New stuff from Roland!

[ninja6485]

But if you take someone who has used a real 303 for years, it being analog is critically important to deliver the goods.

Very true. But can roland learn something new by trying to get close, and make something that's fun and totally usable at the same time? That's what I'm wondering. The virus TI emulates the 303 filter to a certain degree, and while using it doesn't really hold a candle to the real thing, it is a cool variation that compliments it. Even if the tb-3 is lacking some critical elements of the 303 sound, it might still sound really cool as a VA bass-machine.

I think success in this case is the kind of success low or mid level martial artists have going up against very advanced fighters. They might lose the match time after time, but the act of fighting such a battle greatly advances their abilities.

I'm intrigued at what the sequencer will be like, if it has onboard effects, what the touch screen (if that is what that is) will do, etc. I mean, obviously the thing could be a total flop, but if it is, I don't think it will be because it didn't get close enough to a tb303.

[commodorejohn]

Very true. But can roland learn something new by trying to get close, and make something that's fun and totally usable at the same time? That's what I'm wondering. The virus TI emulates the 303 filter to a certain degree, and while using it doesn't really hold a candle to the real thing, it is a cool variation that compliments it. Even if the tb-3 is lacking some critical elements of the 303 sound, it might still sound really cool as a VA bass-machine.

The problem is that they're not selling this as some fun experiment in seeing what they can do with VA technology - they're hyping this as The One True Successor, and that's just not going to fly with anybody who cares about old Roland gear, which would seem to be their intended market (or they wouldn't be hyping it that way.) It's really poor market research on their part, demonstrating once again that they don't really get why people care about their old gear.

[Miles Powerhouse]

Just curious, why does everyone think that the sole purpose of a VA is to emulate vintage analog synthesizers down to the dot?

I know almost everyone on here hates the Gaia since it's so "harsh and digital" or whatever, but no one is forcing you guys to re-create older synthesizer sounds. They suggest it, yes, and sometimes to the point where its truly annoying (i.e Roland, including the instruments being discusses in this thread), but do you have to?. h**l, If I had a Nord Lead, I wouldn't sit down and try to re-create a TB-303 or Minimoog sound just because they have simulations of their filters. I'm not even gonna try and make an accurate re-creation of the classic Oberheim Brass sound on an OB-12. I'm gonna make something great with what I have. If I really want to make that great analog sound in the studio, I'd either rent an analog synth or save up to buy one.

If anything, the VAs are simply here so that you can take the principles of an analog synth and go beyond what an analog synth can do. And yes, I understand that you can do things with analog that you can't with VAs. I'm simply proposing that you go into another direction than the "analog sounds".


Just my two cents, but it seriously confuses me as to why so many people think that VAs need to emulate analogs exactly. I'm serious; someone answer my question so I can move on!

[mute]

[ninja6485]

Very true. But can roland learn something new by trying to get close, and make something that's fun and totally usable at the same time? That's what I'm wondering. The virus TI emulates the 303 filter to a certain degree, and while using it doesn't really hold a candle to the real thing, it is a cool variation that compliments it. Even if the tb-3 is lacking some critical elements of the 303 sound, it might still sound really cool as a VA bass-machine.

The problem is that they're not selling this as some fun experiment in seeing what they can do with VA technology - they're hyping this as The One True Successor, and that's just not going to fly with anybody who cares about old Roland gear, which would seem to be their intended market (or they wouldn't be hyping it that way.) It's really poor market research on their part, demonstrating once again that they don't really get why people care about their old gear.

Actually they are looking at it as an experiment in seeing what they can do with VA technology: the guy said so in a video posted God knows how many pages back. And no offense, but if you were blind-sided by roland trying to cash in on the "hype" of the 303 with their latest bass-box jam thing, you've either not been paying attention to roland for the past 20 years, or you're f**k retarded. That's what roland do. Even korg did it with the aesthetic design of the volca basss. And honestly, it's not really anything to get worked up about. If you're all caught up in what something is hyped as, it will only stand in the way of seeing it for what it is, and if it's actually any good.

[commodorejohn]

Just curious, why does everyone think that the sole purpose of a VA is to emulate vintage analog synthesizers down to the dot?

I know almost everyone on here hates the Gaia since it's so "harsh and digital" or whatever, but no one is forcing you guys to re-create older synthesizer sounds. They suggest it, yes, and sometimes to the point where its truly annoying (i.e Roland, including the instruments being discusses in this thread), but do you have to?. h**l, If I had a Nord Lead, I wouldn't sit down and try to re-create a TB-303 or Minimoog sound just because they have simulations of their filters. I'm not even gonna try and make an accurate re-creation of the classic Oberheim Brass sound on an OB-12. I'm gonna make something great with what I have. If I really want to make that great analog sound in the studio, I'd either rent an analog synth or save up to buy one.

If anything, the VAs are simply here so that you can take the principles of an analog synth and go beyond what an analog synth can do. And yes, I understand that you can do things with analog that you can't with VAs. I'm simply proposing that you go into another direction than the "analog sounds".

