The Official Sequential/DSI Forum

What is unique about Analog Synths ?

What is unique about Analog Synths ?
« on: March 17, 2016, 01:18:35 PM »
Hello.
 One year ago I would have said that digital was as good as Analog, & VST sample based etc could be a better choice if the quality & functionality was improved.
Besides retaining  value, I do find DSI products unique.
There has always been a strong presence of devotees regarding analog products.
However now that we have a few modern analog synths to choose from, I am hearing more of a desire for  specialized products to meet specific needs.
Basically I am interested in a good musical instrument.
I think analog usually leans in that direction, even if they are often considered to be tools for musicians.

 
 
« Last Edit: June 14, 2016, 02:04:53 PM by SpaceVoice »
Prophet-6, Korg M3,Petros Classical Guitar, Gibson ES 339, Blackstar HT20,Pigtronix PK, Cry Baby, Aqua Puss. Roland VS840GX.

chysn

  • ***
  • 1136
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #1 on: March 17, 2016, 01:54:23 PM »
I'm just unnecessarily chiming in to say that I don't even care about that question any more. It was relevant in a world where analog was cast aside by instrument makers, and we could throw nice holy wars without having to listen to anything. Now both are widely available and everyone can let his or her ears decide.
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #2 on: March 17, 2016, 02:46:47 PM »
Analog is not better... it's just different... if you settle on only one type, you miss out on half the goodness  ;)

That was the easy answer... the more complicated one is about personal taste, so that really serve no purpose.

Use what you feel gives you inspiration... that's the key thing.

Of course I could go on for ages about why I seem to end up with synths that has at least one analog element in them, but would it be useful for someone else to know why?
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #3 on: March 17, 2016, 06:57:34 PM »
Set aside the sound-generation electronics for once...one of the pitfalls of the cheaper, wider availability of digital signal processing (and microprocessors in general) is the tendency to stuff any and every feature possible into an instrument that lacks the degree of control one comes to expect from one-knob-per-function subtractive analogue synths.

Add to that the generally poor or substandard MIDI system exclusive functionality of many early- to mid-90s digital synths, and you end up losing interest in music-making, with each side of the brain flummoxed by the disconnect between intuitive operation and creative bliss.

There are exceptions to this; Waldorf IMHO seems to have figured out the way to make virtual analogue (and hybrid) synthesis sound decent; Ensoniq was a very audio-focused company that manufactured good products, before their absorption into Creative Labs. I'm sure there are others (including E-mu).
Sequential / DSI stuff: Prophet-6 Keyboard, Prophet 12 Keyboard, Mono Evolver Keyboard, Split-Eight, Prophet 2000

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #4 on: March 17, 2016, 07:14:57 PM »
Anyone who dares to ask this question - and it's usually me - risks bringing upon themselves the wrath of a forum.  If this were GS, you would have received death threats by now, for daring to have and to express such an opinion.  I think, in order to avoid falling into the "big dark relativistic pit," and in order to have a constructive discussion rather than a bitter debate, the question needs to be re-phrased.  This is for your own safety as well, SpaceVoice.

Here's the less offensive and more synthetically correct version: "Why Do Some of You Like Analog Synthesis More than Digital?"

There.  This version should de-escalate the tense situation and avoid the inevitable response, "It's all just a matter of personal taste."  Talk about stating the obvious.

Now it should be safe to respond to the question in a public way. 

I definitely like analog synthesis better than digital because I prefer the character of analog sound.  Ooops.  It happened again.  More controversy.  Some one will soon correct my backwards thinking and say, "Digital technology can produce sound identical to analog."  I realize that this is now the popular enlightened point of view, but try to apply this view to experience.  I don't deny that digital technology can do a fine job of emulating the analog character.  But for some reason, Dave Smith found it worthwhile and surprisingly fortuitous to produce pure analog instruments in the Prophet 6 and OB-6, in spite of the massive Prophet 12 being in the same price range.  And speaking personally, for some reason I have found recordings of these two recent analog instruments to be - sonically speaking - far preferable to the nearly countless recordings of the Prophet 12 and Pro 2 which I've listened to these past few years and which never fail to disappoint my musical ear with a character I've come to call - in my silly simplicity - "digital".  And this is true in demo after demo of instruments made by other companies as well. 

