Is there any real value in buying hardware?

Want to talk about music hardware or software that doesn't include Reason?
User avatar
Rook
Posts: 152
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

01 Jun 2016

I've gone back and forth on the hardware thing several times now. I'll buy a bunch of stuff and then eventually sell it all, because while hardware is fun and "sexy", it ends up complicating my workflow too much to be worth the (relatively) small advantages it offers. Dealing with the midi and audio routing, constantly patching things in and out of the interface, having to save settings/patterns separately across multiple devices, timing/sync issues...

With my 8-5 job, I don't have all that much time for music. So the time I DO have, I don't want to be faffing about with that stuff. I sold off everything and decided to go all software (again). Bought myself a really nice computer to run everything. And things are so much simpler now. Having total recall of every setting/patch in every project without having to think about it is just awesome. I'm getting a lot more done and I don't have the guilt of under-utilized, expensive hardware sitting there staring at me. Just much fewer headaches in general. And the software now sounds so good and even better in some cases, I don't feel like I'm missing anything. So, I think I've finally decided to let go of the hardware setup dream lol.

Of course, I still have my guitars, amps, tons of effect pedals, etc... But those don't count :P

User avatar
The_G
Posts: 558
Joined: 17 Jan 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

01 Jun 2016

I mean, it really comes down to you and how you interface with different kinds of gear, right?

Some people need tactile things; others don't. Some people connect more (or think they connect more--doesn't really matter which it is) with actual analog tones than samples or digital tones; others don't. Some people just like gear; others don't have space for gear.
Cosmopolis, out now: : https://timeslaves.bandcamp.com/album/cosmopolis! Check out the first single, "City Lights:

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

01 Jun 2016

normen wrote:Not really. :)

Theres one hard advantage of analog hardware which is it doesn't have latency. At least not more than the actual audio processing requires, e.g. an EQ only works by actually shifting the phase a bit but thats not really "latency".

Theres a lot of disadvantages to analog audio, for example noise, an abundance of "fail points" that can cause issues, a lot of power consumption, a lot of material being used to create the device, the size of the device, the initial cost, the maintenance cost and more.

A digital algorithm can - if its programmed right - emulate *any* analog audio device. After all if you can *record* analog audio in a digital system and retain its sound during playback, why would an algorithm not be able to generate that series of 1s and 0s at the output by itself? Of course its able to, depending on how much processing power you're willing to use to model the intricacies of that analog device.

Now, if you listen closely you'll hear the screams of analog aficionados all around the world screaming at their screen reading my post right now :) So why do people still use analog hardware?

For one analog audio is how audio has been done for decades and theres lots of experience and experimentation in that field. You can take a breadboard, a bunch of transistors, caps, diodes and resistors and whip together a cool distortion device for your guitar. Lots of people can tell you about what transistor to use to get a certain sound, you can play around with them and each device will give you different properties / sounds - brilliant. If you were to try and simulate that exact sound in a digital algorithm you'd have to do a LOT of research and experimentation to achieve it. So if you want "THAT" sound its easiest to just use the analog device. And as we all have been fed with the sound of analog devices on the radio since the 50s and 60s some of "THESE" sounds are simply imprinted in our brains.

Or for example if an experienced electrical engineer was to develop a new compressor or whatnot he'd use his experience in analog circuitry to create that device using analog parts and given his expertise it would certainly sound great - again its hard to translate that to the digital domain. So theres your analog compressor that lots of people love and want to buy.

Furthermore for some things it can simply be more practical to actually have real world knobs, faders etc. to be able to handle the device. That doesn't mean that the circuitry *has to* be analog, you could just as well make a digital device with knobs and faders but sometimes its just simpler to make that device analog. E.g. a simple volume knob basically just needs an opamp and two resistors/pots - or even just a pot and a resistor. If you were to make that thing digital you'd have an A/D,D/A, OpAmps, resistors, a microcontroller, a DSP chip and whatnot..

Thats imo the hard reasons why you still see analog hardware. But of course theres other reasons as well.

For musicians and audio engineers - lets face it - theres nothing like twiddling knobs, seeing VU meters wiggle, feeling the heat of the tubes in the back of your amp or turning your amp to eleven and feeling how the noise floor already makes your chest vibrate and your spine tingle in anticipation for how you'll be blown away when you hit those strings now. ;) Theres just something about these big bulky devices that makes you like them and feel "magic" in the air - even I am not immune to that (at all :)).

