Analog doesn't sound Analogue

[23]

I was working on a bass line the other day, and for really no good reason, I setup a couple different variations of the bassline (In regard to programmed timbre) on a few different synths. 3 synths were analog, and one was digital...a "Rompler" in fact.

Now the synths were not at all anything along the lines of clones of each other, but the basis of the sound I was looking for was simple enough so that any given one of the synths could have achieved it adequately. I pretty much was just being picky...

In any regard, I'm not a big hanger on "analog it sounds better" or "digital it just sounds better"...I couldn't care less.
But one thing I did mark was how when looked to the degree of specifics, all the synths had a unique character (again, it was subtle, but there...I don't think anyone but a syntheist would have noticed or cared).
In regard to how different the sound varied, the digital one of the bunch really didn't stray any farther away from any of the other three than any of the other three strayed from the other three.
This brought me to thinking....
"I'm sure there's someone out there that would complain the digital doesn't sound analog enough to them....
despite the fact that it's no further or closer away from the sound of one of the analog ones as one of the analog ones is from a counter part analog. The answer is surely obvious, THE DAMN ANALOGS DON'T SOUND ANALOG! *LoL*"

[Jack Spider]

Just a warning for all in advance - don't let this turn into another Analogue vs Digital debate. It's been beaten to death.

[crufty]

I've noticed this too. What synths? I have a hunch, but wondering...

[mcomeg]

Why argue analog and digital when both of them are often necessary. I worked on a track last week and the liquidy, elastic interplay pretty much required that the aural components be analog. But then I needed a shimmery, deep-space sound for another track, and my analogs are really not up to that task; so I programmed my MicroKORG to bring out a little more of its digital nature. I guess I still need a DX synth somewhere in my set-up for a proper digital sound.

[cornutt]

There can be big differences between the tonal characters of different analog designs, VCFs in particular. That's one reason you see so many different filter designs running around in modular-land. I can make the filters in my Matrix-1000 do a lot of things that the filters in my Juno-106 can't do, and vice versa, despite the fact that they're both basically resonant LPFs. I remember the first time I ran into this -- years ago, when I was playing in a band in Florida, we were going to add Rush's "Closer to the Heart" to our playlist, and I needed to duplicate a Taurus bass sound for the song's intro. I could not get it to sound reasonably close with the 106, no matter what I did. One day the guitar player brought a borrowed Electro-Harmonix Mini Synth to practice. I patched up a bass sound on it and got close to that Taurus sound almost immediately, despite the Mini Synth's limitations.

What were the synths you used to do this experiment?

[Automatic Gainsay]

I think for this premise to be even remotely understandable, you're going to have to define a set of tonal, etc. characteristics to attribute to analog or not analog and then specifically describe how the various analog or not analog sounds strayed from those characteristics.
All analog synths sound different from one another, but it isn't that which exists in their differences that defines them as analog, it is that which is similar about them and not about other forms of synthesis.
I guess I'm saying I don't really know what you mean.

[sam]

Just a warning for all in advance - don't let this turn into another Analogue vs Digital debate. It's been beaten to death.

You should consider the DX -7 is legendary for basses...The smart member should know better.

I hope...

I didn't understand the question either...

[Yoozer]

The JX8P has several sounds in there that I wouldn't call analog either - thanks to its crossmodulation options. To move it even further, when I first heard the Novation Nova, it sounded very un-virtual analog to me as a lot of sounds would fit right in a sample-based synth. I like that - it simply means the sonic range is bigger than your expectations (or put negatively, prejudice).

[CJ the noisemaker]

I would agree on some level that analogs don't sound analog. Synthesizers built today that run on analog circuitry are controlled by digital components, so it's too perfect to be analog. There is no room for traditional behavior like oscillators going in and out of tune.

[23]

I've noticed this too. What synths? I have a hunch, but wondering...

