What is analog sound? Examples plz

[fmr]

If I want an oscillator to go out of tune, I want to be in control of that.

BTW: There's a huge difference between just having some pitch variation and being out of tune. That variation, that movement, is a part of why people who like analog, like VCOs.

Drifting is going out of tune, no matter how you put it. It's just a matter of how much out of tune you need to go to hear it

A certain degree of drifting may be desireable (that's the chorusing effect of an ensemble playing together, or the effect induced by a chorus effect unit). But we always need to control it to keep it inside limits. You probably know that joke regarding the definition of a minor second: "What is a minor second? Two flute players in unison."

Again, my MKS-80 has a button labeled "auto Tune". Guess why it's there (and believe me - it's VERY in need).

[ghettosynth]

If I want an oscillator to go out of tune, I want to be in control of that.

BTW: There's a huge difference between just having some pitch variation and being out of tune. That variation, that movement, is a part of why people who like analog, like VCOs.

Drifting is going out of tune, no matter how you put it. It's just a matter of how much out of tune you need to go to hear it
...
Again, my MKS-80 has a button labeled "auto Tune". Guess why it's there (and believe me - it's VERY in need).

You act as if you're the only person with an analog synth with auto-tune. After you press the auto-tune button, there is still pitch variation with VCOs. This is intrinsic and related to a number of factors in the analog circuit. When I say that VCOs have pitch variation, that some feel imparts character, I mean properly tuned VCOs. You should ask yourself if you're really qualified to engage in this when you can't identify the obvious integrator in a schematic linked from a page where the author clearly describes it at, what I would call, a beginner level.

[fmr]

You should ask yourself if you're really qualified to engage in this when you can't identify the obvious integrator in a schematic linked from a page where the author clearly describes it at, what I would call, a beginner level.

Are we going ad hominem now?
First: I never said I was an electrical engineer or something. And I also never said I know more than you.
Second: I asked you what is THAT integrator you are talking about. In my (assumedly limited) knowledge, I read the article you pointed to, and couldn't find ANYTHING that says it's not an analog circuit (different from the previous VCO circuits, but still analog). I quote here a sentence which I think is clear enough: "Although this design can produce a true analog ramp wave, it is based on a digital divider..." then it goes explaining the limitations of the design, and why those (in his POV) limitations, in the end, don't matter to the sonic result. If that's the integrator you are talking about, something doesn't fit (IMHO of course).

You want a VCO that drifts... fair enough. Pretending that's a REQUIREMENT for something to be called "analog" is too much, IMHO.

It wasn't me who started talking about "true analog" (implying there's something which is analog, but not "true analog")

If something is analog, it is analog. I leave the "truth" for the purists. To me, it's just a machine to produce sounds and noises.

[ghettosynth]

Second: I asked you what is THAT integrator you are talking about.

I told you, it's described on the page that I linked by the author that tells you that the DCO is a hybrid circuit.

It wasn't me who started talking about "true analog" (implying there's something which is analog, but not "true analog")

You triggered my initial post by claiming that "nobody has ever called a DCO digital or hybrid." You are simply wrong. I gave you two links that label DCOs as hybrid circuits. In addition, Hal Chamberlin describes the core frequency generation of the Roland technique on page 590 as a "digital oscillator" and presents, for all intents and purposes, the very same integrator and amplitude compensation circuits on page 599, of the digital techniques chapter, as "digital divider waveshaping circuits." This was written in 1985 BTW, so it's not like this is some new upstart.

So, yes, knowledgeable authors have indeed referred to DCOs as both digital and hybrid. If you can't see it, try reading Hal Chamberlin, it's quite approachable.

[fmr]

Second: I asked you what is THAT integrator you are talking about.

I told you, it's described on the page that I linked by the author that tells you that the DCO is a hybrid circuit.

We are moving in circles now. I think everything is perfectly clear as it is. Everyone can read it and take their own conclusions.

[cryophonik]

This discussion brings me to the logical question: which sounds better, purple, orange, or carbon tetrachloride?

[ghettosynth]

Second: I asked you what is THAT integrator you are talking about.

I told you, it's described on the page that I linked by the author that tells you that the DCO is a hybrid circuit.

We are moving in circles now. I think everything is perfectly clear as it is. Everyone can read it and take their own conclusions.

You don't seem to understand that I've had this conversation before and I know when to cut some people off. If you can't find the integrator then you don't understand the schematic and you have to accept that you're just not qualified to discuss the nature of the thing. There's a huge digital component that is instrumental to the circuit on that schematic that according to you "looked all analog." I'm not going to waste my time with that.

[dark water]

Well it would appear that this thread, dubious given the well-exhausted title and the 'odd' comments by the OP throughout, has achieved its aim of getting people to argue.


Indeed, it is somewhat 'peak KVR' to now have personal attacks about a topic which all started from a reasonably minor comment by me about Elka Synthex arguably being 'hybrid' (which fmr objected to).
Especially when these arguments likely don't help any of us to make better music - and especially when there is NO CLEAR CONSENSUS on the internet about the hybrid nature of the Elka Synthex (which is what started the argument about VCOs and DCOs etc over the past 2 pages of this thread).