In the professional world you also still see a lot of analog hardware. Every big studio has the big analog SSL (or similar) console and the big racks of outboard gear for the money shots in the studio. And that is actually exactly what they're there for - to impress. :) Imagine you were to pay 1000 bucks to record some vocals in a studio. You get there and the engineer sits there with a MacBook and a USB interface - or you get there and the engineer sits behind a HUGE desk with LOADS of knobs and faders and lights and little fireworks going off above the desk - see what I'm getting at? ;)

OF COURSE you'll hear many of these studio owners claim things along the lines of "you can only get THE RIGHT sound with these, blahblahblah" but most know thats actually not true. Even cheap USB audio devices these days have better objective specs (THD, S/N ratio etc etc) than these 80s/90s technology audio desks. Some people will try and rip your head off if you tell them your Behringer USB is better than the Neve preamp they just spent 3000$ on but it objectively is - even though you might like the sound of the deficiencies of the Neve of course.

So all in all do you need analog gear? Imo if you already pose that question then the answer is an emphatic NO from my side. Even though I do own a fair bit of analog gear that I want because of THAT sound or certain features I am using a Eleven Rack on stage for my guitar. Simply because it can be easily controlled, it has full callback, no tubes that can blow, no knobs to check and reset each time I unpack it. Yes, I do use real amps, analog processors and even selfmade analog stomp boxes in the studio but mainly for the reasons I mentioned above than for the belief that they are in some way superior.

Omg, dat ramble xD Hope this helps in some way :)
What is your view (and @selig yours too) on the ability for a "Digital only" setup to recreate the very "pro", clean/crisp/forward/full sound of albums like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories, the remastered Michael Jackson albums, etc

I've read that professional mixing and mastering requires an analog summing buss rather than DAW digital summing, and other claims like this.
These polished albums often involve a large team of engineers at the top of their game in skills, so I suspect it's more about the techniques and skills (and effort) than the hardware, but interested in your perspective about whether a DAW like Reason could create that level of pro polished sound with the right engineers doing the mixing?

User avatar
jonheal
Posts: 1213
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Location: Springfield, VA, USA
Contact:

01 Jun 2016

Really awesome sounds! Both of them!!
Jon Heal:reason: :re: :refill:Do not click this link!

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

01 Jun 2016

raymondh wrote:What is your view (and @selig yours too) on the ability for a "Digital only" setup to recreate the very "pro", clean/crisp/forward/full sound of albums like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories, the remastered Michael Jackson albums, etc

I've read that professional mixing and mastering requires an analog summing buss rather than DAW digital summing, and other claims like this.
These polished albums often involve a large team of engineers at the top of their game in skills, so I suspect it's more about the techniques and skills (and effort) than the hardware, but interested in your perspective about whether a DAW like Reason could create that level of pro polished sound with the right engineers doing the mixing?
The analog summing thing is coming from a bug that was present in some versions of the ProTools TDM hardware. Somebody heard that there was something off with the stereo base when comparing to an analog mix - kudos to him for hearing a bug nobody else heard or noticed but thats where the whole thing became a myth because he didn't know what he heard. Nowadays its mainly companies that make their money with "analog summing boxes" perpetuating this myth. Same with other "analog must have" myths. Great mixes have been made on much more basic analog desks (and outboard) than those that still stand tall as sought after "vintage gear", great mixes can and have been made on the objectively better equipment we have today (even without spending a fortune).

And to make this perfectly clear, this is mainly just wanking of audio engineers, 80 or even 90% of the whole impression is the music, performance and arrangement. People get grammys for putting a wee bit of compression and EQ on a top notch performance from Adele, not for polishing a turd with 10,000$ gear. And nobody cares if you used a LA-2A or an Alesis compressor if the music is good.

