(and the difference in potential personal value as expressive and functional devices in each)
... Firstly, sorry for the totally stupid title, I just couldn't bring myself to call it 'anlogue versus digital' and this one seemed ok, if a little long winded...
Anyhow, I think this discussion is potentially an interesting one, and i'm pretty sure there are enough people with views on the matter to have a good old fashioned debate on the topic.... and hopefully we can all learn a bit from some of the differences in other people's methods in the process.
personally, digital systems feel right for me. I have been lucky enough to have always had computers around me, and even though they have a cold, hypothetically mechanical heart, with the right kind of (ab)use, I think they have vast musical potential, albeit in a different way to analogue.
i should admit though that honestly there isn't that much of a genuine reason for me to be so comfortable with digital musical systems compared to their analogue counterparts. I have never owned or even touched a 'real' piece of electronic analogue gear. I guess my reasons for having this preference mostly come from an instinctive decision, and a little from views formed from technical data and reactions to other peoples opinions on the matter. So partly I think my views are out of just wanting to stay where I'm comfortable, (or maybe just narrow minded stubbornness), which makes me feel like I can't really justify them properly, but whatever, I'm pretty sure digital is my friend.
From a technical point of view, analogue and digital are always going to have differences that exist outside of personal prefernces. For example, you're never going to see an exact software emulation of a moog filter or a tube. But I think a very large part of being a musicians is understanding the subtleties in function of the tools you are using, and how best to exploit them musically.
Personally, for the moment I will continue to use entirely digital systems but I will always be on the lookout for unique elements of good analogue musical circuits that can be recreated with software, as I think digital has the potential to emulate some of the nonlinearities of analogue circuits (though I don't think it will ever be truly the same). But definitely for the most part my heart lies with digital and even though it has many limitations compared to analogue I'm happy trying to make the most out of my own self imposed restrictions.
...and you?
on the coexistance of analogue and digital electroni systems
-
oblioblioblio
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 2556
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:38 am
- Contact:
-
MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Im like you, 100% digital, and i believe that anything is possible with digital too...
With all the modulation available in digital synths, its fairly easy to get results that compare or even surpass hardware... And with ever improving processing like vintage warmer, Rcomp etc, it just keeps getting better... The mini moog emulation beats the hardware version imo, simply becuase it has polyphony.. and the sound, although different, isnt any worst than the hardware imo either
Radioslave for instance, hes got a deep, fluid sound, listening to some of his more minimal tracks (minimal as i interpret minimal anyway), its hard to tell hes all digital (listen to his mix of Mr G - Sometimes I cry)
One thing i would say about digital, which isnt necessarily a criticsm, rather an observation of human nature; is the temptation to own and use like 20 synths & about 1000000 effects!! People who use hardware know their equipment, its a real object which cost real money, so the results are often better as a result of the perseverance employed in their operation..
With all the modulation available in digital synths, its fairly easy to get results that compare or even surpass hardware... And with ever improving processing like vintage warmer, Rcomp etc, it just keeps getting better... The mini moog emulation beats the hardware version imo, simply becuase it has polyphony.. and the sound, although different, isnt any worst than the hardware imo either
Radioslave for instance, hes got a deep, fluid sound, listening to some of his more minimal tracks (minimal as i interpret minimal anyway), its hard to tell hes all digital (listen to his mix of Mr G - Sometimes I cry)
One thing i would say about digital, which isnt necessarily a criticsm, rather an observation of human nature; is the temptation to own and use like 20 synths & about 1000000 effects!! People who use hardware know their equipment, its a real object which cost real money, so the results are often better as a result of the perseverance employed in their operation..
-
oblioblioblio
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 2556
- Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 1:38 am
- Contact:
hmm. i wouldn't say that anything is possible with digital. I think for lots of things it'll never be 100% the same as an analogue circuit.
I think though that with enough care and attention to detail (and a love for the original design) though someone making a software version of a hardware circuit can get it pretty damn close. Like you say, some of the Moog synth emulations are great examples, those guys will have spent hours and hours looking at how the circuit behaves in all kinds of different situations and used large amounts of clever code to recreate even the tiniest of bits of detail. And yeah, as a musician you can definitely get some pretty good results from it. Especially when you have some of the added bonuses of software, like polyphony where there was none before, recordable automation, unlimited instances and blah blah blah.
yeah I think with digital you can use way way way more stuff than need, but as you say, that's up to the musician not the gear itself. For me sometimes I like to have a bit of a 'purge' every now and again and get rid of as much stuff as I don't need as possible.
With software I feel like I have something I physically own as much as a piece of gear though. Most software developers are pretty friendly chaps and will look out for people who own their stuff, and it definitely feels real and 'alive' in this respect. Urs heckmann and Steve Devine are some good exmaples here.
