TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Production Studio
-- When will the obsession with "analog" stop?
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox Rather than discuss why analog is more pleasing to listen to, I'd love to see someone provide justifiable grounds to make that arguement for digital.

So, double-blind tests aren't compelling evidence for you? What would you consider to be "justifiable"?

As for the rest - your evolutionary argument is entirely bullshit. Man didn't evolve to fuck with condoms either, but the ones who do aren't the stupid ones. For that matter, our ears didn't "evolve on analog" anyway, when you consider that all that analog equipment is based on electronic parts that weren't even invented before the 1950s. It's all technology.

our ears do not hear audio in an analog way that is to mean a continuous uninterrupted fashion along the spectrum. There are all kinds of gaps between frequencies having to do with the manner in which the little hair cells turn their stimulus into electrical ie digital information. The brain is much more a digital body than an analog machine. The method which cells require a certain stimulus is in some ways a quantizing of the information. So whoever brought up the evolution bit, umm shut up. And our ears have no changed since it is estimated before the homosapien.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So, double-blind tests aren't compelling evidence for you? What would you consider to be "justifiable"? As for the rest - your evolutionary argument is entirely bullshit. Man didn't evolve to fuck with condoms either, but the ones who do aren't the stupid ones. For that matter, our ears didn't "evolve on analog" anyway, when you consider that all that analog equipment is based on electronic parts that weren't even invented before the 1950s. It's all technology.

No they are compelling. Moreso than single blind studies. By just blinding the participants you still allow the researchers to taint the research with their own bias. Like whats his face picking a shitty analogue model to compare to a competent digital synth. I was arguing in favor of double blind studies.

And you only further proved my point with the condom arguement. You totally changed the topic of interest from "enjoyable" to a matter of intelligence in the process. We're not arguing intelligence, we're arguing what feels better/sounds better, and in that case no condom always feel better. So I don't see a single point where you proved anything I said wrong. Even the "electronic parts" you just pooled everything together into one group. We are not arguing electronics, we are arguing analogue and digital. In order to do so its mandatory you first distinguish them as 2 different types of electronics.

So again, whats your point?

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad The brain is much more a digital body than an analog machine. The method which cells require a certain stimulus is in some ways a quantizing of the information. So whoever brought up the evolution bit, umm shut up. And our ears have no changed since it is estimated before the homosapien.

So the brain is now more digital than analog?... ahahahah. I'm sorry but its clear you are not thinking clearly.

Evolution does a wonderful job of explaining a lot of things and lets not forget its based on science. I'm sure I can find similarities between what a sheep and a lion look like but to even try infering similarities in behavoir based on that is ridiculous. Ok I'm sorry yes they both have mouths because they eat and assholes because they shit. But you are arguing something extremely different.

Cells also don't "quantize" anything, again your just throwing labels you are familiar with on things you are not.

the nervous system, most definitely. Electrical impulses that either increase or decrease the likelihood of another cell attached results in a somewhat quantized response. Your brain could not handle the information coming from every single cell in your body. COme on Robby, this is Intro to Biology/psychology.

Why is the JND 3 Hz ? Your hearing organ, granted analog up till your cilia change that information into neurone firing.

And sight ? You actually think what you are seeing is an analogue representation ? Analog means everything and you are definitely not seeing everything from the actual cell level as there are not enough cells to actually digest all that information to the nervous level.

It blows my mind you have a degree in psychology. There are way more parallels with your nervous system and a digital system than there are with an analog system.

Evolution explains many things. Why we have a natural resonance at 4 Khz and 1 khz as well as why we have outer ears to allow the small diffractions to paint a more vivid stereo picture. I use the word quantization in that your nervous system finds ways to limit the cell activity to actual quanta. I mean basic cellular activity is either on or off. That is quantization. There is no in between. That would be an analog device.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox The arguement I never get is when people say "its not about analog or digital being better or worse because they do different things". Its one of the vaguest most general statements a person can make about something.

