Digital vs analog synths synthesizer in a few sentences?

[vox345]

I searched and read every thread at Vintage Synth Explorer, Keyboard Corner, Harmony Central, Muffwiggler, and Gear Sluts forums which topics’ say: ‘analog vs’, ‘digital vs’, ‘dco’, ‘vco’, ‘analog’, etc and Googled a bunch but am still left wondering the benefit of analog. Most of the threads are full of BS, helpless analogies like ‘analog is fine wine, it’s hard to tell the difference from cheap wine, but it’s better!!”, bickering about which is better, or get hijacked by a few people talking off topic advanced stuff that doesn’t help the thread purpose. This ‘VS’ means to compare and contrast, not which wins, plus that’s what a lot of people search for so hopefully they can gain good info from this. Most people know they’re both great and have their own purpose, but don’t know exactly why. There should be a universal sticky thread simple guide so this doesn’t get asked every few months and become the threads I read. The writer should know studio engineering to explain how to get the most from analog with common digital recording.

I learned most of this from forums, so it might be wrong:
The phrases analog ‘fatness’, ‘warmth’, ‘richness’, ‘grit’, etc just mean the added harmonics (like free extra layered sounds). Some analogs sound more gritty, distorted, and edgy and others sound more smooth, which can depend on how much their VCO/DCO spits out ‘odd or even order harmonics’. Also VCO drift (an option found on some DCO and digital VA synths anyway) makes the signal/pitch constantly change so it doesn’t get canceled out by similar signals in a song and keeps it from becoming ‘muddy/cloudy’.

Digital waveforms have aliasing/stepping that causes a stuttering sound. Also the peak of digi waveforms are cut off for a loss of tone. This is because digital can’t draw a perfectly curved waveform like analog; instead it links many straight lines together to make a curve. However, with high quality modern gear, the aliasing stepping is well beyond what people can hear. I’ve read it’s easy to hear aliasing (especially on high notes) in modern gear like the Roland GAIA, but I guess that’s why it’s only about $600 new.

Okay, so analog adds extra harmonics that make the sound grittier, or smoother, etc. But if aliasing can’t be heard on high quality digital gear, can’t we just do something like this with VA gear?: layer some patches/oscs around a main sound and make the layered sounds very low almost inaudible amounts of things like distortion, noise, pitch LFO, FX, randomize things like filter LFO so the final sound has all these added harmonics?

I read digital modulation like LFOs in analog gear (like Minibrute has) add ‘digital bad stuff’ like stepping if applied to pitch, but less so if applied to the envelope. Does a digital arpeggiator on an analog synth (like Minibrute has) even if not turned on add any ‘bad digi stuff’ ? What about digi patch memory?

When analog is recorded digitally, it loses its affect and takes on digital ‘bad stuff’ like aliasing. I understand this but am willing to pay more for analog so I can plug straight into it and get the full affect, and if I record it to digital, the experience should have been more pleasant and should carry over to digital event though the sound quality will be less. I’m pretty set on a totally analog synth (analog LFOs, modulation, VCO, no patch memory, etc), but I still don’t get it. Can you explain the benefit(s) in simple wording?

Thanks for any input.
(I posted this in numerous forums, so if you want to learn more, googling the title should find responses to all of them)

[Automatic Gainsay]

I think you've read too much.

There is no such thing as "digital vs. analog," except when digital is trying to emulate analog. Other than that, it's pointless to compare them.
Play every synth you can, find the one you like. That's all there is to it.

As for analog, there are no "extra harmonics." Analog synths are messy. They vary in pitch both in drift and between iterations of waveforms. The waveforms themselves vary. As such, that makes them sound more like sounds we hear in nature. Many people don't like that. Many people do. It's not a matter of "better," it's a matter of preference.
Also, analog is about physical interaction, and the results interaction causes. The moment you sequence analog is the moment where the minor differences become relatively irrelevant.

Recording is different than generating. A CD of Credence Clearwater Revival doesn't sound like Lady Gaga simply because it's on a CD. The relevant difference between digital and analog exists in creation of sound, not recording. And still, it's preference. Analog is only better at being analog than digital, and that's where it ends.

Stop researching on the internet.

[Cumulus]

In before the lock.

[phesago]

The relevant difference between digital and analog exists in creation of sound

the only real difference for the most part

Stop researching on the internet.

Ditto.

[Rick N Boogie]

I think Automatic Gainsay summed it up very well. So, that's a tidy little bundle of truth, all the way.

[meatballfulton]

I’m pretty set on a totally analog synth (analog LFOs, modulation, VCO, no patch memory, etc), but I still don’t get it. Can you explain the benefit(s) in simple wording?

If you don't get it, maybe you should hold off before buying a fully analog synth.

The benefit is really quite simple: a good analog synth will usually sound better than a digital synth when both are programmed to make the same sound. That's all there is to it. There are also plenty of drawbacks to analog.

As you have noticed, there is so much (mis)information on the interwebz that it can be quite confusing to a newcomer. The best way to understand is to hear different instruments in person.

PS: as moderator, I'll leave this thread open for a while as long as it doesn't devolve into the same old sh*t.

[asohn]

They create sounds differently, and they sound different. Neither sound better, but they both excel at different sounds. And even though synth nerds might be the only ones who can really tell the difference, one will do the right job for the sound your after and people who won't be able to tell the difference will still think it sounds amazing, in a way that they wouldn't if the other was used for the same job. I mean, most listeners don't know music theory, but that doesn't mean the right chord progression will be lost on them right?