Indeed even professional and so-called 'authority' music people (who you might hope would know their expertise arguably better than fmr or myself etc!) such as SoundonSound magazine state:

Like the OSCar, the Synthex benefited from digital oscillators implemented with TTL circuitry, which was a major innovation back in the early '80s... The best early digital synths, then, used the accuracy of digital to recreate the waveshapes analogue machines actually produced, rather than the theoretical versions. This is why the oscillators on the Synthex sounded as good as their analogue counterparts... But it wasn't just the oscillators of the Synthex which outperformed those of its analogue contemporaries...

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/el ... -retrozone


Other synth enthusiast websites (which I linked previously to this thread) describe the Synthex as digital, whilst yet others (such as vintagesynth.com) describe it as analog.


Tellingly, a 2018 Gearspace thread involving various 'interested parties', also reaches a similar mixed opinion:

This battle of defining the Synthex oscillators has raged for ages. There is no single definition that describes them precisely. They are of a hybrid design, having parts of VCOs and DCOs in the same circuit. And yes, there is a charging cap with a digitally controlled current source, and a reset circuit for it. Look at the schematic closely.

Also according to the service manual they are digital oscillators: "The 16 oscillators of Synthex' voices are digital, their tuning is controlled only by number codes that cannot change as time passes by, to the tuning is stable and reliable." http://www.synfo.nl/servicemanuals/E...SCHEMATICS.pdf (page 2)

https://gearspace.com/board/electronic- ... ka+synthex


As posted previously here, I'd probably call the Elka Synthex an 'analogue synth with digital extras'.

However, others might argue that the Elka Synthex synth - and others very similar to it - are digital / analog / hybrid as they see fit...
And argue they certainly do!

Let's move on.

[fmr]

DELETED

[fmr]

DELETED

[Unaspected]

I'm not an electronic engineer but I would agree with the hybrid concept as the signal flow appears to show an analogue carrier and digital modulator. Both are essential for the oscillator to function as expected: One generating an analogue signal; The other, a digital signal.

Technically, we are hearing both: The analogue signal shaped by the digital.

This discussion brings me to the logical question: which sounds better, purple, orange, or carbon tetrachloride?

Octarine.

[fmr]

Technically, we are hearing both: The analogue signal shaped by the digital.

The irony is that all signals are analog (at least according to this video):

Not that it matters much. I also agree that we may consider the acrchitecture as "hybrid", even though I usually keep that term for synths like the PPG, for example, which have truly digital oscillators.

I think this describes beautifully what is a DCO: "A DCO is not an all-analog VCO but also not a digital oscillator. It’s an hybrid design that combines the best of both. Similarly to many VCO’s, the DCO generates its core waveform, the saw wave, by charging a capacitor in an op-amp integrator configuration. A VCO will restart the waveform cycle when the signal has reached its maximum amplitude. But the DCO starts an new cycle when a micro-controller, a small computer chip, commands it to. The micro-controller also controls the rate at which the capacitor is charging, hence the frequency of the oscillator. As with a digital oscillator, the DCO acquires the CV input voltages and turns them into numbers that will later set the frequency of the oscillator. This is done inside the micro-controller using 16 bits sigma-delta analog to digital converters. All signals are true analog signals. The PULSE wave is derived from the SAW wave using a comparator and the SUB oscillators are generated using a flip-flop IC."

[zerocrossing]

It’s funny, when I was younger I never thought about technology behind the synth that much. When the DX-7 came out, I remember messing with it in the music shop that I worked in. I remember the Pro Audio/synth manager remarking at how “cold” it sounded, in comparison to the Jupiter 8 that lived in the rack above it. But the voices… ah the voices. And the bells… so chimey! I was broke (as was the fashion for music shop salespeople) at the time so I didn’t have enough for a Jupiter or a DX, until later when I picked up a DX-100. So, for me, digital meant “something I could afford.”

Smash cut to modern times when things are much cheaper and my bank account is much more flush. I really could afford anything I want. I had enough for a Moog One, but it didn’t really occur to me to buy one, and instead I got a Waldorf M (a hybrid) and some plugins from Eventide and the GForce OB-E. I guess my point is, I buy what sounds good to me and has features that I find inspiring. If I was to crack open my PolyBrute and find out that Arturia lied to me about its analog nature, I’d shrug and say, “huh.” It really doesn’t matter. I got it because I like the sound and how they got to that sound is really irrelevant to me, just like I got the OB-E because I like the sound.

[fmr]

I guess my point is, I buy what sounds good to me and has features that I find inspiring. If I was to crack open my PolyBrute and find out that Arturia lied to me about its analog nature, I’d shrug and say, “huh.” It really doesn’t matter. I got it because I like the sound and how they got to that sound is really irrelevant to me, just like I got the OB-E because I like the sound.

We are pretty much on the same page here

[Unaspected]

Technically, we are hearing both: The analogue signal shaped by the digital.

The irony is that all signals are analog (at least according to this video):

Not that it matters much. I also agree that we may consider the acrchitecture as "hybrid", even though I usually keep that term for synths like the PPG, for example, which have truly digital oscillators.

I think I see your point. For me it's a bit like contemplating a filter modulated by an LFO: We hear the result of both signals and whilst it might not be immediately obvious, we can work out which waveform the LFO is generating.

It looks like there is some kind of buffer between the analogue circuit and the digital clock so maybe you are saying that the digital signal becomes analogue at this point? Though it is still digital back at source.

I'll watch the video a little later as it's quite long. Planning a late prawn curry so that can keep me company then.