Software vs. Analog in 2025 – Has the Balance Shifted?

[seafire]

Sniff my cork

[whassup]

Is the Iron Maiden polyphonic or monophonic?

Paraphonic. For the harmonized solos.

[IvyBirds]

But there was a point there that you are ignoring, or disagreeing with that I think is both important and clear. It is incontrovertibly true that in this stage of software development, getting everything that an analog synth can do perfectly is outside the abilities of a modern CPU to render effectively at higher voice counts.

Can you show me an analog synth with high voice counts? I don't consider 1, 5,10, 12, or 16 voices to be a high voice counts on a synth. Do you?

But if you want something to sound **perfectly** like an analog synth in every conceivable way, awesome use an analog synth. Use whatever tool you need for whatever you want to accomplish.

Let's be honest however many of those things you are referring to sound there best when played in isolation using only a few notes or even one. So do you need more than a few voices for them? Once you put them in a mix and on a PA, once you stream them on your phone, in a car on Bluetooth, on a cheapy turn table with cheapy speakers, beats headphones, air pods, or the things that 99.99% of all music consumed gets played though most of that is lost.

There's two aspects to speak of in this matter. One is "quality," and this is defined by the ability to produce a result that is free of digital artifacts at all times. Since you brought it up, I'll put The Legend in the category of synths that can do this. I don't notice any digital artifacts, even when I'm using osc 3 at audio rates to modulate osc 1 or the filter. I'd say this is a great example of analog, as a general concept and characteristic, being successfully attained. All the "life" and "presence" is well accounted for.

The second one is "accuracy," as in how accurate does the emulation recreate the sound of the original. Does The Legend sound exactly like a Model D? My answer here is, "most of the time, but not always." I'm going to wave stuff I think is just indicative of specific unit variance, but point to it's feedback. It plain and simply doesn't sound like a Model D getting fed back into itself. It's far too tame, even at maxed settings. My guess is, getting 8 voices of that would have been too crazy for whatever their min-spec processor was.

Are you using "The Legend HZ" for an accurate 100% authentic Minimoog experience however? It's polyphonic with 6 Oscillators and has a model of Hans Zimmer's rare filterbank. I also have the Softube, Arturia, and UAD Minimoog's. For a more "Authentic Experience" and I also have the hardware Boog

I end up using The Legend HZ because much like with Hans Zimmer I want to go beyond the typical Minimoog sound most of the time and when I don't it does a really good job if sounding like a regular minimoog

Even when I owned a hardware Minimoog back in the day in the late 1980s (I paid I think $200 for it) when no one wanted one I never used the headphone out to feed it back into itself. I did however use it a lot for bass sounds in a metal band I was in that didn't have a bass player. I used it with a Yamaha GEP50. That was essentially an SPX90 effects unit with some added shitty late 1980s digital guitar distortion thrown in. Sounded pretty awesome actually. I think sometimes about getting another GEP50 and using it with my Boog for the same purpose. It's probably why I still have it, that and it's not worth the hassle of trying to sell it

[zerocrossing]

But there was a point there that you are ignoring, or disagreeing with that I think is both important and clear. It is incontrovertibly true that in this stage of software development, getting everything that an analog synth can do perfectly is outside the abilities of a modern CPU to render effectively at higher voice counts.

Can you show me an analog synth with high voice counts? I don't consider 1, 5,10, 12, or 16 voices to be a high voice counts on a synth. Do you?

Again, you are confused. It's all relative, as we've been trying to explain. Is it a high voice count for a synth that sounds like a Virus? No. Is it a high voice count for a synth that sounds like a Moog One? Yes. Why do you think all the better analog emulations have limited voice counts? Some will do 16, but I can easily show you where they fail at emulating an analog.

But if you want something to sound **perfectly** like an analog synth in every conceivable way, awesome use an analog synth. Use whatever tool you need for whatever you want to accomplish.

Thank you for your permission.

Let's be honest however many of those things you are referring to sound there best when played in isolation using only a few notes or even one. So do you need more than a few voices for them? Once you put them in a mix and on a PA, once you stream them on your phone, in a car on Bluetooth, on a cheapy turn table with cheapy speakers, beats headphones, air pods, or the things that 99.99% of all music consumed gets played though most of that is lost.

OK, now you're moving the goal post. The title of this thread isn't "...has the balance shifted if all you do is listen to music through garbage devices?"

Are you using "The Legend HZ" for an accurate 100% authentic Minimoog experience however? It's polyphonic with 6 Oscillators and has a model of Hans Zimmer's rare filterbank. I also have the Softube, Arturia, and UAD Minimoog's. For a more "Authentic Experience" and I also have the hardware Boog

So, you are in agreement that it's worth having a more authentic experience. I accept your apology.

I end up using The Legend HZ because much like with Hans Zimmer I want to go beyond the typical Minimoog sound most of the time and when I don't it does a really good job if sounding like a regular minimoog

Again, not the topic. We're all aware that software goes beyond the classics. Even a Boog is too limited for my taste, which is why I have an ATC-X.