[Ned Bouhalassa]

It can be quite exhilarating to make electronic music without a computer.

[Scories]

Many people believe that the analog waves due to their continuous nature are more perceived like natural sounds and therefore, creates less fatigue during long term listening. But in order to create analog sounds that are as complex as the digital ones, you often have to go modular.
But I assume that processing digfital synths through tube amps might be a good compromise.

[phesago]

It can be quite exhilarating to make electronic music without a computer.

this

[Sir Ruff]

Not sure why you felt the need to post this on multiple forums, but anyways...

IMHO, the ONLY thing that makes an analog board better than a digital board with identical features is independent phasing of each each oscillator and each voice with respect to the next one. This is intrinsic to the "analog" sound and it's got absolutely nothing to do with "which synth makes which sound better", UNLESS you are thinking of sounds where this analog phasing is an important component.
Everything else - crazy modulation, whatever - is superfluous, and is probably better implemented on a digital synth anyway.

[Stab Frenzy]

As you have noticed, there is so much (mis)information on the interwebz that it can be quite confusing to a newcomer. The best way to understand is to hear different instruments in person.

QFT

Things sound like what they are. The synth that sounds most like a Juno is a Juno, and if you use anything else when your heart is set on that sound then you'll end up disappointed to some degree.

The reason a lot of people have to have the same vintage synth that was used on their favourite record from the 70s or 80s is because they are so used to hearing that sound that the particular timbre of that instrument is what they associate with 'synth music'. For those people a newer synth that performs the same functions and may be improved in terms of bandwidth or having faster envelopes or lower distortion or whatever won't do the job for them, they want something that sounds exactly the same as the sound they have in their memory.

It's the same as the ubiquity of the SM57 on snare drums and guitar cabs in recorded music, they've been used on so many records that people are used to hearing the sound of '57-on-guitar-cab' and think of that as what a guitar sounds like, even though the cab would sound different if you were there in the room listening to it instead of through the somewhat crappy 57 transformer.

Of course if you're trying to create new music without referencing what's gone before you then none of this matters. Your personal tastes have been shaped by everything you've heard in the past but that doesn't mean you have to do something that sounds the same as it.

We're at a very interesting point in the trends of popularity of various synths, 70s and 80s analogue has been popular for the last 15-20 years, 80s and 90s digital has been having a resurgence over the last 5 and even first-wave VA synths like the NL1, AN1x and Microkorg are considered classics either because of their sound or because the killers used their presets in a few hit songs. Pretty much the only synths that don't have some kind of following are ones that have just been discontinued and didn't quite click with their intended audience like the SH-201, V-Synth and Radias.

The question now is where do we go for new sounds, and once we make the new sounds is anyone going to like them? Has the initial novelty of synth sounds worn off and they're just a mainstream instrument like guitars and drums now? I doubt we're going to see another period like the 80s and 90s where people go crazy over the sound of something like the 303 or D-50 again. I have a few ideas up my sleeve of directions things can be pushed in, they're more to do with getting different sounds from playing synths in different ways rather than anything else though.

But to sum things up in a few sentences for the OP I would say this: Different things sound different and playing them is a different experience. Try to play as many of them as you can, listen as much as you can and think of ways you could extend what they can do as much as you can. If you do all that you'll end up being happy with what you use and will hopefully do something innovative with it as well.

[Scories]

The best things is to have a powerful digital synth and one or two analog synths.
I've done a lot with just a Korg Z1 (powerful VA/digital) and two vintage monosynths. I've been able to nail many sounds I was looking for with the Z1.

[HUBA]

I might not get exactly what you want from this, but if I understand you correct you're curious about what exactly makes analog synths more interesting than digital synths, at least for what analog synths do better(?)

I wont pretend to know the answer, but I personaly think the older analog synths have more of what makes analog synths unique. Unfortunately most of them are either limited feature wise or modular and only one voice. And expensive. To me the modern analog synths sounds a lot like digital synths without the aliasing.

Again, I might not be the one to listen to here, as my experience with analog synths is very limited, but for what it's worth, my impression is that the more complex analog polys like the xpander, mks-80 and a6 have less of the character that makes analog synths interesting, but that may off course be wrong. I suggest that you just pick one that sparks your interest and try it to see for yourself what the fuzz is about.

I'm kinda like in your situation and suggest you get a good digital setup that works for you and stick with it as a base setup. It's cheaper and more versatile and you can learn and experiment a lot. Check out analog boards you are interested in one by one as you have the money for it, but keep the original setup, at least until you feel that you know what you're replacing it with.

It may sound like a contradiction to what I've said here, nevertheless I think Stab Frenzy has some interesting points.

Good luck

[Scories]

I wont pretend to know the answer, but I personaly think the older analog synths have more of what makes analog synths unique. Unfortunately most of them are either limited feature wise or modular and only one voice. And expensive. To me the modern analog synths sounds a lot like digital synths without the aliasing.

This statement is pretty much true.

Personally, I dig aliasing. I put the 'aliasing' on on most of my Microwave XT patches.
Funny to see many people pay big money to avoid VA's aliasing and then pay big money to run it through a decimator.

You can do A LOT with very little and a lot of imagination.