Syro Gear Discussion

Was happy to see a Korg DS-8 in there, was our first synth, and its pretty unique. Sadly died a year ago, but they're still cheap on ebay, prob not for long...

  On 9/30/2014 at 10:19 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:45 PM, ZoeB said:

I'm not entirely convinced there is a point to vinyl. It was a pretty good solution for the time, but it's obsolete now. The same with Laserdisc, tapes, and any other analogue medium. I've done a 180 on analogue sound generation, sure. As an artist using an analogue synth, I get to choose all the ways in which it's imperfect. OK, maybe not choose, but at least approve. But with digital media, you get the satisfaction of knowing that what people hear is pretty reasonably close to the imperfections you chose, without too many others added on afterwards out of necessity.

 

Seriously, you can buy vinyl records if you want something to touch and some big artwork, but don't kid yourself that they sound anywhere near as good as CDs or digital downloads.

good post and yeah i agree. for rock or jazz bands i've found vinyl and a good amp can make them sound 'right there' whereas cd is like a really clear 'photograph' of that quality. i'd suggest that it depends on who you are listening to

 

vinyl vs cd quality

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

my crappy old ears certainly can't tell a difference.

for me, buyuing vinyl is for the tangible object and the err... artwork

plus with certain music i really like the crackle and pops. gives a nice nostalgic vibe

  On 9/29/2014 at 9:39 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

 

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:45 PM, ZoeB said:

 

Seriously, you can buy vinyl records if you want something to touch and some big artwork, but don't kid yourself that they sound anywhere near as good as CDs or digital downloads.

fidelity wise I agree, but in the case of Syro the vinyl was mastered by the same guy who did Minipops all the way through, not so on the Cd, all tracks besides 1 were mastered by a different person. In my mind the vinyl sounds drastically better, it sounds less compressed, the bass drums have more transient punch especially on tracks like Produk (that bassline and bass drum on the CD sort of get in the way of eachother)

 

If you dont care to buy the vinyl, Id recommend at least getting a good quality rip of the vinyl to hear what Im talking about.

I don't doubt that you could have a preference over Mandy Parnell's masters versus Beau Thomas's masters, but the point remains that you could perfectly encode, store, transmit and decode both of them digitally. Vinyl has restrictions on what you can do to audible waveforms (such as not being able to hard pan bass) whereas CDs and FLACs don't. Incidentally, vinyl tends to need more compression to sound good, whereas CDs don't, so if Parnell's masters have more compression, it'll be a conscious choice, not a limitation of the format. Presumably she thinks they simply sound better that way.

  On 9/30/2014 at 3:49 AM, Audioblysk said:

The amount of work is what separates him from other producers aside from the equipment.

Indeed. Perhaps he should have included the number of hours spent on each track, then instead of thinking "I could have made this if only I had all that equipment" people could more correctly think "I could have made something this good if only I put in that amount of time and effort." (Both in building up your craft generally and time spent on each track individually.)

  On 9/30/2014 at 10:32 AM, BIOXLAT said:

vinyl vs cd quality

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

 

my crappy old ears certainly can't tell a difference.

for me, buyuing vinyl is for the tangible object and the err... artwork

plus with certain music i really like the crackle and pops. gives a nice nostalgic vibe

Your sentiment's right. That article, however, is not. After the DAC, you use a ~20kHz lowpass filter to smooth out / slew the steps. This isn't an arbitrary smoothing out, either. The Nyquist theorem dictates that it will smooth it out to the original curves. There's only one trajectory you can plot from the digital recording, and it's exactly the same as the original waveform that went in. That article completely ignores the lowpass filter. You can try this yourself if you have a synth with sample and hold and a lowpass filter, and an oscilloscope. See the difference it makes. The only difference between the original signal and the digitised-and-back one is that it's been run through two lowpass filters, and as long as they're set higher than the human hearing threshold, you won't hear any difference at all. So no, trumpets don't "change too quickly for the sample rate". The only things too fast for a sample rate of 44.1kHz are faster than 22.05kHz, and have therefore been filtered out, which is fine, because humans can't hear those frequencies.

All recordings lose information, but it's a question of how much. (I'm talking about the bit depth now, not the sample rate.) CDs are 16-bit. Vinyls are maybe equivalent to about 12-bit. In other words, they're noisier. If you like a bit of noise, that's fine. I love a bit of noise. I use Mellotron and Orchestron samples quite often and I like them because they're low fidelity. Something being lower quality can make it sound better to the ear because tiny imperfections stave off listening fatigue. Sounds need variations. This is why organs tend to sound boring, and people go to great lengths to make their timbres evolve slightly, by rotating speakers and the like. Of course, if you want vinyl imperfection as an artist, you can always record your album to vinyl, then sample that digitally and you've got your artist-approved specific low fidelity recording. Remember in the 90s when everyone was putting loops of record scratches in their songs, like in Faithless's Don't Leave?

