KVR Audio

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:05 am

oh, its not a sex thang!
i just like puppets

debra1rlo · Post by **debra1rlo** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:07 am

tranel · Post by **tranel** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:17 am

"Analog or digital?"

I understand that the OP just wants to give us all a nice little challenge, but seriously—does it matter?
One recording sounds a bit different from the other, yes. But maybe the first one would work better in Song A, while the second would work better in Song B.

Sorry about being a killjoy here, but the whole "analog vs. digital" thing just does not matter. Use what sounds good. Listeners certainly do not care if we use analog or digital; they just want the music to "connect" with them.

zerocrossing · Post by **zerocrossing** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:55 am

http://www1.keyboards.de/magazine/m0404/404022wp.html

Found this. Kind of interesting...

jobromedia · Post by **jobromedia** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 4:12 am

I personally prefer digital over analog. And basically all plugins are digital in the core since it is programmed on a computer.

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:17 am

WMP wrote: If you have NEVER really used... and I mean used for a week longf session getting to know the kit....if you have never used great analog kit then you won't miss it, and you won't know what the very rare few of us are going on about on this forum.

From my own experience that just isn't true. I always wanted the sound I heard on all my favourite CDs. I never had access to quality hardware for most of the time, and I always missed it for the sound I couldn't get. Not only when comparing my stuff to commercial releases, but also just while composing/mixing. A good hardware synth has a very complex sound, there is so much going on simulatinously. The sound is deeper in a way that you can hear into it and discover small thing on top, at the same time it's very well balanced and crisp, huge sweetspot and mixes easily with the rest. I'm a piano player, this is just like playing a real piano vs. a simulation.
The same problem was true with effects. Comparing reverb was easy, there was no contest, so I got the hardware. EQ and compression, well, it has become better in plugins. Back when I got the UAD-1 stuff I actually felt cheated. Again, I couldn't get it to sound like it sounded on CD. Overcompress a kick drum with the 1176 plugin, like you hear it on all the funky house stuff, it's a ploppy mess. Single tracks or mixbuss with the Fairchild? Doesn't give you the coherence and liveliness of the Beatles records. The Pultec EQ was OK, but not the magic all the professionals who used the real thing talked about.
Bottom line was, my mixes still didn't have the relaxed, unintrusive punchy vibe that makes it fun listening to. Instead there was always this high end harshness, aggressive midrange and mud in the bass.

All this changed drastically with good hardware through good converters and a few nice hardware synths. Instantaniously. I can listen back to all the earlier attempts, hear where I spent hours to get a kick drum smacking but end up with all the artifacts etc. Now I send it through 1-2 hardware comps and an EQ and it's done. Use an analog synth for the bass line. Sent the mix through the tape recorder for glue etc.

It really IS an easily recognizeable difference in quality. There are nice soft synths that are great for things otherwise unobtainable and great for what they do. I like ZynaddsubFX for example, or the Creakbox3 (which is the 303 synth in my example in this thread), but mostly the hardware is the way to go. Lot's of softsynths sound plain wrong, like the FM7 with it's muddy attacks and thin overall sound.

The strange thing is the obsession here with analog modelling (it's everywhere), while at the same time denying it's superiority. Why would you emulate it in the first place?

Then you get the "I want Deadmau5/Eric Priz's" etc. sound threads. Well, that's largely the sound of hardware synths and FX. No matter what those guys actually claim, it's still how almost everyone in the industry works. If they don't, you hear it. Not to say that this wasn't produced and mixed from a DAW, but the important thing is the hybrid setup.

Angus_FX · Post by **Angus_FX** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:32 am

A good hardware synth has a very complex sound, there is so much going on simulatinously.

Absolutely true. But is it because they're hardware, or is it because they're good?

yellowfever · Post by **yellowfever** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:36 am

Everone has their own opinion and it's something that you can debate forever; at the end of the day it's all down to personal preference. Everybody's right

Epiphany · Post by **Epiphany** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 9:59 am

zerocrossing wrote: People use software because it's easy to work with, low maintenance and inexpensive. Ideology? No.

The dogma that characterises this forum is proof enough that people, rather bizarrely, clearly do also make some sort of pseudo-ideological investment into software. If not, then why the dogma? Hell, there's even a large thread currently running entitled "Why Software Rules No Matter What!" Note the use of "Rules" (as in, winning a fight) and "No Matter What" (as in, having to fend off continual attack.) This is not the vernacular of pragmatism. This thread is at 5 pages and counting.

If people are not making an investment above the pragmatic, then they also probably wouldn't be so grievously wounded by any assertion that software may lack certain characteristics of older, more traditional recording equipment. They certainly wouldn't explicitly suggest anyone of such a point of view (however experienced) should cease posting forthwith and "find somewhere where people agree with them."

