Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[Pilonsky]

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. An advertising ploy of sorts. I can’t help but feel that that money would have been better spent on some actual analog hardware. Like maybe it’s a better idea to get the analog tone and saturation you want going by using preamps and such going in the box, and then just using digital Eq, compression and effects for mixing purposes? Maybe analog is analog and digital is digital, and each serves its purpose? Maybe this idea of virtual analog is a pipe dream?

No, it is not. It is simply a descriptive term that describes a digital synth that works the same way as an old analogue synth works. i.e. It has oscillators that run through a mixer, into a filter and then through an amplifier, with modulators like envelopes and LFOs. As opposed to say, a ROMpler like a Roland D-50 or Korg M1 or a properly digital synth like a Yamaha DX-7. The term pre-dates VSTi and software synths by several years. The first time I heard it, it was applied to hardware synth like the Yamaha AN-1x and Korg MS2000 in the 1990s.

Hey that’s a slight of hand. I was talking about virtual analog in general, not virtual analog synths.
You took my virtual analog and said virtual analog synths, then proceeded to make your point.

I was talking about virtual analog in general, but particularly Eq and compressors. I’m not sure if your “it is simply a descriptive term that describes a digital synth that works the same way as an old analogue synth works. i.e. It has oscillators that run through a mixer, into a filter and then through an amplifier, with modulators like envelopes and LFO,” still applies?

I never said “synth.” For one I don’t have any virtual analog synths, I really never took to them. I’d rather use an analog synth, or samples of one.

And far as addressing sound, the only thing you say is that it all sounds the same cause you can’t tell the difference. Which is above my pay grade. As you say, you’re the one with the knowledge.

So you’ve just told me I was wrong, and engaging in a pseudo problem, without addressing what I actually said.

[BONES]

Well the makers of digital plug ins said analog is superior. Otherwise, why would they be trying so hard to accurately model it?

Because there is no shortage of idiots willing to pay a premium for it. It also represents an interesting technical challenge for some of them, that they enjoy more than doing other things.

The only problem with the “you can’t tell the difference in a mix”, or the “average listener can’t tell the difference” logic is that if that is the case, then why use one instrument over another? Why not get a $30 keyboard at Walmart mart and make your tracks with that?

That's a different argument. That's like saying that the worst analogue synth is still better than the best V/A, when the reality is that there are good and bad in both camps. You use different instruments for several reasons -

1. Different synths have different strengths and weaknesses,

2. Some synths are easier to use than others,

3. Some synths just make more sense to you than others,

4. You've got the perfect preset in a particular synth for a particular part, and/or

5. If I used ARP Odyssey on every part in every song, my CPU would explode.

I'm sure I could think of others but I reckon five good reasons is enough, isn't it?

it's always harder to nail something 100% accurately with something else than the original source. this will also apply to different models of analog synths, even from the same maker.

The perfect example of this is the ARP Odyssey - with three iterations it's filter got progressively worse. Nobody batted an eyelid at the time but today some people have nothing better to do than obsess over all this irrelevant detail.

Just because some now old farts did some amazing songs 30 years ago with now ancient analog synths doesn't prevent some 13 year old kid with great skills (and/or luck) to make amazing sounding songs with nothing but stock FL Studio plugins.

That's definitely what I've discovered with my 80s cover project - my versions of those songs sound way, way better than the originals, for the simple reason I have vastly superior tools at my disposal today, compared to what they had, even in the biggest studios of their time.

It probably will not sound exactly like a song made and produced in 1980 or 1990 though.

Why would you want it to? What you want to do is to invoke the spirit of the original, rather than slavishly copy it. Because when Gary Numan plays Down in the Park or Are 'Friends' Electric? on stage today, they sound way better than the original recorded versions. And if the original artist isn't trying to slavishly mimic his own song, why would anyone else?

Yeah but if you then can’t tell the difference between a virtual analog synth and a Casio in a loud busy mix, then a Casio is just as good as the virtual analog (in a loud busy mix of course).

Well no, it won't be, because it will be a lot more hassle. You'll need cables to connect it into your system, maybe a hardware mixer and definitely MID and power. You'll probably then have to deal with all the noise it introduces and you'll have to pre-record it all to audio. It's just a lot more wasted time and effort than a VSTi.

Or they spend all that time and money trying to digitally reproduce analog equipment because they, and their potential client base, think analog sounds better.

