I really don't care about the analog vs digital argument as such... I enjoy the irony of the skewed perspective and I enjoy watching the progress and benefiting from it. I've watched the same argument over film for years and digital has won for all practical purposes. My inexpensive point and shoot camera is as or more capable than the $10,000 worth of camera equipment I used to drag around. There is a point at which my skills are not impeded by the equipment and I can make great photos in a variety of circumstances when the image quality argument becomes moot. I can sell photos to clients shot with an inexpensive digital camera that stands the test of the experienced eye and satisfies the client and the photographer. At that point any difference in absolute quality is a tiny noise floor compared to the value of the actual content. As for shooting the content, digital far surpasses film cameras for on the ground practical usefulness. I used to carry multiple cameras with different film speeds for different lighting conditions, now 1 camera can shoot in extreme conditions with a quality one could only fantasize about before.mcnoone wrote:Totally agree. It also depends on ones personal preferences of sounds.dsynth27 wrote: "nonpartisans" have made the most honest statements in this endless debate. It depends on the situation, cost, what your track needs etc.
Real analog sounds absolutely terrific and is incredibly fun to use.
There are also many softsynths that also fit this description.
If you want a Moog sound in your track it is usually best to use a real Moog synth. If you want the DSI, Nord, Access, etc. sound it would probably be best to use the real synths. Obscure or not if I hear it and am composing and making music that is ultimately what will affect the quality of the music itself. It is true that all listeners will not be able to hear the difference but I am sure we all (as we can all tell from the terrific support from Diva fans) are inspired by the tools that we use to create with!
I "prefer" digital sounds myself, and it just comes to an each there own kinda thing.
It also really comes down to, for me anyway, what I can afford, and use, as you stated.
As someone who is strictly into the sound design aspect of synths, digital synths have a lot more variety in the tonal landscape for it, and "can be" more difficult to program.
As Urs said before that Diva was a good starter synth for programming. As it's much easier to dial in a sound, or learn-master the synth quickly.
More quickly than Zebra for instance.
btw...I don't think pdxindy was being all too serious in his post there.
I'm pretty sure he prefers digital synths though.
Digital synth recreations are a bit behind digital cameras in relation to their analog counterparts but the writing is on the wall. Diva is very close to a Minimoog soundwise, but has vastly more capability. And frankly, though I can still hear some audio advantages to the analog version, I also hear some audio advantages to the digital recreation. The later are increasing and the former are decreasing. I have no vested interest in that trend. I just point it out and also point out that the ground that the analog defenders are protecting is getting smaller and smaller. That is not a criticism of anyone who likes to use analog, but the difference is becoming a lower and lower noise floor.
) Afaik also we never made such a comment when you popped up in a Xils-Lab thread, did we ?
