Page 3 of 3

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:19 pm
by gd
I've owned so many synths over the past 35 years starting with my miniD I bought in '74 but for me it all comes down to what sound I am looking for at a particular moment. I owned a Voyager AE for 3 years and really wanted to love it as much as my old "D" it si a beautiful synth but for me I just preferred the old gal. I sold my JP8 last year after owning it for 20 some odd years, but missed the analogue sounding poly. I ended up trading the V for a new P 08 (plus rec'd $600) . For me the P08 is a great synth but after 1 year of programming and running it through a Vox Tonelab I still felt something was missing - whether it be weak filters as Carbon has spoken to or its clean sound. I remembered a chorus pedal I owned in the 70's that I really like and finally found one the other day (Ibanez Stereo Chorus ce-505) this is what for me the P 08 was missing.
I don't know if new is better or worse as it is all too subjective but I do know that I would rather take a new analogue out on the road than a 25 yr. + one. Someone previously stated that it is what you do with your gear and how happy you are with it that counts.

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:21 pm
by OriginalJambo
steveman wrote:Not better, not worse, just different.
Exactly. That simple. :)

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:05 pm
by OriginalJambo
Off Topic
Joey wrote:(the vintage gear used on those songs includes an ms20, juno 106, minimoog, and octave cat)
You got a hold of a Mini and a CAT? Nice!

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:21 pm
by Joey
OriginalJambo wrote:
Off Topic
Joey wrote:(the vintage gear used on those songs includes an ms20, juno 106, minimoog, and octave cat)
You got a hold of a Mini and a CAT? Nice!
borrowed my friends for a few sounds

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 7:51 pm
by OriginalJambo
Joey wrote:borrowed my friends for a few sounds
Well you certainly put them both to good use - I'm diggin' your new track, "Square". :thumbup:

The only electronic musical instruments my mates own collectively are a microKORG I sold to one of them and a Yamaha PSR-540. No comparison really!

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Tue Jun 23, 2009 8:34 pm
by Joey
OriginalJambo wrote:
Joey wrote:borrowed my friends for a few sounds
Well you certainly put them both to good use - I'm diggin' your new track, "Square". :thumbup:

The only electronic musical instruments my mates own collectively are a microKORG I sold to one of them and a Yamaha PSR-540. No comparison really!

lets just say i have friends in nice places haha

square is still in rough rough rough demo form, but playing it live that way until i make the new arrangement for it.

there will be 2 or 3 new tracks coming very soon

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:07 am
by otto
Sometimes better, sometimes worse but always something.

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:52 am
by nvbrkr
Stab Frenzy wrote:
nvbrkr wrote:
Stab Frenzy wrote: There is no 'old analogue' sound, just like there's no 'new analogue' sound. All the old synths sound different; a Juno doesn't sound like an MS-20 or a Minimoog, just like a Prophet 08 doesn't sound like an XS or a Voyager.
Ehm.

The fact that the analog synthesizers from the 70s and 80s sound different from each other and that the new units do this as well, does not really lead to such "logic". You can pick a number of classic units from the past decades and compare them to an equal number of their modern counterparts - and it is very likely that you are going to hear something of a considerable difference between the two groups.
OK, I pick:

1. Roland Juno 106
2. Korg MS-20
3. FutureRetro XS
4. DSI Prophet 08

Please group them into similar sounding and not similar sounding.
Yeah, just what I thought.

More interested in proving a point on an internet forum with oversimplified statements than basing a view on how people in general perceive things and categorize them as a result.

Sorry, can't group those myself as I've never tried the FutureRetro XS.

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 11:01 am
by Stab Frenzy
Pardon me, was I supposed to bow down and admit defeat at the hands of your sweeping generalisation? :D

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:08 pm
by Yoozer
nvbrkr wrote:[...]and you can usually spot similar tendencies all the time when e.g. guitarists are discussing gear. You can also spot such expressions used in reviews for records released in the marginal music genres.

"It sounds so digital".
Guitarists have an excuse; synthesists have less of an excuse, since most of the effects they use are in a 1U rack, completely digital. You don't see people buying a concrete cave in their back yard just so they can have 100% analog reverb :D.

I see something similar on another forum, where any piece of music that doesn't sound good is shoved aside with "must be done ITB" (for those who don't know, it means In The Box, e.g. mixed on the computer, opposed to Out of The Box if you have used an actual analog mixing desk that costs more than most synth setups here).

It's a gross oversimplification that ignores a slew of factors. Warmth, organicity, etc. are relative. You can't find people agreeing on them, except in the great gear pissing contests where a DX7 is warm and organic when pitted against a softsynth, but cold and sterile when compared to a vintage machine. In the case of ITB/OTB - ignoring whether the engineer was skilled or was aiming for that sound or whether the mastering engineer had to screw up the loudness because management demanded it.

What makes something sound warm and organic can (arguably) be faked, and if you're listening to an mp3 any complaints are pretty much moot anyway; because you're already listening to something that's digital. I understand the sentiment, but the word is so linked to "cold, sterile, precise" that it won't sway anyone anymore.

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:08 pm
by clusterchord
all i can say is, i ve played/owned crapload of old analogs, and have used/borrowed or otherwise played in the stores, a shitload of new analogs, and its clear to me that, in some elements of sound, there is an overall difference in character.

its hard to put a finger on it, and i'll be damned if i have time for scientific explanations or pissing matches, but, as much as individual models can vary a lot in some elements of sound, yet in another they share common character elements, respective to old vs. new groupation. (tho for me the "old" stops aprox. in 1983. and im reffereing ONLY to VCO synths. i don't count the DCO designs and 3396 or other synth-on-a-chip products that followed - they indeed have a lot in common with todays similar products)


to generalize, old is comparably thick, saturated in low mids/lows, organic regardless if its cem/ssm/discrete or roland/moog and arp. that elusive something is embedded. punchy hardware envelopes. new boards, excluding the dsi dco designs, are cleaner, purer, more uniform in tuning, with extended bandwith, some can get dirty/agressive but are not greasy, NO subtle saturation. on additional note, aside from modulars or FRXS and similar, many are mared by software envelopes, and popping VCAS etc..

this of course, aint black and white. i will have to exclude some designs in this assesment that go out of their way to clone the behaviour of old pcbs/circuits, and have been imo very sucessful. like latest offerings from Macbeth, with the X-Module series, STG Labs EMS filter etc, Oakley Cota etc..

to conclude, even tho i largely prefer the old sound, i do like this new character too, and would like to have a board or two in my mixes. in all honesty, what has prevented me so far was, was the bang-for-the-buck factor.. i'd love an omega or code.. but considering (at the time) i got a 8-voice OBX, with still a bigger sound, for 1/4 of Omega price, it was just not a viable option. however, i am looking into NOVA SE1X and ATCXi lately, and a specialized sml euro modular w some whacky modules, as posibilities. but first on my list are the macbeth x-modules, as soon as the whole line becomes available..

Re: is 'new analog' better or worse 'old analog'?

Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:47 am
by Jinsai
Is "new analog" better or worse than "old analog"?

Totally subjective. Ask 10 people, get 10 different answers.

Nobody else's opinion matters. Get the gear you want and/or can afford, and use it well.

I think this sort of gear-gazing is pointless (and only occasionally fun). I have no interest in owning an "old" synth. They're expensive, fragile, and limited. Using a MiniMoog D isn't going to make my music better or worse. Using a Prophet 8 instead of a 5 will ultimately make no difference.

As for new gear, I don't think buying an Andromeda or Voyager or Largo is going to magically make my tracks better, either. Getting any "good" tool (whatever that means to you) and mastering it is the key.