And I'd agree with them but not in the way you mean. I just like that fat, loose sound and it's really quite easy to do digitally. ARP Odyssey and bx_oberhausen have all the character of the synths they are emulating, I couldn't care less if they are not 1:1 clones, In fact, I find that attitude to be extremely limiting, I'd much rather have something like OB-Xtreme, which also has that Oberheim character but it does its own thing with it. Another example would be FBM's MonoFury. It's not nearly as close to a proper Mono/Poly as Korg's own VSTi emulation but it's a better sounding synth in its own right. I also think GR-8 is a better synth than any of my real analogue synths because it has that same character but is entirely its own thing, without the limitations of hardware.

One of the “desirable characteristics of such devices (that) are already established” is that they sound better.

Except they don't. From a marketing perspective, I'd say they are more popular, not better. From a realistic point of view, real analogue is far more trouble than its worth.

[sQeetz]

I sample from TV using the headphone jack....

[BONES]

For instance, I love the sound of a tape or drum delay. I’ll never buy a tape or drum delay. I don’t want to deal with the maintenance. I like clock sync. I like to be able to set my “tape age” with a knob and then save a preset.

This is one thing I really don't get. I have a Softube tape delay and, whenever I've used it, it's made more noise than my Dell gaming laptop's fans used to. Even the chorus in their Juno emulation makes f**king noise when it's just sitting idle. To me that's pure insanity, to the point I uninstalled the stupid delay and I'll never use the Juno chorus. I've spent the last 40 years of my life trying to get rid of that noise and some stupid f**ker goes and puts it in deliberately!?! f**k that!

As I moved away from hardware VA, and towards hardware A/Hybrid, it became clear that the Virus was a DS synth. Digital subtractive. A very different thing than your SH-01A, which is definitely what I consider a VA.

It’s murky, though. What’s Dune? It definitely started off as what I’d consider a DS synth, but when it went to version 3, the inclusion of the analog filter models definitely brought it closer to being a hybrid emulation.

So what you're saying is that unless it's an attempt to clone an existing piece of hardware, it can't be called a V/A, yet the term was coined to describe synths like the JP8000 and AN-1x, which were never meant to be clones of anything. in fact the AN-1x is more closely related to the CS-1x ROMpler than any analogue synth. I would call DUNE Virtual Analogue and an SH-01A I'd describe as using Analogue-Modelling.

What I wanna know about is the sounds you used to make the nice track! Not the last Casio sound that might be able to serve some purpose in this nice track. Tell me about the things you used to make the nice track. Cause if I got that, I don’t care about the Casio!

You can hear the sounds I used in 1986 but they were all pretty shitful, even though they were mostly analogue and all recorded in an analogue studio. And then you can hear the stuff I've made completely ITB, without a studio at all. Listen to both these songs, then tell me which one uses the best sounding gear -

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

Sorry, no. I could post 100 different patches of different synths and neither you nor anybody else would be able to tell me which were analogue and which were not. I have very good ears and I can only tell maybe 5% of the time.

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

By the same token, listen to the bassline in this and tell me which analogue synth could come close to matching it -



(It's OK, it's the first sound you hear, you don't need to listen for more than a few seconds.)
To be clear, there is no automation, all the tone variation comes from velocity modulation of the cutoff.

Or listen to the intro of this - https://deathlyquiet1.bandcamp.com/track/drdeath

It's true digital synthesis from my old Korg O1R/W but it sounds f**king great. Again, all done with velocity modulation. Keep listening and you'll hear a fake filter sweep pad, where AI synthesis definitely falls down, but digital can sound amazingly good. My point being that while analogue may be able to do one or two things that some people may think of as better, there are millions of things digital does that analogue could never hope to match.

[sQeetz]

I sample from TV using the headphone jack....

I also have a cable running from the TV to my mixer (approx... 10 meters) just for that purpose. It's noisy and funky. I could just rip off the sound of the original source, but I don't.... Why? I dunno

[crickey13]

in fact the AN-1x is more closely related to the CS-1x ROMpler than any analogue synth.

AN1x is sonically related to Prophet 5 actually, Dave Smith worked at Yamaha at the time and a lot of his research on physical/analogue modelling figured into the creation of AN1x. Maybe that's why it sounds better than some real analogue synths.

If they could figure it out in the 1990s, I'm sure VAs sound close enough in the 2020s. I like analogue, but it's far from being essential to the analogue sound in 2022.

