I read many many threads on the web telling that analog synthesis is alive and digital synthesis is freeze.
People think that it is in big part due to analog ocs instability ....
What do you all think about this ?
Analog sound
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
Well, the issue's kind of complicated. Any percieved sound is built of 2 parts. A part of it is the physical sound. The other part is how the listener interprets the sound and adds his own "meaning" to the sound.
The pysical sound of an analogue synth may be modeled very precisely with virtual analogue. The unstable osc, filter overdrive, circuit overdrive, etc. Some VA synths suck, and some are quite "good sounding". (apart from sounding like the real thing) In my opinion, once processed and mastered, the difference between a real analogue synth and VA is marginal. Although there are slight difference in nuance, it's too little of a difference to make analogue the "god" and VA the "looser".
The next part, the "interpretation" of the sound is a bit more complicated. It's common for digital recreation to be labeled as the "fake" and the original, the "real". Well, that's partiall true, but the point is, many people react without thought, almost religiously, against digital replicas. The "real" analogue synths have historic value, prestige, and a vintage image that gives them special value that can't be obtained by the digital replicas. It's like owning a real Van Gogh picture. And since the "real" analogue synths' historical value is so widely known, it's very hard for people to listen with an unbiased ear.
But the bottom line is, what happens if you do the famous "brand X" test? If both sound sources were hidden, and the listener compared the real versus the replica.. chances are, the difference is going to be marginal. The difference may have scientific importance, but probably very little artistic importance. It's probably better if you spent the load of cash buying other strange gear rather than buying standard vintage gear.
If you want to use the historic value of a "real" analogue synth to your advantage though, I think it's a good idea. A band with using real gear looks and sounds (through publicity) more professional. Truth is, vintage gear fits perfectly with what non-musicians think a synth looks like. Great stage prop.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-03-31 04:35 ]</font>
The pysical sound of an analogue synth may be modeled very precisely with virtual analogue. The unstable osc, filter overdrive, circuit overdrive, etc. Some VA synths suck, and some are quite "good sounding". (apart from sounding like the real thing) In my opinion, once processed and mastered, the difference between a real analogue synth and VA is marginal. Although there are slight difference in nuance, it's too little of a difference to make analogue the "god" and VA the "looser".
The next part, the "interpretation" of the sound is a bit more complicated. It's common for digital recreation to be labeled as the "fake" and the original, the "real". Well, that's partiall true, but the point is, many people react without thought, almost religiously, against digital replicas. The "real" analogue synths have historic value, prestige, and a vintage image that gives them special value that can't be obtained by the digital replicas. It's like owning a real Van Gogh picture. And since the "real" analogue synths' historical value is so widely known, it's very hard for people to listen with an unbiased ear.
But the bottom line is, what happens if you do the famous "brand X" test? If both sound sources were hidden, and the listener compared the real versus the replica.. chances are, the difference is going to be marginal. The difference may have scientific importance, but probably very little artistic importance. It's probably better if you spent the load of cash buying other strange gear rather than buying standard vintage gear.
If you want to use the historic value of a "real" analogue synth to your advantage though, I think it's a good idea. A band with using real gear looks and sounds (through publicity) more professional. Truth is, vintage gear fits perfectly with what non-musicians think a synth looks like. Great stage prop.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-03-31 04:35 ]</font>
i am of the same idea, ken.
i think that if a lot of the people who blame on VST and DXi synth (not to mention the CW ones!) would do a double blind test they will notice no difference between the real and the virtual.
is just (in most of the cases) a matter of psycology. but there are, indeed, people who have the "finest ear" (not me) that could identify the difference. very few, but they are there!
i think that if a lot of the people who blame on VST and DXi synth (not to mention the CW ones!) would do a double blind test they will notice no difference between the real and the virtual.
is just (in most of the cases) a matter of psycology. but there are, indeed, people who have the "finest ear" (not me) that could identify the difference. very few, but they are there!
