What is unique about Analog Synths ?

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #60 on: March 20, 2016, 04:32:08 PM »
I agree, though, that hardware's usual restrictions, which are first of all cost restrictions, have a positive side, since you mostly get rather specified hardware synths that won't take you months or years to learn.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #61 on: March 20, 2016, 04:35:24 PM »
When we talk about the digital side of things that also reminds me of how bad Yamaha presented their Montage synth, as I'm sure its FM side is certainly what a lot of people have been waiting for when it comes to this type of synthesis. They just advertised it in a totally cheesy way with mostly ROMpler bread and butter sounds.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #62 on: March 22, 2016, 10:47:32 AM »
On a different note, here's a part of an interview the magazine Music Technology conducted with Brian Eno for the February 1988 issue:

“The problem with synthesisers has always been that the sound that you hear is a direct result of the movement of a very small number of electrons”, he explains, therefore the regularity and evenness of the sound are awe-inspiringly boring. The sound of a grand piano is the result of the interaction of so many factors - environmental, climatic and physical factors – in fact, a piano never sounds the same twice.”
     Eno’s whole approach to synthesis is texural. In fact, that's his sole aim in the studio, using everything from tape manipulation to signal processing he seeks to create a particular presence of sound. But, although he uses a Yamaha DX7 extensively, he still won’t use samplers even though they reproduce acoustic sounds.
     “I’m not very interested in samplers”, confesses Eno, “conceptually, synthesisers interest me much more. A sampler is a tape recorder as far as I’m concerned, and it isn’t conceptually very much more interesting than a tape recorder. Synthesisers, however, interest me for two reasons. One is because they do introduce new sounds into the world, and the other is because in working with them, I learn a lot about how sounds are made up. The DX7 has been very useful for that. I use it almost as much as a research tool for seeing how a sound is made. What happens when this hits this? Why does this sound like that? You find that a very specific relationship between two operators produces something that sounds like a grand piano. And you think ‘I wonder what it is in the physical make-up of a grand piano that demands precisely this relationship or its imitation’. I’m not interested in imitating grand pianos per se, but I am interested in finding how sounds work.
     “My solution has been to make the equipment unreliable in various ways. I used to like the old synthesizers because they were like that. My first synthesisers - the EMS, the AKS and the early Minimoog - were all fairly unstable and they had a certain character. Character has really to do with deviations, nor with regularity, they were very Latin in that sense. And then, of course, I used to feed them through all sorts of devices that also had a lot of character: that were themselves in various ways unpredictable. The interaction of a lot of these things started to create sounds that had an organic, uneven sound to me.”
     Although it’s not easy in computerised, digital synthesisers like the DX7, Eno has found a way to introduce character into modem synthesisers as well.
     “I’ve found ways to de-stabilise the DX7 a little bit to create interactions between it and other instruments that are more interesting”, he says with a gleam in his eye. “I don’t have very good voltage supply, for instance. Within the patches, I build in certain elements that don’t repeat. For instance, there’s something wrong with the programming of envelope generator four on the original DX7 and you can use that to create non-repeating patches. If you have that set to a value under 50, you’ll find that the synthesiser behaves unpredictably. Unfortunately, they sorted this out on the second generation of DX7s, so I still use the first one, and that’s an important element or quite a few of my patches.”
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 11:18:16 AM by Paul Dither »

Sacred Synthesis

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #63 on: March 22, 2016, 11:06:01 AM »
The sound of a grand piano is the result of the interaction of so many factors - environmental. climatic and physical factors – in fact. a piano never sounds the same twice.”

This is definitely the view of a synthesist/electronic music enthusiast, but the great composers of piano music would certainly disagree.  I get the hyperbole, and in a highly technical sense, there's truth to it.  But the same could be said for each and every sound in the universe, if only we were to analyze them closely enough.  In fact, the piano does sound remarkably the same in use after use, in spite of a thousand nuances that the natural human ear cannot appreciably detect.  I think this is key to our topic: the answer is observable to the natural ear even from a distance, so that all of this technical over-analysis is not really getting closer to the answer. 

As for the imperfection drum beat, I get that, too.  It's an element, but it isn't the element that makes the analog sound so attractive to some of us.  I don't even like those imperfections, so they are not the key.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 11:28:21 AM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #64 on: March 22, 2016, 11:37:21 AM »
The sound of a grand piano is the result of the interaction of so many factors - environmental. climatic and physical factors – in fact. a piano never sounds the same twice.”