I first experienced this "hands on" with a recording of a great singer singing "Lady Marmalade" (Ruth Brauer). The "Be your Lady Marmalaaahahaaahaaaahahade" sent shivers down my spine and no matter what processing, reverb or whatever I put on it it still did that to me, so I went down and tried to make it ugly by using distortion and whatnot - it was just indestructible. So its hard to destroy a good recording/performance and almost impossible to make a bad performance sound good by using audio equipment.
Last edited by normen on 01 Jun 2016, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
16BitBear
Posts: 247
Joined: 21 May 2016
Location: Arizona

01 Jun 2016

I think it really depends upon personal choices, context, and purpose.

I found myself in a situation where I simply had to sell most of my extensive hardware collection - synths, drum machines, outboard gear, analog & digital.

But I did keep a few things, my samplers. In a lot of ways, I can replicate many different synths (or close approximations) in the box, but computer samplers are mostly are just romplers. Feed it a preset pack, sound file, or loop and then you can mess with it. I like to create my own sounds from scratch to feed my samplers and 'romplers'.

So I kept some of my hardware that would serve this purpose, take up only a small amount of space and in some instances are irreplaceable. I have an MPC2000, an Ensoniq EPS16+ (with flash ram & SCSI), an E-MU ESI-4000 Turbo, and a Roland S-330. Combined with my software tools, I feel i have the best of both worlds for now. Eventually I will invest in a Eurorack system and perhaps a few choice analog synths. ;)

User avatar
raymondh
Posts: 1776
Joined: 15 Jan 2015

02 Jun 2016

normen wrote:
raymondh wrote:What is your view (and @selig yours too) on the ability for a "Digital only" setup to recreate the very "pro", clean/crisp/forward/full sound of albums like Daft Punk's Random Access Memories, the remastered Michael Jackson albums, etc

I've read that professional mixing and mastering requires an analog summing buss rather than DAW digital summing, and other claims like this.
These polished albums often involve a large team of engineers at the top of their game in skills, so I suspect it's more about the techniques and skills (and effort) than the hardware, but interested in your perspective about whether a DAW like Reason could create that level of pro polished sound with the right engineers doing the mixing?
The analog summing thing is coming from a bug that was present in some versions of the ProTools TDM hardware. Somebody heard that there was something off with the stereo base when comparing to an analog mix - kudos to him for hearing a bug nobody else heard or noticed but thats where the whole thing became a myth because he didn't know what he heard. Nowadays its mainly companies that make their money with "analog summing boxes" perpetuating this myth. Same with other "analog must have" myths. Great mixes have been made on much more basic analog desks (and outboard) than those that still stand tall as sought after "vintage gear", great mixes can and have been made on the objectively better equipment we have today (even without spending a fortune).

And to make this perfectly clear, this is mainly just wanking of audio engineers, 80 or even 90% of the whole impression is the music, performance and arrangement. People get grammys for putting a wee bit of compression and EQ on a top notch performance from Adele, not for polishing a turd with 10,000$ gear. And nobody cares if you used a LA-2A or an Alesis compressor if the music is good.

I first experienced this "hands on" with a recording of a great singer singing "Lady Marmalade" (Ruth Brauer). The "Be your Lady Marmalaaahahaaahaaaahahade" sent shivers down my spine and no matter what processing, reverb or whatever I put on it it still did that to me, so I went down and tried to make it ugly by using distortion and whatnot - it was just indestructible. So its hard to destroy a good recording/performance and almost impossible to make a bad performance sound good by using audio equipment.
Very interesting!! thanks!

User avatar
Olivier
Moderator
Posts: 1248
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: Amsterdam

02 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:Simple answer :puf_smile:
Created with a Eurorack Modular, specifically an analogue oscillator (Thomas Henry 555-VCO) and two analogue filters in series (one based on the design of an MS-20 + one WASP filter):

https://hearthis.at/moofi/psi-bursts/
I like it. And the elephant backdrop is very appropriate:)
:reason: V9 | i7 5930 | Motu 828 MK3 | Win 10

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

03 Jun 2016

Haha, elephant, indeed :-D
+ thank you. :-)

After Reasoning for over a decade I finally feel like having arrived home soundwise.
It always reminds me of energy being under pressure finally bursting out. I can see and aswell experience the advantages of software when it comes to arrangement, ease of use, price etc. I just cannot hear them ;-D
Even to a point where I tend to refrain from using any software-only based instruments or FX because of the sonic qualities I experience from a modular. If I do it is always a bit like using canned food along with a freshly cooked meal, not saying software-only sounds necessarily bad, just not as good I hear.

