Lame overdone topic maybe- analog not quite vs digital

[ChristianRock]

I probably have a weird opinion about this, and I'm not all that experienced, but here it goes. It's the ramblings of a noob, so feel free to skip if you're an experienced synthesist

 

First of all, it took me a while to even consider digital synths when entering the world of synths, because as a guitar player, I'm really burned by the wave of digital simulations that came out in the late 90s/2000s. There's something really irritating in the sound of a digital guitar distortion that emulates a tube amp, especially if such digital distortion comes from Line6. I can hear a Line6 guitar over the radio and cringe. It became so widespread in rock music that for a couple years in the late 90s I refused to listen to rock radio anymore and only listened to CDs from Lorena McKennitt and maybe some old 70s recordings. Started playing my 12-string acoustic guitar almost exclusively.

 

So here I am now trying to become a keyboard player

 

There are certain analogs that just grab you and some that I don't care much about. The same is true to some analogs - I love the sound of most Korgs, and the JD-990 (too bad I had it when I wasn't ready for it), the Fusion (and similar Alesis) and the JP-8000 especially. I don't care for the sound of a lot of the digitals. This has more to do with how they respond to your playing than perhaps the sound itself.

 

Same with analogs. There are some (even VCO analogs) that just don't work for me soundwise. I'll listen to some sounds and to me they'll sound (to make a comparison with the guitar world) like an all-mahogany guitar. I hate the sound of an all-mahogany guitar, it's bland. Mahogany needs maple or something's missing in the sound, it gets too "grainy" when distorted and lacks high-end definition.

Analogs I love the most are old Moogs - there's just something about the sound of most Minis and MemoryMoogs that is like the sound of a '59 Les Paul into a quality JPM Marshall. The beauty of perfection and a sound that is almost alive - so much that I know I don't deserve one yet! I also love JP-8 strings, CS-80 pads, and the Andromeda sounds. I'm not very into boutique modern analogs for the most part though, but that may be more because of how they are programmed in the demos than the synths themselves. There's a warmth that seems to be missing.

There's a lot of other analogs that I'd like to have though, including some DCO analogs and Digital/Analog Korg hybrids. I've been doing a lot of research on DCO Rolands (because I'll be able afford them) and I've decided that Alpha Junos/MKS50 is the way to go for me - I love the way they respond to your playing. I've also decided JX8P/JX10/MKS70 isn't for me - can't get into their sound. Of course all of this is being decided by listening to demos - if I get the MKS50 I'm looking at it will be my first analog and I wish I had the PG300 to go with it. Then after that I'm looking at an EX8000 - again, it's something programmable that I can afford. It's gonna have to be good enough for now... the thing is, I might have a preference for certain synths, but if I write a good song, and produce it well, it's going to sound good in a good synth pretty much the same as it would in an excellent synth. That's how I see digital vs. analog...

[controlvoltage]

my intellect likes complex digital synths. but my soul craves analog sounds.

 

If there's enough feedback with controlled noise levels injected into modulators, and other sources of semi-random subtle changes, then I can be very happy with the sounds from a digital synth... nord modular for instance lets me make very pleasing digital sounds because I can add little tricks like this to keep the timbre from being too static.

 

I almost never use my digital synths, though... they just don't turn me on and give me the eargasmic rush like the analogs can.

 

As far as predictabiilty is concerned, I think some people are confusing low-level randomness with system-level instability... my analog synths will always do exactly what I program them to do, in the broad sense. Barring a malfunction, the only "unpredictability" comes on the waveform-cycle level, where there is enough real-world randomness going on that it does not subconsciously tire the ears and brain (as I feel a static[unchanging] digital signal can do). At a systems level, the analogs are totally stable and predictable in their operation. In the case of multiple modulations interacting, the result may seem random because it is a higher order of complexity than we can grasp just by listening, but the result is still exactly what you programmed it to be...

 

anyway, analog FTW.

[Gunslinger69]

I am not so much interested in the difference in tone and timbre between analog and digital. For me it almost entirely about the interaction with the device itself. The interface. I really dislike menus, hidden functions and the like. I cannot do soft-synths at all because I cannot touch them. I could not use the DSI table-top Evolver because of the multi-function per knob organization. My Little Phatty is about as far as I would like to go in menus and # of functions per knob. The Micro-Q to me is barely functional usable to me, even though I like some of the sounds it makes and the function / knob and menu hierarchy is relatively easy to navigate. It just seems to have too many options. I like switching chords and uncertainty, being surprise by making a mistake with a patch and discovering something lovely. Most of all I like knobs. If they made digital synth with 1 or 2 function per knob I might be very interested in it (does some one make such a beast?).

