Is virtual analog an advertising ploy?

[whyterabbyt]

Well the makers of digital plug ins said analog is superior.

No, they didnt.

Otherwise, why would they be trying so hard to accurately model it?

Because the desirable characteristics of such devices are already established, and there's a market for reproductions of them.

[FapFilter]

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. most will still sound different to some degree, despite having more or less the same features and even components.

100% accuracy is mostly only important for cover bands that want to get as close to 100% accuracy as humanly possible though, as great sounding sounds in their own right can be made with almost everything.
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.
It probably will not sound exactly like a song made and produced in 1980 or 1990 though.
It's mostly determined by the tastes, ears, skills, and sometimes luck of the sound designers and actual players / composers. Lots of stuff can sound great in the right hands in the right context.

[Pilonsky]

Virtual analog emulation comes close to hardware but they are not the same. In a loud busy mix is almost impossible to tell if someone used good analog emulation plugins or real gear.

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?

because he means when you compare a hardware analogue piece of kit to a digital emulation of it. But you knew that. And he is 100% correct of course.

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).

[vurt]

all words and text are marketing, ignore them. use your auditory sensor system and use your own judgement.

"do i like what this does?"

anything else is irrelevant.

[Pilonsky]

Well the makers of digital plug ins said analog is superior.

No, they didnt.

Otherwise, why would they be trying so hard to accurately model it?

Because the desirable characteristics of such devices are already established, and there's a market for reproductions of them.

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.

[whyterabbyt]

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.

or not because that, because something else.

[vurt]

it's the antibones

[Pilonsky]

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.

or not because that, because something else.

Or there’s always not not.

[Pilonsky]

Well the makers of digital plug ins said analog is superior.

No, they didnt.

Otherwise, why would they be trying so hard to accurately model it?

Because the desirable characteristics of such devices are already established, and there's a market for reproductions of them.

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

[whyterabbyt]

if a plugin developer actually went from the premise that analog processing was inherently superior, then why would they try to copy it because of that assumed superiority, given that their starting point would inherently be accepting that they could never succeed?
i mean, maybe i just dont know what Im talking about, but you'd kind of think people would try and do something they believe they could achieve, instead?

[whyterabbyt]

Or there’s always not not.

except when there isnt.

[Pilonsky]

Or there’s always not not.

except when there isnt.

In which case there isn’t

[vurt]

is you is or is you ain't?

[cron]

Maybe analog is analog and digital is digital, and each serves its purpose?

Thinking about analog and digital in such broad strokes isn't useful IMO. Synth1 can't compare to a Minimoog, while a Timbre Wolf sounds awful next to Diva. Analog and digital are equally capable of sounding good and bad. Better to judge synths on their individual merits IMO.

[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?

At least your original