Even when I owned a hardware Minimoog back in the day in the late 1980s (I paid I think $200 for it) when no one wanted one I never used the headphone out to feed it back into itself. I did however use it a lot for bass sounds in a metal band I was in that didn't have a bass player. I used it with a Yamaha GEP50. That was essentially an SPX90 effects unit with some added shitty late 1980s digital guitar distortion thrown in. Sounded pretty awesome actually. I think sometimes about getting another GEP50 and using it with my Boog for the same purpose. It's probably why I still have it, that and it's not worth the hassle of trying to sell it

Funny, I had the Yamaha REX50. I loved that thing. I used to use the pitch shifter and crank the feedback to make this crazy sound that was like a freight train to Saturn. I'd use expression pedals to vary the feedback amount and interval. Crazy times. I've never been able to find a pitch shifter that sounded like it. All my reverb was done with it for years, as I hated spring reverb.

[_leras]

Take for instance JMJ. Oxygene is one of my favorite albums, but I also love the modern Oxygene III which when you listen to it made rather heavy use of Dune, Omnisphere, Monark, Spire, Reactor Blocks, and Stylus which is also confirmed in the liner notes

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just flat, turgid and pretty lifeless, with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

[No Sonic Limits]

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just flat, turgid and pretty lifeless, with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

Just took a quick glance on Oxygen and O3 on Wiki: Jarre had a mixing engineer on the first, but mixed O3 himself (in Ableton for what it's worth).

[Gamma-UT]

Take for instance JMJ. Oxygene is one of my favorite albums, but I also love the modern Oxygene III which when you listen to it made rather heavy use of Dune, Omnisphere, Monark, Spire, Reactor Blocks, and Stylus which is also confirmed in the liner notes

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just flat, turgid and pretty lifeless, with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

So what you're saying is that using analogue hardware doesn't make a difference?

Check the gear list.

14840657426001142-jpg-gallery.big-iext47409670.jpg

[IvyBirds]

Take for instance JMJ. Oxygene is one of my favorite albums, but I also love the modern Oxygene III which when you listen to it made rather heavy use of Dune, Omnisphere, Monark, Spire, Reactor Blocks, and Stylus which is also confirmed in the liner notes

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just , with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

Must be all the analog synth he used which you think sounds "flat, turgid and pretty lifeless". What you are saying is that the Eminent 310, EMS Synthi AKS, ARP 2500, ARP 2600, Moog Sub 37, OB6, and the Korg Polyphonic Ensemble didn't do what you assured us analog hardware synths do

When you hear the 1970s albums you are hearing hardware synths sure but you are also hearing 1970s based tube and transformer based outboard, going into a glorious 1970s era large format console, and then being recorded to glorious 1970s era tape on machines that had glorious tube and transformer based preamps and Dolby A

They were then mixed down through all of that again and then bounced to glorious two track tape. Then they were mastered with a bunch of glorious outboard again with tubes and transformers and recorded to tape once again which was a minimum of three generations deep at that point

As your golden ears have now proven there is no advantage to using hardware synths, probable why you have posted so many videos showcasing the sound of software

[vurt]

Take for instance JMJ. Oxygene is one of my favorite albums, but I also love the modern Oxygene III which when you listen to it made rather heavy use of Dune, Omnisphere, Monark, Spire, Reactor Blocks, and Stylus which is also confirmed in the liner notes

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just flat, turgid and pretty lifeless, with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

So what you're saying is that using analogue hardware doesn't make a difference?

Check the gear list.14840657426001142-jpg-gallery.big-iext47409670.jpg

musicians aren't always the best mix engineers.
especially older ones who played a lot of loud gigs...

but if we are saying as a group, digital recording and it's inherent processes, have done this to audio, why are some of ok with this?
it sounds shit. (this recording, not digitally mixed albums in general )

[seafire]

It's the Mac that ruined it. Should have used a PC

[pekbro]

Take for instance JMJ. Oxygene is one of my favorite albums, but I also love the modern Oxygene III which when you listen to it made rather heavy use of Dune, Omnisphere, Monark, Spire, Reactor Blocks, and Stylus which is also confirmed in the liner notes

Maybe it's just mixed *very* badly, but from the very first set of plucky chords it's clear that Oxygen III just doesn't cut it sonically. It's unfortunately just flat, turgid and pretty lifeless, with very few compelling sounds. Any musical ideas are lost in that mushy swamp of sound.

If you compare it to oxygen or equinox, from the 70s, it sounds pretty terrible. Those earlier albums are dynamic, great sounding and full of very compelling sounds and melodies.

I wish it wasn't so.

So what you're saying is that using analogue hardware doesn't make a difference?

Check the gear list.14840657426001142-jpg-gallery.big-iext47409670.jpg

musicians aren't always the best mix engineers.
especially older ones who played a lot of loud gigs...

but if we are saying as a group, digital recording and it's inherent processes, have done this to audio, why are some of ok with this?
it sounds shit. (this recording, not digitally mixed albums in general )

It’s true, most of the professional musicians I know are practically deaf.

[nirm123]

doesn't matter if it's soft or if it's hard, in both cases it can get the job done.

[HAL76]

image link doesn´t wok

[HAL76]

Is the Iron Maiden polyphonic or monophonic?

Monophonic. If you want polyphony, you'll need Polyphonic Spree.

Already looked it up, thx. My Yamaha G10 will do the job.

[HAL76]

Is the Iron Maiden polyphonic or monophonic?

Paraphonic. For the harmonized solos.

There are betters ones today.