Analog Rules!

[P.A.R.T.Y]

At the end of the day a digital synth is playing a sample and an analog synth makes the sound.

[-evil-duerr-]

i guess thats why musicians all around the globe are trading in their room full of dusty synthesizers for a laptop/midi controller setup

[P.A.R.T.Y]

And may God save their souls.

[-evil-duerr-]

haha ha. theres no arguin wit you on this one eh? :P


say if someone wanted to get themselves an analog synthesizer, doo you have nay recommendations as to what models to look out for?

[mux]

Originally Posted by P.A.R.T.Y

At the end of the day a digital synth is playing a sample and an analog synth makes the sound.

Actually, that's just not true anymore. Back in the 80's, when synths were just getting started, "digital" meant a Korg M1 playing back 12-bit PCM samples of a piano, and "analogue" meant a Minimoog. The world has moved on a *long* way since then.

Virtual Analogue synths like the Korg MS2000, Alesis Ion, Roland JP-8000, etc, are NOT playing samples. They have a chip called a DSP, and software that is simulating a spinning oscillator. Most softsynths do this too - only the very cheapest and lamest softsynths are playing back samples of waveforms.

Then there are those synths that use a sample of a waveform, and perform subtractive synthesis on it - these are called "wavetable" synths, and while they don't sound analogue, they have a sound of their own which isn't something to sniff at. A noteable example: the mighty Waldorf Wave:


I used to be a huge analogue zealot as well, just like you - I was swayed when I first tried a Nord Modular. It has all the analogue subtractive synthesis I could want, while still having the convenience and portability of a digital synth. And you know what? It sounds friggin' awesome.

The simple fact of the matter is, some sounds *need* to be thin. If you use 100% digital synths, your sound will require processing to help thicken it up. If you use 100% analogue synths, your sound will require processing to make it not be a wash of mud. The best way is to use a mix of both digital and analogue.

I love my synths, but I cannot tell the difference anymore between softsynths (through a $1500 soundcard, going through a soundblaster there's no comparison) and my hardware synths.

[inside]

wierd. I've never seen that one before (wave) I've always seen the orange ones around. you should check out zeta it's mad.

http://www.rgcaudio.com/z3ta+.htm

you can link controller values to paramaters in the wave shaper (well anything) and really fuck with your sounds, it's dead easy, and sooo much fun.

[mux]

The orange one is the Microwave XT, like the yellow rackmount is the Micro-Q... cut-down versions of the original. They didn't make too many of the original Wave, and there aren't that many of them floating around. :)

Z3ta+ looks pretty cool, but I don't use softsynths. I think that learning an instrument is learning an instrument, hardware or software, and it takes years to fully explore one - I choose hardware because my synths will still be making noise long after Windows XP is obsolete and abandonware. :)

Hell, I'm still learning new tricks on my SH-101, and it's been around longer than most of the folks on this forum - but who uses 25-year-old software?!

[shift]

Originally Posted by mux

The simple fact of the matter is, some sounds *need* to be thin. If you use 100% digital synths, your sound will require processing to help thicken it up. If you use 100% analogue synths, your sound will require processing to make it not be a wash of mud. The best way is to use a mix of both digital and analogue.

This sums it up really nicely for me, I 100% agree. I can definately hear the difference between analog and digital though, I'd never give up my analogue gear.

Side note: Got an MS-10 recently for free! The guy didn't want it because it didn't have MIDI.

[inside]

^ Most of the new VA synth are not "thin". The Wavestation plugin may be thin, cause it is a "thin" digital synth that has been made into a plugin. There is nothing "thin" with most of the VA synths that I have as plugins.

Mux makes an interesting point about how all the computer plugins will be done in via Windows XP when it is obsolete, and abandonware. My counter point is; There are alot of creaky old synths out there (moogs, jupiters, Pro 5) that are in need of repair and parts, there are only so many parts availible. With my current pc, as long as It can send/recieve midi, it will last forever as my setup grows, and there will always be parts availible for it if it needs reapair. Not that your Nord is going to fall apart anytime soon, or even the 101, but there were only so many Moogs built, and lets face it, there are too many problems with the new Voyager.

[Séguin]

I kinda regret getting rid of my MC-202 a few years ago.

[mux]

Originally Posted by inside

^ Most of the new VA synth are not "thin". The Wavestation plugin may be thin, cause it is a "thin" digital synth that has been made into a plugin. There is nothing "thin" with most of the VA synths that I have as plugins.

agreed wholeheartedly. some of the thickest-sounding synths out there (access virus, anyone?) are virtual analogue. Software is a combo of programming and hardware - even if the programming is great, it can only sound as good as the hardware it uses to play the sounds on. There's a reason "pro" soundcards are so expensive.

Mux makes an interesting point about how all the computer plugins will be done in via Windows XP when it is obsolete, and abandonware. My counter point is; There are alot of creaky old synths out there (moogs, jupiters, Pro 5) that are in need of repair and parts, there are only so many parts availible. With my current pc, as long as It can send/recieve midi, it will last forever as my setup grows, and there will always be parts availible for it if it needs reapair. Not that your Nord is going to fall apart anytime soon, or even the 101, but there were only so many Moogs built, and lets face it, there are too many problems with the new Voyager.

