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.

___________________
Analogue Mastering
Esoteric sound for the discerning ear

quote:

Originally posted by Robotrance wtf bumping 4 year old threads for

4 years later, analog still being king of the hill

___________________
Analogue Mastering
Esoteric sound for the discerning ear

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?