You believe whatever you want to believe, and I'll believe my ears; they tell me that there's a significant sonic difference in character between analog and digital synthesizers, and that's all I need to hear.  Yes, digital synthesis can sound wonderful.  I love the ethereal pads, bells, and evolving textures.  And yes, they can do a respectable job of emulating the analog sound.  But even at this late date, there's still something substantially different between the sound of a Pro 2 and that of an Oberheim Two-Voice Pro or an MFB Dominion1 - something which has me constantly and consistently thinking, "I don't like that one at all, but I really like those two," even though I want to like the Pro 2 best of all.   I listen to such demos every single day, and every single day I'm all the more persuaded to agree, not with the experts and the geeks, but with my own two ears.

Say what you want; in spite of DSI's and everyone else's best technological advances, I can still hear the difference between analog and digital.   
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 07:51:12 PM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #5 on: March 17, 2016, 07:32:43 PM »
The debate is just useless... Even if the P12 sounds "inferior", it can make sounds that all the analog only DSI instruments cannot, and that fact alone makes it really hard to choose what is "best".... what does "best" mean? ... is it sound quality? (what if you want dirty and gritty?) non-Aliasing? (what if you want ear shattering aliasing?)... Flexible sound possibilities given by digital? (what if you want simplicity?) ... a sound is a sound, nothing more, nothing less.... if I need the sound of a fart, my own behind is "better" than even the most expensive MOOG/DSI/Waldorf/Whatever synth you can find... unless you're after an unrealistic fart of course... I hope my answer makes sense  ;D

The only correct answer is that what YOU find best... is best... it may even differ from project to project... if I want to make Commodore C64 SID chip like music, then a digital/hybrid SID synth with the real deal will be better than a MOOG Sub37... etc. etc.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 07:34:55 PM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #6 on: March 17, 2016, 07:43:09 PM »
Razmo, I've completely avoided words like "best," "better," and "inferior" in order to avoid the subjective pit and predictable comments.  A debate would be pointless, like a broken record.  I'm talking only about a personal preference, nothing more.  That's where this discussion could healthily go.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that's what the original poster had in mind.  But if the question is left as is, then we all know where this discussion is going.

I still think it's a great topic: What do you like about analog synthesizers that makes you prefer them to digital?
« Last Edit: March 17, 2016, 08:16:24 PM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #7 on: March 17, 2016, 10:50:55 PM »
I'm not trying to repeat a cliché here, but I think it can be safely assumed that the reason why the analog sonic character is appreciated goes back to what people perceive to be a sort of organic movement that is created by analog oscillators, or to be more precise: by voltages instead of ones and zeros. In terms of perception, the imperfection of truly analog generated timbres seems to be more pleasing than the rather static appearance of a perfect digital waveform. Plus: movement is mostly what we're striving for when we design sounds, no matter whether we start of with a digital or analog oscillator. So there's this overarching goal of creating some sort of imperfection (and using an envelope generator, for example, to create different timbres over time is an imperfection in that sense too) that is already inherent in the character of the simple tone generator of an analog synth: the VCO. And I don't mean that in any esoteric way because there's an objectifiable difference between something that is voltage generated and something that is digitally created, just like a classic photograph is not the same as a digital photograph made of pixels. The physiognomy of both is absolutely different, just likes waves and particles are different. So in that sense I think that it's not really a matter of taste. It can be a question of making a decision, of fashion, or whatever. Taste can play into that, of course, but it falls short of explaining what may be appealing about analog timbres.

