Jump to content

Is a synth with a 100% analog signal path a real analog synth?


shawnl

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I really like the dave smith product line and would like to invest in a real analog synth or at least some hybrid thereof. however, i'm skeptical because all the new synths on the market claiming to be analog have the disclaimer, 100% analog signal path.

Is this just a fancy way of saying that its a DCO synth like the roland juno series from the mid 80's or is it some new gimmick like those korg tritons with a vacuum-tube audio processor?

 

Naturally, I realize that in the purest sense of analog only a VCO synth is truly a real analog synth. So I expect that something like the mopho keyboard wouldn't perform quite like a moog prodigy or a roland sh-2. Can anyone confirm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Oh boy, here it goes, the DCO vs. VCO battle starts again.

 

If you search on google, countless threads have been created about this.

 

Dave Smith's synths are DCOs, but you probably know that. And his claim that the analog signal patch is 100% analog on the Prophet, Mopho and Tetra seems to be true. Whether you like it or not. VCO vs DCO is a preference, it's not like one's more analog than the other. Either it's analog or it isn't. And either you like it or you don't. There aren't "levels of analog".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

is it some new gimmick like those korg tritons with a vacuum-tube audio processor?

 

Korg never advertised the Triton Extreme (with tube) to be an analog synth or that it had an all-analog signal path.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I have the Poly Evolver and that uses DCOs but with the analogue slop parameter and some judicious modulation (which for me is really what analogue synthesis is about) it becomes as colourful as my VCO enabled Oberheim Matrix 12 easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

100% audio signal path = 100% audio signal path = what generally people think of as "analog synths".

 

VCOs are analog oscillators controlled by voltage signals. DCOs are analog oscillators controlled by a digital clock signal.

 

Also, it is common on many analogs with patch memory to have digital control of modulation parameters. Dave Smith's new stuff is no different than synths like the Matrix 12 in this regard (digitally generated EGs and LFOs) except that CPUs tend to be quite a bit faster these days. The Andromeda, a VCO synth, I think was also advertised with a "fully analog signal path" for this reason.

 

If you want a *completely* 100% analog synth, there's a lot of options around these days. None with patch memory of course.

 

If you like the sound, who cares? I still like my DCO Waldorf Pulse and I do own a couple of full analogs like the Oberheim SEM and the Future Retro XS. I've heard the Mopho is pretty nice sounding myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

My 1977 1st Rev OB-1 is fully analog from VCOs-VCF-VCA to enveloppes and LFO. It has 8 memories (the values are converted to digital to be stored, then converted back to analog CV and on/off switches values when recalled). Even the computer has no control over tuning VCOs or VCF, all is done by hand and by ear (fine tuning of VCO's and filter with 3 external pots and overall calibration with internal trimmers). I think this is the only synth to be full discrete analog with memories. The only flaw in this early design is that the main panel is inactive over stored patches (when a patch is stored you can't modify it afterwards and must start again from manual mode).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I really like the dave smith product line and would like to invest in a real analog synth or at least some hybrid thereof. however, i'm skeptical because all the new synths on the market claiming to be analog have the disclaimer,
100% analog signal path
.

Is this just a fancy way of saying that its a DCO synth like the roland juno series from the mid 80's or is it some new gimmick like those korg tritons with a vacuum-tube audio processor?


Naturally, I realize that in the purest sense of analog only a VCO synth is truly a real analog synth. So I expect that something like the mopho keyboard wouldn't perform quite like a moog prodigy or a roland sh-2. Can anyone confirm?

 

 

 

The Dave Smith stuff is not gimmicky in the slightest. I understand your scepticism, cause so many synth manufacturers have tried to peddle digital emulations in such a way as to make the uninformed buyer think it's "analog" because of the buzz factor of the word "analog".

 

I had a long friendly argument with my kid over whether his friend's microKorg was analog or not. His friend and all his buddies were absolutely convinced it was for-real analog because the word "analog" is all over the box, etc.....they just didn't know that "modeling" is a substitute word for "digital emulation".

 

There is a bottom line to the VCO vs DCO debate - there is often a small difference in sound between the two types. To the uber-synth heads who live and breath all the details of synths, this small difference makes a big difference. To most people, including lots of golden-eared types, it is at most a sideways difference, not a quality difference. If this issue bugs you, you'll just have to find out by listening and deciding for yourself.

 

And get this - there are 100% pure analog signal path synths that do not sound good and can't hold a candle to a decent digital emulation. I'm not talking a Moog here, of course, but lower down the line of analogs...

 

But to heap praise on the Dave Smith stuff (I have a Poly Evolver rack). heap heap heap...there. His current synths do have a more modern sound. They can't do Mini-Moog basslines if that's what you want. But they are gorgeous. The PER was my first analog synth. The first time I played it, I could instantly hear the analog goodness that all my prior digital synths (FS1R, Kurzweil K2000, Oasys PCI, Korg X5DR) lacked.

 

nat whilk ii

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I realize that in the purest sense of analog only a VCO synth is truly a real analog synth.

 

People waste altogether too much time on this analog nazi crap. It either sounds good or it doesn't. If you want a VCO that goes out of tune when you look at it sideways, be my guest :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

The Dave Smith stuff is not gimmicky in the slightest. I understand your scepticism, cause so many synth manufacturers have tried to peddle digital emulations in such a way as to make the uninformed buyer think it's "analog" because of the buzz factor of the word "analog".