 

 

Jellinghaus programmer for a DX-7.

[droolmaster0]

I disagree with the notion that analogue by definition is more "musical" than digital. That there is a difference between digtal and analogue i will not dispute. But i find that i can easily spend lots of time just noodling away on the Microwave XT and find it to be every bit as musical as my other synths. And that has nothing to do with its knobs - because i actually spend more time doing sounds on it through sounddiver, rather than "hands on" (One reason for this "backwards" approach to the knobby XT is the fact that i can draw my own waveforms and create my own wavetables in sounddiver). So all in all, to me it is not digital vs. analogue, but rather: Did the makers of a synth come up with a musical piece of gear?

This is kind of what I was hoping to avoid - the 'versus' part of the analog vs digital. I was much more interested in the psychological side of people's reactions to both. Nothing wrong with the digital vs analog 'debate', but there are probably 1000's of threads on many forums and lists all rehashing the same points.

[droolmaster0]

digital signal can do). At a systems level, the analogs are totally stable and predictable in their operation. In the case of multiple modulations interacting, the result may seem random because it is a higher order of complexity than we can grasp just by listening, but the result is still exactly what you programmed it to be... anyway, analog FTW.

 

 

Good answer, especially on the predictability issue. I do wonder with myself though whether there is an additional issue affecting the 'eargasm' factor - which is that knowing that the sound is produced by circuitry rather than 1's and 0's (especially 1's and 0's programmed to emulate circuitry) makes it actually sound better to me. Our reaction to sound is much more than just the pure physical reaction to the components of the sound....

[r05c03]

What is said above is support in the book "This is your brain on music".

[droolmaster0]

I can hear the difference, I just don't care about it any more. I'm far more interested in the music being made

So, differences in sound don't affect the music being made? Perhaps what you're saying is that you don't find the differences to be great enough to be concerned about, but forgive me if I always get annoyed when people play the 'I'm not interested in x, I'm only interested in the music' card....

[grumphh]

This is kind of what I was hoping to avoid - the 'versus' part of the analog vs digital. I was much more interested in the psychological side of people's reactions to both. Nothing wrong with the digital vs analog 'debate', but there are probably 1000's of threads on many forums and lists all rehashing the same points.

One interesting observation i have made about my own behaviour is that i need a synth to be hardware.

I do fully realize that a digital synth is just software in a hard shell, yet i have a psychological problem in accepting that a "mere program" on my PC is a valid instrument.

I have no clue why this is so, but i know that i would not spend as much time with a software XT as i do with the hardware.

And i even program the XT from my PC...

[DanielRaible]

Nope. A digital synth that doesn't have at least 200 parameters is hopelessly underdeveloped. You won't however see 200 hardware knobs ever. Apart from the fact that only a limited number of knobs makes sense. If you had 250 knobs on a user interface it would need more time to locate a parameter then if less knobs were placed in a reasonable matrix interface.

 

 

Word.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

I think you might want to give up making music alltogether, and go into audiophile sales... .... i mean, if you can hear differences in guitar tone because of the power source then you must be tired of your loudspeakers reacting to variables in climate too. No matter how good your digital source is. Such sensitive and discerning ears as you undoubtedly have should be spared the frustrations of real world music, and instead be used to persuade filthy rich people into buying 3000+ $ speaker cables.

Whatever. Acoustic instruments are all about "tone". It's not just me, you know.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Were you never satisfied with the tones you were getting? Or were you hitting that sweet spot only 1 out of 3 times?I know what you're saying but also know that a good player can make a kmart axe sound angelic regardless of tone, surely rhythm and melody come first. Not implying you can't play, you may be Eddie Hazel mkII for all I know, and again I know that the player strives for perfection of tone, but the listener rarely if ever exclusively gives a {censored} about tone above all else, they just either relate to the vibe of the musician or they don't. All else is forgiven if it moves you. I'm just wondering how you could completely turn your back on guitar, wouldnt it be even better to incorporate it as another element with all the stuff you use now?

"but the listener rarely if ever exclusively gives a {censored} about tone above all else, they just either relate to the vibe of the musician or they don't."