This is definitely the view of a synthesist, but the great composers of piano music would certainly disagree.  I get the hyperbole, and in a highly technical view, there's truth to it.  But the same could be true for every sound in the world, if we were to analyze it closely enough.  In fact, the piano does sound the same in use after use, in spite of a thousand nuances that the natural human ear cannot appreciably detect.

As for the imperfection drum beat, I get that, too.  It's an element, but it isn't the element that makes the analog synthesizers sound attractive to some of us.  I don't even like those imperfections, so they are not the key.

I'm not entirely sure whether he's entirely arguing as a synthesist, since I assume there are many versions of that. But he's certainly not arguing like a pragmatic only musician either, so he doesn't really care about whether a piano sounds approximatey the same, or the same to the human ear if you take away the nuances that are physically occuring. As a pianist myself, I'd argue that it's the hardest part - even in the most conventional playing style - to learn how to make the same note sound alike if you play it twice. There are not only all of the hardly perceivable physical factors that still occur whether you initially can identify their influence or not, but also so many tactile aspects that influence how a single note does sound in the end. In that sense I wouldn't speak of hyperbole, but magnifying glass.

As for the relationship between composers and pianos in particular, that is of course highly problematic on a different level that especially synthesists or synthesizer players should be aware of. Of course I'm talking about the notion of the piano as a surrogate for orchestras, the 88 musicians at your fingertips, which has of course been maintained by a certain interpretation of how to engineer and utilize synthesizers.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #65 on: March 22, 2016, 12:11:57 PM »
This Pro 2 demo by Marc Doty is a demonstration of the claim that the analog character is primarily due to imperfections.  After he's added a various imperfections to the Pro 2's digital oscillators, does it sound analog?  It does resemble the slight quivering of an analog oscillator.  But is that the primary characteristic that produces the analog character with its warmth and lushness?  In my opinion, the Pro 2 in this video sounds far worse after the imperfections are added.  Regardless, Doty seems so committed to the "imperfections" explanation that he can't even hear when his own test disproves it.

I do think the Pro 2 is an excellent instrument, but for my purposes, it would have to be substantially strengthened by an analog module or two.

https://youtu.be/S5qi6bi2Dtg?t=3m13s
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 12:35:58 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #66 on: March 22, 2016, 12:29:27 PM »
This Pro 2 demo by Marc Doty is a demonstration of the claim that the analog character is primarily due to imperfections.  After he's added a few imperfections to the Pro 2's digital oscillators, does it sound analog?  Perhaps in one sense, it does resemble the slight quivering of an analog oscillator.  But is that the primary characteristic that produces warmth and lushness?  In my opinion, the Pro 2 sounds worse after the imperfections are added.

https://youtu.be/S5qi6bi2Dtg?t=3m13s

Well, in the end it's a matter of taste what synth you are tending towards. And if you don't like the basic sonic character of the Pro 2 that's okay. My point was that imperfection or organicness might not always be tied to the distinction between analog and digital, but that it can of course be achieved on both sides of the synth spectrum. Of course, VCOs bring along aspects of randomness that you have to emulate actively a little bit more when it comes to purely digital oscillators. But the latter does of course also depend on how sophisticated the emulating software is. BobTheDog pointed out all the relevant aspects in that regard.

I for one don't think that Marc's example sounds bad, but like I said in the end it's just determined by the fact of how much you like a particular synthesizer's tone in the first place. I always considered the Pro 2 to embody the most perfected DSI sound. To me it sounds like how DSI instruments were meant to sound like from the very beginning - and yes I'm including the Evolvers and all that. So in that regard I perceive the Pro 2's sonic character to be something that was potentially there from the get-go (2002) and just waited to be fully realized in 2014. But take that only as a side note, since it doesn't have to do much with the main topic here.

Sacred Synthesis

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #67 on: March 22, 2016, 12:41:48 PM »
I agree with you more than you think.  I, too, consider the Pro 2 to be an excellent instrument which represents a true advancement in DSI synthesizers.  My only point was to use this video as a demonstration of our theorizing.  The nuances Doty adds don't, in my opinion, make the instrument sound any warmer, fuller, or richer.  I would say they only produce a obviously digital imitation of an analog character, and in that sense, they make the Pro 2 sound all the more digital.  I presume it can sound better without these artificial attempts.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 12:45:20 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #68 on: March 22, 2016, 12:42:47 PM »
I agree with you more than you think.  I, too, consider the Pro 2 to be an excellent instrument which represents a true advancement in DSI synthesizers.  My only point is to use this video as a demonstration of our theorizing.  The nuances Doty adds don't, in my opinion, make the instrument sound any warmer, fuller, or richer.  I would say they only produce a glaringly digital imitation of an analog character.

