Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[Unaspected]

i sensed a disturbance in the force, and knew bones had found the thread.

You're muddling up your universes.

you try traveling the multiverse for millennia, it's bloody confusing.

All those costume changes must be exhausting.

[whyterabbyt]

I will not avoid basic truths. I will put in the hours. And I will buy The Secret. Thank you Sensei.

you forgot to wax on, wax off.

[vurt]

mojo, im having an issue here.
to me, mojo is a small chew sweet (2 fer a penny in my day...) or a thinly veiled penis reference.

none of my gear, analogue or digital, contains either of these.
although my penis has been used in acoustic recordings.

[BONES]

I don't know what couldn't possibly done with anything else. "Possibly" is a big category.

Exactly! TO think that there is some indefinabe quality to a piece of hardware that can't be eaccurately modelled in software is taking a very narrow view. The example i always use is that Synapse have gone to the trouble to model the difference between teh Moog with a US power supply and one with an European power supply, something nnobody had even thought of, let alone noticed, but something that Rich from Synapse picked up on, in his meticulous effort to get it exactly right. It's pretty disrespectful to think that someone with an ear that good can't get it exactly right, don't you think?

Its all interchangeable. Next time I go buy plug ins Ill write to the manufacturer: "give me the surprise pack. Just pick two for — surprise me. They're all interchangeable anyway. "

You know he's just going to sell you the most expensive ones, right? You need to do better or you'll spend your whole liefe getting ripped off.

If a visual artist doesn't care about sight, then why should a musician/engineer care about sound? Am I right?

I dunno, Rolfl Harris seemed to do OK with a 6" brush anyone else would use for painting a house and a can of house paint. A good song is a good song, it doesn't need to be polished to within an inch of its life.

If they are all the same, you could choose blindfolded. The only choice you have to make is, "give me one . . . please"

Yep, and the monthly One Synth Challenge proves how well that can work. Seriously, go and listen to some of the great music people make using just one synth, chosen every month by someone else. It's exaactly what you're making fun of and it proves my point rather spectacularly.

If its all the interchangeable, does it all sound good? Or do you need to first identify something that sounds good, and then the twelve things that are interchangeable with that then sound good ( a given)?

Now you're starting to catch on. There's plenty of magic to be had, you don't really need to go looking for it and you sure as hell don't need to spend a lot of money to get it.

[Unaspected]

mojo, im having an issue here.
to me, mojo is a small chew sweet (2 fer a penny in my day...) or a thinly veiled penis reference.

none of my gear, analogue or digital, contains either of these.
although my penis has been used in acoustic recordings.

Interesting. We were warned about your mastication earlier in the thread as well...

It's not the mojo in the gear that matters.

To answer why people become massively successful in terms of sales: The answer is marketing. The music doesn't matter.

[vurt]

someone mentioned casios earlier.
daniel johnston said "yeah, and?"
production mostly zero points, the songs are something special.

[Unaspected]

someone mentioned casios earlier.
daniel johnston said "yeah, and?"
production mostly zero points, the songs are something special.

Daniel Johnston is a great example when it comes to passion and motivation.

[Pilonsky]

Even if he is not using UAD plug ins - his mixing engineer is...

https://www.uaudio.com/blog/helping-bil ... raft-hits/

And his mastering engineer!

Good interview that. Even if it is essentially a UAD puff piece, what he says makes sense.

The reason we're discussing Finneas is that a) he's extremely good; b) he's extremely successful and c) he's open about his techniques and strips back all the mystery. (He and Billie also seem like really nice people and have a brilliant brother / sister relationship, so that's kinda cool too).

I don't even know what we're discussing now to be honest. We seem to have agreed you can have a hit with any DAW using only ITB plugins, and that producers at the top of their game routinely work this way.

We also seem to agree on is that selling plugins at authentic emulations of old gear will likely produce false expectations. For the OP, I think that's because they emulations aren't good enough. For me - and it looks like a lot of others - it's because taking a piece of old hardware in isolation is unlikely to make a big difference whether its modelled as software or the real thing.

Did I miss anything?

To be clear, I did not bring up Finneas. I was just wrestling with what someone threw at me.