[noiseboyuk]

But for me, moving forward, I think the better choice is to put my money in hardware. Hardware synths and samplers (and yes I’m sampling old vinyl cause it just sounds good), but also hardware EQ’s and preamps for basic tone and prep on the way in (compressors are a little trickier).

You can get a dbx three band Eq 500 series for $300. An API 550a will run you $1100. A basic stripped down 500 SSL channel strip will run you $500. In comparison, UAD has a sale of 3 plug ins for $299 — that’s real money. For the money I spent on plug ins I could have bought a single SSL channel to bounce all my tracks through on the way into the computer. And now I’d have one piece of hardware in which to build on (and if I wanted to resell for a better piece, I could get 90% of my money back, and not have to get anyone’s permission).

I think that’s a sound decision. And again if it doesn’t work, I can get almost all my money back with little hassle or loss. But I’m pretty sure it will work. There has to be a reason all these software companies emulate hardware. I’m pretty sure it’s cause hardware sounds good.

I think your last point is the one I get the most - you can get your money back.

For the rest - well, it’s a way to go, sure. I’m in the camp that finds hardware-emulated EQs largely a waste of time in the first place, because modern digital EQs are so much better and faster to work with. Being able to see the signal you are processing and create the nodes you need precisely in seconds is something no vintage EQ can compete with. Then adding the real hardware layer on top, having to pass every single channel through it laboriously - then find on channel 28 that actually you want to tweak channel 5 again which means doing it again - sounds like a nightmare to me.

But go for it. Live with doing that for a while, it will I’m sure be instructive and it will sharpen your skills. But try and fit some A/B tests in there along the way, where you mix with good quality digital tools - be they emulations or not, whatever you fancy - with the snail’s pace hardware, then find some people with good ears and do a double-blind test. Then it will tell you if all the hassle is worth it.

[BONES]

I’m buying hardware from now on. I learned my lesson. It makes more sense financially, cause it retains its value

That's absolute bullshit. Some hardware might be OK but most of it will lose more money in a year than I've spent on softsynths in 5 years. e.g. I got my Ultranova for $400, when it had a retail price of $1200, and I'll be lucky to get back half what I paid for my Modal Skulpt, if I can manage to sell it at all. I got my Analog Keys for half what the guy I bought it from paid, too. Then there is all the extra expense that's just dead money .I reckon I spend $100-$200 a year on cables alone when we're gigging regularly. I also spend money regularly on things like power boards and extension leads and keyboard stands and a whole lot thing I wouldn't need to if I didn't have hardware.

OTOH, over the last 5 years I've probably spent less than $1000 on softsynths in total. You'll lose more than that the first time you sell a hardware synth.

I don’t need anyone’s permission to sell it. And I don’t have to pay transfer fees to sell it either.

I'd rather be paying transfer fees than paying the cost of shipping some bug, heavy piece of hardware to a new owner. You'll find out pretty quickly how much that hurts.

When I’m ready to upgrade I sell the old piece and use it as a down payment for the new. With minimal loss.

If there's a new one coming out, no-one is going to want your old one. OTOH, I'd say that 80% of the VSTi I buy come with free upgrades. I doubt I spend $50 a year on upgrades. OTOH, upgrading my Uno Synth to Uno Synth Pro cost me $600.

The finished product is important, but the process of making music is the fun part.

Urgh! I f**king hate it. Give me a button to press that presents me with a finished song and I'll pay whatever you want for it. The fun part id getting up on stage and performing the songs we make. Everything else is hard, boring work.

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.

Until it stops working and you're up for $500 in repairs, if you can get it fixed at all. OTOH, I just stop using things if they give me any trouble, which usually costs me nothing.

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.

And when I buy a license for a software product, all those same thigs apply, except maybe for "sell it" if it was a freebie. Mostly though, it's not worth the hassle because 90% of my VSTi were less than $50 and I've never paid more than $100 for one. See how far $100 gets you in hardware land. If you're lucky you might get 3 or 4 good quality audio cables.

It’s like here’s a 670 compressor. The GUI has a picture of a 670. Does it sound like a 670? Probably not... I don’t have a 670, but if I had to bet, I bet it don’t. Ok, does the virtual 670 sound good? Yeah maybe. But that’s not the original claim. The original claim is that this thing accurately models a 670! Which is not true!