Don't tell Marc.  ;D

Sacred Synthesis

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #69 on: March 22, 2016, 12:46:50 PM »
Don't you tell Marc!  ;D

Besides, I told him in the comments below the video.

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #70 on: March 22, 2016, 12:50:05 PM »
I don't know. There's some pretty powerful stuff out there: Omnisphere 2, u-he's Zebra, Wolfgang Palm's apps just to name a few. And of course it's no wonder that innovation mostly moved to the software side because it's easier to develop, as you have to keep less hardware boundaries in mind.

Sure... but again... I'm talking hardware, not software... but I'm aware that there is a lot on the software side of things... no doubt, but I'll NEVER touch software myself... too many choices, and I'm not good with too many choices :D
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #71 on: March 22, 2016, 12:59:09 PM »
I agree with you more than you think.  I, too, consider the Pro 2 to be an excellent instrument which represents a true advancement in DSI synthesizers.  My only point was to use this video as a demonstration of our theorizing.  The nuances Doty adds don't, in my opinion, make the instrument sound any warmer, fuller, or richer.  I would say they only produce a obviously digital imitation of an analog character, and in that sense, they make the Pro 2 sound all the more digital.  I presume it can sound better without these artificial attempts.

Warmer, fuller or richer is defined by the wave shape not by the way that wave shape is produced, this has nothing to do with the generator being digital or analog but rather the shape the designer chose.

If I was to take an oscillator you liked the sound of and digitally sampled it at all frequencies and all wave shapes and the transitions from the last frequency to the current frequency and then make a system that chose these samples based on these parameters it would sound exactly the same, even though it was digital. If I then accurately emulate this system algorithmically in a Digital system you could also not tell the difference.

Maybe it's as simple as the fact you don't like the P2s oscillators rather than the fact they are digital?

Sacred Synthesis

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #72 on: March 22, 2016, 01:52:29 PM »
If I was to take an oscillator you liked the sound of and digitally sampled it at all frequencies and all wave shapes and the transitions from the last frequency to the current frequency and then make a system that chose these samples based on these parameters it would sound exactly the same, even though it was digital. If I then accurately emulate this system algorithmically in a Digital system you could also not tell the difference.

I realize that's the theory, and it makes perfect sense to me.  But why, then, are VAs unable to produce a satisfactorily warm tone?  Surely, the newest Nords should be getting high praise for their warmth of tone by now.  But I don't find that to be the case; they still have many critics of their coldness, and I would agree with them.  Otherwise, I might have a Nord.  And why is the Pro 2 sawtooth noticeably colder than that of the Pro One?  Again, that's my opinion, but it's also the opinion of many others. 

I don't mean to be the stubborn gadfly here, but I just don't find the popular explanations to be satisfactory.  Otherwise, I would expect every digital instrument to easily reproduce or surpass the warmth of an analog.     

On the other forum, there was a member who argued on this topic that the oscillator has no influence on the overall sound, that it all comes down to the filter.  He said, "You never even hear the oscillator".  This makes no sense, since the oscillator contributes its own partials.  If an oscillator lacked tonal character of its own, then what would a low pass filter have to filter out?  My point is, there seem to be many theories about this digital vs. analog character, and I'm happy to drop the topic altogether with the understanding that no one is yet able to satisfactorily explain it.  There's only one attempt that I disagree with, and that's the imperfections explanation, which I think can be disproven by demonstration.

I'd be happy to see Chris or Tracy offer their own insights to this discussion.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 02:32:38 PM by Sacred Synthesis »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #73 on: March 22, 2016, 03:00:31 PM »
The imperfections/variance thing can be disproven by demonstation, how is that then?

From one video you have watched!

Some people have limited ability to take on information, it proves nothing.

A closed mind sees nothing.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #74 on: March 22, 2016, 03:08:54 PM »
There is a good test here you can do, OB8 Vs Diva.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-electronic-music-production/1026344-analogue-vs-digital-part-2-diva-vs-ob8.html

Use the WAV files.

Listen to those digital filters and oscillators.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 03:12:47 PM by BobTheDog »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #75 on: March 22, 2016, 03:22:48 PM »
I realize that's the theory, and it makes perfect sense to me.  But why, then, are VAs unable to produce a satisfactorily warm tone?  Surely, the newest Nords should be getting high praise for their warmth of tone by now.  But I don't find that to be the case; they still have many critics of their coldness, and I would agree with them.  Otherwise, I might have a Nord.  And why is the Pro 2 sawtooth noticeably colder than that of the Pro One?  Again, that's my opinion, but it's also the opinion of many others.

