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 »

he bumped alot of old threads in the cor. well maybe it wasnt him but a alt pretending to be him. so maybe hes no banned but only lay low for a while. cors been funny lately.

I went over to the COR and noticed on one of his posts that the status indicator was "online", so I guess he hasn't been banned. I can't imagine him ever pissing off a mod anyway.

maybe he is whats it called, frozen for a time? suspended? i had alot of those. or someone is trolling him bad lol.

quote:

Originally posted by ken_lee i keep wondering what you actually do envy him for after reading this? his house? which probably is the same house as yours as he is your neighboor? he has shit monitors and shit soundcard? what else is there? threatment? i dont see what to envy.

The other 15-20K of gear . Moog Little phatty, Guitars, effects and a few Focusrite compressors such as the red 3 and some more stuff I'd happily own myself. Along with that his knowhow and musical background/knowledge and ability to make himself a living with that.

quote:

Originally posted by ken_lee ...or someone is trolling him bad lol.

That seems more likely.

Just thought I'd add this Brian Eno quote that very much reflects my opinion:

"The trouble begins with a design philosophy that equates "more options" with "greater freedom." Designers struggle endlessly with a problem that is almost nonexistent for users: "How do we pack the maximum number of options into the minimum space and price?" In my experience, the instruments and tools that endure (because they are loved by their users) have limited options."

Accordingly, I don't think it's an "obsession" with analog, but rather a strong preference for those who've sampled both.

Is there anyone who actually prefers software, after having tried analog gear?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Robby Rox The obsession will go away when digital actually sounds better than analog... which will never happen, so it will never go away

+1

To answer the original question: once we stop relying on presets when using VSTs.

quote:

Originally posted by pointPi To answer the original question: once we stop relying on presets when using VSTs.

what!!!!??? what is this blasphemy!!!!!!!

lol just kidding.....i agree...for all intents and purposes, there's no difference. and the best method is to get a good controller for the soft synths so you arent limited to the mouse.

saying that an analog synth sounds so much better than a soft one is just idk......you see....lthey both make electronic waveforms...saw, pulse, sine.....it's not like one makes only saw waves and the other makes only sine waves.............i could see then yes theres a definite differnce....were talking wavelengths...amplitude.....frequency......it's all math.......whether the math is being done on analog circuit or in the digital domain...they both fly out as audio signals...it goes math to audio....saying analog sounds better than digital is like saying that anlog math is 1+1=2....but digital math 1+1=not really 2, plus on gearslutz they did a test and all the synthheads took the test....and it came out as 50:50.....

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ele...-bar-cycle.html

quote:

Originally posted by inversoundzzz what!!!!??? what is this blasphemy!!!!!!! lol just kidding.....i agree...for all intents and purposes, there's no difference. and the best method is to get a good controller for the soft synths so you arent limited to the mouse. saying that an analog synth sounds so much better than a soft one is just idk......you see....lthey both make electronic waveforms...saw, pulse, sine.....it's not like one makes only saw waves and the other makes only sine waves.............i could see then yes theres a definite differnce....were talking wavelengths...amplitude.....frequency......it's all math.......whether the math is being done on analog circuit or in the digital domain...they both fly out as audio signals...it goes math to audio....saying analog sounds better than digital is like saying that anlog math is 1+1=2....but digital math 1+1=not really 2, plus on gearslutz they did a test and all the synthheads took the test....and it came out as 50:50..... https://www.gearslutz.com/board/ele...-bar-cycle.html

It's math against current.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance wtf bumping 4 year old threads for

4 years later, analog still being king of the hill

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance all sound is analog to the ear anyway. its just that we move the chain towards the ear that becomes more and more exact the further the digital convention is. remember that we all listen to 44,1kHz 16bit anyway. whats the point in analog before that? more convertion and noise only. the best would be if everything was digital all they up to the speaker and only there would the only convertion to shitty analog randomness happen. next step would be to plug the digital bits into ones brain directly bypassing any DAC, speakers and ears. think about it. endless of dynamics not limited by laws.

quote:

Originally posted by Raphie you're very disconnected from reality

Not really, as I started with digital/virtual but found it frustrating and not as satisfying as analog, which I switched to eventually. I can say that I found the latter much more inspiring and I was able to finish tracks in a much faster. In fact all my virtual/digital stuff were WIPs, whereas pretty much all my analog projects were completed.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance you were just finally good enough to make tracks, nothing to do with the analog sound.

