Is the AR as capable as the MD?

invisible_acropolis · 2016-05-01T22:03:15.000Z

""Anfim"":

It only took 13 posts for this to turn into analog vs digital… It’s like the Godwin’s law of audio forums

i need to make it clear i am an equal opportunity synth-lover!
but there are definitely differences …
and they are good to know because some things are much easier with certain types of methods

DeckardTrinity · 2016-05-01T22:59:11.000Z

Not had much time to play with gear this year, but I spent some time today with the MD. Having spent yesterday and this morning on the AR 1.30 new features, I’ve learned a great deal about how to use the LFO now to really get into experimental territory with the AR.

Took those lessons and applied them to the MD, and NOW I see why there is still such a love for the machine. I now also get why folks say that the LFOs on the AR are more limited (they are).

I think at this point any thoughts I had about selling my MD-SPS-1UW+ Mk II have gone out the window. Definitely going to keep both MD + AR, and try to find more time to spend with each. I got into this hobby for the sound design aspect, and after this weekend, I’ve renewed the pursuit for new sounds.

Upright · 2016-05-01T23:09:04.000Z

[quote=““invisible acropolis””]

i need to make it clear i am an equal opportunity synth-lover!
but there are definitely differences …
and they are good to know because some things are much easier with certain types of methods
[/quote]

I can appreciate what you’re saying. I’m the same way…good digital is good digital (i.e the Mutable Instruments Modular stuff)

Upright · 2016-05-01T23:11:07.000Z

Thanks to each and every one of you… every response here was helpful and insightful.

Gummi · 2016-05-01T23:42:22.000Z

[quote=““invisible acropolis””]

[quote=“xidnpnlss”]However I’m going to have to agree with the others on how the AR sounds. “Round” is a great way to put it…3D, spherical. To my ears it’s as if the sound exists more than what I know of digital.
[/quote]

there is much greater range of detail of information in analog audio, wheres digital audio has a limit… theoretically the human ear can be fooled, but it can also be acute enough to spot differences that eventually add up to a firm (and generally accurate) perspective

of course by the time it gets to your ears its all analog, but its the generative stages that determine most of the fundamental harmonic qualities

for example, analog synthesis often sounds physical or more “real”, because it literally is physical - instead of vibrating a string like a piano, essentially its vibrating electricity… digital doesnt do this, but sometimes digital through an analog filter will get you partway there

[/quote]
Not to derail this thread too much, but as someone studying advanced mathematics and DSP a lot of this post is pseudo-science. I love analog sound, but it doesn’t magically make the ear hear things digital never could,it just makes certain sounds in a much easier way. Not to mention that this argument precludes that “analog” is synonymous with “colored analog”. Read up on high tech gear forums where engineers argue over a transformer in microphones and you’ll see many people who love hardware but absolutely hate the “imperfections” some like in analog. And without those imperfections, analog sound is imperceptible from digital.
I’d recommend the Rytm, just because so many aspects of it seem to be made on improvements from the MD model. It does lack a few things, but other than LFOs they’re all moot for my needs. Sold my MDUW to get a Rytm, haven’t regretted it once.

invisible_acropolis · 2016-05-02T00:45:16.000Z

""Gummi"":

[quote=“invisible acropolis”][quote=“xidnpnlss”]However I’m going to have to agree with the others on how the AR sounds. “Round” is a great way to put it…3D, spherical. To my ears it’s as if the sound exists more than what I know of digital.

there is much greater range of detail of information in analog audio, wheres digital audio has a limit… theoretically the human ear can be fooled, but it can also be acute enough to spot differences that eventually add up to a firm (and generally accurate) perspective

of course by the time it gets to your ears its all analog, but its the generative stages that determine most of the fundamental harmonic qualities

for example, analog synthesis often sounds physical or more “real”, because it literally is physical - instead of vibrating a string like a piano, essentially its vibrating electricity… digital doesnt do this, but sometimes digital through an analog filter will get you partway there