Uh, hate to butt in here, but the differentiation between an analog instrument and a VST emulating analog wouldn't be discernible by the human ear if done properly. (just sayin')

I only know general theory so you can fuck off with the details, but I do know that an analog keyboard is designed with a basic onboard chipset with one or many Voltage controlled oscillators. The VCO's take a DC current and vary the voltage to create sinewaves. The only difference between a computer emulating a VCO (Voltage controlled oscillator) and the actual VCO itself on the mainboard in your typical moog for example, is that mechanical circuitry is prone to variation from heat and wear, while a digital emulation is done as data, and done in a more refined processor. Material sciences show that metals, and semi-metals will undergo deformation, thermal creep, and all kinds of other fun things that lead to variation in this signal... This wear and tear causes some detuning and variation in your signal output...and would be the only differing aspect. (Resistance in wires also varies with temperature, and the wires expand slightly with heat. Physics II shows us that a larger diameter wire carries more current with less voltage...these are some of the variables that take place)

This detuning and variation is the "warmth" that people speak of, and you can bet that deformations in signal output could also be emulated...

Think about it...the keyboard is simply using a circuit-board with VCO's to create a waveform that can be sent out as an analog signal and sent to the speakers. Your speakers then take this analog signal and convert it to mechanical energy. A digital synth performs a similar, but not identical operation using your processor/soundcard/whatever. Digital signal gets sent to the D/A and sent out as analog the same way. (There...)

quote:

but not by comparing the saw waves of 2 synths

I'm speaking purely hypothetically here...but if you compared a sinewave created digitally that was converted into analog that matched one created with an analog instrument and found them identical...what would be your argument then? Something magical happens in the wires? Or through the air? Or the moog fairy did it..

Completely identical waveforms sent through the same speaker would sound the same would they not?

To avoid confusion I'm on two things at the same time here...Hypothetically it's possible and we can come close, in actuality a perfect solution/emulation isn't available, but they're damn close.

quote:

Regardless of a lot of the nonsense in this thread I'll add my own nonsense. Our ears evolved on analog. Defining "better" as more enjoyable to listen to, analog is better imo. Is it cheaper or easier to use? Of course not. Analog corresponds to changes in air pressure. Digital is based on numbers and needs to be converted to analog before it can even be heard.

Yes this thread is nonsense...lets get back to making music.

Also, quoting directly out of an easy to google digital synthesis vs. analog thread to show I'm not full o' sheisse (but I really was) :

Digital Synthesis

quote:

Digital Synthesis has some benefits over analog but also has limits. Most components of analog synthesizers are copied by digital counterparts. Digitally Controlled Oscillators (DCO) perform the same task as VCO's but do so without the possibility of going out of tune. DCO's were employed in many hybrid synthesizers like the Korg Poly-61 and Roland Juno-106. Unfortunately each progressive octave up the DCO loses half of the waveform ramp and therefore either loses strength or requires another form of compensation in the amplification. Towards the end of the 1980's hybrid synths became less common and the filter and amplification of signal began to be entirely microprocessor and software based. This allowed the synthesis to be more reliable and less prone to glitches and detuning. Due to the microprocessor based synthesis waveforms have the peaks cutoff and are less accurate. For this reason digital sounds are commonly described as thin and metallic.

So yes, you're quasi right in stating that people grew up with that analog sound and thus it must be better because of nostalgia and that's what trance junkies are used to hearing. Had analog come after digital (lol? hypothetically) we may have preferred the sound of digitally created synths.

Only being 23 and having honestly missed that era, I can happily disagree. I do prefer the sound of a synth produced from a real analog instrument. It's hard to describe, but it's just warmer and fatter than digital synths. Do these particular sounds have their place? Sure...However, I find that some digital synths sound great for what they are and wouldn't be replicable by analog gear. Some of my favorite "NRG arps" are metallic sounding and quite unique to digital synthesis.

Now, knowing the mechanical engineering world like I do, it's probably only a matter of time before the calculations are done on the variations in the circuitry of an analog synthesizer due to thermal stress/strain in the material to earn someone their PhD. Taking digital (math and numbers) and outputting an analog equiv. (electrical signal sent to the speaker)

And yes, those numbers are in fact calculable, complex as fuck, but not impossible. I imagine it would have to take into account every variable from a DC input, as higher voltages = more temps. You could theoretically take into account material defects on average within a certain percentage as well. From there the model needs to account for age, because stress/strain over time is what causes deformation... In all honesty this probably wouldn't be worth anyone's time or money when they could just build an analog keyboard that just does it naturally.

