|
When will the obsession with "analog" stop? (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Scrittah |
| quote: | Originally posted by theterran
oh I c wat u did there mr. derail...
In b4 Dirty Dutch House vs. Dubstep for #1 subgenre. Then Tiesto is going to mix both into 1 hit single using only analog synths and FL Studio to claim best artist of the universe and end the debate once and for all.
/thread |
 |
|
|
| vikernes |
| quote: | Originally posted by Twilothunder23
It makes difference on the final product.
The final prodcut sounds better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CCIjz1ZXAs
^
Record a saw off an old korg synthi and listen to how it sounds then do the same thing on the es1. Yeah... no audible difference :rolleyes:
Nexus ain't ntohing but SAMPLED presets. Straight of the 1080 straight off the jp8000 straight off the virus synth into SAMPLIT. For s sake there are even LOOPS OFF OTHER PEOPLES MUSIC. This dude created the ultimate trance rompler by sampling the factory presets of old digital synthesizers. And his product reflects his mentality. The whole is illegal why you think you cant buy nexus in guitar center? They will sue his ass in a split second hell they even sued roland in the 90s over those 1080 expansion cards. |
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? |
|
|
| 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.
NO . Thats the POINT. If we tried to compare things that didn't have differences, there would be nothing to compare in the first place.
All synths are different in one way or another. And I love how people will also try to estimate the % that digital is comparable to analog (like kit saying 85% wtf). Are you sure its not closer to 84% kit?
You always have a knack for bashing newbies while sounding like a total idiotic newbie yourself.
Then we have drunks trying to challenge people who don't even know proper study design. You might be able to pull some type of research off (double blind would be a good starting point), but not by comparing the saw waves of 2 synths. Either way if the study was ran properly I'm sure you'd achieve some signifance in the results.
There are LOTS of things that appear the same to the masses but still have vastly different effects. Regardless of whether they could identify analog, why not run mood test instead in 3 conditions? One control, one all digital, one all analog. Maybe you'll find the group that listened to analog had an increase in positive emotions.
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. Digital caused a revolution 30 years ago and offered a lot of advantages, but our ears did not evolve on digital. And after how far digital has came and how much commotion it has stired, I still question why it sounds "unhuman" or cold/sterile.
Digital is all about sound for sounds sake, analog just sounds more like something humans made. "Good" digital needs to be manipulated into sounding human or warm, good analog already has those properties.
I hear a lot of digital sounds that impress me, but in the end whether or not I can put my finger on exactly whats wrong, I always just sense something is wrong.
I also expect that the "masses" can just sense this too. So why can't we all just agree that analog is better in terms of ENJOYING the sound? Not in terms of ease or convenience, not in terms of how each can be disguised in a musical piece, in terms of face value. Who can actually tell me digital sounds better?
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. I'm not talking about price or conveniene, someone tell me why digital is more enjoyable for you to hear. Why it makes your brain feel better after you hear it? Then maybe we'll have an actual debate at hand. Lots of people don't think these threads are valid but I think they're as valid as arguing whether or not imitation cheese is better than real cheese made from real cheese products. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| 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 bull. Man didn't evolve to 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. |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
| 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. |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| 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 bull. Man didn't evolve to 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 ty 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? |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| 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 s because they . 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| theterran |
| 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 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 , 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 bull 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* |
|
|
| DJ Robby Rox |
| 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 because animal crackers look more like animals than their own 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." |
|
|
| Mad for Brad |
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. |
|
|
| 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 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) |
|
|
|
|
