Is the Virtual Instrument era over?

[tony10000]

Sequential market their Rev 2 synth as being analogue, and yet it has DCOs.

According to the article above, it is an analog oscillator under digital pitch control rather than a digital oscillator with a DAC.

[dellboy]

The confusion over whether an Alpha Juno was analogue or digital is historic, it was there right from its launch. The buzz word at the time was "digital", and Roland played on this to make it appear that there new analogue synth was in fact "digital", and deserved to sit among the new "digital" synths that were hitting the market.

[tony10000]

The confusion over whether an Alpha Juno was analogue or digital is historic, it was there right from its launch. The buzz word at the time was "digital", and Roland played on this to make it appear that there new analogue synth was in fact "digital", and deserved to sit among the new "digital" synths that were hitting the market.

An interesting article from Sound on Sound:

"The Alpha Junos' voices were very different to those of the Juno 6, 60 and 106. For example, their DCOs were much more sophisticated than those found on any other Roland, including the top‑of‑the‑range JX8P and Super JX10. They offered 14 basic waveforms including pulse‑width modulation of both the pulse waves and sawtooth, and six sub‑oscillators: four that were pitched one octave down, two that were two octaves down. Many of these additional waveforms were harmonically complex, and they made it possible to create timbres that sounded more 'digital' than ever before. But along with that, the Alphas retained the original Junos' ability to mix a pulse‑wave, a sawtooth and a sub‑oscillator for lush analogue‑style sounds."

AND

"Back in the good old days, we frowned upon the now‑revered deficiencies associated with the Voltage Controlled Oscillators used in analogue synths. The pitch stability of these VCOs often left a lot to be desired, and their tuning was usually temperature‑dependent, so you could end up adjusting your synths many times during a gig or recording session. Not so annoying in the studio, this was murderous on stage. What we now regard as 'organic' and 'full of character' was, in 1981, simply a pain in the arse... sorry, ear.

"It was, therefore, not the flexibility offered by early digital synthesizers (such as the preset‑only Yamaha GS1) that appealed, but their precise sounds and ultra‑stable tuning. Unfortunately, not everybody could afford the hyper‑expensive digital technology of the day, so the analogue world responded by inventing the DCO, an analogue oscillator controlled by a digital circuit. This ensured far greater tuning stability than the VCOs hitherto used. It seems incredible today, but the Junos were probably the first analogue polysynths that you could carry on to a stage, switch on, and immediately start to play with complete confidence that (first) the patches would sound correct, and (second) that the instrument would be in tune."

https://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/ro ... a-juno-1-2

[tony10000]

The above article makes it sound like the oscillators were indeed analog, rather than digital.

[whyterabbyt]

The above article makes it sound like the oscillators were indeed analog, rather than digital.

That's because the waveforms were analog. The 'digital control' isnt part of the waveform, its responsible for the timing of retriggers of the waveform. (To be more specific, the core analog waveform that other analog waveforms are derived from through analog shaping.)
You know, like the 'gate' signals of a CV modular might. Or hard sync.

Otherwise, is a MIDI-controlled analog oscillator sudddenly digital?

Is an analog oscillator suddenly digital if its hard-sync'd to a digital oscillator?

Is an analog oscillator suddenly digital if its hard-sync'd to an analog oscillator controlled by MIDI?

'Digitally controlled' is not 'digital' and Im actually seriously worried about a developer claiming that DCO's had aliasing. I mean, seriously, whit?
Surely the definition of aliasing in audio is a specific artefact happening in the reconstruction of a digitally stored value (ie a sample) into its analog equivalent, so if you think DCOs can alias, please explain where the samples are.

[whyterabbyt]

If the argument is that digitally controlled analog-waveform oscillators are digital, doesnt that mean that voltage-controlled digital-waveform oscillators are analog?

[whassup]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong.

Yeah, I never understood that either. What are they doing, close miking a symphony orchestra?

(Which would fall under “doing it wrong.”)

Come on, how else would you notice the farts of the 27th Oboeist during the sforzando?