However, if a theoretically good model WAS obtained, your end product would be very much similar to, if not identical to that of an analog synth.

And again, what you HEAR as a synth, is most basically a waveform, or series of waveforms that were generated by varying voltages from a DC current source, (or AC, but I'm not familiar with AC) converted from analog signals sent your speakers, to mechanical air waves, picked up by the earbones, transmitted through the eustachian tube,chochlea, turned into electrical signal @ the cochlear nerve and transmitted to our tiny, mammalian brain.

There...success, took an essay full of bullshit nobody will read and refined it into something that's on the whole mostly correct. weeee, who cares about being right/wrong or analog vs. digital. *goes to bed*

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad the nervous system, most definitely. Electrical impulses that either increase or decrease the likelihood of another cell attached results in a somewhat quantized response. Your brain could not handle the information coming from every single cell in your body. COme on Robby, this is Intro to Biology/psychology. Why is the JND 3 Hz ? Your hearing organ, granted analog up till your cilia change that information into neurone firing. And sight ? You actually think what you are seeing is an analogue representation ? Analog means everything and you are definitely not seeing everything from the actual cell level as there are not enough cells to actually digest all that information to the nervous level. It blows my mind you have a degree in psychology. There are way more parallels with your nervous system and a digital system than there are with an analog system. Evolution explains many things. Why we have a natural resonance at 4 Khz and 1 khz as well as why we have outer ears to allow the small diffractions to paint a more vivid stereo picture. I use the word quantization in that your nervous system finds ways to limit the cell activity to actual quanta. I mean basic cellular activity is either on or off. That is quantization. There is no in between. That would be an analog device.

Physiology is actually wayy more complex than what you wrote. This is why not everyone is a doctor. Your "somewhat quantized response" isn't even remotely interchangable to any mechanism of physiology that I've heard of. Are you talking about polarization? Hyperpolization? Action potential?
The nervous system does not always find ways to limit cellular activity, what do you think atrial fibrilation is? Or seizures? Its rather common for neuron messages to run themselves into overdrive and I'm still not entirely sure what you're refering to.

What does "Electrical impulses that either increase or decrease the likelihood of another cell attached results in a somewhat quantized response" mean? I understand typos but at least try making some sort of concrete point obvious as theres nothing to derive from that.

Regardless, cellular activity might also be as "on and off" as an analog synth. You plug it in and its on, you pull the cord out and its off. So hmm I guess that makes excellent grounds now for me to argue that humans and analog are alike? I'm not even trying to float the arguement that some esoteric way of perceiving electronics has ANYTHING to do with why our bodies respond to something the way it does. If anything I'd venture to argue something like analog stimulating more cilia than digital, or maybe the inherent properties of the analog signal trigger neurons in the brain to release seretonin which causes us to hear the signal in a warmer way. But you are comparing 2 things that have nothing to do with each other, like saying it would be more likely for us to favor digital because our bodies are designed more like a digital radio than an analog one... seriously?

Maybe animals prefer the taste of animal crackers to their own shit because animal crackers look more like animals than their own shit does. Or MAYBE its just the sugar? W/e the case, your evidence is equally meaningful. At least my evidence is based on some sort of repeatable observation, like the fact that you never see companies advertising awesome analog synth as sounding "cold and digital."

lets just dumb it down to cell transmission. It is an off or on response. That isn't analogue. Your nervous system does not work in an analog fashion. This is quite simple to understand. Your neurones cannot send any other information. They trigger or they don't. If something is louder, you don't get a louder voltage, you get more transmissions of the same voltage.

I never made the case that we would prefer any system over the other. I was only repudiating whoever said that us liking analog sounds is somehow evolutionary. It isn't.

