Page 4 of 11

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:30 pm
by clubbedtodeath
pflosi wrote:it didnt matter on that s**t music he made ;)
Oh aye -- Only You, Don't Go, Love to Hate You, and A Little Respect were complete howlers right enough.

:roll:

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:35 pm
by Dogboy73
clubbedtodeath wrote:
pflosi wrote:it didnt matter on that s**t music he made ;)
Oh aye -- Only You, Don't Go, Love to Hate You, and A Little Respect were complete howlers right enough.

:roll:
I don't doubt Clarke's credentials as a synh geek/guru. But as a pop star he has been responsible for some of the most offensive s**t outside of the Stock, Aiken & Waterman camp! Erasure made the sort of music that made me wish Human's had evolved without ears. Eeeek! makes my skin crawl thinking about it :? About 2 Yazoo songs were pretty cool. Everything else ........ I like to pretend it doesn't actually exist ;)

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 7:39 pm
by tallowwaters
nvbrkr wrote:
redchapterjubilee wrote:
madtheory wrote:I bet in a blind A/B test very few of us could hear a difference between a good VA and a real analogue.
nvbrkr wrote:I bet many can.
I'd be willing to give someone $20 if they can successfully parse out what's VCO analog, what's DCO analog, what's ROMpler and what's VA/softsynth on one of my tracks.
That's hardly what anyone would call a blindfold test.
Then you just aren't good enough to pick it out. He already owes me 40 bucks.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:18 pm
by TrondC
for what it's worth in this way overdone and beat to death topic, I'd probably miss 95% of the time in a blind test. I can't even tell a minimoog from software. I also represent the very small percentage of people who even cares about what makes each sound in a record (most people won't care if it's a $500000 buchla or a toy ukulele as long as it fits the song), which means that, my poor analog/va distinguishing-skills aside, 99.99% of people won't ever hear the difference unless you actually A/B an analog synth versus a poor va. My sister thought the Voyager I tested when we were in London sounded like our old casio keyboard, and the only thing that impressed her was the touch-pad for filtersweeps.

so, I guess my point is.. if you care enough about the sonic difference, sure, get analog. but if you want to just make music, a good VA will fool almost anyone except those few of us who actually know that synths come in more than just one shape and that they all don't sound the same. through a good PA, I could probably even make musicians believe I have a Moog while playing an EA-1 or something... I god comments on my "really fat bass-sound" on my recent gig, which was the Monomachine and it's most simple sound: the pure sine wave, unmodulated and unprocessed. just straight out of the box. and that's even considered to be a weak synth for the bass-department.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:48 pm
by redchapterjubilee
nvbrkr wrote:
redchapterjubilee wrote:
madtheory wrote:I bet in a blind A/B test very few of us could hear a difference between a good VA and a real analogue.
nvbrkr wrote:I bet many can.
I'd be willing to give someone $20 if they can successfully parse out what's VCO analog, what's DCO analog, what's ROMpler and what's VA/softsynth on one of my tracks.
That's hardly what anyone would call a blindfold test.
But that's precisely the point. What you hear as music is most of the time presented in just such a melting pot of sources.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:50 pm
by redchapterjubilee
tallowwaters wrote:Then you just aren't good enough to pick it out. He already owes me 40 bucks.
Ahem, well, let's not talk about that, shall we? I do have a wife and children :?

OK. On my record label's website http://www.sinkholetexas.com you can listen to a free track beside my most recent album Kill Screen. The song is "The Inator Inator". Ground rules: the first person who can tell me what gear I am using will get $20 Paypalled to them.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:58 pm
by Dogboy73
TrondC wrote:for what it's worth in this way overdone and beat to death topic, I'd probably miss 95% of the time in a blind test. I can't even tell a minimoog from software. I also represent the very small percentage of people who even cares about what makes each sound in a record (most people won't care if it's a $500000 buchla or a toy ukulele as long as it fits the song), which means that, my poor analog/va distinguishing-skills aside, 99.99% of people won't ever hear the difference unless you actually A/B an analog synth versus a poor va.
I think this is pretty much spot on. What's more I think these sort of discussions are only of interest to extreme synth geeks. As far as A/B comparisons go there is no level the synth geek will not go to in order to weigh up the merits of one against another. Case in point - Just seen a guy selling a vintage SEM on e-bay. Here's what he had to say about it in comparison to the new SEM, which Tom Oberheim claims is identical to the original in all but a few details;

"This is one of the best analog synths ever made, it DOES sound better than the new SEM. I've owned the new SEM and greatly prefer the old one over the new (Why are you selling the old one then?!) (the new is still really good though) but nothing quite like the original. The original sounds more liquidy and warm, it has a buzzier bubblier sounding filter and the oscillators drift more."

http://cgi.ebay.com/Oberheim-SEM-Analog ... 3698074272

Well they might have a point I suppose. But we're talking VCO v's VCO here. Not only that we're talking about 2 practically identical synths seperated only by time & a few pots that Tom couldn't get hold of or didn't want for the new SEM unless I'm missing something here. Is it just a vintage thing?!