So you've gone from "probably not" to definitely not, even though you admit you don't have one and cannot possibly know. Do you not see the flaw in your reasoning here?

And maybe the digital compressor sounds better than the modeled 670.

It's a compressor, it doesn't have a "sound". If it does, it's probably broken because good compression should be transparent. If you want to get creative, use a transient shaper, don't think you're getting anything special from a particular compressor because it's almost certain that with the right settings you can get what you're after from any compressor (assuming feature parity, of course).

But it’s harder for me to tell cause I’m distracted by this whole analog modeled classic compressor that’s been used on countless hits narrative.

We get it. You're a Mac user, you are unusually susceptible to bullshit. You need to learn to be more objective.

Which then gets you reading about the history of the 670, it’s great properties, and the countless hits it’s been on (and let’s not even start on all the Abbey Roads gear that was used by the Beatles to make at all the hits you love

All of which sound absolutely shithouse compared to any modern recording. FFS, half of it was recorded on 8-track so if you want to sound like The Beatles, try only using 8 tracks. It won't help, will it? Neither will using a 670 compressor because, if they had access to one, it would only have been to one, not a whole desk full of 'em. So they ight have used it on the drum mix when they recorded it, then again on the vocals but they probably wouldn't have though to run anything else through it because, if nothing else, they'd be too concerned about the accumulated noise.

now perfectly modeled and available as a plug in for only $29.99 crap). That narrative is what this whole post was about. It’s just a distraction! And they got me for over $500! I’m a little bitter!

Well, it might make you feel better if you looked on line at how much cheaper a PC is than your Mac. At least then you'll realise it wasn't the only stupid decision you've made.

I can't stress this enough - any debate about sonic differences ended about a decade ago.

No, mate, it ended the day the DX-7 was released. Game over, sell all your old analogue shit and buy one of those. Job done!

Overpriced - probably. But in the right hands is a perfectly valid digital replacement for hardware.

Overpriced - definitely! Because I've replaced my $10k hardware set-up with about $400 worth of software and a $1200 laptop, which has all the utility and even more convenience than those UAD things.

Does anyone need this many compressors, not necessarily. Could you do a mix with just one, yes sure it would be fine.

Seriously? I hardly use any, they are pretty much totally unnecessary when you're working with synths. Maybe on your drums, and vocals if you do them, but not on your synths. You have infinitely superior sound shaping tools within the synth itself. I might occasionally use a transient shaper on a synth that doesn't have snappy enough envelopes but I honestly couldn't tell you the last time I inserted a compressor into anything. That said, they are built into a few plugins I use, like FireCobra, but an actual compressor is something I reckon I could completely do without.

Well if we agree that there is such a thing as mojo (and I do), and that said mojo is imparted on the sound source by analog circuitry and behavior, then I know where to find it!

I find "mojo" in all sorts of places. Principally I find it in vast amounts of unison, beyond the capacity of any hardware synth, but also in saturation/overdrive/distortion stages inserted into a synth's signal path, either pre- or post-filter. It doesn't have to be analogue, sometimes wavefolding works better, other times it's bit-crushing but, overall it's the variety of different styles that gives you the best option for each situation.

But we know do know that the analog gear has the mojo

May have, there is as much analogue trash as anything else and plenty that just sounds anodyne. e.g. In any objective assessment, there is nothing at all special about the sound of an SH-101. It's just a very basic synth with a very generic sound. It's popularity in 1984 was down to its price and today it is all about nostalgia.

(which across say 14 tracks might add up to a lot of magic)

No, it would just add up to a lot of mud.

Bro, an exception to the rule only reinforces the rule. Finneas is an anomaly, an outlier — that’s why you bring him up. What other chart topping, Grammy winning producer/engineers do you know that use only logic?

it is my understanding that a lot of Hip-Hop made in FL Studio charts well in the US, so Finneas may not be an outlier so much as an obvious example. On our label, Funker Vogt and Eisfabrik both make the mainstream album charts in Germany and all their music is done in Cubase. They use guitar and drums live but in the studio it's all VSTi.

Bob Marley could make a hit record with a guitar and a tape recorder. That doesn’t mean we all could. Or should. He’s an anomaly.

Yet you paid $500 for a compressor that The Beatles used. That makes you a bit of a hypocrite, don't you think?

[noiseboyuk]

Bro, an exception to the rule only reinforces the rule. Finneas is an anomaly, an outlier — that’s why you bring him up. What other chart topping, Grammy winning producer/engineers do you know that use only logic?