That's the rotten core at the heart of these debates and far too much of KVR; a direct challenge to which is all I, personally, waded into this thread for.

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:03 am

Angus_FX wrote:
A good hardware synth has a very complex sound, there is so much going on simulatinously.
Absolutely true. But is it because they're hardware, or is it because they're good?

its because, as scientists have recently discovered, as woodpeckers have an auditory sensory organ(lets say ear for the sake of it) on their tongues to sense prey deep within trees, we have similar arrangements within our finger tips.
these pick up the internal hum of hardware synthesisers thus increasing the pleasure by around 20-40%, a little of this can be picked up from the internals of midi controllers but only with a maximum of 7% increase in the pleasure experience.
im surprised im not hired by more software devs with knowledge like this

yellowfever · Post by **yellowfever** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:11 am

vurt wrote:im surprised im not hired by more software devs with knowledge like this

Are you cheap?

vurt · Post by **vurt** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:13 am

fraid not, scientific endevours such as the ones i partake in require a decent amount of funding.
bout an ounce worth

living sounds · Post by **living sounds** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:32 am

Angus_FX wrote:
A good hardware synth has a very complex sound, there is so much going on simulatinously.
Absolutely true. But is it because they're hardware, or is it because they're good?

I just want it to sound good. I absolutely don't care how it comes about and would be thrilled to have this quality in an easily reproducable digital environment. My hardware reverbs sound great and they're completely digital. And on this front there seems to be some real progress with the new EMT 250 plugin.

The synths get better, but they're not there yet. It's not ideology. I never liked the sound of the Virus for instance. The Clavia synths are better, but the good analog vintage ones are something else entirely. And then there's a lot of stuff not worth bothering in the analog domain either.

The important thing is to find tools that work. For me that's overwhelmingly hardware.

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:00 am

Epiphany wrote:
zerocrossing wrote: People use software because it's easy to work with, low maintenance and inexpensive. Ideology? No.
The dogma that characterises this forum is proof enough that people, rather bizarrely, clearly do also make some sort of pseudo-ideological investment into software. If not, then why the dogma? Hell, there's even a large thread currently running entitled "Why Software Rules No Matter What!" Note the use of "Rules" (as in, winning a fight) and "No Matter What" (as in, having to fend off continual attack.) This is not the vernacular of pragmatism. This thread is at 5 pages and counting.

If people are not making an investment above the pragmatic, then they also probably wouldn't be so grievously wounded by any assertion that software may lack certain characteristics of older, more traditional recording equipment. They certainly wouldn't explicitly suggest anyone of such a point of view (however experienced) should cease posting forthwith and "find somewhere where people agree with them."

That's the rotten core at the heart of these debates and far too much of KVR; a direct challenge to which is all I, personally, waded into this thread for.

First off that dogmatic thread is a piss take on how over serious these threads get. If you don't understand that consider this. The software is worthless brigade (not you) were asked to leave not because people feel that their opinion is any kind of challenge, but because of this "KVR Audio is the Internet's number one news and information resource for open standard audio plug-ins."

Maybe you think telling people that plugs are not as good as hardware is news or information. Personally I think it's ignorant as funk, of course your going to get a hostile audience going to a website specifically in existance to talk about plug-ins saying they aren't good enough. Rude is just not the phrase. Put it another way, if I went on Doepfer home page and started off saying how much I liked the harsh wavetable sound and how I can't beleive the idiots think their boxes can do as much as the TI what would I expect to happen? A global love-in ? Or lots of exagerated insults and a circling of the caravans

The problem in these threads has never been the views but always the lack of diplomacy - this is a website specifically for VST/AU etc.

ericj23 · Post by **ericj23** » Thu Sep 10, 2009 11:02 am

living sounds wrote:
Angus_FX wrote:
A good hardware synth has a very complex sound, there is so much going on simulatinously.
Absolutely true. But is it because they're hardware, or is it because they're good?

I just want it to sound good. I absolutely don't care how it comes about and would be thrilled to have this quality in an easily reproducable digital environment. My hardware reverbs sound great and they're completely digital. And on this front there seems to be some real progress with the new EMT 250 plugin.

The synths get better, but they're not there yet. It's not ideology. I never liked the sound of the Virus for instance. The Clavia synths are better, but the good analog vintage ones are something else entirely. And then there's a lot of stuff not worth bothering in the analog domain either.

The important thing is to find tools that work. For me that's overwhelmingly hardware.

That's nice - we all got that several hundred posts ago, but you just go girl

Analog or digital ?