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

[IvyBirds]

Yeah, I think far too little attention is paid to analog VCA's when all the various analysis happens.

Sure back in the 1970s, but with modern VCAs that are very precise and driven by a computer there really is no need to pay attention as they are digital in nature

Driven by a computer? You don't say. Close up the thread boys, it's all computer up in here.

Are you surprised that the so called VCA in modern Analog Synths is controlled digitally by a computer?

Computers can regulate voltages quite efficiently

Is that what's important for the sound, "regulating voltages" ?

Yes because that is how a VCA works. The standard for VCAs pre Eurorack was 8 volts, the Eurorack standard is 8 volts

If you send it 8 volts it was up all the way if you send it 0 volts it's down all the way. Your ADSR points were just voltages and automated the process of making things louder or softer

VCAs also existed on analog recording processes

In the good old pure analog days in the 1970s and early 1980s when used in a Polysynth each one had slight inaccuracies due to calibration issues or manufacturing tolerances being lax, so the end result was each voice would have an ever so slightly different envelope and that sloppiness many people found pleasing. Back then it was also incredibly cheaper and easier to have a pure analog VCA than it was to use a digital one

Some VCAs that were low quality back in the day, or that are malfunctioning today now that are 40+ years old could distort a bit when pushed really hard from the Oscs which again some people might find pleasing, but you wont find that in modern parts especially ones that like in the M are being fed by a DAC

In 2025 it's far easier and cheaper to use digital control on the VCAs The computer will send very precise voltages to the VCA to make it get louder or softer. There are a TON of cheap off the shelf parts that even a simple CPU can use to generate voltages as they are used in all kinds of processes. Everything from kids toys, to drones, to Electric Vehicles and Industrial Robotically

It's very much a digital process. In the Microwave it's using a
SSI2164 Chip for the VCA. That's a DIRT cheap part that Waldorf is buying for less than $2.00 USD per part, and each part contains 4 VCAs. So it adds 50 cents or less to the build for each VCA. Since the M only has 8 voices it's adding all of $4 to the cost but they get to advertise it as a VCA for marketing. The part is also easily installed by pick and place machines in a fully automated PCB line so it's not really adding anything complex to the build

That part can handle voltages up to 18V but is usually run at 8. Not sure how Waldorf is running it. That VCA in particular if you look at the DATA sheet is designed for clean, distortion free performance, and to be transparent

It's a real mystery to anyone familiar with modern electronics and how they work, why anyone would think the VCA is really doing anything that standard digital envelopes ahead of the DAC would be doing, afterall it's just making things get louder or softer over time in a very precise transparent way

[IvyBirds]

Yeah, I think far too little attention is paid to analog VCA's when all the various analysis happens.

Sure back in the 1970s, but with modern VCAs that are very precise and driven by a computer there really is no need to pay attention as they are digital in nature

Now if you are talking about some Eurorack module that is a different story

Isn't every VCA in a synth with presets digitally controlled?

Yes, but modern CPUs are doing so with significantly greater precision as are the Voltage Generators they are controlling and the actual VCA chips themselves

You don't get the inherent sloppiness and imprecision that you got in the late 1970s on say a Prophet 5 which many people found pleasing

[Papuzzo]

But in the end, yes there are differences, but all that really matters is:

Does the filter sound good?
Does it behave well when you modulate it?
and for some of us:
Can it self-oscillate nicely?

If those are all true of your software filter then you are good to go, but the analog folks are right in that there will be differences. Whether or not you can hear them is a separate question.

Analog filters don't just sound different, they sound better.

...

They sound better. That is the perfect excuse that can't be argued against, isn't it? Until someone comes along and asks you to empirically define what makes a sound "better." How much better? Done in a double blind test? Better according to whom?

Here's an alternate take on this whole debate. Analog gear was full of compromises and limitations. Digital gear can often go far beyond those compromises and limitations in a more cost effective manner. I wish these instrument companies would stop imitating those compromises and limitations and explore the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain.

[ghettosynth]

In 2025 it's far easier and cheaper to use digital control on the VCAs The computer will send very precise voltages to the VCA to make it get louder or softer.

Oh, how interesting. So what did they do in the prophet 5?

