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

[dellboy]

And voltage isn’t smooth.

Confirmed, lightning bolts are sharp and jaggy.

If the electricity is not reasonable smooth inside your analog synths, I recommend that you buy better quality synths with diodes and capacitors in the circuit to smooth out the jagginess.

[dellboy]

Did the thread title change?
I thought it was software vs hardware. and I couldn't figure out how anyone has one without the other.
If the title changed - shouldn't it be analog hardware vs digital hardware? Software still needs hardware to run it.

The 1988 Korg M1 was hardware and software, and definitely not analog, digital all through, which is why the Software version can be identical. An analog synth uses smooth electrical voltage, and has to housed in a hardware box of some sort.

And a computer is hardware. And so is a controller. And so is the interface. And so are the speakers.

Yes, everything you mention is hardware, but this thread is not about digital hardware, its about analog hardware versus software emulation copies.

[Gamma-UT]

And voltage isn’t smooth.

Confirmed, lightning bolts are sharp and jaggy.

If the electricity is not reasonable smooth inside your analog synths, I recommend that you buy better quality synths with diodes and capacitors in the circuit to smooth out the jagginess.

This is the kind of thing people write when they have no idea how many electrical circuits operate or that 1/f noise exists – the kind of noise that is partly responsible for the qualitative difference between how an analogue circuit sounds and a digital emulation.

You only think it's "smooth" because, at best, you've seen frequency domain plots that suggest it. Not the dynamic, time-domain behaviour. This is the kind of thing that happens if you don't carefully tune the parameters because the diodes in a ladder are switching between modes rapidly:

Let's face it, it's a diode. This is not something designed for a smooth, linear response and at its heart relies on discretised quantum-mechanical effects. 1/f noise is fundamentally a QM effect as well.

That is partly why modelling in software is so tricky. Everything converges, until it doesn't, which you have to account for.

But it has sod all with being "smooth". That often only happens once you pop an inductor or two in the way to even things out a bit.

[dellboy]

And voltage isn’t smooth.

Confirmed, lightning bolts are sharp and jaggy.

If the electricity is not reasonable smooth inside your analog synths, I recommend that you buy better quality synths with diodes and capacitors in the circuit to smooth out the jagginess.

This is the kind of thing people write when they have no idea how many electrical circuits operate or that 1/f noise exists – the kind of noise that is partly responsible for the qualitative difference between how an analogue circuit sounds and a digital emulation.

You only think it's "smooth" because, at best, you've seen frequency domain plots that suggest it. Not the dynamic, time-domain behaviour. This is the kind of thing that happens if you don't carefully tune the parameters because the diodes in a ladder are switching between modes rapidly:

Let's face it, it's a diode. This is not something designed for a smooth, linear response and at its heart relies on discretised quantum-mechanical effects. 1/f noise is fundamentally a QM effect as well.

That is partly why modelling in software is so tricky. Everything converges, until it doesn't, which you have to account for.

But it has sod all with being "smooth". That often only happens once you pop an inductor or two in the way to even things out a bit.

My original post about "smooth" electricity should be read in context. I meant it is "relatively" smooth as opposed to the "steps" of digital synths. Your technical knowledge is way beyond my pay grade, but my understanding is that the rough electricity is progressively "smoothed" by various components as it travels around a circuit. The argument used today by software developers is that digital steps are now so fine that they are as smooth as analog electrical circuits, and this objection is now history.

[Gamma-UT]

My original post about "smooth" electricity should be read in context. I meant it is "relatively" smooth as opposed to the "steps" of digital synths. Your technical knowledge is way beyond my pay grade, but my understanding is that the rough electricity is progressively "smoothed" by various components as it travels around a circuit. The argument used today by software developers is that digital steps are now so fine that they are as smooth as analog electrical circuits, and this objection is now history.

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output: at least not in the way you imply. They all had, and still have, analogue output stages that are designed with an understanding of to limit the maximum frequency of any reasonable output waveform to less than the Nyquist limit.