There is more than Nords though, although I would agree that they aren't particularly blowing my mind either. Still, as Bob pointed out, the most sophisticated and adventurous VAs are out there as software. Those are the ones you have to compare real analogs to.

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #76 on: March 22, 2016, 03:28:13 PM »
I don't know. There's some pretty powerful stuff out there: Omnisphere 2, u-he's Zebra, Wolfgang Palm's apps just to name a few. And of course it's no wonder that innovation mostly moved to the software side because it's easier to develop, as you have to keep less hardware boundaries in mind.

Sure... but again... I'm talking hardware, not software... but I'm aware that there is a lot on the software side of things... no doubt, but I'll NEVER touch software myself... too many choices, and I'm not good with too many choices :D

I made my remark due to Bob's comment about software, yes. I'd say most digital hardware synths sound more generic than the more advanced software options. Of course you are free not wanting to use software, but then you're not taking into account state of the art digital synthesis, which I think won't happen again in the form of hardware - at least not on a wider scale. I think along the lines that the only digital hardware contender that is worth mentioning in this thread is probably John Bowen's Solaris. It does a fair amount of what you'd expect a digital synth to be capable of these days and comes with an appropriate user interface, which of course has its price. The (reasonable) alternative would be to get an iPad Pro with 3D control and some of the most sophisticated soft synths.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2016, 03:31:15 PM by Paul Dither »

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #77 on: March 23, 2016, 12:47:26 AM »
The imperfections/variance thing can be disproven by demonstation, how is that then?

From one video you have watched!

Some people have limited ability to take on information, it proves nothing.

A closed mind sees nothing.

I want to apologise for my tone in this post, I was having a bad day!

Razmo

  • ***
  • 2168
  • I am shadow...
    • Kaleidoscopic Artworks
Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #78 on: March 23, 2016, 02:22:40 AM »
I don't know. There's some pretty powerful stuff out there: Omnisphere 2, u-he's Zebra, Wolfgang Palm's apps just to name a few. And of course it's no wonder that innovation mostly moved to the software side because it's easier to develop, as you have to keep less hardware boundaries in mind.

Sure... but again... I'm talking hardware, not software... but I'm aware that there is a lot on the software side of things... no doubt, but I'll NEVER touch software myself... too many choices, and I'm not good with too many choices :D

I made my remark due to Bob's comment about software, yes. I'd say most digital hardware synths sound more generic than the more advanced software options. Of course you are free not wanting to use software, but then you're not taking into account state of the art digital synthesis, which I think won't happen again in the form of hardware - at least not on a wider scale. I think along the lines that the only digital hardware contender that is worth mentioning in this thread is probably John Bowen's Solaris. It does a fair amount of what you'd expect a digital synth to be capable of these days and comes with an appropriate user interface, which of course has its price. The (reasonable) alternative would be to get an iPad Pro with 3D control and some of the most sophisticated soft synths.

Sure... But yes... the Solaris probably is one of the few... also the Accelerator is said to have quite good synthesis, and Nord A1 too.

The digital synths I've tried, all seem to introduce aliasing in the top octave or two of a 61note keyboard. The only ones I've not heard this with are all the older Yamaha FM synths (with the different YM types of custom FM chips)... and funnily enough also the digital oscillators in the Commodore 64 SID chip, which even use simple phase accumulating oscillators.... difference with that is, that it runs at 1MHz-3MHz ... I firmly believe that in most hardware cases, the aliasing is due to the constant sample rate technique that they use... some also use "oversampling", but I still hear the aliasing to a lesser (or greater) degree.

It's very few digital hardware synths that interest me... and when they do, it's usually not the digital oscillator quality that is the reason, but rather their synthesis and flexibility... I've had quite a lot of digital synths thru the years, and today I have none of them left, except for the Blofeld, but that is mostly because it's the only keyboard with keys worth using for me, and because it's the only hardware synth that give me wavetable synthesis with full-cycle waveforms in addition to Flash-sample storage.

The only digital synth I'd think about getting these days are a modern FM synth... that's why I'm waiting for a 1U rackmount version of the Montage or something similar...

« Last Edit: March 23, 2016, 02:33:56 AM by Razmo »
If you need me, follow the shadows...

Re: What Makes Analog Better
« Reply #79 on: March 23, 2016, 10:14:43 AM »
The only digital synth I'd think about getting these days are a modern FM synth... that's why I'm waiting for a 1U rackmount version of the Montage or something similar...

Seriously, I would take the FM-half of the Montage any day.