This is a fair point (although my problem with the Gaia isn't so much that it doesn't sound analog as that it doesn't sound like much of anything at all,) and I do like digital synthesizers much better when they're not trying so hard to be analog and instead embrace the real possibilities of digital synthesis. (And that doesn't have to mean eschewing the subtractive model; the D-50, for example, is subtractive, but its filter doesn't sound a thing like any analog filter I've heard - but it's excellent on its own merits.)

But the thing is, it's right there in the name. "Virtual analog," or "analog modelling." That openly invites comparison and makes a fundamental claim about its alleged similarity, and if it's not as good at being what it claims to imitate as the real deal, well, it's not going to come out of that comparison looking good. And that goes double for a company like Roland that is trying to establish VA not just as a valid model in its own right, but as a successor to and replacement for real analog (while simultaneously attempting to trade on the reputation of real analog gear.) When you invite comparison, you invite scrutiny and criticism.

Ultimately, can you make good sounds with VA synthesizers, regardless of whether they really sound analog? Quite often, yes. But that doesn't mean that people are wrong to judge them on their own claims to being like the real thing.

[ninja6485]

Ps- The irony is not lost on me that the people who originally discovered the context where the 303 flourished were completely uninterested in the fact that it was marketed as a bass guitar emulator.

[mute]

Just curious, why does everyone think that the sole purpose of a VA is to emulate vintage analog synthesizers down to the dot?

I know almost everyone on here hates the Gaia since it's so "harsh and digital" or whatever, but no one is forcing you guys to re-create older synthesizer sounds. They suggest it, yes, and sometimes to the point where its truly annoying (i.e Roland, including the instruments being discusses in this thread), but do you have to?. h**l, If I had a Nord Lead, I wouldn't sit down and try to re-create a TB-303 or Minimoog sound just because they have simulations of their filters. I'm not even gonna try and make an accurate re-creation of the classic Oberheim Brass sound on an OB-12. I'm gonna make something great with what I have. If I really want to make that great analog sound in the studio, I'd either rent an analog synth or save up to buy one.

If anything, the VAs are simply here so that you can take the principles of an analog synth and go beyond what an analog synth can do. And yes, I understand that you can do things with analog that you can't with VAs. I'm simply proposing that you go into another direction than the "analog sounds".

This is a fair point (although my problem with the Gaia isn't so much that it doesn't sound analog as that it doesn't sound like much of anything at all,) and I do like digital synthesizers much better when they're not trying so hard to be analog and instead embrace the real possibilities of digital synthesis. (And that doesn't have to mean eschewing the subtractive model; the D-50, for example, is subtractive, but its filter doesn't sound a thing like any analog filter I've heard - but it's excellent on its own merits.)

But the thing is, it's right there in the name. "Virtual analog," or "analog modelling." That openly invites comparison and makes a fundamental claim about its alleged similarity, and if it's not as good at being what it claims to imitate as the real deal, well, it's not going to come out of that comparison looking good. And that goes double for a company like Roland that is trying to establish VA not just as a valid model in its own right, but as a successor to and replacement for real analog (while simultaneously attempting to trade on the reputation of real analog gear.) When you invite comparison, you invite scrutiny and criticism.

Ultimately, can you make good sounds with VA synthesizers, regardless of whether they really sound analog? Quite often, yes. But that doesn't mean that people are wrong to judge them on their own claims to being like the real thing.

I don't think it is a fair point, because it looks to me to be a completely untrue evaluation of V/A software and hardware that already exists. However you want to make the point, it doesn't play out at all - pure and simple, not everyone thinks VA is meant to emulate vintage synths. That's true of the musicians/users and the developers. I'd say 99.8% of the V/A world, whether hardware or software, doesnt pretend to be something else.

Anyways, you must have not watched the videos Miles. They are doing V/A via circuit modeling (supposedly to their wording, but they are very vague) in order to recreate the sound of the machines they are named after. UHE has done circuit modeling to great extent (and success) with 0 purpose of recreating some synth or another.

That's why people are speaking of it in this context, in this specific post about Rolands Aira products. Because that's the context Roland is speaking in. Granted, with "new" and supposedly "modern" elements throw in, but the V/A itself is targeted towards emulating their old trademarks. They haven't been bashful about this and are banking on it.

[Automatic Gainsay]

Ugh.

First and foremost... most people who want analog don't actually want analog... because analog includes things like unpredictable variation, noise, good AND bad results (at least as far as predictability), and imprecise tuning. THIS is why analog simulations never work. They're trying to sound analog while they're trying to meet the needs of people who want analog but don't actually want analog.

The math required to honestly simulate analog is expensive... and ultimately, it's only going to be enough to trick human ears into perceiving analog variation. It's not the same thing. Ashe should know, especially as a 3D modeler, that there is a difference between tricking the eye and portraying reality.

Analog is natural. It is random and dirty and infinitely variable. That which people usually associate with "fat" is just detuning and resonance and a bunch of s**t that digital synths and software can already do. But what analog REALLY is is messy and variable and dirty and distorted and out of tune. It is very hard to accurately recreate that because it takes a lot of processing power to generate that level of variability. Luckly, you don't have to truly create that level of variability to trick human ears. But even so... it is expensive and complicated to simulate true analog. And what the f**k is the point, when most of you don't want all the "flaws" that define true analog?