[dellboy]

My original post about "smooth" electricity should be read in context. I meant it is "relatively" smooth as opposed to the "steps" of digital synths. Your technical knowledge is way beyond my pay grade, but my understanding is that the rough electricity is progressively "smoothed" by various components as it travels around a circuit. The argument used today by software developers is that digital steps are now so fine that they are as smooth as analog electrical circuits, and this objection is now history.

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output: at least not in the way you imply. They all had, and still have, analogue output stages that are designed with an understanding of to limit the maximum frequency of any reasonable output waveform to less than the Nyquist limit.

Sorry, I am lost, I genuinely do not know if you are arguing for or against analog or software?

[whyterabbyt]

Sorry, I am lost, I genuinely do not know if you are arguing for or against analog or software?

I think he's arguing for facts.

[ghettosynth]

My original post about "smooth" electricity should be read in context. I meant it is "relatively" smooth as opposed to the "steps" of digital synths. Your technical knowledge is way beyond my pay grade, but my understanding is that the rough electricity is progressively "smoothed" by various components as it travels around a circuit. The argument used today by software developers is that digital steps are now so fine that they are as smooth as analog electrical circuits, and this objection is now history.

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output: at least not in the way you imply. They all had, and still have, analogue output stages that are designed with an understanding of to limit the maximum frequency of any reasonable output waveform to less than the Nyquist limit.

Sorry, I am lost, I genuinely do not know if you are arguing for or against analog or software?

It's two trains passing in the night. You are repeating common misinformation that people use to argue that digital is bad when, in reality, it's not only incorrect, it's a meaningless argument, and Gamma is taking you a notch too seriously trying to explain the reconstruction filter.

[Gamma-UT]

Sorry, I am lost, I genuinely do not know if you are arguing for or against analog or software?

I see the root of the problem here.

I'm doing neither. I'm explaining that digital synths and computer audio interfaces don't work the way you seem to think they do.

[dellboy]

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output:

Who said that? Not me. I have never posted anything about "steps" at output.

[Gamma-UT]

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output:

Who said that? Not me. I have never posted anything about "steps" at output.

If that’s the case, why are you so obsessed with smoothness as being the key differentiator? You can’t have it both ways.

[dellboy]

No digital synth or computer ever generated "steps" at its output:

Who said that? Not me. I have never posted anything about "steps" at output.

If that’s the case, why are you so obsessed with smoothness as being the key differentiator? You can’t have it both ways.

LOL! "obsessed with smoothness"!
Is that how I come across here?
Life is too short to be "obsessed with smoothness"!

[Gamma-UT]

LOL! "obsessed with smoothness"!
Is that how I come across here?
Life is too short to be "obsessed with smoothness"!

And yet, here you are.

[dellboy]

LOL! "obsessed with smoothness"!
Is that how I come across here?
Life is too short to be "obsessed with smoothness"!

And yet, here you are.

Yep, sitting here with my digital Kurzweil K2700 as a controller for my laptop with VSTs on it. A pair of Presonus monitors and a USB audio interface and headphones. My current setup. No "smooth" analog stuff at all. Completely in the box.

[Gamma-UT]

LOL! "obsessed with smoothness"!
Is that how I come across here?
Life is too short to be "obsessed with smoothness"!

And yet, here you are.

Yep, sitting here with my digital Kurzweil K2700 as a controller for my laptop with VSTs on it. A pair of Presonus monitors and a USB audio interface and headphones. My current setup. No "smooth" analog stuff at all. Completely in the box.

I don't think I'd quite be as strident about boasting about how anything explained to you goes, figuratively, in one ear and out the other utterly unimpeded.

Need I repeat what I actually wrote (not that I don't expect you to ignore it completely like everything else)?

"obsessed with smoothness as a differentiator".

Not to mention that I thought I explained that digital synths are just as smooth. As are USB interfaces into headphones. But that nuance, it seems, completely passed you by.