The false expectations part is true. I admit they got me.

I never said analog emulations are not good enough. I was just questioning analog modeling versus the equipment its modeling. And I still think there is some snake oil there, but I yield that point.

I remember a documentary where RZA was talking how he had an SP-1200 for a while, and he was making good beats on it. But he said that it wasn't till he got the Ensoniq ASR-10 that he became a great producer. So for RZA at least, equipment mattered. If he had been told that its the user not the tool that matters, and that their is not point on spending an extra money for the ASR, then maybe he doesn't make it the way he does.

So sure its not about the tool, but who wields it. But it also is about the tool. Its about the craftsman finding his tool. Then he can really excell.

And I know that that might not apply to the analog modeled versus the analog equipment its modeling, but the tools of the trade do matter. Its not a reason to make excuses. But it is a reason to keep searching.

Also, most craftsmen are very particular about their tools. They seek out the best possible tools they can get their hands on.

So while placing too much stock on equipment is folly, looking for better equipment is not. Cause you might find your Ensoniq ASR-10 that takes you to the next level. And in a crowded field, one level up might make a lot of difference.

[noiseboyuk]

I will not avoid basic truths. I will put in the hours. And I will buy The Secret. Thank you Sensei.

You do know you have this backwards, right? That you are the one who believes there is The Secret - that Analog Hardware is The True Pure Way?

Basic truths and hard work is what is otherwise known as common bloody sense, not esoteric mysticism.

Anyway, your post above is much less silly. Yes tools matter. All of us bond with particular products and not so much with others. No argument there.

But the issue in 2022 is that we are swamped by good tools. Those two samplers from the 80s then 90s are worlds apart technically - 12bit 26k to 16bit 44.1k. It was a jump into a new era. For better or worse, there really isn't any quantum leap like that now, and the temptation is to project our own deficiencies onto something specific and technical - say, the gap between the sound of plugins and hardware.

Look, whatever floats your boat. Maybe you'll get inspired by the tactility of hardware, or you'll make good money when reselling it. But you've admitted you felt duped once by believing the marketing. I just think there's a possibility you're gonna feel duped all over again when you find that sonic gap is nowhere big as you think it is.

[Pilonsky]

I will not avoid basic truths. I will put in the hours. And I will buy The Secret. Thank you Sensei.

You do know you have this backwards, right? That you are the one who believes there is The Secret - that Analog Hardware is The True Pure Way?

Basic truths and hard work is what is otherwise known as common bloody sense, not esoteric mysticism.

Anyway, your post above is much less silly. Yes tools matter. All of us bond with particular products and not so much with others. No argument there.

But the issue in 2022 is that we are swamped by good tools. Those two samplers from the 80s then 90s are worlds apart technically - 12bit 26k to 16bit 44.1k. It was a jump into a new era. For better or worse, there really isn't any quantum leap like that now, and the temptation is to project our own deficiencies onto something specific and technical - say, the gap between the sound of plugins and hardware.

Look, whatever floats your boat. Maybe you'll get inspired by the tactility of hardware, or you'll make good money when reselling it. But you've admitted you felt duped once by believing the marketing. I just think there's a possibility you're gonna feel duped all over again when you find that sonic gap is nowhere big as you think it is.

I never said analog is The True Pure Way. Thats all you.

There is a fine line between basic truths and platitudes. I mean some of those basic truths you were saying are just not of very much use to me.

And I don't think analog is gonna be some great panacea that is gonna make all my deficiencies go away. I know that Im probably not gonna make it, and I am aware of my skill level. But I still wanna make music. And I want it to sound as good as possible. And if there is some equipment out there that can help me with that, and I can afford it, then Im gonna go for it.

I do think better tools make better music. And where ever possible, I'm gonna get my hands on the best tools I can. It doesn't mean I'm gonna sit around and wait for the equipment to make the best music I can make. And it doesn't mean Im gonna romanticize analog. But it does mean that Im gonna try different things, and I tried third party analog modeling plug ins, and I didn't care for it. I mean my ears are all I have, and Im the one that has to decide better or worse.