That said, technology has moved forward quite a bit and it is possible to create nice digital emulations of analog sounds these days. And apart from us geeks, the majority won't recognize the difference within the context of a song anyway - I think most of us wouldn't to be honest. Still, if you're working with sound on the microscopic level like most uf us do when we design sounds or focus on the sonic character of one particular instrument in isolation, I would say that you can spot a difference between emulations and non-emulations. The difference doesn't need to be massive, but there's a reason some people - who can afford it - get an old Moog modular, or a more affordable replica of it, or whatever. It's nothing that transmits well via most recordings and has to be experienced live and - I guess that's even more important - physically ideally. It's not a necessity though. Analog synths won't make you a better musician or composer. But the appeal of a truly analog generated signal is at least obvious to me, which I say as someone who also likes FM synthesis, physical modelling, granular synthesis, wavetable synthesis, and all that stuff.

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #8 on: March 18, 2016, 04:01:18 AM »
Razmo, I've completely avoided words like "best," "better," and "inferior" in order to avoid the subjective pit and predictable comments.  A debate would be pointless, like a broken record.  I'm talking only about a personal preference, nothing more.  That's where this discussion could healthily go.  I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that's what the original poster had in mind.  But if the question is left as is, then we all know where this discussion is going.

I still think it's a great topic: What do you like about analog synthesizers that makes you prefer them to digital?

Yes... when the question is rephrased into what you suggested, then the debate becomes relevant, because the initial question put it as if analog by definition is better than digital, and that's júst not true.

Why I like some kind of analog part in my synths? ... some of the reason is in what Paul Dither Just wrote... that certain "character" of smoothness... I prefer a bit of organic feel to the sounds I use, instead of cold and clear digital sounds... but from time to time, digital's cold and clear sound is also needed, I find that especialy on bell'ish and chromatic sounds.

But in general I prefer hybrids to all digital, as this allow for the best of both worlds... it takes a tiny bit away of the analog feel because of the digital frontend, but it's still "better" to my ears than clean digital.

But maybe it's unfair to judge digital in theory because if I record an analog synth into my computer, then digital sounds "analog" even though it's now theoretically digital... so digital IS capable of sounding analog... the problem with digital is not the digital of it, but rather the algorithmic technology which has just not reached perfection yet... someday they may get there I believe, and that day will be a major game changer for hardware, even more than what it allready have been.

And if we take into the equation, not only the sound character, but also sound flexibility, I need digital to do all those things analog cannot do... in that regard, I've got no choice, and the closest I'll get to analog is a hybrid... Wavetable synthesis, Physical Modelling, Phase Modulation, Sample Oscillators and even Reverb FX, as analog spring types are very limited.
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #9 on: March 18, 2016, 06:19:03 AM »
I must admit I prefer Digital in the end as it offers more functionality, give me a Kronos/Vsynth/Nord G2/Integra-7 over and analog synth any day.

Analog synths like the ones DSI produce I like as they usually have a decent amount of functionality, I'm not sure if they sound any better than digital synths but I like the looks, sound and functionality. For me synths like the P6 seem a step backwards for DSI.

I have Moog Voyager here and to be quite honest it isn't that great a synth, it is limited and it doesn't even sound that good, the oscillators produce more "digital" noise then most digital synths. It has a pair of nice filters and that's about it. Digital filter technology is now up there with analog filters, the filters in Monark and Diva are as good as the voyager ones. Basically Diva and Monark sound better than the voyager!

I'm a believer in the fact that the current resurgence of analog kit is because manufacturers know that a subset of customers aren't willing to spend the cash on a digital hardware instrument when they can just use a plugin on a computer.




Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #10 on: March 18, 2016, 06:32:33 AM »
I've heard plenty of excellent digital emulations of bread and butter analog sounds. For example, I think Roland's SH-2 emulation sounds gorgeous. However, I've been less impressed by the edge-case emulations of analog behaviour. Features like oscillator cross-mod and filter fm are where I feel analog has the upper hand.  It's those interesting interplays between analog components that I find fascinating and make it a living breathing instrument, as organic as any guitar.