To Normen (once again ;-), there is a "slight" difference between recording and synthesising a sound. Recording is similar to taking a photo while synthesising is more similar to painting or sculpting mathematically. Only because you can take a photo of something doesn´t necessarily automatically enable you writing an algorithm rendering it exactly like it is and even a photo isn´t exact in that regard, hence writing an algorithm sounding exactly like the hardware and specifically the analog hardware equivalent or at least generating according ones and nils is simply quite a different pair of shoes. While it might be doable in theory, softwaresynthesis in current DAW or plug-ins still is lacking from my experience.
If anything I more likely feel the saying "software can do everything hardware can" is the marketing side of things :puf_smile:

Before opening a can of worms I end for now with an additional example: Already shown 555-VCO going into a digital delay (Expert Sleepers´Disting) and through Valhalla-DSP cartridge for Tip Top´s Z-DSP (mainly effect module). The delaytime is being clocked at audiorate through a second pitch-varying 555-VCO´s squarewave.
And while it is a longer experimental "song" I recommend listening at least up to 1:00 or beyond if you like.

https://hearthis.at/moofi/morning-crumpler/


eauhm wrote:
moofi wrote:Simple answer :puf_smile:
Created with a Eurorack Modular, specifically an analogue oscillator (Thomas Henry 555-VCO) and two analogue filters in series (one based on the design of an MS-20 + one WASP filter):

https://hearthis.at/moofi/psi-bursts/
I like it. And the elephant backdrop is very appropriate:)

OverneathTheSkyBridg
Posts: 377
Joined: 15 Jan 2016

03 Jun 2016

Faastwalker wrote:My wife doesn't know if I've bought software because there isn't a physical new item on my desktop. Not so with hardware, obviously. I can get away with buying new software, I can't with hardware because she would see it & complain. It literally comes down to this for me currently!

But I really want to explore EuroRack in some capacity. I'm really excited by this. A lot of other hardware we're seeing doesn't appeal much at all. If it's something I can do in the box this is usually favorable as it's cheaper, more accessible & easy to hide from preying eyes! :D
Absolutely! I feel the same way wich is why I'm considering Arturias V Collection. Its on for $400 and basically covers any analog synth I could ever hope to buy. I could imagine if the wife came home and saw all those old beasts taking up the entire living room!

For eurorack I believe Softube is releasing a modular software package soon, so you may be able to do some virtual covert noodling that way! And of course, Reaktor 6 as well.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk
Last edited by OverneathTheSkyBridg on 03 Jun 2016, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
6502
Posts: 147
Joined: 18 Nov 2015

03 Jun 2016

I bought a Moog Little Phatty. Reason held its own. I was surprised. I like hardware but at this point in my life it's like, "put up or shut up". Since I haven't been writing lately I figure what's the point of buying more hardware? If I start writing again I might pick up some used hardware. Seriously, listen to Xyster's "Need To Feel Loved". All Reason and sounds amazing. The job can get done either way in this day and age. On the other hand, who wouldn't like to have Vince Clarke's studio?

Note that musical instruments are a different category - I play my baby grand piano every day. :-)

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

04 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:To Normen (once again ;-), there is a "slight" difference between recording and synthesising a sound. Recording is similar to taking a photo while synthesising is more similar to painting or sculpting mathematically.
Synthesizing a synthesizer? ^^ A synthesizer creates electrical signals based on math, nothing a computer can do better than that.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

04 Jun 2016

I say synthesising math is more like based on a synthesiser putting out voltages but anyway. What I was saying is the difference of merely recording a sound with a computer transforming the incoming signal into a digital image compared to an according algorithm replicating this incoming signal by calculation. Saying just because you can record a sound and create the digital image you would still have to put a lot of work into a mathematical solution to calculate that sound, reason there are companies working on this particular matter. :-)

