Analog / Digital Purists?

[Sacred Synthesis]

I can tell you right now, the 08 can sound plenty harsh depending on how you dial it in.

I agree; the Prophet '08 can be harsh if you want it to be. But my point is that the wave forms themselves do not contain the partials that create the harshness (with the possible exception of a very narrow pulse).  It generally has to be added to the sound by means of modulation or resonance. 

One of the distinctive qualities of the Evolver's digital wave shapes is that many are top-heavy with partials and have moderately soft fundamentals.  Hence, there isn't a predominantly recognizable pitch.  They then serve more like timbres to be added to the analog wave forms.  I've used these tones quite a bit, but they often leave me slightly cringing, sometimes even with an ear ache.  I never get this effect from the Prophet '08.

There's no doubt that the digital harshness can be useful.  Even tonal dissonance can be a means of applying an effective tension to a piece of music that propels it forward, in that the dissonance needs to be resolved.  But, in my personal musical pursuits, harshness and dissonance must be controlled, or else they overwhelm beauty, which is a most delicate creature.

I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored.  There are many tones yet to be created by combining, for example, different pulse widths, as well as by combining multiple pitches of a triangle or sine wave.  In other words, analog synthesis can be practiced with an additive synthesis method, thus blurring the lines between the two. 

Pardon the self-promotion, but here is an example.  This carillon patch sounds like a digital patch, but it was made by two Prophet '08s.

 https://youtu.be/XYkS3LgRRqA?t=308

[A Thousand Eyes]

I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored. 

That's a good point to make and one that's oft overlooked by synthesists in search of the next best thing. Besides, look at the endless inspiration an instrument as fundamentally set as the acoustic guitar has bestowed upon the world. Even with the most bread and butter synth we're blessed with an overabundance of timbral variety.

[Shaw]

I don't think the standard analog wave forms have been sufficiently explored.  There are many tones yet to be created by combining, for example, different pulse widths, as well as by combining multiple pitches of a triangle or sine wave.  In other words, analog synthesis can be practiced with an additive synthesis method, thus blurring the lines between the two.

Indeed... and this is the Zone of Tones that I most enjoy making music with... (that might be the name of a future album “Zones of Tones”)....

I was thinking about this this morning.... The sine wave produces the most fundamental tone.  And very generally speaking, as waves start to have more peaks and valleys within one cycle, the less emphasis there is on the fundamental tone and the more upward harmonics are introduced.  Sometimes those harmonics are pleasing, and sometimes not.

@SacredSynthesis’ point is congruent with this.  Because while you can combine 3 OSCs all with different shapes and even different octaves, every addition is still very founded in the fundamental tone — Squares contain more harmonics than sines or triangles, and saws contain even more harmonic content than squares... but the analog synth shapes will always contain more a fundamental tone than many shapes you see in a lot of wavetable synths...

... and this is one of the reasons I like the Moog One so much.  3 OSCs each can be set at various octaves and each has shape modulation Saws, Triangles and Squares — as well as a in-between shapes between square and saw....  and it’s all modulatable.  There’s lots of exploration to be had there.

[AlanC]

Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...

My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77, all the way through to 2011 when I got a Slim Phatty. That Yamaha trio remained my main instruments for more than 30 years until I got my 002 in 2014.

The 002 was subsequently joined by a Voyager and OB-6, but it was very telling that when I got a Montage 7 in 2017 it quickly established itself as my main instrument, the one I play every day. It seems I never lost my love for Yamaha FM even in the face of some really good hybrid and analog synthesizers.

[Shaw]

Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...

My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77, all the way through to 2011 when I got a Slim Phatty. That Yamaha trio remained my main instruments for more than 30 years until I got my 002 in 2014.

The 002 was subsequently joined by a Voyager and OB-6, but it was very telling that when I got a Montage 7 in 2017 it quickly established itself as my main instrument, the one I play every day. It seems I never lost my love for Yamaha FM even in the face of some really good hybrid and analog synthesizers.

Nothing odd at all... just different perspective (which is what I was soliciting)... Do you still have the analogs:  Slim Phatty, Voyager and OB-6?

[chysn]

My synths were purely digital from 1983 when I got my DX7, which was subsequently joined by a TX802 and SY77

Ah, yeah! I started out with a DX100 and a pair of TX81Zs, and I had an all-FM setup for about a year. I got in a lot of TX802 hours in the college music technology studio, but it was out of my league as a poor college student, whereas you could snag a used TX81Z for $200 in 1990.