And yes talent and skill trump equipment. But talent all skill also often end up in million dollar studios, for some reason.

Andrew Scheps says he mixes with only a pair of Sony headphones. I believe him. But that doesn’t mean we should all mix in headphones.

Bob Marley could make a hit record with a guitar and a tape recorder. That doesn’t mean we all could. Or should. He’s an anomaly.

(Also not everyone likes Billie Eilish. The Grammies are basically the billboard awards with a suit. It’s all record sells. Yes Finneas sold a lot of records. But so did T.I. TI has three Grammys)

You are drawing the wrong conclusions from every one of these examples. They’re not exceptions, they are the rule, and the rule is - work hard and be bloody talented. (BTW I have no idea what every single producer uses now, but I do see many of them giving informercials on their own branded plugins).

There’s no magic in Logic that Finneas harnesses. It could just as well be Ableton or Pro Tools. In one video of his setup a couple of years ago, I saw he’d scrawled “10,000 hours” on the wall. If you don’t know, that number supposedly represents the amount of hours anyone needs to master any skill. He is undoubtedly naturally gifted, but he puts in the hours, and he learns by doing. He is incredibly self-critical of his early stuff (which is sister says is ridiculous).

Every good producer uses the tools they have access to. Take any good producer in the worst studio over a bad producer in the best. Of course we all want good kit, but it is there in abundance now far, far more than any time in history. You can make a hit record on an iPad (an iPhone too probably), and it can sound great. The limiting factor, 999 times out of 1000, is not the kit, it’s the person.

If your goal is to be a mastering engineer not a producer, there’s more reason to be incredibly obsessive over details. Though even those seem to use ITB stuff routinely now, and the basics still apply on the ears being more important than the kit. Finneas’ (not an exception) productions end up in big shiny suites surrounded by glorious hardware, but on this evidence it’s all still ITB:

[BONES]

The problem is that part of making music, aside from melodies, harmonies, rhythm, etc . . ., involves choosing our sounds (timbre, tone, etc). So we have these discussions because we have to make choices, and some thought has to be put into those choices.

Sometimes, not always. e.g. If I just want a soft pad or a quiet arp to fill out an arrangement, I'll put almost no thought into it. I put very little thought or effort into drums, either, because I don't care about them. I will agonise over basslines and leads but that's really about it. The rest is mostly just filler.

You say V/A is the same as analog, so that means there is no choice to be made. They are the same. If that’s your input, then so be it. It’s all the same, nothing to see here.

Prove to me it's not. Play us something that is indisputably better, something that couldn't possibly be done with anything else.

And as far as not being able to tell the difference in 99% of situations, I don’t know what kind of standard that is.

It's called "proof". If there is mojo in certain hardware, as you claim, then you would be able to pick it out of a song, wouldn't you? And whilst I can definitely hear it at times in bx_oberhausen and Korg's ARP Odyssey, it's only in sounds where the character of the synth shines. More often than not, it's completely interchangeable with any of a dozen other plugins. I use half-a-dozen different VSTi for string pads, for example, yet listening to any of our albums, I wouldn't have the first clue which one I've used on any particular song.

Again you’re leveling everything. If one can’t tell the difference between one thing and the other, then again they are the same.

Which is precisely the point I am trying to make. I almost never choose a synth for a part because of it's sound, I do it for those other reasons I listed earlier. They are synths, by their very nature, capable of a wide variety of timbres. They are all just tools to do a job and it doesn't matter to me if I use a ring spanner, an open-ender, a ratchet set or even an adjustable wrench, as long as the nut is tight when I'm done. Yes, I have my favourites but they aren't the things you might expect and it's a purely subjective connection I have with them.

And since they are the same their is no choice to be made.

It's the other way around. You'd only have to make a choice if they weren't all the same, otherwise you'd just grab the first one you came to.

So their is no better or worse, it’s the same, so no choice to be made. No choice, no thinking, no problem.

Pretty much. They'll all get the job done. If they couldn't, I wouldn't have them in my plugins folder.

Hey that’s a slight of hand. I was talking about virtual analog in general, not virtual analog synths.

That was not clear. (I didn't notice this was the Effects forum.) I simply responded to what you had written. Personally, I put absolutely no thought into effects. I barely use them.

I was talking about virtual analog in general

No, you were talking about analogue modelling, which in my mind is a different thing.

particularly Eq and compressors.