And anyway, I don't feel that I got duped with the plug ins. The part that screws me is the re selling of the plug ins. The waves plug ins you basically have to eat. The SSL plug ins you gotta pay $25 per plug in to transfer. Same with the Soundtoys. If I could get my money back, I wouldn't feel duped at all. So from now on resale value will be an important consideration in anything I buy. Because I am trying new stuff out to see what I like, to see what sticks.

And anyhow, I got nothing against digital. So there are still digital plug ins I can experiment with. Some of those might stick. All I can say is that analog modeling did not work out for me, and Im not spending any more money on it. I wanna try different stuff and see what I like.

[Unaspected]

One thing that applies to analogue modelled software as much as hardware is correct gain staging. If that isn't done properly then neither sound great. Though analogue gear might be more forgiving, BONES highlighted something that hasn't been stressed enough: NOISE.

[foosnark]

"Virtual analog" is a term that was apparently first used in 1995 by Clavia with the Nord Lead. Yes, it is more or less a marketing term. They could have called it "digital subtractive synthesis" but:

- they probably thought "virtual" sounded more high-tech since virtual reality was a hot buzzword at the time (long before the tech was ready).
- they wanted to appeal to people who missed analog synths and had enough of "digital", even though it was itself digital.

And yeah, a lot of companies still do use "analog" as a marketing thing -- whether they're selling analog gear, or emulations of it. Selling digital stuff while telling you that analog is better than digital...

A lot of forum posters here talk about "analog" as if it's a sound in itself. "What is the most analog sounding widget?" Or "what is your favorite analog emulation?" without bothering to even pick a category (oscillators? filters? tape? BBD delay? mixer console? clock source? ) Elsewhere, I have seen people afraid of particular modules because they irrationally believe they might secretly be digital and corrupt their analog purity -- even things like envelope generators. It gets pretty ridiculous IMHO.

None of that is any condemnation of the current state of DSP emulation of analog gear, which is pretty freaking great.



I have no particular preference for analog over digital in general. I have some analog hardware I really like which I don't think has been well emulated in software, or I just like the feel/character of the hardware. I also have some digital hardware and am not shy to use VST synths or FX. It's all good.

[dumbledog]

Ok, after spending close to $500 on virtual analog plugins, including both processors and effects, I feel like maybe this virtual analog thing is a sham.

This may be the most KVR sentence ever posted to KVR.

[HAL76]

Is VA an advertising ploy?

Ì´d say that the answer depends on the consumer. For most gear**** and many others - clearly yes. For a big part of the EM community today: strangely no.

The above example is perfect. Many people don´t seem to hear/feel a difference, although they are pretty obvious for trained ears.

But I´d also recommend to better think of hardware vs software and just not to believe people who say "it´s all the same" anymore since every mofu synth sounds different and hardware even more.

Just twist a SSI 2144 chip (common today) filter and you´ll know better.

I’m buying hardware from now on. I learned my lesson. It makes more sense financially, cause it retains its value, and I don’t need anyone’s permission to sell it. And I don’t have to pay transfer fees to sell it either. When I’m ready to upgrade I sell the old piece and use it as a down payment for the new. With minimal loss.

Then there’s process. The finished product is important, but the process of making music is the fun part. It’s getting into a flow, and loosing yourself a few hours. That’s the part that keeps me going. And hardware is way more fun. Cables, knobs, noise, etc. And minimal screens. Just your hands and your ears. It’s so much fun.

And finally the sound. It’s no contest. Digital has its part, but analog is the foundation. It’s thick, it has depth, texture, bottom — and it just sounds like it’s alive.

And yes, when I buy a piece of hardware it’s mine. I can keep it, sell it, give it away, or throw it away. That’s important.

Sounds good, but I´d better focus on getting a feeling for the differences and using them intentionally.

VSTs can really make "unheard sounds" and have their qualities, too - but I´d say "digital qualities", even if the manufacturers claim that their synth would be modeled after an analog.

But - despite of the lowend consistancy and depth - try making "golden" and solid sounding highs with a VST - or maybe better let it be to even really try it. CPUs are still to slow to compute the highend as acoustic instruments or good synths can make it - my two cents on that topic.

And we should not forget that the highend makes a lot of our quality perception...