Mentally, I still feel a disconnect with many digital instruments. My brain can't stop telling me that it's just moving around 0's and 1's when I turn a knob rather than voltages. Of course, that doesn't make a blind bit of difference to the sound that's coming out or the perception of that sound by the listener... but it is an important part of feeling that the instrument is an extension of you, the player.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #11 on: March 18, 2016, 06:37:37 AM »
I have Moog Voyager here and to be quite honest it isn't that great a synth, it is limited and it doesn't even sound that good, the oscillators produce more "digital" noise then most digital synths. It has a pair of nice filters and that's about it. Digital filter technology is now up there with analog filters, the filters in Monark and Diva are as good as the voyager ones. Basically Diva and Monark sound better than the voyager!

My switch from soft synths to physical instruments was actually triggered by the fact that the likes of Diva would bring my computer to its knees. I hated using such CPU-intensive software and it took all the joy out of making music when I spent all the time worrying and waiting for the sound to drop out. Music making as a pleasurable experience meant far more to me than pure sound quality.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #12 on: March 18, 2016, 09:10:58 AM »
I'm not trying to repeat a cliché here, but I think it can be safely assumed that the reason why the analog sonic character is appreciated goes back to what people perceive to be a sort of organic movement that is created by analog oscillators, or to be more precise: by voltages instead of ones and zeros. In terms of perception, the imperfection of truly analog generated timbres seems to be more pleasing than the rather static appearance of a perfect digital waveform. Plus: movement is mostly what we're striving for when we design sounds, no matter whether we start of with a digital or analog oscillator. So there's this overarching goal of creating some sort of imperfection (and using an envelope generator, for example, to create different timbres over time is an imperfection in that sense too) that is already inherent in the character of the simple tone generator of an analog synth: the VCO. And I don't mean that in any esoteric way because there's an objectifiable difference between something that is voltage generated and something that is digitally created, just like a classic photograph is not the same as a digital photograph made of pixels. The physiognomy of both is absolutely different, just likes waves and particles are different. So in that sense I think that it's not really a matter of taste. It can be a question of making a decision, of fashion, or whatever. Taste can play into that, of course, but it falls short of explaining what may be appealing about analog timbres.

Don't assume this in my case.  I've always been mystified by the view that at the heart of the analog character is imperfection, a fluctuation in pitch or timbre, a sort of uncontrollable trembling of oscillators or filters.  This is the thing I most dislike about old analog and the reason I actually like DCOs.  I don't want the fluctuations that result in changing oscillator beating rates.  I want the beating to be the same at the top of the keyboard as at the bottom.   Nor, when I hold a note, do I want to hear even the slightest fluctuations in pitch.   Somewhat related, I also prefer a more rapid vibrato rate, as compared with the very slow wobbly rates that I often hear others using.  When using a monophonic patch on the Prophet '08, I never use the Slop parameter, because slop is the very thing I want to avoid.  I don't like these imperfections, and I don't think they make a synthesizer sound more natural or more similar to acoustic instruments.  Rather, they make a synthesizer sound excessively electronic - the very quality I strive to escape in making music.  So, as far as I'm concerned, the analog character is definitely not in its imperfections.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 09:34:00 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #13 on: March 18, 2016, 09:24:20 AM »
Jeepers.  This thread has almost become a response to the question, "Why Is Digital Synthesis Better Than Analog?"

I still think there's room for a positive discussion about the strengths of analog synthesizers, at least for those who actually prefer them over digital.  But, if no one here actually has that preference, than there's no point in trying to start a discussion about it.

« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 10:00:57 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #14 on: March 18, 2016, 10:01:09 AM »
Let me mention one seemingly off-topic idea.  I've been back into synthesis for only about seven years now.  In that time, I've observed that analog and digital synthesis each have different effects on my music making; one I like, and the other I definitely dislike.

On the old DSI forum, Namnibor once made a remark that totally irritated me; yet it turned out that he was correct, and in the end, he helped me to understand something.  He said I should realize that much of the music on my YouTube channel more properly belonged in the ambient category, rather than the classical.  Ouch!  It struck a nerve, alright, because that's the last thing I wanted, and yet it was true.