Most people just want the "status" of analog. I don't care how many "circuit simulations" you do... the only way you're gonna get anything that comes close to actual analog is to do things that people today wouldn't accept. It's not that its impossible, it's just that it's TRULY UNWANTED.

[Automatic Gainsay]

Also... the notion that "virtual analog" shouldn't be held to the standards of "analog" is ridiculous. Yes, "virtual analog" is meant to REPRODUCE analog... hence its name. If you want to use it for something different, that's fine... but "virtual analog" literally means "we are trying to reproduce analog with software or digital components."

[Ashe37]

Most people just want the "status" of analog. I don't care how many "circuit simulations" you do... the only way you're gonna get anything that comes close to actual analog is to do things that people today wouldn't accept. It's not that its impossible, it's just that it's TRULY UNWANTED.

I can see it now... a circuit simulation that is so accurate you have to run the VST for fifteen minutes so tuning will be stable, and having to 'open it up' to adjust virtual trim pots every few months...

[Stab Frenzy]

Very true. But can roland learn something new by trying to get close, and make something that's fun and totally usable at the same time? That's what I'm wondering. The virus TI emulates the 303 filter to a certain degree, and while using it doesn't really hold a candle to the real thing, it is a cool variation that compliments it. Even if the tb-3 is lacking some critical elements of the 303 sound, it might still sound really cool as a VA bass-machine.

The problem is that they're not selling this as some fun experiment in seeing what they can do with VA technology - they're hyping this as The One True Successor, and that's just not going to fly with anybody who cares about old Roland gear, which would seem to be their intended market (or they wouldn't be hyping it that way.) It's really poor market research on their part, demonstrating once again that they don't really get why people care about their old gear.

Actually they are looking at it as an experiment in seeing what they can do with VA technology: the guy said so in a video posted God knows how many pages back. And no offense, but if you were blind-sided by roland trying to cash in on the "hype" of the 303 with their latest bass-box jam thing, you've either not been paying attention to roland for the past 20 years, or you're f**k retarded. That's what roland do. Even korg did it with the aesthetic design of the volca basss. And honestly, it's not really anything to get worked up about. If you're all caught up in what something is hyped as, it will only stand in the way of seeing it for what it is, and if it's actually any good.

[volumetrik]

First and foremost... most people who want analog don't actually want analog... because analog includes things like unpredictable variation, noise, good AND bad results (at least as far as predictability), and imprecise tuning. THIS is why analog simulations never work. They're trying to sound analog while they're trying to meet the needs of people who want analog but don't actually want analog.


Most people just want the "status" of analog. I don't care how many "circuit simulations" you do... the only way you're gonna get anything that comes close to actual analog is to do things that people today wouldn't accept. It's not that its impossible, it's just that it's TRULY UNWANTED.

I'm not sure if I'm getting you correctly, but you're talking about the very early analog before DCOs etc, and it's the analog you prefer the most because of how the Minimoog drifts etc. And then you're implying the analog after that is really like VA or VST? I don't know, I found that even modern analog is amazing like MiniBrute or DCO based Juno-60 and is not really like VA at all.

[ninja6485]

Also... the notion that "virtual analog" shouldn't be held to the standards of "analog" is ridiculous. Yes, "virtual analog" is meant to REPRODUCE analog... hence its name. If you want to use it for something different, that's fine... but "virtual analog" literally means "we are trying to reproduce analog with software or digital components."

If I may play devil's advocate: consider that virtual analogs are modeling the way the analog synths function: the idea is to replicate the circuitry digitally, and one feature of this is that it can be done without the flaws that occur as a result of creating the circuitry with physical components. The physical analog synths themselves have flaws, and as you mentioned the flaws are what make them so appealing. Saying that virtual analog synths haven't succeeded at replicating the way analog circuitry functions for not replicating the way physical analog synths make noise AND the flaws that come with being physical fails to treat the flaws as flaws, no matter how desirable they may be. Instead it recasts successful modeling of analog components as a failure because it isn't flawed the way the physical versions are. Thus, in unintentionally not working in subtle pleasing ways, it is actually physical analog synths which have acquired their own ad hoc standard in comparison to virtual analogs. Not only must the virtual analog circuitry work as intended, but it must also not work as unintended in the exactly the same ways as the physical version of the circuitry, or it isn't successful at virtually replicating analog circuitry? Hog wash! This is an ad hoc standard. Virtual analog synths virtually model analog circuitry in exactly the way the circuitry would work in ideal conditions. It is what it is: a virtual creation of the circuitry. Why they don't make it sound better by replicating the flaws is exactly why AG said they don't imo, but damn I wish they would!

[Miles Powerhouse]

Alright, I see all of your points and they all make sense. But for the record, I have watched the videos and I understand what Roland is trying to do with the ARIA series.

I guess I understand now. Just needed an answer and it was given to me. I don't agree that VAs should be used for Analog emulation (and for this I blame the companies themselves), but I guess some of you guys have different opinions. Let's just agree to disagree and end this conversation here so no one has to get (butt)hurt.