The guilty parties in this case were one of my 777s (older model), XS, MFB Synth II, and MC-505/JV.
Coincidentally, there was a project I got started on today that had me end up repeating the process, except this time things were sort of reversed, three digitals were used (V-Synth GT, Supernova II, and Alesis Fusion and only one analog; MFB Synth II). This second time around it was one patch in specific that was being sought after, so the synths were all essentially running as emulations of each other. As this second time the basic synth archs were kept pretty much the same and it was the same timbre all 5 were being pointed at, the differences weren't as wide as before (the differences became EXTREMELY EXTREMELY subtle).

I would agree on some level that analogs don't sound analog. Synthesizers built today that run on analog circuitry are controlled by digital components, so it's too perfect to be analog. There is no room for traditional behavior like oscillators going in and out of tune.

This is sort of along the lines of what I was getting at.
Take the TB-303, the thing had 10% tolerant resistors (for starters), and so as a result 303s don't sound like 303s.
I'm certain there's even more than this at play here, but it's a solid start as to why 303s can't even emulate 303s accurately.
So it's not so much that everything is being controlled digitally, as much as in many cases, even when all analog, the quality is just so much darn higher than it used to be (i.e. the XS runs with 1% tolerant resistors). So analogs end up becoming horrible at emulating analog. *LoL*

You then have other things that start creating subtle differences as well like difference in filter design and on and on.

My second shot at this that was done today was actually done for reasons related to a new possible soft synth creation. Don't ask me why (as I have no idea) but the one requirement this soft synth HAD to be capable of was a decent recreation of the bass patch from Bodyrox's "Yeah Yeah Yeah"; and it had to be an FM synth. In checking out the end goal that had to be achievable, I thought "eh, there's no reason for FM to have to be used here", so I decided to make the patch with subtractive means; know what was going on from a subtractive basis, and then simply move on to creating a simple FM arch that would be capable of emulating the majority of that subtractive arch (and more).
I have to record some of the results of this patch later on today, make sure it's the direction the person I'm working with wants to press forward in....so I should be able to toss the initial subtractive results here.

I think ultimately, when your working with the same basic principals, you're bound to end up with similar results. And that's basically what I think I had going on....
It was basic subtractive going on with basic wave forms being used in pretty straight forward ways.
The end results ended up all being similar as a result, but still had variances due to little variances the engineers put into their designs and/or variances that existed due to nature of synth itself. The analogs were no closer to sounding like what some other analog might toss out than they were to what some digital (even ROMPler) version might throw out in many cases and vice-versa.

[Automatic Gainsay]

I would agree on some level that analogs don't sound analog. Synthesizers built today that run on analog circuitry are controlled by digital components, so it's too perfect to be analog. There is no room for traditional behavior like oscillators going in and out of tune.

That is true of modern analogs and even vintage DCO synths.
There is so much argument about "analog sound" using synths which really, despite being analog, don't evince the desirable qualities.

[JSRockit]

To be honest, the only thing I can tell a real difference in analogs is with the filters (sound a little dirtier or not as perfect / bland)... and when you get into the real deep notes... where the analogs just seem to stay tighter in the lower octaves). Outside of that, especially in a mix, I can't tell the difference.

[hfinn]

and here is digital sounding analog...

http://www.heathfinnie.com/media/synth.mp3

[crufty]

funny about the XS--that way my guess!!

Same time, although its possible to make the XS sound VA, its really easy to slide it out of VA territory with but a few patch cords and a flick of the osc sync switch!

The XS doesn't warble the same way as other synths do. Not sure why. Maybe it does, but only for certain ranges?

[jupiter8]

I'm not surprised at all. If you analyze what "analog" means to most people it's usually a couple of things. Oscillators that are'nt ultra stable, noise and non linearities (distorsion). None of those is particulary hard to do in a digital synth either should you want to.

If you implement those things there really are'nt that much difference. The waveform will be close, digital filters have been great since forever (1987 or so) envelopes and LFOs are really easy to do digitally so there's not much room for difference.

With that said obviously all synths are going to sound different and digital synths can do stuff that analogs can't but if you're aiming for "analog" territory digital should still get you reasonably close. It's not rocket science.

If you want a digital synth to sound exactly like another synth (be it analog or digital) is a whole other matter. That's really hard unless you have the code for a digital synth. But similar is trivial.