That may be partially right, but I still highly preferred the analog sound, given the genre I was producing. I also found it much easier and faster to become more experienced in analog gear than virtual/digital stuff, what with all the endless limitations, as Eno mentions.

quote:

edit: are you using PC for sequencing? or entirely out of the box?

Out of the box: Midi/DIN Sync

Unfortunately I never took the time to learn how to use an external Midi sequencer, so the occasional tracks in which I used a sampler or the Juno-106, I had to do it manually.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance then i can understand your view better. you have no digital in your chain? how bout when rendering the final track? you need to have some sort of ADC recorder of your mixer output?

I use a TASCAM 4-track recorder. I actually began using a DAT player, but nobody uses those anymore, and it's too costly and frustrating, nowadays.

While I think it's greta that you've been able to keep your chain completely analoge, I can't help but think you're being a purist for the sake of it.

The Tascam 4 track recorder (which my former Boss, Johnny Arbiter invented) was great to give people a cost effective multitrack recording option when computers and soundcards were clunky, crap and expensive, but you'd have to be mad to honestly use one today. Even the onbard soundcard on any $100 netbook will have better S/N ration than those little blue ******s had.

There's places (budget allowing) where analogue makes sense (sound creation, FX, summing, mixing, EQ etc) but then there's places it makes absolutely no sense (recording to a medium, large track projects, etc).

Tape for instance does sound "pleasing" but you realize that analogue tape only has 10bit resolution or 60db of actual usable dyanmic range before THD? That's lower than our useful hearing range.

Palm is right about about 16bit although I don't agree with the sample rate bit.

There's a great explanation from Bob Moog with an analogy about lightbulbs as to why analogue signal sound better: (scroll down to the magazine cutout bit).

http://www.moogmusic.com/legacy/con...ound-generation

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN While I think it's greta that you've been able to keep your chain completely analoge, I can't help but think you're being a purist for the sake of it.

Not at all, the genre of music I made was always traditionally done with analog, which is what I was aiming for.

quote:

The Tascam 4 track recorder (which my former Boss, Johnny Arbiter invented) was great to give people a cost effective multitrack recording option when computers and soundcards were clunky, crap and expensive, but you'd have to be mad to honestly use one today. Even the onbard soundcard on any $100 netbook will have better S/N ration than those little blue ******s had.

So what's wrong with using the Tascam? The sound sounds virtually the same if I listen from my analog mixer.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance I think you would benefit from a balanced ADC audiocard and PC recording. just a thought.

Why would this benefit me more than using my Tascam?

quote:

Originally posted by AlphaStarred I use a TASCAM 4-track recorder. I actually began using a DAT player, but nobody uses those anymore, and it's too costly and frustrating, nowadays.

Which tascam do you have? I used to service them and IME the recording quality is pretty horrific.

Palm is suggesting a good ADC because unless you intend to only distribute your music on tape reels then it's going to end up as a digital recording and therefore you want a great DAC, especially given that your chain is so nice and analogue.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance if you would like any other than yourself to enjoy what you are making... and hear what you hear from your mixer it is important that it is recorded as correctly as possible using the highest dynamic range possible and as little error as possible so that the wav reflex the mixer output.

Apparently some people enjoy what I've made. I also never said I record with professional quality. I do appreciate your tip, however.

quote:

the fact that you cannot hear the difference on your setup says more about your ears or your monitoring or mixer...

I said it sounds virtually the same.

quote:

...you probably loose all benefits from the analog equipment and chances are you just like analog noise/distortion, you could just as well record a VST using a tape recorder.

Wrong, because when I tried VSTs they sounded nothing like my productions with analog equipment.

quote:

and here is my point. you all claim analog sound so damn good, but you have infact recorded it digital with a crappy interface and cant hear any difference. it tells me you have either not the ears for hearing the details or you do not have the setup to be able to tell them a part or you probably just like distortion which is fine.

I challenge you to record the same track I've recorded analog, using VSTs or Digital. I guarantee you that it will never sound the same, let alone similar. Just because I use a digital recorder does not mean it makes my analog machines sound like VSTs.

quote:

but dont tell me analog is better.