And it isn't complex. What I wrote is how it works. Yes under the surface with all the interconnecting cells and the different types of neurones that fire when excited or the opposite can get quite complex, the fact remains that the nervous system is far from analog.

What does impulses from other cells have to do with other cells firing ? Jeez robby, Certain cells require a certain amount of threshold impulse. The nervous system has all kinds of interweaving transmissions that either increase the odds or lower the odds of another cell firing. Either way, it is on or off.

Analogies are never completely congruent but if you step back for a second and look at how the nervous system works, well if you can't see the parallel between the obviously non analog system compared to the digital realm of audio, it doesn't take that much conceptualization. Again the only reason I made the link because some idiot mentioned that us liking analog is somehow evolutionary. That is a ridiculous statement with absolutely no scientific research to back it up.

And now we're debating whether the nervous system is analogue or digital.

Lets hook up Tiesto to a speaker, plug him into a wall socket and find out what kind of sound he makes. (I bet it's analog)

and yeah fuck off "In electronics, a digital-to-analog converter (DAC or D-to-A) is a device that converts a digital (usually binary) code to an analog signal (current, voltage, or electric charge). An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) performs the reverse operation."

Data digital, electricity analogue. So it's arguable that the electrical signals we receive are perceived as data. (Stored as digital)

you are missing the point. The overarching system is rather easy to see. As far as hearing, it isn't analog. If you disagree, you need to do some research. You are nitpicking an argument that is quite clear and simple. Like saying digital is analog because eventually it ends up in a D/A. The point is that analog sound has nothing to do with evolution. End of story. Please just stop.

quote:

Originally posted by theterran And now we're debating whether the nervous system is analogue or digital. Lets hook up Tiesto to a speaker, plug him into a wall socket and find out what kind of sound he makes. (I bet it's analog) and yeah fuck off "In electronics, a digital-to-analog converter (DAC or D-to-A) is a device that converts a digital (usually binary) code to an analog signal (current, voltage, or electric charge). An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) performs the reverse operation." Data digital, electricity analogue. So it's arguable that the electrical signals we receive are perceived as data. (Stored as digital)

Erhm... Not really... The chemical signals passing through the synapses are just a part of the neuronal system, so IF it was digital then they would just be the mechanism for transmitting the digital information. I think maybe you're thinking of hormones instead.

If M4B was right then the brain would still be digital. Which I don't think he is, because neurons can fire at different rates. Its not just on or off. Neurons turn on and off at a very fast rate, and thats what allows them to express intensity. Certainly these rates might be quantised to certain levels, but the system is a slightly more fuzzy one than a computer CPU for sure, its not a series of on/off switches, its a series of switches that fire at different rates depending on arousal. And that's without even talking about hormones and things that genuinely ARE continuously varying.

quote:

or maybe the inherent properties of the analog signal trigger neurons in the brain to release seretonin which causes us to hear the signal in a warmer way

For a supposed psychologist, this Robby doesn't seem to know much about perception though... Makes me wonder what's going on with the american education system. I mean seriously?? Analogue triggers serotonin??

quote:

At least my evidence is based on some sort of repeatable observation, like the fact that you never see companies advertising awesome analog synth as sounding "cold and digital."

You actually used to see companies advertising the "clarity" of digital sound, and even today, you often see people advertising their sound as cold and digital actually. I've seen sound banks for absynth where this was a selling point.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut So, double-blind tests aren't compelling evidence for you? What would you consider to be "justifiable"? As for the rest - your evolutionary argument is entirely bullshit. Man didn't evolve to fuck with condoms either, but the ones who do aren't the stupid ones. For that matter, our ears didn't "evolve on analog" anyway, when you consider that all that analog equipment is based on electronic parts that weren't even invented before the 1950s. It's all technology.

Ah digi, don't go spoiling his day with logic man. So cruel.

He IS sort of right in one way though. Our ears do prefer harmonically related sounds. We prefer a pure sine wave to the completely unrelated partials of nails on a chalkboard for example.

Digital synths can make sounds that just can't appear in nature, for example a full square wave missing its fundamental, but still maintining the rest of its harmonic structure. Similarly, the sound of aliasing is unnatural and unpleasing to the ears.

