Automatic Gainsay wrote:If you didn't choose specific synthesizers for their sound, then any synthesizer would do... right?
I've quoted that particular sentence because IMO you've gone around in a spiral to make another unclear point. That's happening a lot in this thread, I did it earlier with my attempt at humour. Sorry about that.
A synth is a tool for making music, so one chooses the right tool to realise one's creative vision. I think one crosses a line when synths are an end in themselves, and no music is created*. One ends up arguing hairsplitting points like this just for the h**l of it, with no benefit to one's creativity. This kind of argument is fueled by a lack of electronics know how. There are certain characteristics unique to analogue and digital synths, but there is a larger quantity of common characteristics. It's like those valve v transistor etc. etc. arguments. IMHO it is a mistake to consider one aspect of a design while disregarding all others. Like, when we use a synth (or any instrument), there are more factors than just the sound
that influence our liking it or not, and those factors alter our perception of the sound. I need not list them here, we've discussed that before. Ethan Winer's current "Audio Myths" youtube video explains this issue of perception very well.
It's a challenge to make a scientifically valid comparison, because there are a lot of classic, highly regarded designs that happen
to be analogue. People would much rather get dramatic on a thread like this, than channel their energy into setting up a blind A/B test. It's funny, but I'd guess that anyone who could set up an A/B test probably wouldn't, because they already know that the synth is just a tool.
*Which I'm beginning to think is symptomatic of a blocked artist. Someone who decided being an adult meant dumping the creative "inner child" but tries to satisfy the urge to create via consumerist means- collecting synths.