My point concerns only the limited digital capabilities of the Poly Evolver Keyboard.  I've found that digital synthesis sends me in a musical direction I don't like and didn't want.  I have no interest in producing ambient electronica - none whatsoever.  The music I want to produce is centered on the fundamental elements of melody, harmony, rhythm, counterpoint, and traditional hymnic voice-leading.  It strives for a theme and its development, follows a form, and often turns to imitation, canon, and fugue.  Thus, it's not only emotionally satisfying, but also, intellectually.  But when I program sounds using the digital side of the Evolver, I always find myself drifting away from such musical elements, and instead, swimming around in the slow, dark, and amorphous universe of ambient synthesis.   Hence, the "ethereal pad" - this mysterious lumbering phantasm that drifts in and out, forming a lethargic triad here and there, but seldom rising to a definite musical theme or form.  Sure, it's fascinating for a time, but it's the opposite of what I wanted to do with music and what I'm determined to do with it in the future.

On the contrary, I've found that analog synthesis directs me just where I wanted to go.  Its pure, raw, direct, and un-nuanced character affects me like a traditional musical instrument, especially the organ.  I find myself writing themes and developing them, following coherent chord progressions, and using the counterpoint I've always loved.  In other words, I far prefer the musical influence that analog synthesis has on my creativity and would even call it "wholesome" and "healthy;" whereas, I need to be wary of the influence that digital synthesis has, because it leads me to a substantial degree of musical laxity and futility. 

This is just one of the several reasons I far prefer analog to digital: musical influence.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 10:44:54 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

chysn

  • ***
  • 1136
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #15 on: March 18, 2016, 11:26:30 AM »
But, if no one here actually has that preference, than there's no point in trying to start a discussion about it.

True. And equally true: if anyone here actually has that preference, there's no point in trying to start a discussion about it.

Fine, fine. I'll engage. The question is "What makes analog better?" All these answers are acceptable. They may come off as sarcastic, but that's because of the question. These answers are all irrefutable and unironically true:

* It's more fun. If you don't think it's more fun, you clearly don't know anything about fun.
* It sounds better. If you don't think it sounds better, obviously your ears aren't any good.
* Analog will get you laid more often. This has been proven.
* Maybe you should get an oscilloscope and see for yourself.
* Something Nyquist Limit something something.
* Warm capacitors have a certain smell that can't be replaced by an iPad.
* Because Vince Clarke. Because Bobby Sparks, that's what.

I expect that this definitively ends the debate for all time.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 11:31:49 AM by chysn »
DSI: DSM03; previously: Mopho Keyboard, Desktop Mopho, Evolver, DSM01
Hardware: Eurorack, Arturia MicroBrute
Software: macOS, Ableton, MuseScore2
Modular Grid: https://www.modulargrid.net/e/racks/view/354385
GitHub: https://github.com/chysn

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #16 on: March 18, 2016, 11:37:19 AM »
I guess I should have known better than try to change an original poster's original question!  I attempted to avoid all of this by suggesting the question be instead, "Why Do Some of You Like Analog Synthesis More than Digital?" 

Around and around we go.  Ah well, such is life.

I wonder what SpaceVoice thinks of this thread.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 11:42:26 AM by Sacred Synthesis »
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #17 on: March 18, 2016, 11:41:38 AM »
Don't assume this in my case.  I've always been mystified by the view that at the heart of the analog character is imperfection, a fluctuation in pitch or timbre, a sort of uncontrollable trembling of oscillators or filters.  This is the thing I most dislike about old analog and the reason I actually like DCOs.  I don't want the fluctuations that result in changing oscillator beating rates.  I want the beating to be the same at the top of the keyboard as at the bottom.   Nor, when I hold a note, do I want to hear even the slightest fluctuations in pitch.   Somewhat related, I also prefer a more rapid vibrato rate, as compared with the very slow wobbly rates that I often hear others using.  When using a monophonic patch on the Prophet '08, I never use the Slop parameter, because slop is the very thing I want to avoid.  I don't like these imperfections, and I don't think they make a synthesizer sound more natural or more similar to acoustic instruments.  Rather, they make a synthesizer sound excessively electronic - the very quality I strive to escape in making music.  So, as far as I'm concerned, the analog character is definitely not in its imperfections.