@m4b

So WHAT are you saying?
If you're saying its isn't analog then by logic you're saying its digital.
And whats worse is you're saying its digital because the "overarching system" of cells turning "on and off" means it must be.

If you can't understand how that clearly makes no sense I'll let you argue with yourself. Evolution has A LOT more grounds, reasoning and justifications then the preposterous arguement you just brought to light.

And if you don't like the word evolution then use the phrase "principle of familiarity". Of course you can't prove evolution, but you can rightfully see theres a high degree of human familiarity to analog sounds. I'm not saying that proves analog is better, I'm saying its light years better of an explanation then saying "because cells in the body turn on and off we're a digital species". I'm really not all too sure what it is you think you're saying.
In the off chance that some random cell "theory" or whatever you're arguing even made sense, than how does it even align with mass opinion that the shocking majority of producers tend to agree analog has a better sound? Not only does it have less grounds than evolutionary theory, but the concept it is based on is linked to nothing but some enormously flawed "on/off" concept. It makes no sense in every sense of the word senseless. It is not "clear" and once again I have no idea what your point is. But I'm sure once again you will try to draw links where no links exist, then accuse something that at least has potential to explain the links. Seriously you can't be for real... you're basically saying "humans like digital because our cells are either on or off". And this is something I won't repeat. There are analog and digital hearing aids, but there is no such thing as digital hearing. Yet you will actually try to make the statement that hearing "isn't analog".

You can have the spotlight now, because like your reasons to make a logical point, my reasons for staying in this thread any longer are nonexistent.

quote:

Originally posted by kitphillips Erhm... Not really... The chemical signals passing through the synapses are just a part of the neuronal system, so IF it was digital then they would just be the mechanism for transmitting the digital information. I think maybe you're thinking of hormones instead. If M4B was right then the brain would still be digital. Which I don't think he is, because neurons can fire at different rates. Its not just on or off. Neurons turn on and off at a very fast rate, and thats what allows them to express intensity. Certainly these rates might be quantised to certain levels, but the system is a slightly more fuzzy one than a computer CPU for sure, its not a series of on/off switches, its a series of switches that fire at different rates depending on arousal. And that's without even talking about hormones and things that genuinely ARE continuously varying. For a supposed psychologist, this Robby doesn't seem to know much about perception though... Makes me wonder what's going on with the american education system. I mean seriously?? Analogue triggers serotonin?? You actually used to see companies advertising the "clarity" of digital sound, and even today, you often see people advertising their sound as cold and digital actually. I've seen sound banks for absynth where this was a selling point. Ah digi, don't go spoiling his day with logic man. So cruel. He IS sort of right in one way though. Our ears do prefer harmonically related sounds. We prefer a pure sine wave to the completely unrelated partials of nails on a chalkboard for example. Digital synths can make sounds that just can't appear in nature, for example a full square wave missing its fundamental, but still maintining the rest of its harmonic structure. Similarly, the sound of aliasing is unnatural and unpleasing to the ears.

Please never speak to me again about "perception".

Do you even know how the human body works? Just seeing or hearing something pleasurable can trigger higher levels of serotonin/dopamine.

Same way high levels of dopamine/seretonin can cause us to percieve something as more pleasurable than it is. So if analog is more pleasing, which you just mentioned is possible by saying "the sound of aliasing is unpleasing", then the sound that is not aliasing IS pleasurable, and thus likely to stimulate more release of certain neurotransmitters. Please don't try testing my knowledge of psychology and perception, I will never lose.

Now I am done with this thread.