I use EQ on drums, nothing else, and I never use compressors. I used to use that stuff a lot more but I discovered I can do better work without them. I don't bother with effects much at all any more, yet I am doing the best work I've ever done. Make of that what you will but I see you agonising over something that I think you are better off without altogether. Maybe you should try it?

I really never took to them. I’d rather use an analog synth, or samples of one.

More fool you. I don't think about things in that way, I use whatever sounds good. Sometimes it might be Hexeract or Concept (samples), sometimes it's Union or Continua (V/A) and at other times it might be analogue modelled (Model 84 or bx_oberhausen). It doesn't really make much difference to me and, at least half the time I can't tell in advance which is likely to do the best job.

And far as addressing sound, the only thing you say is that it all sounds the same cause you can’t tell the difference.

I'm not saying I can't, I'm saying no-one can and I can prove it. I could give you a list of instruments we used on any one of our albums and ask you to tell me which instrument was used for which part on each song, and I'd be very impressed if you were right even one time in five. Hell, I made them and I doubt I could do much better than half. I'll always know which basslines were made with Wasp and I'll know a few others by process of elimination but that's about it.

In one video of his setup a couple of years ago, I saw he’d scrawled “10,000 hours” on the wall. If you don’t know, that number supposedly represents the amount of hours anyone needs to master any skill.

You haven't quite worded that right. The adage goes that anyone can master any skill if they put in 10,000 hours. But those with talent will get away with much less. With someone who has achieved what Finneas has, it's not even about talent, it's about having the nose for what will be popular. If we could get Bob Clearmountain, Trevor Horn, Steve Lillywhite or any of the world's best producers to produce one of our albums, it wouldn't be any more successful than if I do it, because the music we make has no mainstream appeal. That's the real path to success, tapping into the Zeitgeist.

The other thing is that I don't think any of this is hard. Maybe I'm a natural or a savant, but that seems highly unlikely. It's more that I know how I want it to sound and I can whip something into shape in a few hours once an idea germinates. It doesn't feel like something I can do that no-one else could and it doesn't require a lot of skill or knowledge. What I see around here are a lot of people way over-thinking everything, instead of just going with the flow.

I worked in Orion for 20 years, I've made an album in Cubase and an EP in Studio One and the tools haven't made any difference to the final result and had only minimal impact on the process (much less than I'd expected). But if I wanted to write a pop song, I'd be tearing my hair out for years and it would never happen, for the simple reason I have no idea what it is that makes a pop song work. I don't feel it so I can't do it. But when the energy starts roaring out of my monitors, I know we've got a new NOVAkILL song crankin'. I can feel it, it connects with me in a way no pop song ever could. So there's that.

[Pilonsky]

The problem is that part of making music, aside from melodies, harmonies, rhythm, etc . . ., involves choosing our sounds (timbre, tone, etc). So we have these discussions because we have to make choices, and some thought has to be put into those choices.

Sometimes, not always. e.g. If I just want a soft pad or a quiet arp to fill out an arrangement, I'll put almost no thought into it. I put very little thought or effort into drums, either, because I don't care about them. I will agonise over basslines and leads but that's really about it. The rest is mostly just filler.

You say V/A is the same as analog, so that means there is no choice to be made. They are the same. If that’s your input, then so be it. It’s all the same, nothing to see here.

Prove to me it's not. Play us something that is indisputably better, something that couldn't possibly be done with anything else.

And as far as not being able to tell the difference in 99% of situations, I don’t know what kind of standard that is.

It's called "proof". If there is mojo in certain hardware, as you claim, then you would be able to pick it out of a song, wouldn't you? And whilst I can definitely hear it at times in bx_oberhausen and Korg's ARP Odyssey, it's only in sounds where the character of the synth shines. More often than not, it's completely interchangeable with any of a dozen other plugins. I use half-a-dozen different VSTi for string pads, for example, yet listening to any of our albums, I wouldn't have the first clue which one I've used on any particular song.

Again you’re leveling everything. If one can’t tell the difference between one thing and the other, then again they are the same.

Which is precisely the point I am trying to make. I almost never choose a synth for a part because of it's sound, I do it for those other reasons I listed earlier. They are synths, by their very nature, capable of a wide variety of timbres. They are all just tools to do a job and it doesn't matter to me if I use a ring spanner, an open-ender, a ratchet set or even an adjustable wrench, as long as the nut is tight when I'm done. Yes, I have my favourites but they aren't the things you might expect and it's a purely subjective connection I have with them.