In the late 1980s-to-early 1990s, remember that the industry considered analog synthesis dead. Moog, ARP, and Sequential were gone; Yamaha had basically taken over with the DX7 and its descendants, and I longed for an M1. My college music technology professor talked about analog instruments as the past, and there was no real sense that they'd come back.

My first foray into analog was a used Akai AX73, purchased at Kick and Associates in Grand Rapids for $450 circa 1991. They also had a Juno 106 for $550, and a Prophet 5 for $900. I chose the Akai because of its 6-octave keyboard, and the Prophet was way out of my price range. But back then, it was used analog or digital.

[AlanC]

Nothing odd at all... just different perspective (which is what I was soliciting)... Do you still have the analogs:  Slim Phatty, Voyager and OB-6?

Yes, I still have them all.

The Slim Phatty sat unused for a long time and, unfortunately, has developed a problem where oscillator 2 is permanently about half a semitone out of tune, even after running the full calibration routine. The SY77 is currently out of action thanks to the usual floppy drive failure (needs a replacement drive belt) and it needs a new backup battery. The DX7's keyboard is rather tired after 30 years of use, and the volume slider is scratchy. The TX802 still works perfectly.

It'll be interesting to see if the new line-up lasts as long as the previous Yamaha trio: I'm happy with all of them, and don't feel the need for any further changes.

[AlanC]

In the late 1980s-to-early 1990s, remember that the industry considered analog synthesis dead. Moog, ARP, and Sequential were gone; Yamaha had basically taken over with the DX7 and its descendants, and I longed for an M1. My college music technology professor talked about analog instruments as the past, and there was no real sense that they'd come back.

A friend of mine (a university professor who knew Ikutaro Kakehashi personally) had a complete Roland System 700 with an additional filter/VCA block so it could be played polyphonically. He used to call it the poor man's Moog modular. After doing the switch to digital in the shape of a Korg T1 and (IIRC) a Yamaha FX-20 Electone he gave the System 700 to a museum because he was fed up with the constant need to tune it.

[Shaw]

And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?


Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground?  Still solidly digital?  Approaching Analog?


At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances.  To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system.   And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.


The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first.  It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.

[Sacred Synthesis]

Because while you can combine 3 OSCs all with different shapes and even different octaves, every addition is still very founded in the fundamental tone — Squares contain more harmonics than sines or triangles, and saws contain even more harmonic content than squares... but the analog synth shapes will always contain more a fundamental tone than many shapes you see in a lot of wavetable synths...

Exactly.  This is one of the reasons - the strength of the fundamental - that combining analog octaves remains basically pleasant, rather than harsh: a pitch is easily discernible.  And yet, if you combine a standard pitch triangle with one or two triangles tuned to very high pitches off the octave, you actually create a new timbre, much like a digital wave shape.  There is a huge amount of room for experimentation in this area, and I've honestly never come across a trace of interest in it. 

This is an example from the Prophet '08.  I slowly introduce the upper pitches at the mixer over about 75 seconds; they're produced on a P'08 Module and have a lot more reverb than the flute-like patch on the keyboard unit (Again, pardon the self-promotion, but my YouTube channel has been highly experimental in this direction.):

https://youtu.be/WzBVP5RCNVI?t=150 

[Sacred Synthesis]

Looks like I'm the odd man out so far...

I think this thread is open to enthusiasm in both directions.  We're not preaching analog here, but only expressing a prefernce for one or the other.

[Shaw]

https://youtu.be/WzBVP5RCNVI?t=150

Some gorgeous tones there!  Well done!

[Sacred Synthesis]

Thanks.  100% Prophet '08.  And in light of your future P5/10 Keyboard-Module combo, it shows the advantage of having separate units, rather than just different layers on a single instrument.  That is, you can design the differences more easily and process them differently.

[LoboLives]

And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?


Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground?  Still solidly digital?  Approaching Analog?


At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances.  To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system.   And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.


The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first.  It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.

The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.

[Shaw]

And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?


Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground?  Still solidly digital?  Approaching Analog?


At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances.  To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system.   And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.


The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first.  It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.

The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.