 

 

 

Thank you! You said this way better then what I was getting at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

As far as I am concerned, if the actual sound producing or modifying elements - oscillator, filter, amp - are analog, then the synth is analog. LFOs and EGs are not directly heard but only modulate the real analog components, so whether they are digital or not does not affect the sound, unless there is obvious stepping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Depends entirely on how you want to define "analog synth", which is really just a reflection of your priorities. When I think of "analog" I think more of the sound than the control implementation. So what Dave Smith is doing is analog in my book. But I can intellectually understand the argument that "analog" means 100% analog circuits period, even if I don't agree with it.

 

D7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

CS80 has "analog" presets + 2 "analog" memories per oscillator section (representing true position of each parameter), not digital memories you save.

 

Right, so it was an analog synth with memory. Even the memory was analog!

Also, the original Oberheim polyphonic synthesizer (with the SEM modules) was eventually available with a programmer unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Depends entirely on how you want to define "analog synth", which is really just a reflection of your priorities. When I think of "analog" I think more of the sound than the control implementation. So what Dave Smith is doing is analog in my book. But I can intellectually understand the argument that "analog" means 100% analog circuits period, even if I don't agree with it.


D7

 

 

When you look at Roland Alpha Juno 1, it has a 100% analog path but everything is controlled digitally. Other than the filter, it sounds as lifeless as any VA synth out there till you start programming it. This is why a lot of people prefer the pure classic analog, it's always inconsistent and offers instant gratification. There's tricks you can do on digitally controlled analog and VA synths like routing everything you possibly can to a slow LFO, making sure no envelope gate is ever fully open or closed, plus having the slightly smudge of portamento, but of course the purists out there are still gonna declare shenanigans on you the moment they find out. Afterall, it does seem a bit ironic programming erratic sounds when one of the original advantages of a digitally controlled synth was to avoid those behaviors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

the one thing i feel people always omit from the DCO / VCO discussions is the important difference in how these distinct methods of control effect pitch.

 

 

i've noticed this as well, and i think this is one of the most major distinctions.

 

'drifting' oscillators isn't anything more than an inconvenience for most people who own synths utilizing VCOs, as they aren't taking their vintage, unstable synths out in a situation that requires consistent tuning for more than 30 minutes anyway - and modern VCOs don't really drift. all a DCO means to me is that it needs to be MIDI'd to accept external pitch control. which is fine i guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Dave Smith instruments don't have mediocre sound quality because of the digital control of the analog oscillators. I suppose that one reason is that the chips that they use are from the old Marion Systems synths - which, like the DSI synths, had a real lack of guts to the sound. Of course, this is all subjective - there is no good or bad, etc. But with that disclaimer out of the way, I think that you'll find quite a few people who disparage the core sound quality of the DSI instruments. Especially on Gearslutz, you'll get attacked if you suggest this - it's because you don't know how to program, or you're a "hater", etc - but it does seem to me (and I share this reaction) that the DSI synths lack a certain something in the sound that the better analog synths have. The Evolvers are fun, don't get me wrong - but I think that the sound lacks depth and just doesn't compare to the better synths out there, which are admittedly generally more expensive. The Evolvers are more interesting because of the digital oscillators - the p08 (again, in my opinion) sounds like absolute crap. It's the only synth that I ever hated right out of the box, and where my opinion didn't change at all, in fact degenerated the more I played it, and the more I saw that it would simply never please me.

 

But it's not analog versus digital. Where that comes in is that, to some degree conceptually - an emulation will never sound 100% as good as an original. When people create digital synths to emulate analog, they generally fall short in that particular regard. Where they might excel is in their capabilities that exceed analog. For example, the Waldorf Q excels not in its emulation of analog, but in the great variety of sounds that you can make with it, and the degree to which you can mold the sounds with its vast modulation routings.

 

 

The Dave Smith stuff is not gimmicky in the slightest. I understand your scepticism, cause so many synth manufacturers have tried to peddle digital emulations in such a way as to make the uninformed buyer think it's "analog" because of the buzz factor of the word "analog".


I had a long friendly argument with my kid over whether his friend's microKorg was analog or not. His friend and all his buddies were absolutely convinced it was for-real analog because the word "analog" is all over the box, etc.....they just didn't know that "modeling" is a substitute word for "digital emulation".


There is a bottom line to the VCO vs DCO debate - there is often a small difference in sound between the two types. To the uber-synth heads who live and breath all the details of synths, this small difference makes a big difference. To most people, including lots of golden-eared types, it is at most a sideways difference, not a quality difference. If this issue bugs you, you'll just have to find out by listening and deciding for yourself.


And get this - there are 100% pure analog signal path synths that do not sound good and can't hold a candle to a decent digital emulation. I'm not talking a Moog here, of course, but lower down the line of analogs...


But to heap praise on the Dave Smith stuff (I have a Poly Evolver rack). heap heap heap...there. His current synths do have a more modern sound. They can't do Mini-Moog basslines if that's what you want. But they are gorgeous. The PER was my first analog synth. The first time I played it, I could instantly hear the analog goodness that all my prior digital synths (FS1R, Kurzweil K2000, Oasys PCI, Korg X5DR) lacked.


nat whilk ii

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...