Its not your call.
such imagined authority
please explain the full d 50 synth engine,
including the generation of the saw/squ waveforms and the implementation of the filter.
The point I'm making that I believe is being missed is that a virtual analogue synthesizer models circuits, not oscillator wave types. It may be a mathematically calculated sawtooth - but that’s a digital oscillator. But, for the likes of the Arturia Minimoog (and indeed all Virtual Analogue synthesizers (again its all in the name)), actual circuits are modelled - and those virtual circuits generate oscillators. In other words, its transistors, resistors, diodes, capacitors and so on that are modelled - which happen to generate the various analogue features of an actual analogue synthesizer, but in a virtual world. This is a totally different thing to what's going on in the D50, however you describe it.
The 'not your call' statement is not a point of authority. This charge is very common these days, as if it has to be that all facts are wide open to debate and that all opinions are valid. Not all facts are open to debate. And - not all opinions are equally valid. And that's the case here. You mighn't like it but its the way it is. You cannot arbitrarily call a well understood synthesis method such as virtual analogue synthesis anything you like. It’s just not on; and as said repeatedly - too many people are calling any synthesizer they want a virtual analogue when in reality it is not. This has nothing to do with authority, it has nothing to do with me or you, but you must accept that if someone is going to start calling a Casio CZ synthesizer a virtual analogue synthesizer they are factually incorrect.
I believe there is confusion here between analogue synthesis and subtractive synthesis; and as was pointed out by another poster, between physical modelling and virtual analogue. These are all distinctive terms in their own right. In fact I'd go as far as saying that it is NOT clear that the AN1x is a virtual analogue synthesizer. I believe it is more accurately a virtual synthesier that models the waves and filters and so on of a subtractive synthesizer. But it's not clear if Yamaha use an analogue circuit model in this synthesizer (perhaps they did but I haven't seen reference to that).
In fact even in the latest Music Tech Focus series on synthesis they called Trillian a Virtual Instrument when it is not. The language is just getting too sloppy and is betraying the synthesis mechanism underneath. Such sloppiness has implications - confusion by those using them, confusion to all new comers (and rest assured there are more people coming to synthesis today than ever before); dishonesty in second hand sales; confusion in resource planning and all round unprofessional. And - such loose terminology betrays the huge efforts that the likes of Clavia, Korg and Arturia have put in to actually model analogue circuits. I've seen plenty of venom on this forum against Arturia on what I feel can often be a misunderstoond basis. The likes of Arturia synthesizers (and the Korg Legacy range) are strewn with character that other digital synths like the JD800 cannot match because they model actual analogue electronics. They are a marvel of modern synthesis and a class all of their own.
Regarding the poster just above this one "nvbrkr" - my point on other types of computers is this - the character and sound of, for example, the Korg Legacy PolySix (which sounds very like the original by the way) is based on the actual model Korg have come up with to emulate the Polysix analogue electronics. So, in the future if we use other types of computers such as biological computers but with he same virtual analogue Polysix model - then it will have the same sound and character. In other words - the sound of a virtual analogue synthesizer is (mostly) down to how it models the analogue circuitry and is mostly independent of the computer system running that model (apart form ADCs and so on). I pointed this out because it appeared to me that some people though that, for example, a digitally generated sawtooth wave is a virtual analogue sawtooth wave (which it isn't). But I know you already know that and that you are splitting hairs on this to be argumentative !!!