I think though that with enough care and attention to detail (and a love for the original design) though someone making a software version of a hardware circuit can get it pretty damn close. Like you say, some of the Moog synth emulations are great examples, those guys will have spent hours and hours looking at how the circuit behaves in all kinds of different situations and used large amounts of clever code to recreate even the tiniest of bits of detail. And yeah, as a musician you can definitely get some pretty good results from it. Especially when you have some of the added bonuses of software, like polyphony where there was none before, recordable automation, unlimited instances and blah blah blah.
yeah I think with digital you can use way way way more stuff than need, but as you say, that's up to the musician not the gear itself. For me sometimes I like to have a bit of a 'purge' every now and again and get rid of as much stuff as I don't need as possible.
With software I feel like I have something I physically own as much as a piece of gear though. Most software developers are pretty friendly chaps and will look out for people who own their stuff, and it definitely feels real and 'alive' in this respect. Urs heckmann and Steve Devine are some good exmaples here.
-
Der geile Ami
- mnml mmbr
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 5:54 pm
- Location: berlin
I believe that any nonlinearities in analog equipment can evntually perfectly modeled digitally. It's all a matter of just figuring out a complicated algorithm. There are still some things functions better suited to analog efforts (changing gears on cars, for example), but I expect everything to one day be replaced and improved by digital devices. Consider video, which already approaches a digital approach by simply having a limit to how many frames are captured per second. We are at a point where digital video can look as analog as you want.
The main drawbacks I see to many current digital devices are cost cutting decisions that maintain the same basic functionality as analog, but at an expense of dedicated control. Digital mixers and synths are generally not as hands on as analog, but only because controls are typically shared. It is up to the user to decide if the tradeoffs work out or not.
It is interesting to hear that radio slave is digital. I've heard a real rhodes organ, and "dedication" features a very convincing comparison
The main drawbacks I see to many current digital devices are cost cutting decisions that maintain the same basic functionality as analog, but at an expense of dedicated control. Digital mixers and synths are generally not as hands on as analog, but only because controls are typically shared. It is up to the user to decide if the tradeoffs work out or not.
It is interesting to hear that radio slave is digital. I've heard a real rhodes organ, and "dedication" features a very convincing comparison
freeeeeee
i'm a big fan of all things digital, i'm surrounded by digital technology, i use it on a constant basis every day of my life, i seriously dont know what i'd do without computers. my partner is a very skilled artist and yet she uses cutting edge digital technology and software as a VJ and she can do things digitally with visuals that are simply impossible by any other method, so i'm hardly the archetypal ludditte and digiphobe, however, when it comes to synthesizers, if you havent used a Moog before, you simply cannot make statements about the comparisons between digital and analogue, (especially concerning Moogs)
only by experiencing it first hand and having time to truly get to know it, can you really understand.
my moog voyager is simply the most amazing synth i've ever owned and yet it's monophonic. it's simply pointless me trying to explain why that is, you would have to come into my studio, sit between the speakers and play with controls, then you would believe.
if i could afford it, i would do what daft punk did and go out and buy four of the buggers, or 8 or 16..
try to believe me, there is no comparison between a real moog and a software one, no matter how clever the software gets, it will never be a moog.
my mate has just gone out and spent £38,000 on a moog modular, either he is mad, or he knows something you dont, or he's got money to burn.
most people would say the latter, i think he's made the best investment he will ever make, and i dont mean from a financial perspective.
if you buy just one piece of hardware to integrate into an otherwise digital setup, make it a moog voyager. you'll never regret it.
what you are going to see over the next few years is more and more digital analogue hybrid machines like the voyager, prophet 8, etc. because it's as simple as this, if the signal path is pure analogue, and the control is digital, you've got the best of both worlds.
how can shoving a load of software synths through one D/A converter ever sound as good as individual machines. there's no depth.
of course i'm talking about subtractive synthesizers here, digital will come into its own, when it stops trying to emulate them, and takes it to another level.
only by experiencing it first hand and having time to truly get to know it, can you really understand.
my moog voyager is simply the most amazing synth i've ever owned and yet it's monophonic. it's simply pointless me trying to explain why that is, you would have to come into my studio, sit between the speakers and play with controls, then you would believe.
if i could afford it, i would do what daft punk did and go out and buy four of the buggers, or 8 or 16..
try to believe me, there is no comparison between a real moog and a software one, no matter how clever the software gets, it will never be a moog.
my mate has just gone out and spent £38,000 on a moog modular, either he is mad, or he knows something you dont, or he's got money to burn.
most people would say the latter, i think he's made the best investment he will ever make, and i dont mean from a financial perspective.
if you buy just one piece of hardware to integrate into an otherwise digital setup, make it a moog voyager. you'll never regret it.
what you are going to see over the next few years is more and more digital analogue hybrid machines like the voyager, prophet 8, etc. because it's as simple as this, if the signal path is pure analogue, and the control is digital, you've got the best of both worlds.
how can shoving a load of software synths through one D/A converter ever sound as good as individual machines. there's no depth.
of course i'm talking about subtractive synthesizers here, digital will come into its own, when it stops trying to emulate them, and takes it to another level.