Are you even aware of how a neurotransmitter functions?? I assume you realise that neurotransmitters can have different functions depending on where they are in the brain. High serotonin levels in the primary visual cortex mean a very different thing in terms of function than do high levels in the prefrontal cortex

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox @m4b So WHAT are you saying? If you're saying its isn't analog then by logic you're saying its digital. And whats worse is you're saying its digital because the "overarching system" of cells turning "on and off" means it must be. If you can't understand how that clearly makes no sense I'll let you argue with yourself. Evolution has A LOT more grounds, reasoning and justifications then the preposterous arguement you just brought to light. And if you don't like the word evolution then use the phrase "principle of familiarity". Of course you can't prove evolution, but you can rightfully see theres a high degree of human familiarity to analog sounds. I'm not saying that proves analog is better, I'm saying its light years better of an explanation then saying "because cells in the body turn on and off we're a digital species". I'm really not all too sure what it is you think you're saying. In the off chance that some random cell "theory" or whatever you're arguing even made sense, than how does it even align with mass opinion that the shocking majority of producers tend to agree analog has a better sound? Not only does it have less grounds than evolutionary theory, but the concept it is based on is linked to nothing but some enormously flawed "on/off" concept..

Robby

Accept the fact that your hearing organ does not work in an analogue manner. You do not have access to every Hz. The range is from 20 to 20 000 but there are plenty of gaps not only from the actual physical limitations but also from other elements like masking and that is not even touching the manner in which the brain creates the audio we hear. It is far from analog. It can't be, Nothing is infinite in our body. We don't see in an analog fashion, we don't hear in an analog fashion. The point was that we can't distinguish analog from digital if the resolution is high enough because of our own hearing deficiencies. And aliasing granted an issue with digital music is only an issue at a given resolution and if you work at a sample rate that is high enough, aliasing artifacts are far beyond human hearing.

Even analogue is subject to quantum particulate behavior as electrons and other sub atomic particles act by expelling packets of quanta energy in absolute conserved unchanging quantities.

The whole Universe is in fact digital. In the beginning 99% of the Universe was Hydrogen. As this matter grouped into massive clumps, the clumps got hotter and hotter with ever increasing pressure and stars were born out of this heat, and within them hydrogen atoms under immense pressure gained an electron to become Helium. Right there is a digital interaction - the energy transfered between the 2 atoms is absolute conserved 'energy', always the same amount gained and lost (transfered).

Fast forward 13 billion years and look down at your hand - all was once Hygrogen and a few other trace elements inside a star.

Bit off topic, sorry.

For me immesurably more intense and mysterious compared with a man made religious template.


...........

In physics, a quantum (plural: quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity involved in an interaction. Behind this, one finds the fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized," referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization"[1]. This means that the magnitude can take on only certain discrete numerical values, rather than any value, at least within a range. There is a related term of quantum number. An example of an entity that is quantized is the energy transfer of elementary particles of matter (called fermions) and of photons and other bosons.

A photon is a single quantum of light, and is referred to as a "light quantum". The energy of an electron bound to an atom (at rest) is said to be quantized, which results in the stability of atoms, and of matter in general.

As incorporated into the theory of quantum mechanics, this is regarded by physicists as part of the fundamental framework for understanding and describing nature at the infinitesimal level.

Normally quanta are considered to be discrete packets with energy stored in them. Planck considered these quanta to be particles that can change their form (meaning that they can be absorbed and released). This phenomenon can be observed in the case of black body radiation, when it is being heated and cooled.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox Do you even know how the human body works?

Dude, you're a psych student, not a geneticist or brain surgeon. You're not an expert in anatomy or cognitive science. Don't try to assert authority over a subject you know nothing about. Maybe they did teach you some of this in school, but obviously they only scratched the surface, because the crap you're spewing is so utterly superficial, it sounds like it came straight off one of those web pages on recreational drugs. Or maybe Wikipedia.

If you want to argue the facts, fine. But stop throwing your dick around and acting like a few hours in the same classrooms that engineers and pre-med students sat in as a bird course somehow make you uniquely qualified to comment on every single aspect of music and science (because it's all psychology, right? ).

I'm not even kidding, you simply don't know how to debate an issue and I'm getting sick of watching you try. You ramble on endlessly either stating opinions as facts or making up new facts as you go along, and when you finally manage to paint yourself into a corner, you inevitably respond with some variation of "I don't have to explain myself to you, I'm a Psychologist!" Fuck. Off.

For the record, the human brain is not analog, digital, quantum, or any of those things. The human brain is biological. Or biochemical, depending on who you ask. Organic matter does not work on electronic principles. Saying it's digital or analog or whatever else is an analogy, or a model, which is useful enough for what it is but has absolutely no value as evidence in a discussion like this.