I don't have a listener. Just me.

"I'm just wondering how you could completely turn your back on guitar, wouldnt it be even better to incorporate it as another element with all the stuff you use now? :confused:"

I played for 20+ years, and thought it might be healthy to reinvent myself a little bit, that's all. I'm having fun!

[droolmaster0]

One interesting observation i have made about my own behaviour is that i need a synth to be hardware. I do fully realize that a digital synth is just software in a hard shell, yet i have a psychological problem in accepting that a "mere program" on my PC is a valid instrument. I have no clue why this is so, but i know that i would not spend as much time with a software XT as i do with the hardware. And i even program the XT from my PC...

I have noticed this with myself also. If it's a hardware synth, I don't mind programming it from the computer. But software synths just don't interest me at this point. I don't think that this is entirely logical....

[grumphh]

So, differences in sound don't affect the music being made? Perhaps what you're saying is that you don't find the differences to be great enough to be concerned about, but forgive me if I always get annoyed when people play the 'I'm not interested in x, I'm only interested in the music' card....

That you get annoyed is entirely your problem

The differences are nothing* to be concerned about.

In the end it is the music that matters.





*It is important that we distinguish between your wording and mine.
The differences are great. But they are not worthy of our concern.

To illustrate what i mean i will use guitars as an example.
A Les Paul is fat sounding, compared to a Strat - they are very different sounding instruments.
But that does not affect the music that has been played on any of these guitars. It just sounds different.

[droolmaster0]

Nope. A digital synth that doesn't have at least 200 parameters is hopelessly underdeveloped. You won't however see 200 hardware knobs ever. Apart from the fact that only a limited number of knobs makes sense. If you had 250 knobs on a user interface it would need more time to locate a parameter then if less knobs were placed in a reasonable matrix interface.

 

 

hmmmm - I think that there are exceptions to this. I think that it would be possible to have a modular system, well organized, with 250 knobs that would still feel more immediate as a large system than a synth with lots of parameters hidden in menus. For the most part, of course, this is entirely true - ultimately complexity (lots of parameters) and immediacy (controls are right there in front of you) start to conflict as the complexity increases. Perhaps this is another reason why I personally prefer a system comprised of semi-modular and modular analog synths. You have all of this complexity, but it still feels like it's all right there in front of you. Of course, one spends ridiculous amounts of money for this privilege.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

But on the other hand, doesn't getting to know a synth, whether analog or digital really mean that the results are more predictable? Is an analog synth really less predictable than, say, a Waldorf Q?

You're right, but for me, it's also an immediacy thing. I want to hit the power strip and have everything ready to go within 10 seconds, and want it to sound the same as it did yesterday.

I also prefer the sound of many digital units to many analog units.

[cl516]

why people have strong opinions that differ so drastically...
perhaps all these people are hearing their synths from different sources.

painful eardrum via heaphones plugging into moog, wow analog awesome.

5 minutes tweaking soft synth through laptop speaker, ooh soft synths suck.

or if someone was setting up before a show and got to jam on a nord lead at a huge concert venue they might think oh my goodness, digital sounds awesome too.

then factor in all our ears and bodies are different.
then factor in maybe some of us here can't hear above 14khz because of their cooler days standing at the show next to the speakers...

[soundxplorer]

digital signal can do).

 

 

Right. The difference is on the "small scale".

I always think its a little misleading when people use an oscilloscope snapshot of some waveforms to compare between an analog and a digital "clone" of said analog. You can often see how similar in shape the waveforms are, yet there is still an audible difference when playing the two side by side.

 

I think our brains are much more sensitive to the difference between "exact" patterns versus "subtly flawed" patterns. Even when you set an LFO to slightly modulate pitch or amplitude on a digital synth, the cycle of that LFO is digitally controlled and therefore exact.

 

I originally started to make a case against the limited resolution of digital audio in general, but while typing it up, it occurred to me that when I record synths into my 24-bit/96kHz DAW, I can still hear the difference between analog synths and digital synths when playing back the tracks.

 

Are there any digital synths out there that take advantage of the Direct-Stream Digital technology (1-bit conversion with MHz frequency rate)? It wouldn't solve everything, but it would reduce aliasing considerably.

