Are Analog Synths Overrated?

The reasons I keep the Analog Mono is that I HATE hearing stepping when tweaking parameters. Even on good VAs or digitals where there is barely any stepping the sweeping of analog resonant filters/VCOcrossmod/etc but I don't get the same continuous sweet spots and surprises that analog inherently gives. I'm much happier shredding on a no-input mixer setup than i am playing certain new subtractive synths with VCOs for these reasons. 

The superiority of the real thing over an imitation is obvious to me. Though if all I had was my laptop id make due. I don't see the point in needing to defame a great thing for the sake of peace of mind. Let analog be great and push what you've got to it's limits.

  On 12/13/2017 at 5:51 PM, dudenorth said:

The superiority of the real thing over an imitation is obvious to me.

To me they're just different, one's not necessarily better than the other but they're different and I agree the differences are obvious.

As far as reliability I've got stuff that's still going strong since the 60s without any servicing at all, and the only piece of analog gear that has failed on me is the Radio Shack Electronic Reverb I accidentally plugged the wrong power supply in to last week.

Should i care if el-seq was made with digital or analog synths?

Roland does a pretty good job of emulating analogue digitally:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1GwHSOR-eE

mix and match. Its paint for the ears. 

  On 12/13/2017 at 9:26 PM, marf said:

mix and match. Its paint for the ears. 

Analog= watercolours

Digital= acrylic

Sampling= collage

  On 12/13/2017 at 3:18 PM, cloud capture said:

Best of both worlds:  One is like playing with live electricity.  The other is like experimenting with aliens.

I like this analogy. I really love digital synths like the Yamaha DX series and Monomachine but I've never heard the same *electricity* from them or VST's before (and vice versa... that's why people like both...) 

im waiting for the ''digital waveforms are stepped'' argument 

edit: pls

Digital waveforms get repped

  On 12/13/2017 at 9:19 PM, Braintree said:

Roland does a pretty good job of emulating analogue digitally:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1GwHSOR-eE

This was interesting. I guessed correctly, but two trials really isn't enough to make an informed decision. I always notice an excess loss of bottom end when cranking the rez with the TB-3, so I based my choices on that. I figure the TB-03 would be similar to the TB-3 in that regard.

Are analog sinks overrated?

  On 12/13/2017 at 10:36 PM, xox said:

im waiting for the ''digital waveforms are stepped'' argument

 

edit: pls

Even if aliasing (?) really does cause digital waveforms to produce imperceptible inharmonics, what does it matter? Is this like the 60-cycle fluorescent lights vs. natural light argument?

Would analog purists claim that digital subtlety rubs humans the wrong way? If so, why isn't Analord the music of our generation? Why isn't all of humanity lining up at Richard's doorstep for summa dat nextgen metaphysical analog healing/lovin'? I mean I know he won a Grammy but it seemed like most people in that room never heard Syro or the phex sooo...

Also guitars, snares, and bongos are truly analog you fools. Learn to play a real instrument, etc.

  On 12/13/2017 at 7:42 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

  On 12/10/2017 at 6:05 AM, fxbip said:

Short answer.

No.

Analogue sounds like analogue.And Analogue is awesome.

Digital is never the same.

When you need analogue sound there is no other way.

The timbre is just different.

 

sorry but i smell bullshit 

 

can you actually explain to me in detail why digital cannot sound like analogue equipment? or is it just "the vibe"? 

 

like i said earlier, if you can represent an analogue synth as a digital waveform and stuff have it sound 'analogue' then there's no reason why digital equipment is incapable of creating its own 'analogue' tones. it's all about the design of the dsp system, maybe you have only played with ones that fail to do this. 

 

Have you played extensively,and record extensively with analogue gear?

I don't know man.I did loads of tracks with 3 different analogues and for me its not the same.

It's not the same.

It's not really better,its just different.The timbre is different.

The flavor is different.

It's butter vs margarine.

Also one thing worth mentioning is as every synth sounds different too,the synth itself will have a unique sound that is not available in any other way.

Even in the VST realm every synth has a different sound ,every clone of the Minimoog will be different and and each will have its own flavor so its no different in the analogue realm.

This is something that is overlooked i think,the uniqueness of the synth design and particular sound.

And depending on personal preferences it can be better for certain sounds.

Certain sounds,or kind of thickness,or particular richness in sound or timbre i cannot make,and never succeeded in making with digital so i don't even bother when i have it readily available with my analogue in an instant.

You can get tones that are close to analogue.

But its not the same.

I would say its about 70-75% the same or even maybe more in the best cases.

But that 30-25% is what make analogue analogue and why they are prized.

Like it was mentioned many times in the thread,its just different colors or kind of paint really.

Digital is awesome.

FM is awesome.

Analogue is awesome.

Sampling is awesome.

They just sound different in some particular aspect.

Its all just a palette of sounds to be used.

  On 12/13/2017 at 3:23 PM, Entorwellian said:

Lots of the newer analog synths have parts that are more pure and well designed that make them sound similar to their digital counterparts.

Digital has become very good and powerful enough to emulate analog circuits and their nuances very well, as well as allowing versatility into other areas of audio design and structure. 

I totally agree with this, and this awkward meeting halfway is a pretty hilarious thing to think about.

  On 12/13/2017 at 3:33 PM, auxien said:

Evolver straight up has two analog oscillators, two digital, literal best of both worlds. The combo of the two mindsets and utilizing the strengths of each in conjunction with one another is absolute magic, imo.