I might as well say that airplanes fly, therefore they're like birds, which means they must also shit on windshields and get chased by cats. That's a form of inductive reasoning, and a rather flagrant and useless one. You're asserting a strong conclusion by relying on a weak analogy. It's not a valid argument.

quote:

Now I am done with this thread.

Unless you've actually got something to say for once, you'd better be.

it was meant to be an analogy but our perception of the world is not analog therefor it must be some quantized approximation. That is something you cannot argue. Well .

Gheeezj seems that you guys need to invest a bit in analoque

I find myself moving back more and more "out of the box"

To me, a violin or guitar is analog. A synth is a synth is a synth.

That was enough dialog about analog to fill a catalog, if you ask me. What's next, a M4B monologue delivered in Tagalog?

quote:

Originally posted by Mad for Brad it was meant to be an analogy but our perception of the world is not analog therefor it must be some quantized approximation. That is something you cannot argue. Well .

Analogies are useful for explaining concepts, and occasionally for illustrating the problems with a particular line of reasoning, but they can't be used as positive proof for any hypothesis.

To the question of whether or not analog synths either (a) sound better than digital synths or the weaker assertion (b) cannot be accurately modeled by digital synths, the only useful proof is either a [double]-blind test, which disproves (a), or a perfect digital model of an analog instrument, which disproves (b) and therefore (a) as well.

Of course, there are already several analog modeling synths, so the obnoxious analog snobs are going to demand a scientific test anyway to prove that the modeler actually sounds as good as the original. That's been done, too, but good luck trying to make that point amidst a sea of "we don't hear in digital!" nugacity.

quote:

Originally posted by cryophonik That was enough dialog about analog to fill a catalog, if you ask me. What's next, a M4B monologue delivered in Tagalog?

I'm sure that was merely a prologue to a much longer trialogue with an ideologue throwing homologues against a demagogue and a pedagogue. We're nowhere near the epilogue.

Epic thread guys. I never though I would see arguments, regardless how flawed, about the the brain is analogue or digital. Only on TA.

I'm going with Bob Moog on this one: "the Aruria VST version of my (voyager) synth sounds indentical".

You can model anything, even "random" (not that it exists but that's another discussion) analogue artifacts (introduced by electronic resistor/capacitor/chip/etc errors) if you program with enough complexity (as arturia have actually incorporated).

Let's not also forget a large part of the obsession with analogue is down to a perceived distortion "colouration" of sound, which now software manufacturers are bringing out plugins which do little else that add that desired tonal change.

not to downplay his legacy but Bob isn't really at an age where he can make audio comparisons. I mean his hearing must be down to like 8 kHz. But I do agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by vikernes You have _absolutely_ no idea what you're talking about Nexus. I'm a little drunk right now, so I don't feel like explaining, but feel free to go over to the vengeance forums and ask markus or just search around or at the very least use your common sense. I will give you 100$ if you can distinguish between a saw coming from an analog synth or a Vsti. It will be a blind test: I will make a 1 minute wav featuring 10 pure saw waves. You will have 1 day to post your result which will be in the style of "the saw coming from an analog synth is at 0:35 seconds". If you fail you will buy me a virus ti and have it ship to me. Put your money were your mouth is. Challenge accepted?

It is what it is. Not all tools are created equal. I have 6 analog synths and a digital rompler. I know what software brings to the table I have worked with it extensively day in and day out. I can patch an analog synth to get a sound or patch an es2 to get a similar sound. Hell I even know how to make it work if I have to. I know what the difference is going to be in my setup with my speakers and my music. To me that is more important then what some other person thinks or some internet bullshit argument I have no dog in. Put it to you this way... If you like analog use analog. If you like software use software. If you like both use both. If you like software and can make it sound good and make nice music that doesn't sound like shit like msz can I am even going to buy your music. I don't care what the fuck you used to make your record as long as the finished product is good. That is all I am going to say here. The mod gonna lock this thread any minute now tho so

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.