I at least assume todays problem is still the lack of processing power where a complex algorithm more or less truthfully replicating an analog oscillator e.g. would just need too much CPU cycles. Like it would take a whole CPU to get merely one oscillator going and not a complete studio like the one we work with when using Reason.
Of course this is just guessing, still there has to be a reason for the difference in sound.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:To Normen (once again ;-), there is a "slight" difference between recording and synthesising a sound. Recording is similar to taking a photo while synthesising is more similar to painting or sculpting mathematically.
Synthesizing a synthesizer? ^^ A synthesizer creates electrical signals based on math, nothing a computer can do better than that.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

04 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:I say synthesising math is more like based on a synthesiser putting out voltages but anyway. What I was saying is the difference of merely recording a sound with a computer transforming the incoming signal into a digital image compared to an according algorithm replicating this incoming signal by calculation. Saying just because you can record a sound and create the digital image you would still have to put a lot of work into a mathematical solution to calculate that sound, reason there are companies working on this particular matter. :-)

I at least assume todays problem is still the lack of processing power where a complex algorithm more or less truthfully replicating an analog oscillator e.g. would just need too much CPU cycles. Like it would take a whole CPU to get merely one oscillator going and not a complete studio like the one we work with when using Reason.
Of course this is just guessing, still there has to be a reason for the difference in sound.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:To Normen (once again ;-), there is a "slight" difference between recording and synthesising a sound. Recording is similar to taking a photo while synthesising is more similar to painting or sculpting mathematically.
Synthesizing a synthesizer? ^^ A synthesizer creates electrical signals based on math, nothing a computer can do better than that.
Sure but who's to say whats "better"? Objectively the computer is. What would you do to emulate a digital synth in analog hardware?

User avatar
jonheal
Posts: 1213
Joined: 29 Jan 2015
Location: Springfield, VA, USA
Contact:

04 Jun 2016

Moofi,

I am very taken by this piece. I am especially amazed at the variety of jarring sounds you have produced. How are you able to to this with only an oscillator and a couple of filters? Is this something that you could tweak live, or is it assembled from snippets of different patches?

I am very interesting in experimental music and sound design, but the sounds are so complex and rich in this piece, I just can't imagine how you did it.

If you wouldn't be giving away trade secrets, please tell. :)
Jon Heal:reason: :re: :refill:Do not click this link!

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

05 Jun 2016

Sure, no problem :-D
In this case the patch description is a little different as it inhabits one crucial component or module that is. Mutable Instruments Clouds.
It´s a granular audio processor (a digitial module) working in its basic mode quite similar to LoveoneConsultingAB´s Neutron:

http://mutable-instruments.net/modules/clouds/
https://shop.propellerheads.se/product/neutron/

First of all, the track is based on a single patch being recorded while 4 parts of that recording have been arranged in a partilally layered + overlapping way, thus you could only play it live if you had two of every module.

Image

The patch, if I remember correctly because it´s been a while, had been mentioned analog oscillator (sort of being sequenced slowly?) sent through Clouds and afterwards through Valhalla DSP-cartridge (reverb) on Z-DSP.

Could be there is aswell a slowly modulated filter between the oscillator and Clouds, not sure, though even if, it plays merely a minor role in the resulting sound like lowpassfiltering the oscillator output as the maincomponent in those changes in sound is Clouds here. Clouds parameters are heavily modulated through their respective CV-input by several modulationsources (LFO-like) plus manually wiggling the knobs. That´s it.
Basically you could say, besides utility modules and modulationsources (LFO + manual knobturning) modulating Clouds´parameters it´s basically the oscillator going through Clouds + reverb.

After all I find a modular especially well suited for experimental sounddesign not only because of its singlecomponent modularity (even more so compared to Reason because the modules usually inhabit very specialised funtionality and are set to work indivually in a modular context while you can choose out of thousands of modules, all being a little different from each other even when delivering similar functions) but also because of the complexity and richness in harmonics.
Additionally because at least in Eurorackformat most likely all racks differ from each other you are garanteed to find completely new sounds. Also you could say once a patch is gone it´s nearly impossible to recreate that particular sound simply because of the crucial sensitivity in settings contributing to a sonic result, increasingly the more complex a patch. This aswell leads to sometimes dramatic changes in ouput by turning a single knob, even more so if you turn several like it´s happening in the night-slicer patch thus your mentioned variety of jarring sounds.

If I had to mention "downsides" of a modular it is certainly its price :-D Though if you limit yourself to affordable Doepfer and alike modules, of which there exist quite a few by now,- you already get away with something like 2000 Euros for an already pretty funspending rack.