Then the article talks about DVD audio, which is a pointless format (more space and more channels aside, and no one was crying out for those). Human beings can't hear anything above about 20kHz. Hell, I'm pretty sure I can't hear anything above about 13kHz. DVD audio does not improve the sound quality of sounds made by and for humans.

I'm starting to suspect that article was written by someone trying to sell DVD audio players...

  On 9/30/2014 at 3:49 AM, Audioblysk said:

 

I'll get off his jock, but seriously, this album is great and the gear list makes sense.

The amount of work is what separates him from other producers aside from the equipment.

it's not work if you love it

  On 9/19/2014 at 9:21 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

after a few listens it's very believable to me that most of Syro are raw multitrack recordings of computer midi sequenced hardware boxes

It does seem that way, as some of the gear has been midified...

What would be the point tho? Is he sequencing all that gear in real time from daw? As we know modern daw based USB-MIDI has horrible timing, so supposedly he has all that gear in MIDI and enters MIDI data in daw with a master keyboard and then records it all? Wouldn't be easier to just record audio clips by hand and just put it together like that? Why the need for MIDI?

The Circlon is probably a central component.

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:45 PM, ZoeB said:

I'm not entirely convinced there is a point to vinyl. It was a pretty good solution for the time, but it's obsolete now. The same with Laserdisc, tapes, and any other analogue medium. I've done a 180 on analogue sound generation, sure. As an artist using an analogue synth, I get to choose all the ways in which it's imperfect. OK, maybe not choose, but at least approve. But with digital media, you get the satisfaction of knowing that what people hear is pretty reasonably close to the imperfections you chose, without too many others added on afterwards out of necessity.

 

Seriously, you can buy vinyl records if you want something to touch and some big artwork, but don't kid yourself that they sound anywhere near as good as CDs or digital downloads.

As a audiophile who have a very resolving system, I can assure you that for all the music that have been pressed to analog using originals tapes that the digital copie will sound much less congested, harsh and unnatural.

I agree that vinyl is now useless since the process is not like before. Before, in the time of recorded music, everything was recorded directly from mics to tapes. For all those vinyls, (basically everything pressed before 1980) vinyl will always sound better then digital.

However, with modern music, I also dont see much point, sadly.

  On 9/30/2014 at 10:32 AM, BIOXLAT said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 10:19 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 9/29/2014 at 6:45 PM, ZoeB said:

I'm not entirely convinced there is a point to vinyl. It was a pretty good solution for the time, but it's obsolete now. The same with Laserdisc, tapes, and any other analogue medium. I've done a 180 on analogue sound generation, sure. As an artist using an analogue synth, I get to choose all the ways in which it's imperfect. OK, maybe not choose, but at least approve. But with digital media, you get the satisfaction of knowing that what people hear is pretty reasonably close to the imperfections you chose, without too many others added on afterwards out of necessity.

 

Seriously, you can buy vinyl records if you want something to touch and some big artwork, but don't kid yourself that they sound anywhere near as good as CDs or digital downloads.

good post and yeah i agree. for rock or jazz bands i've found vinyl and a good amp can make them sound 'right there' whereas cd is like a really clear 'photograph' of that quality. i'd suggest that it depends on who you are listening to

 

 

vinyl vs cd quality

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

 

my crappy old ears certainly can't tell a difference.

for me, buyuing vinyl is for the tangible object and the err... artwork

plus with certain music i really like the crackle and pops. gives a nice nostalgic vibe

 

Bioxlat, have you ever heard a good turntable setup? you should.

this is a credible source? LOL, this is a shitty article

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

jessus, people believe what they WANT to believe

No dac in the world can successfully make the music in 24 bit. its all commercial bullshit. Since 20 years, the industry tells us that digital is good. its a big lie, its shit compared to vinyl and anybody I know whov done the test will agree.

Ignorance is bliss, but anyone who doubt this and take it for granted that they dont miss anything listening to digital is missing something.

I can make the test a thousand time with 100% chance of sucess. To compare a jazz vinyl of the 60's with a digital copy. You will always choose the vinyl sounds better.

  On 9/30/2014 at 11:13 AM, ZoeB said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 10:32 AM, BIOXLAT said:

vinyl vs cd quality

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/question487.htm

 

my crappy old ears certainly can't tell a difference.

for me, buyuing vinyl is for the tangible object and the err... artwork

plus with certain music i really like the crackle and pops. gives a nice nostalgic vibe

 

Your sentiment's right. That article, however, is not. After the DAC, you use a ~20kHz lowpass filter to smooth out / slew the steps. This isn't an arbitrary smoothing out, either. The Nyquist theorem dictates that it will smooth it out to the original curves. There's only one trajectory you can plot from the digital recording, and it's exactly the same as the original waveform that went in. That article completely ignores the lowpass filter. You can try this yourself if you have a synth with sample and hold and a lowpass filter, and an oscilloscope. See the difference it makes. The only difference between the original signal and the digitised-and-back one is that it's been run through two lowpass filters, and as long as they're set higher than the human hearing threshold, you won't hear any difference at all. So no, trumpets don't "change too quickly for the sample rate". The only things too fast for a sample rate of 44.1kHz are faster than 22.05kHz, and have therefore been filtered out, which is fine, because humans can't hear those frequencies.