[/quote]
Not to derail this thread too much, but as someone studying advanced mathematics and DSP a lot of this post is pseudo-science. I love analog sound, but it doesn’t magically make the ear hear things digital never could,it just makes certain sounds in a much easier way.
Not to mention that this argument precludes that “analog” is synonymous with “colored analog”. Read up on high tech gear forums where engineers argue over a transformer in microphones and you’ll see many people who love hardware but absolutely hate the “imperfections” some like in analog. And without those imperfections, analog sound is imperceptible from digital.
I’d recommend the Rytm, just because so many aspects of it seem to be made on improvements from the MD model. It does lack a few things, but other than LFOs they’re all moot for my needs. Sold my MDUW to get a Rytm, haven’t regretted it once. [/quote]
No, there is no psuedoscience involved. I never said anything about the ear hearing things “magically”. Dont try to put words in my mouth. DSP is a method using virtual constructions of sound from applied abstracted mathematics simulating physical reality. Analog sound IS physical reality. Our current models of simulation do not account for the totality of our understanding of acoustics in most cases simply due to lack of processing power, but even if we could completely simulate it, there would still be a drastic difference between our simulations and the actual generation of sound as it occurs in the physical world we have based our simulations upon.

You say analog sound is imperceptible from digital, but this is not true in all cases - in many cases it is incredibly perceptible. In others not so much, and in some not at all. Especially some high-end VA synths are practically indistinguishable, and then they put in some high-end DACs and all kinds of other goodies in there that push it over the top.

I have argued over transformers before, I have been a working engineer for a number of years - I can tell you that if your ears are worth a damn, then you can tell the difference between analog sound generation and digital sound generation. If not, then too bad for you, go complain about it or deny it or whatever… but it wont change the actual facts.

It is not a power struggle, its not which is “the best”. They are both great for all kinds of things, just know the difference. Dont sit there saying “nope! no difference, its all the same” because you will miss the wide spectrum of identity and character available. There are certainly sweet spots out there.

dragon · 2016-05-02T01:13:10.000Z

""Gummi"":

Not to derail this thread too much, but as someone studying advanced mathematics and DSP a lot of this post is pseudo-science. I love analog sound, but it doesn’t magically make the ear hear things digital never could,it just makes certain sounds in a much easier way. Not to mention that this argument precludes that “analog” is synonymous with “colored analog”. Read up on high tech gear forums where engineers argue over a transformer in microphones and you’ll see many people who love hardware but absolutely hate the “imperfections” some like in analog. And without those imperfections, analog sound is imperceptible from digital.
I’d recommend the Rytm, just because so many aspects of it seem to be made on improvements from the MD model. It does lack a few things, but other than LFOs they’re all moot for my needs. Sold my MDUW to get a Rytm, haven’t regretted it once.

Analog does not alias… digital does. That is a digital imperfection that is audible.
For a lot of popular musical sounds, it does not matter, but i can always tell on really high notes. Analog stays clean sounding right up through the limits of hearing. Digital does not.

I love my softsynths… but that does not mean I cannot easily reveal their imperfections if I try. Of course for my musical interests, I specifically try not to.

Gummi · 2016-05-02T01:46:19.000Z

“Digital” does not alias. Some synthesis algorithms do, some do not. Additive synthesis is entirely free of aliasing and other digital artifacts based on how it handles information in the frequency domain, for instance. So saying “digital has aliasing” doesn’t really answer anything …

Upright · 2016-05-02T02:07:38.000Z

I hope we aren’t arguing which is better because boy, I’ve heard some crappy digital stuff and some amazing. I think there are DSP tricks that digital stuff can do that analog will never be able to touch -(Mutable Instruments Elements and Clouds comes to mind) When it comes to “analog” and subtractive synthesis, analog will generally have the advantage simply because it is the real thing, it’s the standard that digital is trying to replicate…again, some digital synths do a great job.

t · 2016-05-02T05:07:57.000Z

[quote=“” Anfim""]
It only took 13 posts for this to turn into analog vs digital… It’s like the Godwin’s law of audio forums
[/quote]

HUGE GRIN ON MA FACE!