Interesting take.  The binaural signal path to me seems anything but gimmicky.  To me it produces a lovely stereo effect that I don't think any other synth can recreate.  Have you read through the manual?  http://udo-audio.com/downloads/UDO_Super6_Manual_V2.0.pdf


I haven't done a lot of reading on the Summit's use of FPGA OSCs... how do you feel the Summit is superior?

[LoboLives]

And, since there are a good number of qualified synth heads in this chat... FPGAs?


Would anyone consider new FPGA based synths the modern middle ground?  Still solidly digital?  Approaching Analog?


At the sample rates that FPGAs can reach (well above audio rates), aliasing doesn’t exist, but that’s only a part of the “analog magic”... the other part is oscillator drift and component tolerances.  To my knowledge, no one has yet created a FPGA based synth where they are programming all of these minutiae into the system.   And I’m not suggesting that FPGAs are only useful in their ability to emulate analogs — not at all, but I think that would be a good start.


The UDO Super 6 comes to mind first.  It sounds stellar, and George is pushing into new territory with his binaural signal path where he carefully controls the phase alignments of the left and right paths to create unique spatial effects.

The Super 6 is one synth I really felt let down by. For me the binaural signal path felt more like a gimmick than anything else. Also it's one of the few times I went "Why didn't you just use VCOs?" simply because it doesn't feel like George took these FPGA oscillators to their full capabilities compared to something like the Summit. In fact I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would by a Super 6 over a Summit.

Interesting take.  The binaural signal path to me seems anything but gimmicky.  To me it produces a lovely stereo effect that I don't think any other synth can recreate.  Have you read through the manual?  http://udo-audio.com/downloads/UDO_Super6_Manual_V2.0.pdf


I haven't done a lot of reading on the Summit's use of FPGA OSCs... how do you feel the Summit is superior?

More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.

[Shaw]

More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.

Well, bonkers... I got some reading and YouTube watching to do.


... back to our topic, would you consider the Summit a digital OSC that blurs the lines into the analog realm?

[LoboLives]

More variety in the wavetables. The ability to scan the wavetables. Better Fm capabilities. Bi-Timbral. etc.

Well, bonkers... I got some reading and YouTube watching to do.


... back to our topic, would you consider the Summit a digital OSC that blurs the lines into the analog realm?

I would say it’s close...but personally for me I think digital synths should focus on their own sound rather than trying to emulate analog characteristics. That’s just me though. I may actually pull the trigger on the Roland System 8 finally because of this. Even things like the Nord Lead A1. They have a unique sound to them when used correctly...just as analog gear has a unique sound itself. Too many demonstrations of these digital say this are “Listen to this sawtooth pad!” “Check out this PWM bass”. Ugh...NO! In fact this was a huge detriment to the demonstrations of the Prophet X. Listen to the demo on Kraft music...it’s almost all the synth engine and no samples.

People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.

I really really hope Sequential do a VCO/Wavetable based synth next. Preferably with two VCOs and two Wavetable oscillators But truth be told, I’d almost prefer if they came out with a Wavetable only or even Linear FM 8 operator based synth and embrace that sonic character.

I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new. Be it combining it with digital oscillators, having an MPE keyboard, bi timbrality or even multitimbrality etc.

[chysn]

I guess that’s why I’m not swoon over the reissue of the Prophet 5 and 10. I don’t really want another sawtooth or square wave, doesn’t matter if it’s from Sequential, Moog or whoever...but if there is to be another VCO based Sequential synth I want it to somehow offer me something new.

They could use a triangle core VCO instead of a sawtooth core VCO. I can't think of a single keyboard-based synthesizer that has a triangle core VCO. It's hard to tell the difference by ear, maybe the sine is a bit purer. But the triangle core shines when you FM two or more of them.

Sacred S is right when he says that analog waves haven't been sufficiently explored. This is way true. Keyboard synth companies like Moog and Sequential leave a lot of cool techniques on the bench.

[LPF83]

People need to embrace digital synths for their ability to go beyond the capabilities of traditional analog....simply trying to emulate analog gear does a huge disservice to these instruments and really robs people of hearing something unique.

In some ways, virtual analog may have almost created its own distinct category, because a lot of folks (particularly EDM producers) pursue specific traits or sound characteristics from VA synths that, via their origins, started as a by-product of attempting to emulate analog but turned into more than that.  In other words they don't really pursue a digital sound or an analog sound as much as they pursue the characteristic sound digital makes when it is asked to behave as analog. 

I think that market is what synths like the Waldorf Kyra seek to fulfill.