 

All recordings lose information, but it's a question of how much. (I'm talking about the bit depth now, not the sample rate.) CDs are 16-bit. Vinyls are maybe equivalent to about 12-bit. In other words, they're noisier. If you like a bit of noise, that's fine. I love a bit of noise. I use Mellotron and Orchestron samples quite often and I like them because they're low fidelity. Something being lower quality can make it sound better to the ear because tiny imperfections stave off listening fatigue. Sounds need variations. This is why organs tend to sound boring, and people go to great lengths to make their timbres evolve slightly, by rotating speakers and the like. Of course, if you want vinyl imperfection as an artist, you can always record your album to vinyl, then sample that digitally and you've got your artist-approved specific low fidelity recording. Remember in the 90s when everyone was putting loops of record scratches in their songs, like in Faithless's Don't Leave?

 

Then the article talks about DVD audio, which is a pointless format (more space and more channels aside, and no one was crying out for those). Human beings can't hear anything above about 20kHz. Hell, I'm pretty sure I can't hear anything above about 13kHz. DVD audio does not improve the sound quality of sounds made by and for humans.

 

I'm starting to suspect that article was written by someone trying to sell DVD audio players...

 

yeah, seriously the article is a farce.

but all the article comparing measurments of analog vs digital are also.

One minute with mys sytem would convince you that the original comlombia vinyl miles smiles- miles davis will sound better then any version digital.

Vinyl playback is better, when playing the true analog vinyls, because the sound never went in the digital domain, so no dac was ever evolved in the process.

When you say that all recording loose resulution, I agree. But you should really investigate the effect on DAC on our perception. Theres a whole audiophile market of expensive dac. In my experience, there tremendous difference in dac and I use a 3k dac and compared it to several 1k dac and they all sound difference. I must have had 10 dac in my life.

anyways, thats my experience.

To anyone not yet convinced of the high quality of digitised waveforms, I suggest you read Stanley P. Lipshitz's The Digital Challenge: A Report, and watch Christopher "Monty" Montgomery's videos.

  On 9/30/2014 at 3:59 PM, murphythecat8 said:

In my experience, there tremendous difference in dac and I use a 3k dac and compared it to several 1k dac and they all sound difference. I must have had 10 dac in my life.

Did you compare them in a double-blind trial? I'd very much recommend doing so, especially before plunking down that kind of cash.

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:02 PM, ZoeB said:

To anyone not yet convinced of the high quality of digitised waveforms, I suggest you read Stanley P. Lipshitz's The Digital Challenge: A Report, and watch Christopher "Monty" Montgomery's videos.

thats not the question.

Please find me a article like that but about DACs.

DACs is where all the problem come from. Its where most of the degradation of the source (digital/cd) comes from. Its the DAC in cd player that make or break that cd player sound quality. DACs are the main parts in digital audio, and the biggest factor in digital.

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

they always prefer vinyl.

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

Please find me a article like that but about DACs.

DACs is where all the problem come from. Its where most of the degradation of the source (digital/cd) comes from. Its the DAC in cd player that make or break that cd player sound quality. DACs are the main parts in digital audio, and the biggest factor in digital.

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

That article was about an ADC/DAC unit, specifically the Sony PCM-F1.

Well now I'm curious. Would you mind explaining your methodology to me?

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

 

I highly doubt that you've done actual double-blind A/B's with your sound system. It would be really difficult. You'd have to bring in a third party and mask the sound of putting a record on etc etc

if this album wasn’t called syro (listening for the first time) i thought he could have titled it fuck off midi.

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:55 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

 

 

I highly doubt that you've done actual double-blind A/B's with your sound system. It would be really difficult. You'd have to bring in a third party and mask the sound of putting a record on etc etc

 

I was the only one changing the source, either my GF and friend were doing the listening the test, not me.

Ive done those kind of test times and times again, enough to drive my girlfriend crazy lol.

always, vinyl sounds best with old records using proper pressing methods (using tapes, ect).

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:42 PM, ZoeB said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

Please find me a article like that but about DACs.

DACs is where all the problem come from. Its where most of the degradation of the source (digital/cd) comes from. Its the DAC in cd player that make or break that cd player sound quality. DACs are the main parts in digital audio, and the biggest factor in digital.

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

 

That article was about an ADC/DAC unit, specifically the Sony PCM-F1.

