Analog or digital ?

[whyterabbyt]

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

You're missing the point. Not only is it on the agenda to keep up the 'hardware is always better even if its just software in a different box' angle, despite the actual focus of the website, but it must be done as often as humanly possible.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Has the answer been given yet? (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding).

I think file no.1 is a plugin and file 2 is a hybrid "analog". Either one sounds very good, neither one sounds really great, IMHO.

[thecontrolcentre]

Has the answer been given yet? (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding).
I think file no.1 is a plugin and file 2 is a hybrid "analog". Either one sounds very good, neither one sounds really great, IMHO.

The answer was given many pages back (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding) ... you got it wrong.

[Aroused by JarJar]

Has the answer been given yet? (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding).
I think file no.1 is a plugin and file 2 is a hybrid "analog". Either one sounds very good, neither one sounds really great, IMHO.

The answer was given many pages back (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding) ... you got it wrong.

Cool!

Always glad to find examples where I can't tell/doesn't matter.

[IncarnateX]

First off that dogmatic thread is a piss take on how over serious these threads get.

Argh, c'mon!...I am as innocent as the kiddies in a Sunday school

[WMP]

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.

I do agree with you, my earlier 'if you haven't used them for a week you wouldn't know' was more for others. I could tell instantly.

It's like the first note I hit on the Pro q after have the Creamware version was like a big satisfaction moment for me. i really was happy in my pants.

I also felt the same way as you with the Uad plugins, I wanted the software to work...and like yourself I don't care what it comes out of I mean I have a crappy old super vhs video recorder hooked up as an external fx in Cubase 5 for smashing drums with. It's a £29 video recorder but just sounds great I use it loads.

There is something about the Virus that sounds great for digital. Those earlier examples on this site:

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

Really does show off the diferences (I havn't listen to all of them). For the record I am not saying that vsti's are crap, I just think that they should move forward and concentrate on what they are good at. Do something new instead of the money machine that is emulations that do not sound as good.

All the hype annoys me, with people like Howard Jones going on about the fact that the Jupiter 8 Auturia sounds exactly the same! Shame on him.... he must know it doesn't it's so obvious...and it's sad that he got paid to say that and dissilusion people.

When my dad recorded my school music demo exam pieces to reel to reel I knew instantly that was the sound I liked... I could hear it instantly. It's the same with just about everything else these day i know what I like.

Sure Vurt I agree it did sound snobbish about the £100 preamp vs £1,000 preamp. It does not always go that way and there is a lot of rubbish that is expensive. But in general if you do your research before you buy you do pay for what you get.

There some odd gems out there like the Behringer (did I actually say Behringer in the ame sentance as Gem ) A/D convertor which sounds pretty damn good for the money or the old favourite SM57 mic with a good preamp can give loads of mileage for the cheap costs. I've released a few tracks using an SM57 and cheap Mackie pre amp before so.....so not sure what I am trying to say really.

I agree with a lot that is said on here, but I stand by my feelings that toe to toe emu's do not cut the mustard. And I am on about emu's not all vsti's. Like living sounds I use plugins and a couple of vsti's. When they get as gtood as my favourite analogs I will sell them...make a packet on the resell value and go virtual In about 10 years probably.

[WMP]

These mp3's highlight the difference for me

DX7

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

Korg Polysix

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

Minimoog

http://download.keyboards.de/2004/04/40 ... ogv_05.mp3

Pro 1

http://download.keyboards.de/2004/04/40 ... one_06.mp3

Prophet 5

http://download.keyboards.de/2004/04/40 ... o53_04.mp3

Jupiter 8

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

Oscar

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


Of course there will be slight errors in getting the right settings on the emulation and hardware... but you can still hear almost feel (on a good system) the warmth and non aliasing fullness of the real deal.

Or mayb I'm hearing stuff....could be

[ew]

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.

Say what? I've owned a lot of the great analogs you're talking about at one time or another over the last twenty five years, and used them extensively. Can I hear a difference? Sometimes I might hear a little with a certain mixer/amp/speaker config; but that's more due to the other hardware coloring the signal. Will I be able to tell once it's been mastered at 44.1/16 bit for CD? Highly unlikely. Is anybody else going to give a flying f**k what I used? No!