And since they are the same their is no choice to be made.

It's the other way around. You'd only have to make a choice if they weren't all the same, otherwise you'd just grab the first one you came to.

So their is no better or worse, it’s the same, so no choice to be made. No choice, no thinking, no problem.

Pretty much. They'll all get the job done. If they couldn't, I wouldn't have them in my plugins folder.

Hey that’s a slight of hand. I was talking about virtual analog in general, not virtual analog synths.

That was not clear. (I didn't notice this was the Effects forum.) I simply responded to what you had written. Personally, I put absolutely no thought into effects. I barely use them.

I was talking about virtual analog in general

No, you were talking about analogue modelling, which in my mind is a different thing.

particularly Eq and compressors.

I use EQ on drums, nothing else, and I never use compressors. I used to use that stuff a lot more but I discovered I can do better work without them. I don't bother with effects much at all any more, yet I am doing the best work I've ever done. Make of that what you will but I see you agonising over something that I think you are better off without altogether. Maybe you should try it?

I really never took to them. I’d rather use an analog synth, or samples of one.

More fool you. I don't think about things in that way, I use whatever sounds good. Sometimes it might be Hexeract or Concept (samples), sometimes it's Union or Continua (V/A) and at other times it might be analogue modelled (Model 84 or bx_oberhausen). It doesn't really make much difference to me and, at least half the time I can't tell in advance which is likely to do the best job.

And far as addressing sound, the only thing you say is that it all sounds the same cause you can’t tell the difference.

I'm not saying I can't, I'm saying no-one can and I can prove it. I could give you a list of instruments we used on any one of our albums and ask you to tell me which instrument was used for which part on each song, and I'd be very impressed if you were right even one time in five. Hell, I made them and I doubt I could do much better than half. I'll always know which basslines were made with Wasp and I'll know a few others by process of elimination but that's about it.

In one video of his setup a couple of years ago, I saw he’d scrawled “10,000 hours” on the wall. If you don’t know, that number supposedly represents the amount of hours anyone needs to master any skill.

You haven't quite worded that right. The adage goes that anyone can master any skill if they put in 10,000 hours. But those with talent will get away with much less. With someone who has achieved what Finneas has, it's not even about talent, it's about having the nose for what will be popular. If we could get Bob Clearmountain, Trevor Horn, Steve Lillywhite or any of the world's best producers to produce one of our albums, it wouldn't be any more successful than if I do it, because the music we make has no mainstream appeal. That's the real path to success, tapping into the Zeitgeist.

The other thing is that I don't think any of this is hard. Maybe I'm a natural or a savant, but that seems highly unlikely. It's more that I know how I want it to sound and I can whip something into shape in a few hours once an idea germinates. It doesn't feel like something I can do that no-one else could and it doesn't require a lot of skill or knowledge. What I see around here are a lot of people way over-thinking everything, instead of just going with the flow.

I worked in Orion for 20 years, I've made an album in Cubase and an EP in Studio One and the tools haven't made any difference to the final result and had only minimal impact on the process (much less than I'd expected). But if I wanted to write a pop song, I'd be tearing my hair out for years and it would never happen, for the simple reason I have no idea what it is that makes a pop song work. I don't feel it so I can't do it. But when the energy starts roaring out of my monitors, I know we've got a new NOVAkILL song crankin'. I can feel it, it connects with me in a way no pop song ever could. So there's that.
[/quote

Ok so let me ask you this: why do you have an bx_oberhausen and Korg's ARP Odyssey? And what was you’re thought process for buying them over something else?

Surely I can’t buy everything. So how do I choose a better synth over an inferior one? Or is there even such a thing? How do you choose one thing over another? Why did you choose say the ARP Odyssey over something else?

[Pilonsky]

Bro, an exception to the rule only reinforces the rule. Finneas is an anomaly, an outlier — that’s why you bring him up. What other chart topping, Grammy winning producer/engineers do you know that use only logic?

And yes talent and skill trump equipment. But talent all skill also often end up in million dollar studios, for some reason.

Andrew Scheps says he mixes with only a pair of Sony headphones. I believe him. But that doesn’t mean we should all mix in headphones.

Bob Marley could make a hit record with a guitar and a tape recorder. That doesn’t mean we all could. Or should. He’s an anomaly.