Second is previously mentioned lack in songarrangement, then software in postproduction can help in this regard. You can even go the Expert Sleepers´ way and use e.g. Reason to sequence and modulate your modular through an according audiointerface + Expert Sleeper´s modules. Something I´m potentially gonna do aswell eventually, though for now, I´m quite pleased staying awway from the computer.
The Zen-like quality of a never to be exactly recreated sound once the patch is gone, I consider even an advantage because it always makes me create something new, reset after every patch while I can only work with the material I receive from a patch´s recording. No save, no presets. Though I´m staying away from using presets anyway, I´m naturally saving quite often in software :-D

In the end I like combining advantages of both worlds, software + handware, when it comes to soundcreation I still very much prefer the modular by quite a length.

jonheal wrote:
Moofi,

I am very taken by this piece. I am especially amazed at the variety of jarring sounds you have produced. How are you able to to this with only an oscillator and a couple of filters? Is this something that you could tweak live, or is it assembled from snippets of different patches?

I am very interesting in experimental music and sound design, but the sounds are so complex and rich in this piece, I just can't imagine how you did it.

If you wouldn't be giving away trade secrets, please tell. :)

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

05 Jun 2016

So why is the computer objectively better? Because of its accuracy? Maybe it´s exactly that accuracy making it less interesting or lacking in certain soundqualities in my ears, at least possibly not taking everything contributing to a resulting sound into account?
And for those more complex functionalities only very difficult if not impossible to create in the analog world, there is an about equally great number of digital modules aswell, still inahbiting a special quality in sound I hear compared to software only. Again, not saying it isn´t theoritcally possible, just software is still lacking in that regard from my experience, reason at least from here I can currently still support an aswell sonic value in hardware.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:I say synthesising math is more like based on a synthesiser putting out voltages but anyway. What I was saying is the difference of merely recording a sound with a computer transforming the incoming signal into a digital image compared to an according algorithm replicating this incoming signal by calculation. Saying just because you can record a sound and create the digital image you would still have to put a lot of work into a mathematical solution to calculate that sound, reason there are companies working on this particular matter. :-)

I at least assume todays problem is still the lack of processing power where a complex algorithm more or less truthfully replicating an analog oscillator e.g. would just need too much CPU cycles. Like it would take a whole CPU to get merely one oscillator going and not a complete studio like the one we work with when using Reason.
Of course this is just guessing, still there has to be a reason for the difference in sound.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:To Normen (once again ;-), there is a "slight" difference between recording and synthesising a sound. Recording is similar to taking a photo while synthesising is more similar to painting or sculpting mathematically.
Synthesizing a synthesizer? ^^ A synthesizer creates electrical signals based on math, nothing a computer can do better than that.
Sure but who's to say whats "better"? Objectively the computer is. What would you do to emulate a digital synth in analog hardware?

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:So why is the computer objectively better? Because of its accuracy? Maybe it´s exactly that accuracy making it less interesting or lacking in certain soundqualities in my ears, at least possibly not taking everything contributing to a resulting sound into account?
And for those more complex functionalities only very difficult if not impossible to create in the analog world, there is an about equally great number of digital modules aswell, still inahbiting a special quality in sound I hear compared to software only. Again, not saying it isn´t theoritcally possible, just software is still lacking in that regard from my experience, reason at least from here I can currently still support an aswell sonic value in hardware.
Yes because its more accurate. When the synthesizer was designed it was designed to make sine waves, not quasi-sine waves laced with noise. Think about it, why would the accidental timing of human inventions and the first oscillator circuits yield the best result first? Very very improbable. More probable that you just like it because your brain got a lot of that when it was still in its infancy and moldable.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

06 Jun 2016

If a perfect sine is the most pleasing sound there is, why don´t all songs consist of perfects sinewaves, even though they technically actually do if you look at fourier series :-D, still, a song inahbiting merely sinewaves being sonically identifiable as those sounds generic and steril or in other words like General-MIDI computersongs :-D We are acustomed to "non-perfect" sounds all over as the sound of a pure sinewave is artficial, non-existant in nature, maybe except for tinitus and who likes tinitus anyway? It´s those "imperfections" we are excited by. Reason, even virtual synthesis algorithm either try to replicate non perfect variations of a pure (sine-)wavefrom or at least transform a pure waveform into a waveform differing from the "perfect" shape. What are all those plugins for emulating hardware (tapesaturation, springreverb, analog vibe,etc.) or altering a sound in special way, for if a sinewave is already the optimum there is?