True, but I have yet to have any problems with my Juno-60, and even my old DX-7, that is on its seventh owner now and has been thrown around like you wouldn't believe, is still kicking. Those synths are 20 years old - compare if you will, say, the computers of even ten years ago: how many folks do you know still running a lightning-fast 486DX2-66? For that matter, how about the software of the day - know anyone still producing tracks with Inertia Tracker? And if Inertia Tracker doesn't run on your P4, are the programmers willing to update it, or even still programming at all?

Someone asked me the other day if the Roland JP-8080 was still any good, since it was "awfully old, like six years or something...". I had to laugh - my friend, if you treat that JP-8080 half-decently, you'll be able to give it to your kids when they start their high-school retro punk garage band.

I can't really say the same about my fifteen-year-old Amiga 2000... I sold it, working, to a hobbyist for $5 about a year ago. :(

I'm certainly not saying "don't use software" - I'm mostly just saying that instruments are instruments, and to make music that lasts, you have to spend time learning how to play them. If you're just grabbing the latest and greatest softsynth, you're trapping yourself.

[Séguin]

I've got the Juno G it kinda looks like the Juno 60 :D

[inside]

Originally Posted by mux

True, but I have yet to have any problems with my Juno-60, and even my old DX-7, that is on its seventh owner now and has been thrown around like you wouldn't believe, is still kicking. Those synths are 20 years old - compare if you will, say, the computers of even ten years ago: how many folks do you know still running a lightning-fast 486DX2-66? For that matter, how about the software of the day - know anyone still producing tracks with Inertia Tracker? And if Inertia Tracker doesn't run on your P4, are the programmers willing to update it, or even still programming at all?

There's a big difference what a 486 can run versus my aged (two years old lol) p4. Like I said. It can always be in my setup as long as it can recieve and send midi (and work). I'm pretty happy with the current crop of instruments I have loaded in it. My only current gripe is that I want to get another pc to run Sonar to take care of all the fx plugins, tracking, mixing.

I don't know the tracker programs, but if I was really into and I could send and recieve midi and I really wanted to have it in my setup. I would use it.

Originally Posted by mux

I'm certainly not saying "don't use software" - I'm mostly just saying that instruments are instruments, and to make music that lasts, you have to spend time learning how to play them. If you're just grabbing the latest and greatest softsynth, you're trapping yourself.

First off, most of us are making dance music. It last about a week. There is no shelf life on this shit. You put it out, it get's rinsed. Dance music moves very fast. Yeah, some tracks are timeless, but lets face it. Most of us are notwrighting Hey Jude.

[Bevvy Swift]

Originally Posted by inside

First off, most of us are making dance music. It last about a week. There is no shelf life on this shit. You put it out, it get's rinsed. Dance music moves very fast. Yeah, some tracks are timeless, but lets face it. Most of us are notwrighting Hey Jude.

well said.

ps the minimoog rules. or ruled, at least.

[P.A.R.T.Y]

Originally Posted by inside

First off, most of us are making dance music. It last about a week. There is no shelf life on this shit. You put it out, it get's rinsed. Dance music moves very fast. Yeah, some tracks are timeless, but lets face it. Most of us are notwrighting Hey Jude.

Your whole premise is worthless; Just because you don't have any integrity to write a timeless track, doesn't allow you to speculate on the movement of dance music in the music industry.
Labels like R&S records, Astrelwerks, Exist Dance, etc. were putting out amazing timeless tracks long before you even knew about dance music. I still listen to amazing techno trax from 1993 (ARE YOU THERE?) Certainly there have been as lot of shit tracks produced over the year, but I don't listen to that shit.
Your comment is negative. You sound like a negative person, someone who doesn't believe in the electronic scene or the countless hours that producers and DJ's have dedicated to promoting the scene.

[inside]

Originally Posted by P.A.R.T.Y

Your whole premise is worthless; Just because you don't have any integrity to write a timeless track, doesn't allow you to speculate on the movement of dance music in the music industry.

Dance music is disposible. If it wasn't, then why would we need to constanly updated classics with oddles of remixes. I'm not saying this like it's a bad thing. I really enjoy how fast dance music moves.

Originally Posted by P.A.R.T.Y

Labels like R&S records, Astrelwerks, Exist Dance, etc. were putting out amazing timeless tracks long before you even knew about dance music. I still listen to amazing techno trax from 1993 (ARE YOU THERE?) Certainly there have been as lot of shit tracks produced over the year, but I don't listen to that shit.

I listen to classics as well. I still love Go by moby, but it's pretty easy to stamp 1991 on it (who's oldschool now biatch=P I'm just kidding)

Originally Posted by P.A.R.T.Y

Your comment is negative. You sound like a negative person, someone who doesn't believe in the electronic scene or the countless hours that producers and DJ's have dedicated to promoting the scene.

Belief in the electronic scene? It's clubbing/raving. Don't take it so seriously.

[mux]

Originally Posted by inside

First off, most of us are making dance music. It last about a week. There is no shelf life on this shit. You put it out, it get's rinsed. Dance music moves very fast. Yeah, some tracks are timeless, but lets face it. Most of us are notwrighting Hey Jude.

Fucking WORD. Too easy to forget that sometimes.

Personally tho, I get just as much enjoyment out of studying, learning, experimenting, discussing, modifying and tinkering with the gear as I do making music with it. Ever man needs his model train set. :)

[Séguin]

Oh man I miss model trains!