 

Well now I'm curious. Would you mind explaining your methodology to me?

 

methodology?

Problem is not how the industry make the ADC/DAC, but how the user makes it.

Look, your sound card has a dac, your ipod, your cd player, ect. everything you use that receive a digital signal and transform it to analog has a dac. Each dac are made of diference dac chips using different components, ect. Its fair to say that a ipod first generation does not sound exactly like the new ipod touch. its because of the dac inside (and also the headphone amp).

The problem is that each dac really impart their sound and affect the performance of the system. Thats why you can buy better dac, to try to counter effect the digital problem by at least having a decent digital to analog conversion, which is hard and cannot be done in a ipod or cd player.

Digital is not bad, its cheap consumer DAC that are the problem.

  On 9/30/2014 at 5:18 PM, murphythecat8 said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:55 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

 

 

I highly doubt that you've done actual double-blind A/B's with your sound system. It would be really difficult. You'd have to bring in a third party and mask the sound of putting a record on etc etc

 

I was the only one changing the source, either my GF and friend were doing the listening the test, not me.

Ive done those kind of test times and times again, enough to drive my girlfriend crazy lol.

always, vinyl sounds best with old records using proper pressing methods (using tapes, ect).

 

Luckily we can do double-blinds to find out the truth

  On 9/30/2014 at 5:21 PM, murphythecat8 said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:42 PM, ZoeB said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:17 PM, murphythecat8 said:

Please find me a article like that but about DACs.

DACs is where all the problem come from. Its where most of the degradation of the source (digital/cd) comes from. Its the DAC in cd player that make or break that cd player sound quality. DACs are the main parts in digital audio, and the biggest factor in digital.

 

Yes, ive done many, many, many blind test. enough to drive my GF and friends mad.

 

they always prefer vinyl.

 

That article was about an ADC/DAC unit, specifically the Sony PCM-F1.

 

Well now I'm curious. Would you mind explaining your methodology to me?

 

methodology?

Problem is not how the industry make the ADC/DAC, but how the user makes it.

Look, your sound card has a dac, your ipod, your cd player, ect. everything you use that receive a digital signal and transform it to analog has a dac. Each dac are made of diference dac chips using different components, ect. Its fair to say that a ipod first generation does not sound exactly like the new ipod touch. its because of the dac inse (and also the headphone amp).

The problem is that a dac can really impart the sound and affect the performance of the system. Thats why you can buy better dac, to try to counter effect the digital problem by at least having a decent digital to analog conversion.

 

I think she's asking about the methodology of your A/B trials.

I own a Cirklon, it's a beast of a sequencer and I don't doubt he could have sequenced the whole album with one. It was five separate midi outs, eight gate outs and 16 CV outs. Not many other modern sequencers out there have CV/Gate outs, it's great for playing all the old analogue synths and modular stuff.

I also have an EMS 2000 vocoder but I don't hear any vocoding on the Aisatsana track, even though the list says it was used there, so I'm not sure the whole list is 100% accurate, but pretty close.

Loving this album!

Personally I think this is just loads of snippets all record then sequenced in a daw,all recorded using high end converters using some obviously nice outboard which isn't listed.

Recorded and processed in similar way to druqks but with a much better sound source developed during analord/tuss.

Probably many many tracks mixed out of the box adding additional processing on those lush consoles.

I can't imagine these would be composed on a single setup and worked on as a single piece.

Probably reconfigures every now and then and jams out some new sounds and repeats the process recording bits here and there adding to tracks.

So yea fuck knows?

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:02 PM, ZoeB said:

To anyone not yet convinced of the high quality of digitised waveforms, I suggest you read Stanley P. Lipshitz's The Digital Challenge: A Report, and watch Christopher "Monty" Montgomery's videos.

I disagree - try and check out funktion one systems and interviews they do, proven that digital loses quality although they admit it is getting better! these people know the score!

  On 10/1/2014 at 8:40 PM, empirix said:

 

  On 9/30/2014 at 4:02 PM, ZoeB said:

To anyone not yet convinced of the high quality of digitised waveforms, I suggest you read Stanley P. Lipshitz's The Digital Challenge: A Report, and watch Christopher "Monty" Montgomery's videos.

I disagree - try and check out funktion one systems and interviews they do, proven that digital loses quality although they admit it is getting better! these people know the score!

 

While I totally respect Funktion-1 for their rigs the owner is a bit of a tool imo.

Seems that they are indeed 'mellowing' on this stance as that looks like analog manipulation of digital audio to me.

  On 9/30/2014 at 6:10 PM, Rbrmyofr said:

 

I also have an EMS 2000 vocoder but I don't hear any vocoding on the Aisatsana track, even though the list says it was used there, so I'm not sure the whole list is 100% accurate, but pretty close.

"dave:how accurate is the gear list on syro?