[ghettosynth]

Here's an alternate take on this whole debate. Analog gear was full of compromises and limitations. Digital gear can often go far beyond those compromises and limitations in a more cost effective manner. I wish these instrument companies would stop imitating those compromises and limitations and explore the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain.

Digital gear has always been full of compromises and limitations. From DAC resolution to memory size, processor speed, quality of algorithm, in particular, the quality of the digital filter algorithm.

All products are limited with respect to what the market is willing to pay for. And that, is what drives what products are produced. So, maybe your hot take is wrong, maybe "the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain" isn't interesting enough to sell to most people?

The only time that I upgraded my Arturia collection was when they included the digital classics. They could have my money again if they did a take on the Fizmo, or the K2000.

[SoftSynthLover99]

Regarding A/B test why not go for a null test instead? Completely remove human error from the equation. If any differences exist in software vs hardware that may be the most scientific way to get to the bottom of things. But usually software centered people will claim hardware units vary in sound from unit to unit so that's why they don't null

You have already indicated just pressing a key is not a good test so why would being able to make something null be the ultimate test?

No one is saying that differences don't exist, the point being made is that any perceived differences are not really important

Null test remove human bias and show if something is indeed identical or not. A/B test can be misleading or intentionally biased to fool people to one side or the other. If you are confident software synths sound the same as hardware, a Null test setup properly would be the ultimate way to prove that no?

So now you admit differences exist? I can’t believe it! You’ve been saying in this thread and others that software sounds the same as hardware. Glad you’re being honest

But the bigger question is why do things have to sound exactly the same in the first place to claim there is not any advantage in one or other?

They don’t have to sound the same I agree. I just find it quite funny how you’ll recognize how awesome the fixed filter bank in LegendHZ sounds, but then go on to say analog filters don’t really make a difference to the sound of a synth. The reality is LegendHZ wouldn’t even exist without the hardware (nor would the vast majority of software synths).

In fact everything we love about software synths usually comes from hardware. Here’s a proverb that sums up the topic for me:

"The layman recognizes the similarities, the professional recognizes the differences."

[IvyBirds]

Regarding A/B test why not go for a null test instead? Completely remove human error from the equation. If any differences exist in software vs hardware that may be the most scientific way to get to the bottom of things. But usually software centered people will claim hardware units vary in sound from unit to unit so that's why they don't null

You have already indicated just pressing a key is not a good test so why would being able to make something null be the ultimate test?

No one is saying that differences don't exist, the point being made is that any perceived differences are not really important

Null test remove human bias and show if something is indeed identical or not. A/B test can be misleading or intentionally biased to fool people to one side or the other. If you are confident software synths sound the same as hardware, a Null test setup properly would be the ultimate way to prove that no?

So now you admit differences exist? I can’t believe it! You’ve been saying in this thread and others that software sounds the same as hardware. Glad you’re being honest

But the bigger question is why do things have to sound exactly the same in the first place to claim there is not any advantage in one or other?

They don’t have to sound the same I agree. I just find it quite funny how you’ll recognize how awesome the fixed filter bank in LegendHZ sounds, but then go on to say analog filters don’t really make a difference to the sound of a synth.

Wow logic and reason are not really your forte (and I don't mean the DAWs)

What you are saying is that I think the filter in "The Legend HZ" which is a digital filter and is software running in a computer sounds awesome. Which I absolutely do

Then you think it's "funny" that since I think that non analog filters sound awesome, that actual "Analog" filters made out of transistors and resistors instead of 1s and 0s don't make a difference

Of course they don't genius because as you have just acknowledged I think digital filters in plugins sound just as awesome as analog ones while offering more features at lower costs

So to recap
1.)Digital filters in plugins sound awesome
2.)Analog Filters in hardware synths don't make a difference or hold any advantages

Not sure why you can't grasp that

[IvyBirds]

In 2025 it's far easier and cheaper to use digital control on the VCAs The computer will send very precise voltages to the VCA to make it get louder or softer.

Oh, how interesting. So what did they do in the prophet 5?

Which one? There are four model revisions

[El°HYM]

A recent Prayer on the infamous GS - forums, pretty much sums it up.

