I thought this was an excellent conversation, thanks for sharing.
1 Like
In the end all stuff goes into your ears, and thats the place where all is analog.
2 Likes
Umm thats the place where all is organic .
Electronic circuits replicate the organic⌠thats why its called an analogue
Anyway, dinner time.
1 Like
In the end all food ends up in the belly, so why worry about what we eat at all, right?! 
I find these âin the end all goes into the DAWâ arguments strange â if I play a beautifully resonant flamenco guitar into a high quality mic into my DAW the recording will be digital alright and some aspects of the performance will inevitably be lost â but it still will be miles ahead of anything played eg through a Kontakt sample instrument library thatâs been constructed to emulate flamenco guitar â which would also be digital.
Arguments such as âin the end itâs all the sameâ or âthe listener doesnât careâ just donât gel with my worldview at all. Details matter, feeling matters, subtleties matter, at least to me.
Also personally, the dedicated interfaces of hardware instruments matter more to me than eg the instrument being analog or digital (I for example LOVE my digital Waldorf Iridium Keyboard).
8 Likes
I think moog will come up with their own ACB simulation stuff, and then sell you digital interfaces to their own synth they developed over the years. But for sure not a general interface that can run all the simulations, they give you specific overlays and then one simulation - like roland did.
I own a sub37, and i think its a fine instrument, not sure if i would have bought it, when it was announced with ACB technology - i might then have waited for the VST version of it.
I am for sure not against digital synth, i am lusting for a Iridium myself - when i want something - it has to push the boundarys - and this is nothing i have seen with most of the roland clone synth´s. Also i personally think, the behringer clone of the 303 sounds better than any 303 vst i have tested.
Also - there is something to the Eurorack - which is in my opinion very hard to replicate with other synthesis forms - maybe its the level of detail you can achieve with it, and that you really have to understand synthesis to get the most out of it. Sure parts of it could be replicated with software - but it does not deliver the same expierience - and it would be not as intresting to watch.
When i see a modular live act, i am also watching a show - someone who is able to make music with a monster technical rig. I wouldnt get the same feeling watching someone clicking a mouse on a screen.
If inmusic somehow would make a general synth controller addon to their MPC, and include their moog brand with it - would be for sure a good idea - so for me to make it attractive, they would have bring more than a one trick pony.
2 Likes
Could it be that often the entire dispute over analogue/digital is mostly driven by an attitude either to dislike âold-schoolâ or the ânewâ stuff?
Let me kidnap this thread for a short example:
Letâs imagine to go back in time for about more than 30.000 years BC. Some guy or gal takes a hollow bone of a bird, drills holes in this thing and starts blowing on it and it would be one of the first flutes of all time. I can imagine that many of the ancient tribe would think him/her gracy, sick, a whizard or witch, or magical only because those sounds would have been heard never before ⌠even chirping birds donât sound lilke this.
But after ten thousands of years a flute is loved for what it is and played by many musicians.
Same goes for analogue synths later. Some blame it to sound âsyntheticâ, âun-naturalâ ⌠but others start to love it for delivering ânew soundsâ never heard before.
Same goes for digital synths ⌠and I think, if anybody invents something different and unknown before, it will be the same story again ⌠
From my experience with musical instruments and musicians I would state:
Itâs the musician who decides, whether the sounds are received to be natural or unnatural - human made or mechanical.
If we put a mechanism to a Stradivarious and rip the bow back and forth, that sound would not please many, but if we have a digital - or better said algorithmical - sound engine with much options allowing sensitive emotional play by a musician, not many would call this âcoldâ or âmechanicalâ.
What do you think?
1 Like
Fair point about culture & being trained to think a certain way.
It makes sense that as things get normalised/standardised/orthodox or whatever some folks will call different methods inferior & will struggle to accept value in those methods.
This is just the kinda thing I was getting at earlier. The use of the word âorganicâ to describe electronically generated sound is⌠Cringey.
There is nothing organic about synthesisers. The cueâs in the word, itâs derived from synthetic. Ancient Greek origin, roughly meaning âto place togetherâ. Modern English meaning âderived from another source, typically chemicalâ.
âOrganicâ also Ancient Greek in origin, roughly meaning âan internal part the of the bodyâ or âan instrumentâ (not sure if tool or musical) Modern English meaning âof natural originâ.
A synthesiser is literally a system of electrical components arranged to generate a sound the user can alter. Nothing biological goes into that system other than the human hand & mind as part of creation then use (cue nitpicking with that video of a fungus connected to a eurorack case).
So to describe a synthesiser as âorganicâ is a fallacy. Itâs neither of the earth or of the body.
Interestingly the Ancient Greek version comes close, but results in a tautology- now weâre describing an âinstrument-instrumentâ (like an ATM machine).
But you do make a sound point about it being time for a feed.
1 Like
8 Likes
Totally agree, but the same goes for any musical instrument I know about. There are no trees growing violins, or bushes you can harvest a piano from 
But if we talk about sound received by men than the whole âorganicâ, âsterileâ, âwarmâ, âcoldâ thing could make some sense.
IMO all natural sounds - meaning sounds created in nature like from wind, water, animals and ourself - are received natural because they have typcial intrinsic fluidity and fluctuation, which we have ingrained to be natural by evolution.
Not two sounds in nature are identical.
Even if we try hard there is always a tiny difference. Try to keep singing a vowel absolutely constant ⌠no way ⌠there will be tiny fluctuations in pitch and tone. Try to play a piano key always the same way keeping volume and rhythm constant ⌠no way ⌠there will be tiny fluctuations of the rhythm and the force we play the key.
