 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 728 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614087 Today 0 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Digital CAN emulate Analog Analog CUNT emulate Digital |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its hard, if not impossible, to create certain aesthetics of old analog with digital, ie the vangelis cs80 synth is something nobody has been able to emulate properly, as far as i can tell. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
the difference between analog and digital is that people using digital synths desperately try to sound analog but the ones using analog just don't give a shit about sounding digital. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hah mindboggling post.. i guess people using soft and digital should get some more confidence that it has its own character and can sound good in its own way too |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but that being said i find its important that music sounds 'real' that it has more depth than just any preset in a soft synth. ive not used an analog synth hands on, but judging from vangelis and such analog synths seem to have a lot of depth even right out of the box, although im sure the medium it was recorded into and effects also has a part in it. but my point is digital and soft is often associated with thin and unrealistic sounds.. this at least is something i try to avoid in my music |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The oscillators in alaogue synthesisers are more unstable than digital, therefore there's more movement within the sound, which creates a richer and more alive reproduction. Most professional artists these days prefer to record digitally and mix through an analogue desk. But if you're looking for warmth and depth from the off you can achieve that effect via digital, but you'll have to work a bit harder to get it, which probably requires some sort of understanding about waveform synthesis. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tried dissecting this kind of shit for years, rationalizing one over the other. I have owned 2 VCO synthesizers, 5 DCO synthesizers, and a small army of digital synthesizers. I have used countless software synthesizers same any other unscrupulous bedroom producer (I only use stuff I pay for now). In the end it doesn't matter what you use. Computers are the most convenient. Digital synthesizers are a little less convenient but are funner to use. Analogue synthesizers are a lot less convenient, but they are a lot funner and take less work to get nice sounds out of. Then again, Digital synthesizers don't come with a lot of the headaches that come with the analogue ones. My DX7 looks like someone ran over it with a car. The midi doesn't work, but it sounds great and every note responds. A friend of mine has a CS50 that he can't keep in tune. It sounds phenomenal, but he can't record with it. Someone tells you that one is better than the other and tries to give you a good reason, change the subject as soon as possible and never talk to them about gear again. Its a useless discussion. They are both good, its up to the musicians taste, and people who say otherwise are wankers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
usage is one thing, but as far as pure sound content goes, thats where most of the debate is.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that instability can be reproduced with more complex digital modeling. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Can it? You have to remember that a lot of the analogue synths are vintage and deterioate naturally. This produces suprising results and lends a subtle uniqueness to every individual synth. Digital replication of that is impossible. Both digital and analogue have their value, and it very much depends on the personality of the individual using it and what he's trying to achieve or whether he enjoys hands-on playing, the feel of the mouse, or a mix of both. But to say analogue is replaceable is bull, it if was replaceable those machines wouldd be dust already - people don't use them just for nostalgia. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
digital emulations could be made to sound individual for each user. If it was modeled using virtual resistors/capacitors etc, each could be set to a random value within a set tolerance. A virtual synth could emulate the tuning of a real analog synth as the components warm up. Component failure could be emulated. Fixing the virtual component might result in a slighly different sound - just as in real life electronics - or you could replace the component with an exact copy. It all depends on how complex you want the modeling to be. Virtual analog synths can fool most people at the moment and as the modeling techniques get better/more detailed, less and less people will be able to tell the difference. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Clearly great strides are being made to ensure digital and analogue are seemlessly fused. Not there yet, but the end result will be labelled digital, and the word "analogue" will become nothing more than a branding exercise. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Haha what a great way to open the age old debate. You have overlooked a key point in your agrument though; Analogue needn't emulate Digital. A digital signal is a sampled signal, whereas an analogue signal isnt. Therefore, if you must compare, analogue is superior. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Both analogue and digital are tools. Use the best tool for the job. Both can sound good/bad ,just use to make good music and who cares, right? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The OP has a point, but it is just not being fully expressed. Digital has the POTENTIAL to replicate analog. In many cases, it does. However, it will take some more brilliant minds to come up with the exact algorithms required to achieve a sufficient level of emulation for the more complex and useful analog sounds. Digital audio is limited only by the user. Digital audio is mostly limitless in terms of physical possibilities... whereas a modular analog synthesizer musician relies on utilizing only a certain number of synths/oscillators/LFOs/etc. based upon how many of each he has. On a fairly decent computer, I can run literally thousands of synths at the same time using hundreds of oscillators a piece. Only the inventiveness of our programmers, artists, and engineers can expand digital to the point where it will completely defeat any purpose for analog technology to exist. I don't think that will ever happen, because there will always be a niche that requires analog technology for some aspect that digital audio simply cannot replicate. I should correct a few other points mentioned: A digital signal isn't a "sampled" signal; that's too simplistic. Digital sound is created by means of error-correcting approximations dealing in "sample" sizes, but that's only a means of measurement. Digital signals, if produced internally from within the computer, are mathematical equations at their barest form, which means that it's dependent upon the sample rate and the bit rate to put out the purest-sounding audio possible. Analog audio is ridden by mathematical inequalities and logic errors, but that's what gives analog sound its "charm." People who replicate analog signals through a digital medium do so by programming algorithms which perfectly replicate imperfections in an audio signal. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Also, the other thing that is important to remember is that there's a lot more to computer music than software like Reason, Digital Performer, etc. These programs are extremely limited in what they can do, and are essentially useless as pure compositional platforms. The little-known universe of more in-depth digital audio programming is a much greater insight into the powers of digital audio than most would be led to believe. These programs lead many electronic musicians to thinking that only the results possible by those programs are actually possible on a computer, which is unbelievably false. There are physical limitations of analog audio, which programs like Reason don't even care to address, that programs like ChucK and SuperCollider are able to address if the composer chooses to do so. Also, the level of real-time control you're allotted for digital synthesis, in terms of sound modeling AND event scheduling, is unparalleled by analog hardware because there simply exists no piece of analog hardware that can do what a computer can do these contexts. Digital systems allow composers to model their pieces around real-time events, changes in environments or situations, apply effects and processing depending upon performance space and room size, etc. The ability for outside aspects to influence the output of a digital performance system is something that absolutely no analog system can rival in any meaningful way. So it is important to consider these things as well when thinking about digital vs. analog. After all, regardless of what the aesthetic differences may be between digital and analog, the possibilities external of that, which come to directly affect a performance put on by digital means, is a meaningful, and legitimate, aspect to bring up. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
you let yourself get baited into typing a tl:dr i started to then i deleted what i typed |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it's a bit like comparing mountain bike & surfing, isnt it ? i'm a non-musician but depending on my mood, feelings, i'll be playing Ryoji Ikeda or Vangelis's Beaubourg with the same pleasure. even if its sounds totally different in terms of instruments & methods. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
keyword: emulate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Analogue can emulate digital. Its just not easy to find a crack of the synthia zeroscillator as it is to find a crack of minimoog v |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thank you. the fact that digital can emulate an analog synth, or a guitar rig, or a the sound of a concert hall just for the reverb shows where its power lies. then of course you have max/msp, ableton live, granular and spectral apps and all that is being done with digital that is not focused solely on emulation. they should continue to make analog synths the same as they should continue to make big guitar rigs, and they should look for new ways to integrate analog and digital elements together like hybrid synths that are digital but have analog filters and that kind of thing. argh i did it damn you tl:dr |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
And you all are rediculous if you let yourself get trolled by the musical equivalent of the mac vs pc debate. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
one word: AutoTune. lol |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Very poor analogy, if I may say so myself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You have every right to say that. Your wrong though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah who cares really? Just make some decent music and give it to me or shhhh. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The difference between a Mac and a PC is an operating system. The hardware is all the same. The difference between analog audio synthesis and digital audio synthesis is an ever-expanding definition, built upon completely different approaches to hardware, physics, and mathematics, which operate in radically different ways and actually possess physical differences. Not even close to the same thing. Analogies suck in general - you'd be best to not utilize them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I am not going to argue semantics with you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i wish someone with sufficient priveledges would attach an image of an analogue signal and a digital signal (overlayed on the same graph) so we can put this debate to bed for ever and ever amen, then we can make the thread sticky. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yay troutmask i enjoyed reading those.. theres one thing i dont think anyone can deny, and thats the fact that with computers, you can create sounds that sound amazing. they may not be analog, but they sound amazing and have their wholly own complexity of creation. being analog just for the sake of it is limited, one should seek to create any sound that one may derive pleasure from.. in the end its all about the musicians taste, and the musicians way of doing things.. as taxi said.. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
imho the most retarded thing about this whole case is that most of the companies and artists ridiculously try to use up modern pc power to emulate sounds instead using it creatively. i mean i'm a 100 % digital artist - so i try to make sounds that wouldn't be possible to recreate with analog gear. intense use of reaktor, max/msp and the likes. the problem is that software companies don't give a fuck about new technologies. for example - there aren't any software drumsynths out there besides waldorf attack which doesn't try to emulate the 808, 909 sound. or there is only one decent interesting modular software synth - vaz modular. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
its like asking: which is better?.. pepsi or coke? except its coke. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
digital is better than analogue and analogue is better than digital end of debate. now go back to masturbating the dog while eating cheetos. DON'T GET ORANGE DUST ON HIS COCK! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
shut the fuck up you hobbyists |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ps CSOUND 4 lyfe <3 <3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also troutmask, you're cool. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
squarepusher aphex twin |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
but pepsi will be able to give you super powers in a few years time. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The most widely distributed music software is literally immortal. You will never get rid of that shit. It will be endlessly copied and transmitted. Decades after the last vintage 303 has crumbled into dust, kids will be running old software in emulators and having nintendo sex jams. Also, digital is better because it has bits. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
another reason why digital > analog: you can steal a digital synth and not worry about being shot/prosecuted. Can you say the same about an analog synth? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