[tony10000]

The above article makes it sound like the oscillators were indeed analog, rather than digital.

That's because the waveforms were analog. The 'digital control' isnt part of the waveform, its responsible for the timing of retriggers of the waveform. (To be more specific, the core analog waveform that other analog waveforms are derived from through analog shaping.)
You know, like the 'gate' signals of a CV modular might. Or hard sync.

Otherwise, is a MIDI-controlled analog oscillator sudddenly digital?

Is an analog oscillator suddenly digital if its hard-sync'd to a digital oscillator?

Is an analog oscillator suddenly digital if its hard-sync'd to an analog oscillator controlled by MIDI?

'Digitally controlled' is not 'digital' and Im actually seriously worried about a developer claiming that DCO's had aliasing. I mean, seriously, whit?
Surely the definition of aliasing in audio is a specific artefact happening in the reconstruction of a digitally stored value (ie a sample) into its analog equivalent, so if you think DCOs can alias, please explain where the samples are.

The plot thickens. I found an actual bench teardown video and he first says there is a DAC and later, he corrects himself and said there is no DAC. So, it is a DCO: The Roland part # is RD87213:



I also found a previous discussion on KVR (very technical):

viewtopic.php?t=420194&start=30

[Markus Krause]

It's not necessary at all to have a DAC when you convert a 1 bit digital signal (like a squarewave or impulse or a PWM square or a comb wave) to analog. It's trivial and can be done with a transistor or opamp.
Most certainly the squrewave and comb wavefroms from the Alpha Juno are purely digital, as it is not necessary to have an integrator on them. I assume that only the Saw uses it. These waveforms are then again mixed to create the PWM saw.
The Alpha Juno OSCs are far more complex than a classic DCO. They got a lot more digital components and aspects than a simple sawtooth DCO.

I'm out of this discussion now.

[tony10000]

It's not necessary at all to have a DAC when you convert a 1 bit digital signal (like a squarewave or impulse or a PWM square or a comb wave) to analog. It's trivial and can be done with a transistor or opamp.

True. Did you check out the previous post I found? A lot of technical detail:

viewtopic.php?t=420194&start=30

[_leras]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong.

Late German Romanticism will get you every time!

But I do see people demoing their dance songs with 20 drum tracks and 40 vocal tracks and whatever nonsense. I'm not sure they're necessarily doing it wrong, per se, but they're definitely overthinking it.

For drums - you might have two kits that each have some layered samples or some fx hits, all rendered out on individual tracks.

For vocals, with modern production this could again be quite simple. Main vocals layered, ad lib effects could very easily be ten tracks, and these could be separated into different sets of tracks for different verse chorus, and that's not even counting if you were then to be doing vocal effect where you're chopping up a vocal into different samples and arranging each on their own track.

I mean - not everyone needs to do this, but there are definitely valid reasons for producing this way. And they wouldn't all be playing at once.

[whassup]

Mic and a looper
The rhythm of lips smacking
Sounds like teen spirit

I'm MC AAX and I cannot lie
Poppin fresh beats with my VSTi

*a-prrummphh a-yuh-huh pltuthththth pththththth*
*record scratches*

Come on, everybody!
Whoop! Whoop!

[vurt]

Honestly, if you need 100+ tracks to make something work, it's either a really terrible idea that's never going to work or you're doing it wrong.

Late German Romanticism will get you every time!

But I do see people demoing their dance songs with 20 drum tracks and 40 vocal tracks and whatever nonsense. I'm not sure they're necessarily doing it wrong, per se, but they're definitely overthinking it.

For drums - you might have two kits that each have some layered samples or some fx hits, all rendered out on individual tracks.

For vocals, with modern production this could again be quite simple. Main vocals layered, ad lib effects could very easily be ten tracks, and these could be separated into different sets of tracks for different verse chorus, and that's not even counting if you were then to be doing vocal effect where you're chopping up a vocal into different samples and arranging each on their own track.