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 9:14 pm
by balma
A valid point? :

Between a Roland JUNO 106 and a Roland JUNO D, I prefer the 106
Between a Roland SH101 and a ROland SH201, I prefer the 101
Betweem a Roland MC 303 and a Roland TB 303, I prefer the TB 303...

At least the latest DIGITAL Roland can kiss my.....

If the sound fits good use it, no matter if it comes from a sampled fart, or from a bubble pad ARP 2600. But at the moment of making the mix, I can bet you: that's not the only sound that could fit there. If you have a BUCHLA, maybe you could try it out. And a better sound could fit there.

Hard to say how good is gonna sound until you try it. If you don't have an analog, you'll put there a digital sound from your VST that sounds good.

But suppose you you invested money, and got a buchla. And made some tweaks, and a sound from the Buchla fitted on the same place the VST sound was, and the result is not only good, but better.

For some type of sounds, analog will do better. It also depends a lot how good you are....


Analog sounds, should be a must have for hardware producers. Why? Because they exist. Same reason for having other synthesis types.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2010 10:34 pm
by Automatic Gainsay
redchapterjubilee wrote:But that's precisely the point. What you hear as music is most of the time presented in just such a melting pot of sources.
That is only because most people don't realize or care what needs to happen for the benefits of analog synthesizers to be evident in their recordings.
That is why most of the analog hype is based on bullshit.
That is why people can say things like "I bet you can't tell what synths in my recordings are analog or not."
I guarantee that if you can't tell that the synths in my recordings are analog, you know nothing about analog synths.
I also guarantee that if I wanted to record them to sound like digital synths, I could do that, too. That being said, I could record a trombone, a piano, or the human voice in a manner to make them sound like digital synths. The point isn't how they sound when someone doesn't care whether they're analog or not... the point is how they sound when someone does.
If someone were to say "what's the point of me spending the money on an analog synth if I have to record it so carefully to get the benefit?" I would say "exactly."

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:19 am
by madtheory
Ah, now I get it. Now I'm going to record an oboe and make it sound analogue. Using Pro Tools. Because I can.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:48 am
by Stab Frenzy
There's a lot of talk in this thread, but not a great deal in THIS ONE. I wonder why that is?
madtheory wrote:Ah, now I get it. Now I'm going to record an oboe and make it sound analogue. Using Pro Tools. Because I can.
Ummm, oboes are analogue already. Unless you have some kind of digital oboe I've never heard of before...

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:59 am
by pricklyrobot

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 3:00 am
by Stab Frenzy
Dogboy73 wrote:As far as A/B comparisons go there is no level the synth geek will not go to in order to weigh up the merits of one against another. Case in point - Just seen a guy selling a vintage SEM on e-bay. Here's what he had to say about it in comparison to the new SEM, which Tom Oberheim claims is identical to the original in all but a few details;

"This is one of the best analog synths ever made, it DOES sound better than the new SEM. I've owned the new SEM and greatly prefer the old one over the new (Why are you selling the old one then?!) (the new is still really good though) but nothing quite like the original. The original sounds more liquidy and warm, it has a buzzier bubblier sounding filter and the oscillators drift more."

http://cgi.ebay.com/Oberheim-SEM-Analog ... 3698074272

Well they might have a point I suppose. But we're talking VCO v's VCO here. Not only that we're talking about 2 practically identical synths seperated only by time & a few pots that Tom couldn't get hold of or didn't want for the new SEM unless I'm missing something here. Is it just a vintage thing?!
That's nadafarms from this forum, he's well known for getting really excited about a synth when he buys it and then selling it a week or so later when something else catches his eye. I believe that he's just talking it up so that he makes money from the ebay sale.

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:25 am
by Rangoon
projectwoofer wrote:...and in the end it's music that counts, no?
Not necessarily. It's the money....and it doesn't weigh in favor of VAs. All of my real analog is worth around 50% more than what I paid for it, whereas any VA bought around the same time would now be worth at least 50% less...

Re: Real analog or VA?

Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2010 4:25 am
by redchapterjubilee
Automatic Gainsay wrote:That is only because most people don't realize or care what needs to happen for the benefits of analog synthesizers to be evident in their recordings.
I would definitely fall in the latter category. I'm too busy making music and recording it to be bothered with whether my analog synthesizers sound analog enough, or whether my digital synths are digital enough. I'm more worried about whether the song sounds right or whether the overall mood I was going for was achieved.