 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 (nobody)...and 283 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614210 Today 14 Topics 127548 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hey tronics, Just wondered what your thoughts are on using purely digital equipment to emulate those analogue sounds. With the likes of ReBirth, Vintage Warmer....etcc....among many others There are so many characteristics/impurities within analogue gear which makes you wonder if they can be replicated in the digital world to a satisfactory level in which no human ear can tell the difference. this brings to mind the tb 303 copycats which were made to save people the fight over the ones left...the results were uncanny. And I don't know how many people could tell the difference if you jumbled them about and let them hear. So by using plug-ins and digital effects and instruments can you make a track that gives the impression it was produced through the analogue domain? I think so...for the most part..and I don't think it has to add up to being a perfect mathematicaly transition either. It just has to be made indistinguishable to our ears...all those complicated pathways of voltages running through analogue gear only turn out to be a certain *hiss* at the end of the day. While a synth is playing in a song.. because of masking, harmonics, levels and everything else combined... you probably won't hear the *hiss* of that synth the same when its within the track and everything else is going at once. Our ears can't pick out how many transistors a signal has passed through, which is why at some stage or another, we'll be able to create realistic analogue sounds digitaly. At least i think so...but what do you guys think? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
sure |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
For certain things, we're already at that stage; Audiorealism Bassline VST fools my ears 40% of the time when blind testing against a real 303 (you'd expect it to be 50% by chance). Obviously that's both coming out of the same soundcard (rather than one from the pc one from the real 303). Some of the mastering/post production on Analord was done on a PC, but most people think it was all 100% analogue and claim they can hear this. It certainly doesn't sound "digital". |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
stuff i do in fl studio fools people all the time ;) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
On the one hand there's the digital... And on the other there's the analogue... I just can't decide! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i dont see it that way, the problem is the lack of talent/original stuff of many bedroom producers. just see the afx copycat, since the analords & those who followed the analogue/acid revival/bandwagon. they should get their own sound, with or without computers. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what he said. It's got to the stage where you shouldn't give a fuck what you use as long as you use it well. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
totally, its just a good/bad ratio but it still funny the number of people who stop trying to be autechre (max/msp) in order to be aphex/ceephax acid lately. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
this site gives demonstrations about how the humans hear things differently than the actual sounds produced. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Analogue stuff can be emulated by digital systems. Every analogue circuit can be represented by a transfer function, which is an equation which relates the output to the input. For example a low pass filter would have output=input*frequency response. This is a very simple representation. If the analogue circuit has a very linear response the frequency response will be a smooth slope and easy to reproduce. Cheap components and other real world effects will cause non linearities in frequency responses, gains of amplifiers, etc. This is percieved as being more warm, fat, etc. Non linearities can of course be modelled digitally, but obviously it's not as easy as a simple a=b*c response. It can be broken down into a=b*c upto say 100Hz, then a=b*c*0.9 to 300Hz, then a=b*c*0.4 to 2khz, etc. It soon becomes clear that accurately modelling a realworld system requires an lots and lots of small models of non linear parts. (if you chop a non linear response into small enough segments, each segment will be virtually linear, since the time slicing will be so fine, the rate of change will be linear) Now you need a DSP processor which can number crunch many many numbers at once. Oh and an accurate model of the circuits in the first place. With advances in processor horsepower and the like, digital emulations should improve. The main stumbling block is how lazy the programmers are. If you're modelling an *almost* linear circuit it's tempting to just do an easy linear model. However this is not true to the real world and this is where the percieved differences start to appear. Engineering is all about compromise. They probably could program up a highly accurate model, but it would be stupidly expensive to pay for thousands of hours of circuit modelling and you would need to buy a supercomputer to run it due to the complexity of the digital model. Is there a market for this product? NO! Personally, analogue/digital, I don't care too much - if it's what you want to use and it sounds good, then use it! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Digital is kind of like analogue only cheaper and more reliable. I have no idea why analogue sounds are generally thought of as more desirable, and why digital instruments would need to emulate them. It seems awfully romantic to me. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If you were around in the 80s and you head analogue gear played live compared to today's digital you would notice the difference. Analogue has so much more depth, power and character. Most electronic artists are shoving their mixes through analogue desks these days to remove the dry, brittle sound of digital. There's multiple ways to go depending on production techniques, perhaps new technology can focus more on binding the reliability and flexibility of digital with the resonance of analogue. At the moment there seems to be a clear separation between the two, a bridge that's never been gapped. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
It's pretty much careface to me, I love all synths. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What's wrong with dry and brittle? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
How can you be original? It seems like all the best territory has been covered. Its hard to pick up a synth and not sound like you are trying to sound like Aphex Twin. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
with digitally controlled organic instruments you don't have a choice. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
it just sounds like afx/ceephax because it has a vintage beat, some melodies, and a 303 bassline... it's not like afx nor ceephax invented it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Yeah, exactly. Its the way they market their music would make people think they invented it. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
what are you talking about? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i don't give a damn fuck actually - for me workflow and easy of use are the most important parameters in any gear and soft ever. so why use an old rusty ms-20 which sounds different with every hour of work, has to be repaired and somehow recorded to the pc which slows your work down drastically, when i can use the vst which sounds awfully good, where you can control the amount of "analogness" and open up 10 instances. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
- for me workflow and easy of use are the most important parameters in any gear and soft ever TOTALY!!! if you have just an old piano youll make far more tunes than you will on a million parameter software setup. man i fell into the trap of upgrading...its gonna take me months to get back any flow i had.should be cool once set up tho. never upgrading ever again. ever not even my pants. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
OK now discuss electric vs acoustic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I find that while some digital equipment can sound *too* analog, a good analog sound can be found from using two filters synced to each other. My microKorg thru my Machinedrum proves this. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"It's got to the stage where you shouldn't give a fuck what you use as long as you use it" well. " exactly. by using one thing or the other your already llimiting yourself before you've even started making music! Do what you think sounds good to you. "Its hard to pick up a synth and not sound like you are trying to sound like Aphex Twin." I disagree. Even if you have the exact same setup does not mean you will harvest the same result. For instance, there are plenty of pianists our there, all using the same instrument. Yet there are truly original composers. Chopin, Satie, Rachmaninoff...which you can tell straight away who is who after a few seconds of listening. For me personaly i use a mixed setup. Each have pros and cons, but when combined you have something twice as good and you cancel out the negatives of each if you use your gear properly. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
most people don't have a fucking clue what sounds "analogue" and "digital", and mostly it's those people that get hung up on what should sound like what. then they create a sort of false value system based on this. it's pathetic and hilarious. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i like playing with knobs |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
fourier was a fucking bitch in uni |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
laplace on the other hand |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I think that DM album, what's it called... Exciter... is one of the worst examples of a "dry, brittle" digital-sounding album. It sets your teeth on edge, horrible. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
when u say properly what do you mean? you seem to think that if someone uses their gear properly they stand a better chance of making good music. is that what u mean? do you just mean good in your opinion or do u believe in some kind of objective good? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thepuss, What I mean is, If I pick up a synth I'm afraid I will sound like a sad aphex ripoff because Aphex makes the kind of music I want to make. I find it disheartening sometimes. Cause he has covered so much ground that it seems futile to even try, much like how musicians say they wished they wrote this song or that song. Its a bit of jealousy, but that can be the ingredients for thinking outside the box. A "what hasn't been done?" question to myself.. If I follow that then maybe I can be proud of something. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah, my thoughts goes like this too - "what haven't been done?" - it's hard to come up with a new colour(sound/style).... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
agreed! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
yeah u totakk yagreeeee |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, are you really mad? cunt. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