I mean - not everyone needs to do this, but there are definitely valid reasons for producing this way. And they wouldn't all be playing at once.

also , the beatles, while they may have used 4/8/16 track recorders, there was a fair bit of mixing down and rerecording over tracks, meaning they were in essence using more tracks.

probably nowhere near the 100+ admittedly, but still more than the recorders could do in one sweep.

[eerie_audio]

OBSERVATIONS:

- Very few new synths are being regularly introduced (except for Cherry Audio)

This also may be a result of the subscription mindset, where companies leave out flagship synths in their upgrades and try to profit off them by selling them separate. Which pushes their priority back for release, while holding out to make future upgrades more desirable.

- VST2 has been killed off and VST3 only adoption is glacial

Some companies haven't even finished transitioning all their older products, which puts a hold on any new development. This has much to do with dragging their feet and protesting a stance.

- CLAP looks promising but universal support is up in the air

I think a lot of developers are looking to cut costs, not add to them. Even though it may seem like a little upfront cost, you also have to support it for the long term.

- Flagship synth major updates have slowed to a crawl

This could be due to the fact that most of these flagship synths are already feature packed, and adding to them will only bloat or add little value that's worthy of an upgrade price. It's probably more profitable to develop a new synth with a different approach to synthesis than what's already in their catalog.

- There has been a huge resurgence in the sale of hardware synths

The availability and low cost of modern replicas or even new digital creations are more accessible, but are going after a sub culture of a larger industry.

- DAW-less production has become a big trend

These type of setups are great for performing live, and MPCs and turntables have been around for decades. I don't see it changing the landscape for production at a high level.

- Modular rack synths continue to be popular

This is even a smaller niche group of people, it may be growing, but it is very expensive over longer periods of time. Plus with the modular plug-in options available today, it's not much of a threat.

- The VI market has reached saturation and is not growing

This has been true for several years, but smaller developers keep popping up everyday. Meanwhile, the big named companies keep pumping out variants at a slower pace.

- Economic turmoil means less discretionary spending

The pandemic and the resulting economy has created a lot of unforeseen issues.

- Interest rates are going to slow credit card purchases

This ties into the poor economy, dropping value of currency and a plethora of other things.

[tony10000]

OBSERVATIONS:

- Very few new synths are being regularly introduced (except for Cherry Audio)

This also may be a result of the subscription mindset, where companies leave out flagship synths in their upgrades and try to profit off them by selling them separate. Which pushes their priority back for release, while holding out to make future upgrades more desirable.

- VST2 has been killed off and VST3 only adoption is glacial

Some companies haven't even finished transitioning all their older products, which puts a hold on any new development. This has much to do with dragging their feet and protesting a stance.

- CLAP looks promising but universal support is up in the air

I think a lot of developers are looking to cut costs, not add to them. Even though it may seem like a little upfront cost, you also have to support it for the long term.

- Flagship synth major updates have slowed to a crawl

This could be due to the fact that most of these flagship synths are already feature packed, and adding to them will only bloat or add little value that's worthy of an upgrade price. It's probably more profitable to develop a new synth with a different approach to synthesis than what's already in their catalog.

- There has been a huge resurgence in the sale of hardware synths

The availability and low cost of modern replicas or even new digital creations are more accessible, but are going after a sub culture of a larger industry.

- DAW-less production has become a big trend

These type of setups are great for performing live, and MPCs and turntables have been around for decades. I don't see it changing the landscape for production at a high level.

- Modular rack synths continue to be popular

This is even a smaller niche group of people, it may be growing, but it is very expensive over longer periods of time. Plus with the modular plug-in options available today, it's not much of a threat.

- The VI market has reached saturation and is not growing

This has been true for several years, but smaller developers keep popping up everyday. Meanwhile, the big named companies keep pumping out variants at a slower pace.

- Economic turmoil means less discretionary spending

The pandemic and the resulting economy has created a lot of unforeseen issues.

- Interest rates are going to slow credit card purchases

This ties into the poor economy, dropping value of currency and a plethora of other things.

This link tells the story. A lot of new development on the audio processing end. Very little in the way of new instruments:

https://www.kvraudio.com/plugins/the-newest-plugins