[ChristianRock]

Well, people use mixers that have 500 knobs and because they're organized logically, we end up getting used to them and we can do whatever we want quickly. I think it would be the same if I had a DX synth and that DX programmer - even though it has almost 200 buttons, they're distributed logically and I would be able to get past the interface and do what I'd want to do. So even if a synth had 250 buttons, it could still be immediate and useful. But I think the main reason it isn't done is because it's cost prohibitive. Imagine a Mopho with 250 buttons, it would go from 400 to 1500 dollars easily.

[droolmaster0]

That you get annoyed is entirely your problem The differences are nothing* to be concerned about. In the end it is the music that matters.

Pretty meaningless.....the process of creating music IS important. One isn't ONLY into it for the end result. And, the inspiration one has while creating the music affects the end result also. The fact that what might be perceived as a small difference to others, and even to yourself, inspires you more, might mean that the end result is affected more than simply if one sound in it were replaced with another. Saying stuff like 'in the end is the music that matters' is way overly simplistic.

[grumphh]

What ever . Acoustic instruments are all about "tone". It's not just me, you know.

Just to sidetrack this lovely thread: Since when have electric guitars become accoustic instruments?

Have i missed something important here?

[Khazul]

This is meant not as an argument, but maybe as just puzzlement over why some people get turned on by the sound of one or the other, and others don't seem to care. ....

 

 

I dont think this is an analog vs digital thing, but rather a synth with character vs synth sans character thing.

 

The synth that tends to consistently charm me with its sound the most is a fairly recent digital.

 

Just as ive come across alot of very bland sounding digital synths and some great sounding ones, I have come across very characterful sounding analogs and very bland sounding analogs. I think with digital synths you're far more likely to end up with bland core character (from oscs, filters etc) than you are from an analog - (perhaps because it was easier to copy good sounding filter designs than is the cae wit digital algorythms?), however the best from both worlds are as good as each other.

[Obsidious]

I played for 20+ years, and thought it might be healthy to reinvent myself a little bit, that's all. I'm having fun!

 

 

Cool I understand where you're coming from completely. That said, after 20 years you must be a bit of a dab hand on the axe, I reckon you'll wanna add it back into the mix at some point, would be a shame not to once you get the hang of the other stuff, just another weapon in your sound arsenal. But yeah if you aint havin fun with it then what's the point. Maybe just needed a nice big rest from it.

 

Personally I suck balls on the guitar but have so much fun just practicing and {censored}ing around with it, more so than playing with my synths I'd say. My accoustic is cheap as chips,was given to me by my bro and probably sounds like {censored} to someone who knows these things but I can't hear the tone over the fun and challenge I get out of learning to play. My bass however {censored}s me to tears tonage wise, cheap ass $300 hok shop job that it is. I can't play that without being disappointed by the sound no matter what I feed it into. must...get...new...bass...(preferrably handmade Tobias signature 5 string before he sold out to gibson:p)

[grumphh]

Pretty meaningless.....the process of creating music IS important. One isn't ONLY into it for the end result. And, the inspiration one has while creating the music affects the end result also. The fact that what might be perceived as a small difference to others, and even to yourself, inspires you more, might mean that the end result is affected more than simply if one sound in it were replaced with another. Saying stuff like 'in the end is the music that matters' is way overly simplistic.

 

But that "small difference" is only your personal hangup.

And no disrespect to "hangups" because we probably all have them.

 

But i do not get less inspired by digital sounds as opposed to analogue.

 

Just as i can pick up a Les Paul or a single coil Yamaha and be happy about my playing. Despite the two instruments reacting (and sounding) very differently to my playing.

 

It is in fact the music that matters.

Very simple, i agree.

But not overly so.

Sometimes things are just simple.

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Just to sidetrack this lovely thread: Since when have electric guitars become accoustic instruments? Have i missed something important here?

They're as acoustic as a classical guitar with a microphone stuck in the soundhole.

It's all just moving waves...

[Delicious Lamprey Problem]

Cool I understand where you're coming from completely. That said, after 20 years you must be a bit of a dab hand on the axe, I reckon you'll wanna add it back into the mix at some point, would be a shame not to once you get the hang of the other stuff, just another weapon in your sound arsenal. But yeah if you aint havin fun with it then what's the point. Maybe just needed a nice big rest from it.

 

 

I honestly hope you're right - just because it does seem a little wasteful! Really, I was perfectly happy with the guitar before the whole Internet-driven boutique craze. I burned out hard on that, both mentally and fiscally.