@ living sounds- I challenged you a year ago to post something using a state of the art for the time Digidesign interface from the early '90s vs a SB from the current era for input and demonstrate that the sound's as markedly superior as you claimed... I'm still waiting

ew

[living sounds]

@ living sounds- I challenged you a year ago to post something using a state of the art for the time Digidesign interface from the early '90s vs a SB from the current era for input and demonstrate that the sound's as markedly superior as you claimed... I'm still waiting

ew

I don't think Digidesign ever made anything sounding state of the art, and I sure never stated that.
The most highly regarded converters (by many mastering engineers and industry professionals) remain the Pacific Microsonics Model One/Two from the mid-90s.
As for any examples - you've got to make those yourself, I'm afraid, as I have neither Sound Blaster nor anything state of the art from the early 90s here. The converters in my Roland S-750 sampler are good for what they do, but certainly do not offer mastering transparency.
My shootouts between some recent converters were availible from the gearslutz forum, but I think I took them down because I needed the webspace.
In any way, the actual quality of a converter can only be accurately judged against the analog reference signal, or, more practically, with their impact on a whole project. In other words, the difference become really obvious once you get to mix the tracks (and mix with your gear through the converters).

[odo]

Chip !!!!!!!!

[themossinator]

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.

Still almost how everyone in the industry works???????

got any proof of this at all??????

Deadmau5 maybe, but your wrong on Prydz, its been said in interviews and from comments from people who work with him that he doesnt use hardware.

That stuff really annoys me. Dont make out to people that if they want to make tracks like Deadmau5 and Prydz that need to use hardware!!! Im sorry if thats what youve been led to believe but i think you may have fallen for the marketing/hype

Just because you cant get that sound with software doesnt mean other people cant.....

[eduardo_b]

Has the answer been given yet? (Not going to read through 26 pages, are you kidding).

It's got to be human nature. Ford vs Chevy, PC vs Mac, Canon vs Nikon, Britney vs Christina... A lot of people must have a jones for this stuff. So analogue vs digital is a natural for them. The rest of the world neither knows nor cares.

[eduardo_b]

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.

Say what? I've owned a lot of the great analogs you're talking about at one time or another over the last twenty five years, and used them extensively. Can I hear a difference? Sometimes I might hear a little with a certain mixer/amp/speaker config; but that's more due to the other hardware coloring the signal. Will I be able to tell once it's been mastered at 44.1/16 bit for CD? Highly unlikely. Is anybody else going to give a flying f**k what I used? No!

Have to say that this post works for me. It combines experience in both realms with a person whom I consider reliable and credible when it comes to this stuff. And it's consistent with reviews of soft synths by those with similar or even greater experience who have measured the differences and posted graphics of these. There are differences, but they don't seem to be significant or meaningful for real world use.

[WMP]

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.

Say what? I've owned a lot of the great analogs you're talking about at one time or another over the last twenty five years, and used them extensively. Can I hear a difference? Sometimes I might hear a little with a certain mixer/amp/speaker config; but that's more due to the other hardware coloring the signal. Will I be able to tell once it's been mastered at 44.1/16 bit for CD? Highly unlikely. Is anybody else going to give a flying f**k what I used? No!

@ living sounds- I challenged you a year ago to post something using a state of the art for the time Digidesign interface from the early '90s vs a SB from the current era for input and demonstrate that the sound's as markedly superior as you claimed... I'm still waiting

ew

So you can not hear the differences in those examples?

Pretty clear to me.

[ew]

I don't think Digidesign ever made anything sounding state of the art, and I sure never stated that.
The most highly regarded converters (by many mastering engineers and industry professionals) remain the Pacific Microsonics Model One/Two from the mid-90s.

Ah- but that was the argument I'd originally made- that your SB would kick te shit out of your Digi interface from that era (which was the original semi-pro/pro interface solution). You disagreed in this thread; I asked you to prove your assertion. I'm still waiting...

As for any examples - you've got to make those yourself, I'm afraid, as I have neither Sound Blaster nor anything state of the art from the early 90s here. The converters in my Roland S-750 sampler are good for what they do, but certainly do not offer mastering transparency.

Well, why did you make the statement then, sir?

I could go on and on pointing out the inconsistencies and fallacies in your posts, but I won't bother; I've got better ways to use my time.

ew