What makes this discussion even more idiotic is that only a very little part of what’s being done to generate sound in the Rytm is analog. All the control voltages (LFO, envelopes, transients), a lot of the noise, and I’m pretty sure a lot of the clicks and impulses in a lot of the machines are digitally generated.

William_WiLD · 2016-05-02T12:37:12.000Z

yeah that’s why i see the choice more in a genre oriented… way and in a ready to build with few clicks some things. i really think the MD is the perfect drummachine to replicate acoustic drums in a way and analog rytm more electronic stuff… and as i build more electronic tracks i pick the ar and sold the md… but when i see what justin valer done with 808 with synthesis on both machine i would say a synthesis killer should make everything he want with MD and AR as well. period.

but of course in the electronic noise territory one or the other can do massive crap and crazy

nb: also i think were a lot to use english and try to discuss of meaning something and sometimes real english people not understand what a non english try to debate in the good terms. of course digital vs analog is a debate i dont take as a dj i will not take that road as a musician too

AikiGhost · 2016-05-02T13:51:56.000Z

I have both I love both, but if I could have only have one it would be the AR for live expressiveness and flexibility of sound.

LyingDalai · 2016-05-02T15:38:33.000Z

""AikiGhost"":

I have both I love both, but if I could have only have one it would be the AR for live expressiveness and flexibility of sound.

Agreed.
With the last update I can now get punchy hats, snares and kick, very nice bells and even sine sounds I use to love on MD… With the arriving of the new machines, a wide sonic field has been revealed : I feel like I don’t need MD that much anymore.

t · 2016-05-02T15:56:01.000Z

I currently prefer the AR because it has a nicer sequencer, better overall human interface and workflow, and does a better job at replicating the bread ’n butter analogue sounds I really like.

However, I do hope Elektron will some day introduce a MD MkIII with a sequencer and panel layout from the current analog series, 16 bit sampling with polyphony, MIDI sequencing, and all the drum machine models from the current MD. I’d buy that in a heartbeat!

William_WiLD · 2016-05-02T15:57:00.000Z

""t"":

I currently prefer the AR because it has a nicer sequencer, better overall human interface and workflow, and does a better job at replicating the bread ’n butter analogue sounds I really like.

However, I do hope Elektron will some day introduce a MD MkIII with a sequencer and panel layout from the current analog series, 16 bit sampling with polyphony, MIDI sequencing, and all the drum machine models from the current MD. I’d buy that in a heartbeat!

yeah me too.

SoundRider · 2016-05-02T16:58:29.000Z

It’s all about sound. What can all the features of a synth do, if you don’t like it’s sound?

MD and AR are drum machines. If you like the sound of a beat generated by the one or the other better, then go for it. It’s a matter of personal tast.

I have a preference for deep, rich, and punchy sounds when it comes to beats and this was best generated either by analog synths or by digital synths modeling “analog circuits” like the TR-8.

Costo · 2016-05-02T21:24:15.000Z

And for those who miss the CTRL-ALL machine from the MD on the AR, there’s always Ström !

I have both MD and AR, but I must admit the MD hasn’t gotten much love since the AR showed up…
Though I just can’t get rid of the MD, it’s such an incredible machine too !

uniqueuserid · 2016-05-02T22:04:32.000Z

Having owned and loved both but prefering the ar overall for just how good it sounded. One of the first things i thought after playing with the 1.3 update (apart from WOW) was that the ar was now so much closer to the md in terms of synthesis options sound pallette. Really amazing drum machine with very different characters still.

AikiGhost · 2016-05-03T13:43:18.000Z

In honesty if elektron could release one thing Id like to buy it would be an updated MPCish box.

4x4 large finger drumming worthy pads (The RYTMs are too small and not sensitive enough), 4 velocity layerable samples per pad modern FX mixable per pad and a decent sequencer capable of up to 32 bar sequences and Id be happy.

William_WiLD · 2016-05-03T14:57:25.000Z

""AikiGhost"":

In honesty if elektron could release one thing Id like to buy it would be an updated MPCish box.

Me too but that’s 2 new machine to buy for me hahaha… anyway we will see what’s happening inside the next elektron big box surprise