I somehow knew you would reappear and deconstruct everything aforementioned.  ;D

Seriously though, I still do think that the appeal for the majority of analog users lies in some sort of imperfection - at least if you take into account all the statements that are posted on various forums but also documentaries like "I Dream of Wires." So call that my empirical reference point with regard to how signals that are created by voltages are typically perceived.

Your take on that is interesting in that it runs contrary to all that. I've been wondering whether it's implicitly connected  to the "players vs tweakers" debate. (Don't worry, I'm not trying to make any sort of judgment based on the player-tweaker-dichotomy.) I mention the latter also with regard to your post about how the use of (partially) digital synthesis affects your music. Why you might ask. Well, first of all players are mostly concerned about the reliability of a particular instrument. Unsteady or somewhat imperfect sounds could be described as the opposite of that aspect. Although I have to say that you contradict yourself to the degree that you utilize rather dynamic sounds yourself that lend themselves to naturally evolving timbres. (Again, to be clear about the terminology, when I mention perfection, I mean it in a somehow static sense, like the mathematically "perfect square wave" for example that might look great on an oscilloscope, but doesn't necessarily need to sound good, just like not everybody who's good at musical architecture will resemble Bach. - One could be a genius at the latter, but it wouldn't really matter if it would sound awful: Yes, I'm looking at you 12-tone music.)

Secondly, I had another thought after I read your comments on how the digital side affects your music. That reminded me of how sound designers can program an infinite number of really cool and complex sounds - an opportunity that especially increases if you add more complexity to the synth engine and move across borders like, for example, on a hybrid synth. And while most of the really sophisticated sounds are awesome, they can also be too much beyond being played in isolation. Meaning: they wouldn't necessarily meet the expectations of being used within a song format for example, because they simply occupy too much space to be usable. The latter might correspond with what you described as your involuntary ambient attempts. If certain sounds become to complex, too busy, too sophisticated on their own, they are more likely to become a means to an end rather than a particular style of music.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2016, 11:46:39 AM by Paul Dither »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #18 on: March 18, 2016, 11:55:12 AM »
!. From the comments so far I have realized that I just don't trust the digital market.

2. I seem to sleep better when I play an analog ...really ...maybe its just me...anyone else notice this effect?

3. DSI could have presented a non analog flagship to eclipse the PolyE/ VS, & choose to continue the Prophet legacy.
4. Other manufacturers could have offered a complete analog keyboard  for years now.

So  I am still wondering why Dave himself choose this route. He has kept it simple, if I understand correctly, he just likes analog better, it was the better choice.
 
Prophet-6, Korg M3,Petros Classical Guitar, Gibson ES 339, Blackstar HT20,Pigtronix PK, Cry Baby, Aqua Puss. Roland VS840GX.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2016, 11:55:43 AM »
Although I have to say that you contradict yourself to the degree that you utilize rather dynamic sounds yourself that lend themselves to naturally evolving timbres. (Again, to be clear about the terminology, when I mention perfection, I mean it in a somehow static sense, like the mathematically "perfect square wave" for example that might look great on an oscilloscope, but doesn't necessarily need to sound good, just like not everybody who's good at musical architecture will resemble Bach. - One could be a genius at the latter, but it wouldn't really matter if it would sound awful: Yes, I'm looking at you 12-tone music.)

It's not a contradiction.  I admitted that this is how such evolving sounds affect me.  It's not a matter of volition, but of unwanted influence.  In other words, speaking for myself, not only is there a difference in character, but also in affect on the musician.
The Musical Synthesizer YouTube Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChLGwGiRVs7rlZXnOG9_mUw

The Musical Synthesizer Blog: https://themusicalsynthesizer.wordpress.co