Though i use strictly digital stuff i have no illusions about the sound of digital vs analog. Basically the only reason i have a 100% digital setup is because i don't have the money to go all analog with my sound modules. I can come close enough that almost nobody can tell the difference but it takes effort to get something digital to sound analog because the digital gear is usually light on the ass end.
It's litterally impossible for something digital to be as high quality of a sound source as something analog because digital is missing sound information.
Think of it this way:
Draw a line on a piece of paper to represent a sound signal. Now a digital sound signal would be represented by a dotted line because it has to give you that sound in pieces. These dots represent the sample rate. A low sample rate would make the spaces between the signal (dots) larger meaning that there is literally silence in between the dots and this is the areas where the sound information is lost. The higher the sample rate the smaller the spaces of silence are therefore less sound information is lost.
Now an analog signal is different because there are no spaces which means the sample rate is infinite and all the sound information is there.
The only way to notice it with your ears is to listen to the low end. I'm not sure why but the mids and highs don't seem to show it as much. In fact i think sometimes highs sound better off of digital equipment and it seems to be easier to get sparkley sounds out of digital stuff (again i don't know why, it's just what i hear on average). Analog sound seems to be more rounded on the highs and less harsh. Analog stuff seems to not be able to make square waves sound as nasty as digital stuff.
The only way that i know of to come close to low end that sounds analog is to prop it up with extra lows.
Allot of the time the only thing that can make a record sound more analog is the process of cutting it on vinyl because any space in the low end that it was missing in sound information seems to be filled with faint distortion from pushing the signal really hot onto the record. You can do the same thing with tape. If you take a digital sounding track and push it onto a reel to reel really hot it seems to do the same thing. Everybody should think about getting a good 2 track reel to reel in their studio, it can bring life to some sounds that are too digital. Sometimes you can just take a sound and bounce it onto the reel to warm it up and then record it back into the computer, that sh!t can be magical.
so my verdict is
digital is dope because of the veratility
analog wins the sound battle on the low end of the sound spectrum everytime
It's litterally impossible for something digital to be as high quality of a sound source as something analog because digital is missing sound information.
Think of it this way:
Draw a line on a piece of paper to represent a sound signal. Now a digital sound signal would be represented by a dotted line because it has to give you that sound in pieces. These dots represent the sample rate. A low sample rate would make the spaces between the signal (dots) larger meaning that there is literally silence in between the dots and this is the areas where the sound information is lost. The higher the sample rate the smaller the spaces of silence are therefore less sound information is lost.
Now an analog signal is different because there are no spaces which means the sample rate is infinite and all the sound information is there.
The only way to notice it with your ears is to listen to the low end. I'm not sure why but the mids and highs don't seem to show it as much. In fact i think sometimes highs sound better off of digital equipment and it seems to be easier to get sparkley sounds out of digital stuff (again i don't know why, it's just what i hear on average). Analog sound seems to be more rounded on the highs and less harsh. Analog stuff seems to not be able to make square waves sound as nasty as digital stuff.
The only way that i know of to come close to low end that sounds analog is to prop it up with extra lows.
Allot of the time the only thing that can make a record sound more analog is the process of cutting it on vinyl because any space in the low end that it was missing in sound information seems to be filled with faint distortion from pushing the signal really hot onto the record. You can do the same thing with tape. If you take a digital sounding track and push it onto a reel to reel really hot it seems to do the same thing. Everybody should think about getting a good 2 track reel to reel in their studio, it can bring life to some sounds that are too digital. Sometimes you can just take a sound and bounce it onto the reel to warm it up and then record it back into the computer, that sh!t can be magical.
so my verdict is
digital is dope because of the veratility
analog wins the sound battle on the low end of the sound spectrum everytime
-
MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE
- mnml maxi
- Posts: 935
- Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:04 pm
- Location: Birmingham
Well, i suppose not....re.vise wrote:Can you make a sinus digital?MINIMALTECHNOHOUSE wrote:Im like you, 100% digital, and i believe that anything is possible with digital too...
All im trying to say is, with the amount of computer power coming through, there will be a time where anologue is surpassed....
Like steevio says though, the programmers need to develop new technologys, not try to emulate old synths so much (altough the emulations are my favoutrites tbh)
I found these
http://www.digidesign.com/index.cfm?&ke ... temid=1077
Ill buy them at the end of the week and tell you what i know...