[Pilonsky]

"Virtual analog" is a term that was apparently first used in 1995 by Clavia with the Nord Lead. Yes, it is more or less a marketing term. They could have called it "digital subtractive synthesis" but:

- they probably thought "virtual" sounded more high-tech since virtual reality was a hot buzzword at the time (long before the tech was ready).
- they wanted to appeal to people who missed analog synths and had enough of "digital", even though it was itself digital.

And yeah, a lot of companies still do use "analog" as a marketing thing -- whether they're selling analog gear, or emulations of it. Selling digital stuff while telling you that analog is better than digital...

A lot of forum posters here talk about "analog" as if it's a sound in itself. "What is the most analog sounding widget?" Or "what is your favorite analog emulation?" without bothering to even pick a category (oscillators? filters? tape? BBD delay? mixer console? clock source? ) Elsewhere, I have seen people afraid of particular modules because they irrationally believe they might secretly be digital and corrupt their analog purity -- even things like envelope generators. It gets pretty ridiculous IMHO.

None of that is any condemnation of the current state of DSP emulation of analog gear, which is pretty freaking great.



I have no particular preference for analog over digital in general. I have some analog hardware I really like which I don't think has been well emulated in software, or I just like the feel/character of the hardware. I also have some digital hardware and am not shy to use VST synths or FX. It's all good.

No Im not saying digital over analog. Most of what I have is digital: my Mac of course, Logic, a couple hardware digital samplers. Though I sample a lot from old records, a lot of it through you tube of course. So digital is everywhere and its here to stay. I got nothing against digital.

My original post was questioning the advertising in particular. Remember some of these companies are claiming faithful recreations of analog gear. And my question is whether thats true or not? If it's not true, then it's an advertising ploy. Im not asking if it sounds good, or if you can tell the difference in a mix, or if talent is more important than equipment . . . I particularly was questioning wether the claims they make are true or not. Which I think is important.

And another thing Ill mention is that that marketing is very aggressive. You get on you tube to watch some tutorials, and pretty soon you're at some software manufacturers page who is giving you a tutorial while making products. Or it's some big time engineer who's sponsored by them. Or it's someone comparing equipment but selling them at the same time. And then you get on the forums and its UAD versus Softube versus Slate, and so on. And the whole time the claim that this is a faithful recreation of some classic peace of gear is never questioned. Meanwhile that claim is the main selling point for the product their selling. So its a little tricky.

Anyway, I just want to try some actual analog pieces to see if I like it, what it sounds like, if it makes a difference. If I don't like it, then I move on.

And my glass is half full. I got some hardware, I got a decent interface, I got logic, I just read a bunch of books on production and mixing, which really helped get my head around a lot of things. You know surveying different approaches, principles, tricks, etc . . . So Im in good shape. I just took a couple of weeks to get the new stuff here and set up: audio cables, midi cables, power adapters, power strips, memory cards, figuring out how to hook it all up to the daw, etc . . . Thats the thing about hardware, it's a process. So Im set up to make another push. And I got the time, which one can't take for granted.

This post was more for the next round, in another six months or so, when it's time to make some upgrades. Im shooting for a 500 eq piece. Just basic shelve Eq's so I can touch up each track as I bounce it into the computer. Just some basic bracketing stuff, taking out the obvious highs and lows that don't need to be there. Maybe get a little analog something!? Does such a thing exist? If not, then what are they emulating exactly (Alright, I yield, forget it).

For compression Im fine with digital, cause I use mostly samples, and a couple synths. I can control the velocity from the sequencer, so I don't need much compression. And thus far I've found that my mixes turn out better with little compression. Parallel compression is real nice for drums.

And one final thing, Ive found that saturation is really overrated. I mean it is really useful when needed, but its overrated. It's just one mixing tool amongst the others. But it can muddy a mix quicker than anything. Then you're going back trying to clean up the mud and overlapping that you caused through saturation. When I started really doing A/B comparisons, I found that more often than not it sounds better without saturation. Saturation is a big selling point for a lot of the analog modeling. I mean they advertise it as some magic pixie dust thats going to make all your mixes sound like your favorite mixes. Anyway, lesson learned.