The plugin user's prayer:

There is no difference in sound between the plugin and analog hardware.

And if there is you don't have good enough gear/ears to hear the difference.

And if you do, it doesn't matter in the mix.

And if it does, the listener doesn't have a good enough playback system to hear the difference.

And if they do nobody cares anyway because nobody cares about your music.

Link: https://gearspace.com/board/showpost.ph ... stcount=68

[whyterabbyt]

The standard for VCAs pre Eurorack was 8 volts, the Eurorack standard is 8 volts

Can you supply references for these standards please.

[stoopicus]

In 2025 it's far easier and cheaper to use digital control on the VCAs The computer will send very precise voltages to the VCA to make it get louder or softer.

Oh, how interesting. So what did they do in the prophet 5?

I only use software synths now and dramatically prefer the software workflow, and think they sound great. But in this case I feel compelled to back up the arguments of the hardware guys, because this particular argument being used against hardware here is so misguided.

A continuous-time, continuous voltage analog system is exact in terms of how a circuit responds. A computer is only approximating that with the software modeling the analog system in discrete time and with finite numerical precision. It's doing a good job of it, but it is not more exact.

This doesn't mean that the digital system is "worse" or that it is doing a bad job of modeling at all.

[El°HYM]

That Waldorf M also has the stereo analog VCA's... which contribute to it's lovely and nuanced character.

Glad that I am not the only synth connoisseur in this thread.

There's something magical about the VCA's in the M.

And I especially like that the M has lots of gain so I can set the Osc's levels low in the mixer and there is still plenty of level. The sound stage is gorgeous and the synth has a startling and effortless clarity. And I'm talking dry, no added fx (and the M has none) and it sounds incredible and spacious.

Its a pretty good example of how a digital - analog - hybrid can actually sound.

[IvyBirds]

In 2025 it's far easier and cheaper to use digital control on the VCAs The computer will send very precise voltages to the VCA to make it get louder or softer.

Oh, how interesting. So what did they do in the prophet 5?

I only use software synths now and dramatically prefer the software workflow, and think they sound great. But in this case I feel compelled to back up the arguments of the hardware guys, because this particular argument being used against hardware here is so misguided.

A continuous-time, continuous voltage analog system is exact in terms of how a circuit responds. A computer is only approximating that with the software modeling the analog system in discrete time and with finite numerical precision. It's doing a good job of it, but it is not more exact.

This doesn't mean that the digital system is "worse" or that it is doing a bad job of modeling at all.

But I am not even taking about modeling anything here. I am talking about modern computer control of VCAs

The onboard CPU is controlling and regulating the voltages being sent to a VCA

[zerocrossing]

Yeah, I think far too little attention is paid to analog VCA's when all the various analysis happens.

Sure back in the 1970s, but with modern VCAs that are very precise and driven by a computer there really is no need to pay attention as they are digital in nature

Now if you are talking about some Eurorack module that is a different story

Isn't every VCA in a synth with presets digitally controlled?

Yes, but modern CPUs are doing so with significantly greater precision as are the Voltage Generators they are controlling and the actual VCA chips themselves

You don't get the inherent sloppiness and imprecision that you got in the late 1970s on say a Prophet 5 which many people found pleasing

Sure you can, you just have to write the code that does it. You know, like the code the Prophet 5 mk4 is running.

[zerocrossing]

But in the end, yes there are differences, but all that really matters is:

Does the filter sound good?
Does it behave well when you modulate it?
and for some of us:
Can it self-oscillate nicely?

If those are all true of your software filter then you are good to go, but the analog folks are right in that there will be differences. Whether or not you can hear them is a separate question.

Analog filters don't just sound different, they sound better.

...

They sound better. That is the perfect excuse that can't be argued against, isn't it? Until someone comes along and asks you to empirically define what makes a sound "better." How much better? Done in a double blind test? Better according to whom?

Here's an alternate take on this whole debate. Analog gear was full of compromises and limitations. Digital gear can often go far beyond those compromises and limitations in a more cost effective manner. I wish these instrument companies would stop imitating those compromises and limitations and explore the boundaries of what is possible in the digital domain.

Why do you think they haven't?