Analog vs. Digital,Let's Hear it

[redskull]

You all know the arguments for pro and con on analogue versus digital working. Let's hear some speeches on each side (if there are 2 sides on this forum)

[elektro80]

I am a great fan of analog synths but I am also a fan of the modern digital stuff.
When it comes to hardware instruments digital ones got a bad name basically because the user interfaces were bad and some of the sound engines weren´t quite as good as they could have been. At the same time the digital instruments started to show up late 70s / early 80s the vendors started to experiment with different/new synthesis engines too. When the first inexpensive gear became available a lot were pretty bad, but there had at least been added some innovation. Many of the problems with digital are really far gone. computers and DSPs are still becoming more powerful and inexpensive. I see no more confilct between analog and digital. And the obvious small stuff we need to have improved are all being improved.
Soundwise ,when it comes to playback, we are still in deep shit. 16 bit at 44.1khz is BAD! 24 bit at 48 or 96khz would be a far better choice. We can hope only for a "new" format using DVD like 5-8 years into the future. I am not asking for a format with surround, but we a talking digital here so it might as well include surround as an option or whatever.

The best of the old analog synths have shown us some good approaches to how user interfaces can be solved.

Another matter is that a lot of the old great gear are not only synths, but also great individual designs which we can think of as unique instrument designs.. like a special 8 stringed guitar, a cello or whatever. I have often written music specifically for a certain ensemble of synths and other keyboards. Just think of the various implementations of duophony in vintage synths. Many are all different and you must develop a special playing style in order to get the duo-mode of like an Octave Instruments CAT2 really groove. We talk of latency in digital audio gear.. right... but we also have a similar feature in many of the old analog instruments. The slew rate here and there might change properties depending on the patching etc.

OK.. I confess we have had a gap between the mid 80s and until like 1995 or so.. a lot of well meant designs were in fact pretty dumb.. but now we cannot complain any longer. The gear these days is quite OK.

Hmm.. a lot of the analog versus digital discussion has kinda been built on the premise that all things analog synth rules. Trust me. It does not. Anyone having owned like an ARP Odyssey or whatever will agree with me. The instruments were ( often ) nice.. but the build quality and the components often sucked big time.

Some words about better resolution and bandwidth: We will probably not need a better frequency response than approx. 11hz to 28 khz.
A higher sample rate ( like 96khz ) and better samples ( at least 24 bit ) will give us a far better signal whith less digital artifacts and much better dynamics. And these are things we really need. Trivia: If you mix down like .. 46 stereo tracks.. already at like 44.1 khz and 24 bit.. you will actually create a denser signal which SHOULD be translated to a higher bandwidth and longer sample size. This is easy to grasp. You are dumping a lot data into a mix treatment.. and you are actually doing more to the data than adjusting levels and losing data that way.. fact is you are creating a much more complex datastream. So the preferred stereo mix file you later will master should be like 24bit/32bit and at least at 48khz. Of course.. not all combinations of DAW and mix gear will allow this and do this well.. but.. this is being implemented now.. and I reckon vendors will start to explain this in further detail pretty soon. I guess we will have 24 bit or 32 bit at 96 - 192 khz as the stereo master standard pretty soon. Hmm.. I will give it a year...

[mosc]

[elektro80]

Dunno if you saw I added some more to the previous post?


Anyway.. you point at the same issues I am talking about here..

Fact is.. a lot of the old gear very often had some parameter ranges.. you must think the whole synth as one electrical unit.. which caused a lot of VCF/envelope settings.. which isolated would output cool sounds.. to be completely useless for recording purposes because the noise would pop out and render the synth output a real mess.

I am with you Howard on how the actual sound synthesis ideas have survived.. sure.. that part is the really good thing about analog gear.

Well.. some of the NEW analog stuff is of course better. Many of the VCO designs in the new DIY modules made vendors like Oakly Sound System are far better and temperature stability has been really improved. I know some of the issues here.. like temperature stability in an oscillator might seem weird and incomprehensible by people not into the analog gear.. but trust me.. these are issues.. man.. are these things some serious issues..
( We are really talking internal stability here ( but of course enviromental tempereture would be of importance too.. playing a gig out in the sun using old gear is a mess ).

[elektro80]

Analog synths are not dead.. I am convinced of that. I guess we will see some serious innovation in DIY modules for modular systems like the MOTM. And hybrid analog/digital modules are showing up with some very silly and interesting ideas. But... there is not something here which should prevent such ideas to be implemented in low cost high quality digital systems. The way I see this is that the shift from pure analog to pure digital or digital/analog hybrid designs is just natural. We are still left with the same problem the synth vendors had back then in the 60s and 70s. Which is how to provide a powerful and sensible interface without increasing cost from sensible to obscene. We still have that problem now. I am sure it will be solved. The trend these days is clearly synths with pots and switches. And.. I want MORE of that. If we strip out the analog design.. old modulars were reallly about letting all the good stuff be out there.. available for the musician to play around with in real time.

[egw]

I agree, the attraction for me in analog synths was always the interface.
Direct access to controls over the sound, real time manipulation.
These things were missing from digital synths for a long time. Even when they gave you knobs, the parameters only had 128 steps, which doesn't sweep smoothly.
Now things are much better, and virtual analogs are close to delivering the classic sounds and interface. But I would like to see more digital synths that don't just emulate analog, but have their own unique approach. Including clever human interfaces which give maximum control and expressiveness.
There are still a few things that digital can't quite emulate, such as feedback and harmonic distortion. But it's probably just a matter of time.

[elektro80]

Yes.. I agree. It is a ll a matter of time until that is fixed too.

On the other hand.. I am pretty convinced that more devices like the Waldorf AFB will show up soon too, Hybrid design are cool and useful.

This reminds me that I have always hated preset/user patch synths because they do not transfer the very settings into "hard settings on the pots and switches. Softsynths has this of course, but what I would really want is a universal controller design that shows reflects all the parameters instantly. This might just be a matter of time too. Like 2 years into the future we might have GMedia Oddity dedicated controllers which look like an old ARP Odyssey - that connects to the computer via firewire.

[redskull]

being as I have no opinion either way, as I like both, I am just curious here. I value the things you each shared in your own ways, and it helps me understand some things alot more clearly. I appreciate the width and breadth of these comments guys =)

[elektro80]

Howard moved a section of this thread over to http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-291.html

I guess that new thread should come with a health warning.