I never said it is.

But I will definitely take into consideration of using a balanced ADC audiocard and a PC for my recording if it will sound more "analog." Cheers!

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Which tascam do you have? I used to service them and IME the recording quality is pretty horrific. Palm is suggesting a good ADC because unless you intend to only distribute your music on tape reels then it's going to end up as a digital recording and therefore you want a great DAC, especially given that your chain is so nice and analogue.

Tascam DP-004. I do appreciate the suggestions, I really wasn't sure I could use another method to produce a better recording. Maybe I didn't care enough, as it sounded quite similar to what I would hear from my analog mixer and monitors.

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance all sound is analog to the ear anyway. its just that we move the chain towards the ear that becomes more and more exact the further the digital convention is. remember that we all listen to 44,1kHz 16bit anyway. whats the point in analog before that? more convertion and noise only. the best would be if everything was digital all they up to the speaker and only there would the only convertion to shitty analog randomness happen. next step would be to plug the digital bits into ones brain directly bypassing any DAC, speakers and ears. think about it. endless of dynamics not limited by laws.

exactly....we listen in analog...our ears are analog devices..........how do you separate analog from digital....what isn't analog/part of the real world is digital.....it doesnt exist except as 0s and 1s, information........so what is an analog signal before it becomes analog...it's informatoin....on the subatomic level, a continuous current is the exact same as a discrete current...with finite numbers....the numbers are so infintely small that there is no fucking way that the human analog ear can tell a real difference...only difference is an illusion.....lthat added random noise from a continuous current...there is no iun between only on off in a digital series....thats why its called digital it's digits// or only whole numbers integers.

these ar the links i found o put on gearsluts that are papers from prinsceton and etc that explain mathemeically why analog and digital signal processing is equivalent.... aand the signal processing theory...

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0902.4291.pdf
http://www.informatics.buzdo.com/p030-signal-theory.htm

Plus, digital instruments are actually way more vintage than analog ones....because the math that creates them was around way longer before any physical synthesizer was invented....take that.

quote:

and chances are you just like analog noise/distortion, you could just as well record a VST using a tape recorder.

exactly....analog gear does add noise intot he mix...which can add grit or bite...in certain situation this might be good...or just having that random amount of tiny noise......because analog flow is conintinuous and has non-whole information in the signal.......it's not as clean...as digital......digital creates the purest clean sounds....but might be subject to random glitches or stepping...etc....so each of them has problems....but digital is way better and more reliable....and all the people record there analog gear into digital devices at some point and squish it to 16 bit any way...

but.....i think the real reason there is so much love for the vintage analog synths...is they are sexy..and they are powerful...and amazing feats of engineering.....to be able to have that much sonic complexity and power within a single box, is sexy.........

quote:

Originally posted by inversoundzzz exactly....we listen in analog...our ears are analog devices..........how do you separate analog from digital....what isn't analog/part of the real world is digital.....it doesnt exist except as 0s and 1s, information........so what is an analog signal before it becomes analog...it's informatoin....on the subatomic level, a continuous current is the exact same as a discrete current...with finite numbers....the numbers are so infintely small that there is no fucking way that the human analog ear can tell a real difference...only difference is an illusion.....lthat added random noise from a continuous current...there is no iun between only on off in a digital series....thats why its called digital it's digits// or only whole numbers integers

Well I've had both analogue and digital and I personally prefer analogue outboard and synths despite being 95% ITB at the moment, although I do use a Roland digital synth.

Digital is only ever an approximation of 'real' events, in the same way CGI is just an approximation. Programming cannot emulate the trillions of possible outcomes found in the linear world where things are not granular but a continuum.

I plan to go more analogue over time especially on outboard processing.

quote:

Programming cannot emulate the trillions of possible outcomes found in the linear world where things are not granular but a continuum.

but..it can....and does.....it's called noise....completely random generated outcomes.....computers can generate completely random outcomes.....
this make the sampling/(waveform generating) a completely continuous uninterrupted process.......it's also what dithering means....youve probly heard that term before...the same thing applies to noise generation, as applies to resampling.....



people in the A?D debate on both sides, I think they both dont understand what theyre even arguing about......and there is also a common misconception that for some reason...a digital waveform, is some how stairway steps, and at the very bottom of it...there will always be these "missing links"..false.

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