IMO the difference between receiving a sound as âhumanâ, âorganicâ, âwarmâ on one side and sounds, which appear to be âmechanicalâ, âsyntheticâ, âcoldâ on the other side might be those tiny fluctuations, instabilities, and lack of precision beeing present or missing.
Maybe that absolute precision is really an un-natural phenomena and therefore received as cold.
5 Likes
In the analog world interpolation has no cost and simple filters also very cheap while in digital it takes a lots of computational power to smooth out artifacts. Human ear is very sensitive to glitches. It makes us discomfort.
In nature sounds have a certain frequency distribution. Analog sound imperfection is closer to that natural frequency distribution.
2 Likes
I just wanted to share an excellent recent research paper in Administrative Science Quarterly (not mine) retracing the reemergence of musiciansâ interest in analog (vs. digital) synthesizers: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4390090
Excerpt from the summary: Leveraging more than 40 years of data, we trace the relationship between technological developments and synthesizer playersâ occupational meaning. While synthesists initially embraced the ease of use and novelty of digitalâs black- boxed preset sounds, widespread adoption of digital sounds ultimately undermined musiciansâ occupational goal of distinctive creative expression. In response, synthesists articulated preferences for technology that afforded control, enabling them to use their expertise to create sounds, and that provided an embodied connection with the tool. Synthesists associated these affordances with analog rather than digital instruments, leading to renewed demand for analog and the reemergence of a formerly displaced technology.
4 Likes
Exactly. Too add from personal experience nobody describes other instruments tones (that Iâve noticed) like synth tones. For instance guitars are described like âresonantâ, âsustainedâ, âmutedâ, âdullâ, âbrightâ, âwoodenâ etc. Not âorganicâ.
Terms like âwarmâ vs âcoldâ make more sense because theyâre a spectrum that relates to a shared experience - distortion, noise & frequency range around that of the human voice. More of those being perceived as warmer. Easy.
Sticking to âorganicâ feels kinda lazy. The association makes too many assumptions (noise, oscillator stability, harmonic content).
So while I guess organic works on a societal level & my rants arenât going to change a thing, Iâm still going to twitch whenever itâs used.
I disagree, warm and cold is a feeling and could relate quite well with a digital or analog, but often more used in analog.
For me organic describe a bit more a kind of sound which is alive and non predictable. Like using multiple lfo and loopable envelopes to modulate a set of parameters in a non prĂŠdictable way for the listener. At least it would be how I would use it.
And you donât need an analog or digital to do that. Just make for example an evolving sound with only one note which has enough variation to be interesting in itself for more than 5-10s.
So organic just mean alive for me, nothing more nothing less. A feeling.
3 Likes
Obviously weâre at a point where a digital emulation can sound basically identical to analog for most people. I think there are other related dimensions of a synth that give it life and character, and its more interesting to look at these things instead of talking strictly about the signal:
-
Analog controls - any knob or fader with a very fine resolution and some unpredictability can make your relationship with that instrument much more intimate and sensitive. Any time a parameter has a range, vs stepped / synced / locked values, youre going to be able to feel things much more. Thatâs nice.
-
an analog filter can make a lot of things sound good. The whole signal path doesnt have to be analog. I love the microfreak/minifreak bc the digital oscs have tons of weird ways of generating sound, and i can bring it silky/creamy filtering in if i want. Even just having a self-oscillating analog filter that you can make tight, sharp poppy transients and bubbles with sounds amazing.
-
IDK how true all the stuff about detuned VCOs is. Ive gotten plenty of warmth out of DCOs with fake slew/detuning, but maybe I really would be converted to all analog if i heard some amazing kind of VCO. shrug on this one
-
things that are all analog can sound also sound like shit. I love Arturia but the minibrute sounded like shit. I tried squeezing use out of it for years and Iâm super glad I finally gave up on it and moved to better monosynths. An analog path alone isnt enough to make something sound good
-
an amazing VST can sound amazing but still not be fun to use. I used to have fun with plugins but I dont like working in the box. Itâs irrelevant if it sounds amazing if you dont have fun using it, and you dont have good ideas while using it. Digital plugins work for some people but id way rather have a digital hardware synth.
my 2 cents / shouting into the void
4 Likes
Youâve awoken the Balrog of synth debates.
4 Likes
Iâm astounded i didnât post some sarcastic response in this thread back in the day.
Thank goodness my perspective was represented 
3 Likes
Well, did it need to be said?
3 Likes
50% of LFOs used everyday around the globe are wasted modulating tiny amounts of pitch and detune between DCOs to make digital synthesis sound like⌠exactly, an analog machine.
An additional 25% of LFOs are used to modulate the first LFOs.
My Volca GrandMistress (Bass) everyday sounds different. Its almost impossible to reproduce a patch because there is not even digital recall of parameters. If the day is cold or hot here, if batteries are high or low, even the speed at which is played (because it retune the 3 VCOs while no note is played) affect itâs sound.
And that is beautiful to me.
6 Likes
Analogue sounds better to you whether you know it does or you donât â your brain is smarter than you are," begins Natale. "Six million years of evolution is not gonna be fooled by 30 years of chip design. Now thatâs what I think, but [points to ears] these are analogue and they always will be. If you wanna argue that Iâm available all day long and thatâs the way it is. Analogue is better, it is.