MMM you are flaring up my GAS hard. I always wanted an Evolver - there is something really special about that "shine" I hear in every sample of it. No idea how much of that is analog and how much is digital and don't care, it just sounds damn good.

  On 12/13/2017 at 10:36 PM, xox said:

im waiting for the ''digital waveforms are stepped'' argument 

 

edit: pls

I'll bite. Ever used an 8-bit synth? :)

  On 12/13/2017 at 9:26 PM, marf said:

mix and match. Its paint for the ears. 

Best answer.

Diva is quite impressive tho.

And Monark isnt bad either.

"Analog" or ""warm" are marketing terms which seem to work. To me, most important is workflow and great modulation. Visulisation as a big part of workflow support. I have that in Serum and Avenger.

Not sure if this has been mentioned elsewhere in the forum so apologies if it has. Anyway I was listening to Aphex's 'pretend analog mix' and also one of the songs that was on Orphaned Deejay Selek. The one that everybody said contained an acid line found on D16's plugin Phosycon. 

It got me thinking that perhaps all of Orphaned Deejay Selek was made using plugins and then made to sound and appear (song titles) as though it was analog. 

It seems like 'pretend analog mix' may have been a tester song for this idea. 

It's a dumb thought but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a few songs in the Aphex catalogue that everyone believes to be all analog but may in fact be digital. 

  On 12/9/2017 at 2:50 PM, omnii said:

For me analog synths are better learning tools and more fun to play than VST's.

I feel like my music got way better when i started working with analog monosynths but they also totally changed the way i worked.

I would credit the change in workflow equally to the sound. I love the sound but few of my songs are from 100% analog sources.

I could see myself going back to totally digital when i have learned everything i can from my analogue synths. At that point i might make my best stuff ever due to the freedom that digital provides.

I try to stay open to everything. I have been tinkering around with some FM recently and i feel like all this stuff works best together.

best answer

Quite lol:

Back to painting. The pain is the digital, the Frame is the analog. Analog is texture and depth. Like the felt in your belly button. . Digital is glossy. 

What I dont understand is the OOOLd digital stuff from the 70's sounds so much better. 

Ive decided to run all digital stuff through a tube amp and micing that, or stick it through anything analog just to create that separation.

  On 12/13/2017 at 7:42 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

 

sorry but i smell bullshit 

KVR thread. https://www.kvraudio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=492219

I've got a well maintained Otari MX5050MKIV (Thanks, guy who decided to offer me a reel to reel for $20!) and 99% of the time I just use one of the Airwindows tape emulations (almost always ToTape or FromTape rather than the older ones) on the 2buss instead because even though it they completely different from actual tape and don't really sound "real" to me, they sound just comparably good in a subjective sense, and sometimes better depending on the mix.  It just depends on what I want to do, if something really needs to absolutely sound like it was recorded on tape for some reason I'll record it to tape and then digitize it if I'm doing a live to stereo thing, or mix down to tape if it's a multitrack recording, but if I just want the mix to have certain qualities that tape can give, whether it's the compression or flutter or head bump or whatever, I almost always stick with the Airwindows stuff because it does a really good job but with a lot more control and convenience.

TB ReelBuss sounds really close to actual tape (it's definitely more of a true emulation than the Airwindows stuff) and it's definitely a good plugin but it can also get into a kind of overprocessed, uncanny valley kind of situation if you aren't careful.

I haven't tried any other tape emulation plugins that are worth mentioning.

Point is, the analog and digital versions of the same thing are both useful even though neither one really replaces the other, and that's how I feel about the analog vs. digital debate in general.

The thing that gets me is the companies these days that use digital modelling of analog devices as a cost cutting method but don't pass any of the costs cut to the actual customer, and if anything charge for their brand and put the stuff out at a higher price point than actual analog gear made by small companies with higher overhead (because they don't control their supply chains and don't have bulk purchasing power).  Just for example, there is literally no reason Roland couldn't put out a component perfect TB303 clone for the price of a Volca Bass and I guarantee you the manufacturing costs of one of their Boutique series boxes is less than the manufacturing cost of an $80 Behringer mixer.  All of the "component modelling" technology is stuff that people have been working on for decades and isn't something Roland invented, and the actual instrument designs are basically existing circuits that they developed decades ago being plugged into their proprietary framework for circuit modelling and run on about $15 worth of hardware.  Once that proprietary framework was developed, everything else is really just a matter of designing different physical interfaces (based on existing IP from their back catalog) and porting over the schematics for their classic synths (also existing IP), then slapping some prestigious logos on and giving it about a 500% markup.  The actual technology (which amounts to an optimized, refined version of running a circuit simulation in MATHcad) isn't the problem - the demos of the Roland Boutique stuff I've heard sound great - not perfect recreations but who cares, they sound good and useful.  It's the business model that's the problem.  If the Boutique series (or the Reface, although those seem to be much better about being new instruments than straight up, cash-in, digital clones of classics) was more in line with something like the TC Hal Of Fame pedal (in terms of ability to load different models into a single piece of hardware and in terms of price) it would be amazing, and for better or worse Roland could easily use its access to manufacturing infrastructure to deeply undercut the existing x0x clone markets, for example, and the fact that they stick to digital models for everything is a matter of pure greed.

But yeah, as an artistic medium digital is great and I love it.  And analog, too.