I actually disagree that there is no difference between real & virtual, especially when it comes to vsti's. As more & more 'emulations' come to market its quite easy to hear when they deviate from the 'real' hardware.
However the REAL (sic) point here is that not being 'exactly the same' doesn't mean that the virtual devices are useless. It only means that there's probably too much emphasis on recreating devices that already exist for reasons that kensuguro pointed out quite well. There's a universe of digital sounddesign yet to be realized because 3/4 of the designs spend most of their time mimicing 'traditional' architectures!
In other words, the question shouldn't be 'can this device sound EXACTLY like some other analog device (which really was a comprimise between what the designer wanted and what the company could afford to engineer).
In my opinion, the question SHOULD be 'how does this device sound in a musical context (and what new synthesis types can we explore)?'
However the REAL (sic) point here is that not being 'exactly the same' doesn't mean that the virtual devices are useless. It only means that there's probably too much emphasis on recreating devices that already exist for reasons that kensuguro pointed out quite well. There's a universe of digital sounddesign yet to be realized because 3/4 of the designs spend most of their time mimicing 'traditional' architectures!
In other words, the question shouldn't be 'can this device sound EXACTLY like some other analog device (which really was a comprimise between what the designer wanted and what the company could afford to engineer).
In my opinion, the question SHOULD be 'how does this device sound in a musical context (and what new synthesis types can we explore)?'
I've owned masses of analog gear over the years including many of the classics. I remember every year (sometimes faster) I'd trade in or buy a new machine.
The interesting thing was that *no* two synths could ever do the same sound - no matter what the specs said. And since we played all our stuff "live" the character of the songs would change as each machine was replaced.
Sometimes I'd really miss not having a certain sound, but always there was compensation in having new sounds.
And it was a happy fact that every time I bought a new machine two or three new songs would effortlessly "fall out".
Now I'm entirely software/CWA I don't think anything has changed. I still get new synths, songs fall out, the new synths can't get the old sounds, but they get other new ones.
I think this whole "emulation" business is a gigantic false god. You want a certain vintage sound, ok, buy an emulation, but there's nothing magical about it. It's just a certain style of sound in an ever increasing range.
The interesting thing was that *no* two synths could ever do the same sound - no matter what the specs said. And since we played all our stuff "live" the character of the songs would change as each machine was replaced.
Sometimes I'd really miss not having a certain sound, but always there was compensation in having new sounds.
And it was a happy fact that every time I bought a new machine two or three new songs would effortlessly "fall out".
Now I'm entirely software/CWA I don't think anything has changed. I still get new synths, songs fall out, the new synths can't get the old sounds, but they get other new ones.
I think this whole "emulation" business is a gigantic false god. You want a certain vintage sound, ok, buy an emulation, but there's nothing magical about it. It's just a certain style of sound in an ever increasing range.
Well put Kensuguro,
I have to add that the sound of analog is a generalization since each brand has it's own sound. This makes the distinction between the best virtual and the analog synths inconsequential.
It has been stated many times that there is no noticeable difference between the Creamware Moog and the original.
I have to add that the sound of analog is a generalization since each brand has it's own sound. This makes the distinction between the best virtual and the analog synths inconsequential.
It has been stated many times that there is no noticeable difference between the Creamware Moog and the original.
-
kensuguro
- Posts: 4434
- Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: BPM 60 to somewhere around 150
- Contact:
it seems we're pretty much all on common ground. On the other hand tho, making 1:1 replications can be a source of inspiration for technology. Kinda like why alot of machinery companies in Japan are focusing on building humanoid robots. The robot itself isn't the goal, it's the process of building one that counts. So in that sense, I can see some value in repeatingly creating replicas of standard vintage synths. I probably wouldn't buy the soft replica, but would still welcome its technological importance.
comming to think about it tho... hmm, maybe I do want the minimaxx. LOL
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-04-04 11:22 ]</font>
comming to think about it tho... hmm, maybe I do want the minimaxx. LOL
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: kensuguro on 2004-04-04 11:22 ]</font>