(Also not everyone likes Billie Eilish. The Grammies are basically the billboard awards with a suit. It’s all record sells. Yes Finneas sold a lot of records. But so did T.I. TI has three Grammys)

You are drawing the wrong conclusions from every one of these examples. They’re not exceptions, they are the rule, and the rule is - work hard and be bloody talented. (BTW I have no idea what every single producer uses now, but I do see many of them giving informercials on their own branded plugins).

There’s no magic in Logic that Finneas harnesses. It could just as well be Ableton or Pro Tools. In one video of his setup a couple of years ago, I saw he’d scrawled “10,000 hours” on the wall. If you don’t know, that number supposedly represents the amount of hours anyone needs to master any skill. He is undoubtedly naturally gifted, but he puts in the hours, and he learns by doing. He is incredibly self-critical of his early stuff (which is sister says is ridiculous).

Every good producer uses the tools they have access to. Take any good producer in the worst studio over a bad producer in the best. Of course we all want good kit, but it is there in abundance now far, far more than any time in history. You can make a hit record on an iPad (an iPhone too probably), and it can sound great. The limiting factor, 999 times out of 1000, is not the kit, it’s the person.

If your goal is to be a mastering engineer not a producer, there’s more reason to be incredibly obsessive over details. Though even those seem to use ITB stuff routinely now, and the basics still apply on the ears being more important than the kit. Finneas’ (not an exception) productions end up in big shiny suites surrounded by glorious hardware, but on this evidence it’s all still ITB:

“the rule is - work hard and be bloody talented”? That’s just a platitude. What’s the point in even saying it?

And “The limiting factor, 999 times out of 1000, is not the kit, it’s the person.” Another platitude!

“and the basics still apply on the ears being more important than the kit.” Come on! Not again.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. The early bird gets the per worm. Hard work pays off. Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today. If it sounds good it is good. It’s it’s not the tool but who wields it. So on and so forth.

I’m not looking for self help or new age philosophy.

[noiseboyuk]

“the rule is - work hard and be bloody talented”? That’s just a platitude. What’s the point in even saying it?

And “The limiting factor, 999 times out of 1000, is not the kit, it’s the person.” Another platitude!

“and the basics still apply on the ears being more important than the kit.” Come on! Not again.

What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. The early bird gets the per worm. Hard work pays off. Why put off till tomorrow what you can do today. If it sounds good it is good. It’s it’s not the tool but who wields it. So on and so forth.

I’m not looking for self help or new age philosophy.

They are cliches because - another cliche - they are true. Avoiding those basic truths leads to displacement activities like GAS and eternal quests for that 0.00001% sonic difference that somehow makes all the difference.

It never does.

Just put in the hours.

[Pilonsky]

I put very little thought or effort into drums, either, because I don't care about them.

Forget drums then.

Play us something that is indisputably better, something that couldn't possibly be done with anything else.

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

More often than not, it's completely interchangeable with any of a dozen other plugins.

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. "

I almost never choose a synth for a part because of it's sound, I do it for those other reasons I listed earlier.

Forget sound. Who cares about sound. It's only audio. If a visual artist doesn't care about sight, then why should a musician/engineer care about sound? Am I right?

Yes, I have my favourites but they aren't the things you might expect and it's a purely subjective connection I have with them.

That sounds almost mystical. Im intrigued!

It's the other way around. You'd only have to make a choice if they weren't all the same, otherwise you'd just grab the first one you came to.

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

Pretty much. They'll all get the job done.

Again, "Hi I'm in the market for two plug ins. You chose them"

No, you were talking about analogue modelling, which in my mind is a different thing.

Analog modeling, virtual analog. Completely different.

More fool you. I don't think about things in that way, I use whatever sounds good.

Wait! 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)?

[_leras]

Bro, an exception to the rule only reinforces the rule. Finneas is an anomaly, an outlier — that’s why you bring him up. What other chart topping, Grammy winning producer/engineers do you know that use only logic?

The point is that these days he's really not that much of an anomaly. There are lots of big name electronic artists that have famously made a lot of their music ITB.

Skrillex
deadmau5
Eric Prydz
Boris Brejcha
Feed Me

Though... at least some of these have moved over to using some hardware.

Probably much more dance music is made ITB that out of the box, with maybe a few exceptions like techno in Berlin where analog seems a requirement.