Premier Rock Forum

I am a member of the forum at www.vintagesynth.org and one of the all time most annoying, and yet unavoidable debates is the dreaded analog vs digital conundrum...

In that setting it involves the comparison of analog circuitry in modular synths, as well as early 80's synths to the more current Virtual analog, and Softsynth varieties.

The debate is usually something like this:

a. nothing beats a modular

b. not even if it sounds the same

a. nope. because it doesn't.

b. really, how can you tell?

a. you can hear it..

b. you can hear it?

a. yeah, it's sounds warmer...more distorted..

.....and I will end there...

You know the debate, and how many times have you had it...too many probably..

I am wondering, is there any end to this in sight? Will we ever solve the tape-digital, analog-virtual, vinyl-cd, particle-wave comparisons???

I am just wondering if it is important to maintain as much analog circuitry as possible if you are hoping to achieve the analog sound...or if really all you need to do is mix it to tape, or on tape...

And does it really matter?

A big topic!

justinjbrown wrote:I am wondering, is there any end to this in sight? Will we ever solve the tape-digital, analog-virtual, vinyl-cd, particle-wave comparisons???

I am just wondering if it is important to maintain as much analog circuitry as possible if you are hoping to achieve the analog sound...or if really all you need to do is mix it to tape, or on tape...

I don't know what you mean by "the analog sound". I assume you maybe mean something that sounds good, or something that sounds distorted in some way...

There shouldn't really be any "sound" to it, it should just be good, and in the case of recording media, it should offer good sounding reproduction.

As for digital-modelling synthesizers, well, they are just not the same as analogue sythesizers. They work in quite a different way, using a hell of a lot of maths, and as a result, they just don't sound the same. They don't really follow the analogue-digital argument because we are not simply talking about a/d conversion and digital storage - here the sounds are generated digitally.

In response to your question, I don't think there is an end to this argument. Digital is, and always will be an approximation of its analogue equivalent. It is inherently finite in its range of levels and will therefore never be exactly the same. Theoretically, the differences are very snall (especially with increased bit depths / rates), but still remains different. The big difference in sound between different a/d converters also adds to this difference.

The thing is, good digital sounds good, and similarly, bad analogue sounds bad. All that matters at the end of the day is if it sounds good. I would not say that Protools sounds bad. I've heard many albums recorded in Protools which sound great, and I bet if you asked me prior to knowing, I would have guessed that they were recorded to tape...

Back to the synthesizers though, again, as long as it sounds good, then that is fine. I have done some digital synth programming before though, and I would have to say that given the choice, I would choose an analogue model.

It is inherently finite in its range of levels and will therefore never be exactly the same. Theoretically, the differences are very snall (especially with increased bit depths / rates), but still remains different. The big difference in sound between different a/d converters also adds to this difference.

Agreed, but don't you think that eventually the levels of modeling will catch up?

All that matters at the end of the day is if it sounds good. I would not say that Protools sounds bad. I've heard many albums recorded in Protools which sound great, and I bet if you asked me prior to knowing, I would have guessed that they were recorded to tape...

Same here..I am a fan of radiohead, and was floored when I heard they did most of their late stuff on protools. although, they made a point to mention that all of their music gets put through a tape process in order to make it...well...tapier?

Back to the synthesizers though, again, as long as it sounds good, then that is fine. I have done some digital synth programming before though, and I would have to say that given the choice, I would choose an analogue model.

Yeah, I have heard a few demo's done with a Doepfer/Analogue Solutions modular system...
http://rewire.12inch.com/Audio/REwire_- ... r_Demo.mp3

I'm in the same boat, I like analog, but it's expensive.

justinjbrown wrote:Agreed, but don't you think that eventually the levels of modeling will catch up?

Modelling will get better, but how much I do not know.

Component modelling seems to be the way to go, but even then, how good are each of the component models?

Modelling a leaky cap? A noisy transistor? A coloured transformer?

They may get close, but I'm not sure how close. I suppose we'll see.

Rodabod wrote:

justinjbrown wrote:Agreed, but don't you think that eventually the levels of modeling will catch up?

Modelling will get better, but how much I do not know.

Component modelling seems to be the way to go, but even then, how good are each of the component models?

Modelling a leaky cap? A noisy transistor? A coloured transformer?

They may get close, but I'm not sure how close. I suppose we'll see.

Yeah, we shall...eventually...but you must be able to admit that in computer terms there isn't anything that couldn't be accurately modeled, it's just a matter of taking the time.

justinjbrown wrote:Yeah, we shall...eventually...but you must be able to admit that in computer terms there isn't anything that couldn't be accurately modeled, it's just a matter of taking the time.

It's not just computer power though, as methods need to be developed for modelling components.

Some methods are better than others. For instance, there are different ways of making an oscillator in software, and this has an implication on the sound.

The next thing is, how far to take modelling - do we model a specific brand and model for each component? How far do we take this approximation of the effect of each component? There are many, many variables.

How about the interaction of components at different settings? Most components are not linear... As a result, they may react differently at different settings, eg. under different loads.

Have you ever heard a "good" electric piano - pianos are inherently difficult to emulate because as soon as more than one note is played, the sounds react (intermodulate) and it is not the same sound as overlapping one single not over another.

justinjbrown wrote:I am just wondering if it is important to maintain as much analog circuitry as possible if you are hoping to achieve the analog sound...or if really all you need to do is mix it to tape, or on tape...

And does it really matter?

There's a difference in talking about the best kind of synthesizer vs. the best way to preserve recorded sound. I don't know anything about the former.

I learned most of what I needed to know about the latter from the RADAR 24 thread.

Read it - all of it; it's good.

= Justin

Rodabod wrote:Have you ever heard a "good" electric piano - pianos are inherently difficult to emulate because as soon as more than one note is played, the sounds react (intermodulate) and it is not the same sound as overlapping one single not over another.

Good point. If by 'electric' you mean digital...?

Ans: no. Passable digital piano, yes. Good, no. Someday? Dunno. But not now.

Organ, however, I think it has been done well. The Nord organs are quite realistic. Much easier to do, due to a more predictable dynamic range and production of tones.

Analog synths, they have many idiosyncratic 'features.' No one has gotten them right yet.

justinjbrown wrote:Agreed, but don't you think that eventually the levels of modeling will catch up?

As someone who has spent a good portion of their life pounding shit into computers, I offer this perspective.

Why spend our time trying to "model" something that exists in the analog world. Here's the simplest I can make the whole argument. Divide 1 by 3. You have to round off somewhere, and when that cumulative error reaches thousands of calculations, your model is eff'd. What science has defined as math is an imperfect model of the real world. The analog world can define a perfect circle. The current scientific model doesn't. Comes real close, but is not perfection (you have to round off pi somewhere).

Sure, given millions of hours of research, and many bodies confined to veal fattening pens pounding away at keyboards to get there, you can get something "really close", but why not get the real thing and be done with it?

So as not to sound too jaded , I am the first to admit that I use the hell out of computers, and that this "flawed" model has done some totally amazing things in my lifetime, and will continue to do so.

And yes, I think I need to unplug for a little bit.

Regards

ju

I don't really know what I'm talking about here, but I'm thinking so-called genetic algorithms may really make a difference in the audio modelling world. I've heard about GAs used with SPICE type software to design circuits that no human designer could actually contemplate (due to use of parasitic capacitance, etc.). If you wanted to model specific components, it seems you could use a similar approach at a component level as well, making random changes to leakage currents, threshold voltages and such until they behaved like their analog counterparts. Or maybe the same approach applied to the overall behavior of a device...??