’m working on a song, I tend to work fast and the general vibe and arrangement is the most important thing. We had this conversation a while ago, when you remarked that my song was lacking synthesizers. I briefly tried a synth in the arrangement and it wasn’t clicking for me, so I moved on. Could a different synth or sound worked? Maybe, but what I was getting was working so I didn’t really bother.

But when I’m doing my instrumental improvisation, it’s a different story. There’s no lyrics and a lot of the composition is harmonic, rather than melodic, though it’s always a mixture. Then, subtle tonal differences really do make a big difference. But if you don’t do music like that, then you probably don’t really notice or care, which is fine, but to answer your question as to whether or not it’s “worthless,” it isn’t. For you, yes, but obviously you’re way outnumbered on this one, so perhaps you’re missing something. You’re like a colorblind guy yelling about how unimportant red is.

[zerocrossing]

Here’s a question to the naysayers: If there’s nothing to “analog sound,” why is it so sought after and copied? Dune is one of my favorite modern software synths. Why did the developer add a bunch of analog modeled filters? Why did he do Obsession?Why is there a bx_oberhausen? Diva? Legend? Just chasing a trend? Why is it a trend? Notice there’s not a trend of casserole recipes from the 1970s. Things become a trend if there’s some kernel of quality to them. Things become known as “classics” for a reason. There is some sort of intrinsic and timeless character and quality to them that makes them endure. I hope BONES never actually experiences it, because it really is quite a pain in the ass, and quite expensive, but once you’re hooked, you’re hooked. Hey @BONES, just keep telling yourself there’s no difference. It’s for the best.

[FapFilter]

If there’s nothing to “analog sound,” why is it so sought after and copied?

because it can sound great, but imo also hype doesn't play the smallest role either.
Grass is greener on the other side too.
Just like people wanted to get rid of their "analog shit" in the 80's and 90's, they want to get rid of their "digital shit" now. and that includes craving / hype for sound shitizers that give us back the shittiest preamp / converter / warbliest worn out tape / ugliest MP3 settings imaginable, often even overexaggerated, so we don't have to deal with the state of pristine digital quality anymore, that people had been striving for 60 or more years and now want their old characterful sounds back.
Of course "perfect digital" can also sound characterful, but you have to put some work into it, whereas analog (especially vintage, or "crappy" gear) does imprint it's signature sound on it's own, wether you want (or like) that particular tone, or not

[HAL76]

If there’s nothing to “analog sound,” why is it so sought after and copied?

because it can sound great, but imo also hype doesn't play the smallest role either.
Grass is greener on the other side too.
Just like people wanted to get rid of their "analog shit" in the 80's and 90's, they want to get rid of their "digital shit" now. and that includes craving / hype for sound shitizers that give us back the shittiest preamp / converter / warbliest worn out tape / ugliest MP3 settings imaginable, often even overexaggerated, so we don't have to deal with the state of pristine digital quality anymore, that people had been striving for 60 or more years and now want their old characterful sounds back.
Of course "perfect digital" can also sound characterful, but you have to put some work into it, whereas analog (especially vintage, or "crappy" gear) does imprint it's signature sound on it's own, wether you want (or like) that particular tone, or not

Nah. Really big sounds are digital while you have to spend lots of time to make your analog sounds complex. But in the end they'll complement each others.

[melomood]

I think in the end, we're confusing "different" and "better". Of course every synth is different but I don't subscribe to the belief that any one synth is intrinsically better than another, just because of what it is. I am always confident I can get whatever I need from whatever synth I have in front of me. What it almost always comes down to is how much effort one thing might require over another, not which will do the job better.

I read this as, “I honestly don’t care that much about how a synth sounds.” You’re like my brother. He’s had the same Yamaha ROMpler since forever and he doesn’t even think about getting anything else or anything different. He’s just focused on something else, which is fine, but you make the mistake of thinking that your perception is like everyone’s.

And your mistake is feeling like you get to dictate your perception as fact

[melomood]

Sorry if it looks like I'm defending Bones but this thread is just a whole lotta bullshit horn locking

[vurt]

the sound of electrons passing through wires and components.

[zerocrossing]

If there’s nothing to “analog sound,” why is it so sought after and copied?

because it can sound great, but imo also hype doesn't play the smallest role either.
Grass is greener on the other side too.
Just like people wanted to get rid of their "analog shit" in the 80's and 90's, they want to get rid of their "digital shit" now. and that includes craving / hype for sound shitizers that give us back the shittiest preamp / converter / warbliest worn out tape / ugliest MP3 settings imaginable, often even overexaggerated, so we don't have to deal with the state of pristine digital quality anymore, that people had been striving for 60 or more years and now want their old characterful sounds back.
Of course "perfect digital" can also sound characterful, but you have to put some work into it, whereas analog (especially vintage, or "crappy" gear) does imprint it's signature sound on it's own, wether you want (or like) that particular tone, or not

F*ck. I wrote a whole response and accidentally deleted it. Oh well. Anyway, the gist of it is that analog wasn’t abandoned because of the sound, it was for various other financial and feature reasons that no longer hold water, not because people didn’t like the tone of analog synths.

[zerocrossing]

So, the thread says, “examples, plz” so here some are. Not mine, but demo tracks made of a synth that I personally own. Please don’t tell me that your plugin can match it, because I have tried them all and bought most of them, and none come close.

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electronics/atc-x-chestra

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electroni ... theriot-lm

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electronics/attheomegainn

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electroni ... -her-instr

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electronics/nicolinos-cut

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electroni ... hable-hour

https://soundcloud.com/studio-electroni ... ustsaythis

[zerocrossing]

If there’s nothing to “analog sound,” why is it so sought after and copied?

because it can sound great, but imo also hype doesn't play the smallest role either.
Grass is greener on the other side too.
Just like people wanted to get rid of their "analog shit" in the 80's and 90's, they want to get rid of their "digital shit" now. and that includes craving / hype for sound shitizers that give us back the shittiest preamp / converter / warbliest worn out tape / ugliest MP3 settings imaginable, often even overexaggerated, so we don't have to deal with the state of pristine digital quality anymore, that people had been striving for 60 or more years and now want their old characterful sounds back.
Of course "perfect digital" can also sound characterful, but you have to put some work into it, whereas analog (especially vintage, or "crappy" gear) does imprint it's signature sound on it's own, wether you want (or like) that particular tone, or not

Nah. Really big sounds are digital while you have to spend lots of time to make your analog sounds complex.

I don’t think this is still true. My PolyBrute is more capable than almost any analog emulation I can think of. Even Diva lacks a third envelope that really comes in handy on my ATC-X.

But in the end they'll complement each others.

Agreed. I don’t know why this always has to become such a pissing contest. I suspect that some feel embarrassed that they can’t tell the difference so to make themselves feel better, they aggressively dismiss the premise.