An experience comes to mind. During studies we went drawing animals at the zoo. I thought aswell of interesting sounds to capture and took a Mini-Disc recorder (at the time) along. Arriving at the bearhouse, I noticed a bear licking his paw. While doing so, he made a sound reminding me of a quickly sequenced 303 with filtercutoffmodulation. I was quite fascinated by that sonic occurance and later on loaded it into a an AKAI-sampler where I increased its playbackspeed by at least an octave so it went at least twice as fast. It sounded like a cyberhornet or something. Even when friends came by with their dog he suddenly raised his ears being on alert when the sound played in a song I created containing that sound.
Now after some time had passed I bought a psychedelic trance record and guess what, it contained this sort of sound aswell BUT it was synthesised and just didn´t have the sonic impact compared to the original bear-version. So where was or is the difference? The difference is the synthesised sound lacked those special gutural harmonics occuring within the bear´s throat or wheresoever and thus sounded boring in comparison. Was it more accurate? It surely was, it was just missing that special feel the bear created and what if not feeling or at least emotions it is when it comes to music?

And btw I´m talking about harmonic content, a certain complexity in sound, variations in waveforms, not noise.
normen wrote:
moofi wrote:So why is the computer objectively better? Because of its accuracy? Maybe it´s exactly that accuracy making it less interesting or lacking in certain soundqualities in my ears, at least possibly not taking everything contributing to a resulting sound into account?
And for those more complex functionalities only very difficult if not impossible to create in the analog world, there is an about equally great number of digital modules aswell, still inahbiting a special quality in sound I hear compared to software only. Again, not saying it isn´t theoritcally possible, just software is still lacking in that regard from my experience, reason at least from here I can currently still support an aswell sonic value in hardware.
Yes because its more accurate. When the synthesizer was designed it was designed to make sine waves, not quasi-sine waves laced with noise. Think about it, why would the accidental timing of human inventions and the first oscillator circuits yield the best result first? Very very improbable. More probable that you just like it because your brain got a lot of that when it was still in its infancy and moldable.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

You can have expression in digital synthesis. With analogue it's more a case of, there are unwanted imperfections that, when removed you are left with only the desirable ones. With digital synthesis you have to actively decide on the modulations and interactions.

You don't compose songs with pure sine waves because they're harmonically empty.

That being said, the more you understand how to make a digital synth sound alive and vibrant, the more capable you are of creating new and innovative expressions rather than relying on preset expressions - nothing wrong with that by the way, it's just that with mastery of synthesis comes an array of benefits.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:If a perfect sine is the most pleasing sound there is, why don´t all songs consist of perfects sinewaves, even though they technically actually do if you look at fourier series :-D, still, a song inahbiting merely sinewaves being sonically identifiable as those sounds generic and steril or in other words like General-MIDI computersongs :-D We are acustomed to "non-perfect" sounds all over as the sound of a pure sinewave is artficial, non-existant in nature, maybe except for tinitus and who likes tinitus anyway? It´s those "imperfections" we are excited by. Reason, even virtual synthesis algorithm either try to replicate non perfect variations of a pure (sine-)wavefrom or at least transform a pure waveform into a waveform differing from the "perfect" shape. What are all those plugins for emulating hardware (tapesaturation, springreverb, analog vibe,etc.) or altering a sound in special way, for if a sinewave is already the optimum there is?

An experience comes to mind. During studies we went drawing animals at the zoo. I thought aswell of interesting sounds to capture and took a Mini-Disc recorder (at the time) along. Arriving at the bearhouse, I noticed a bear licking his paw. While doing so, he made a sound reminding me of a quickly sequenced 303 with filtercutoffmodulation. I was quite fascinated by that sonic occurance and later on loaded it into a an AKAI-sampler where I increased its playbackspeed by at least an octave so it went at least twice as fast. It sounded like a cyberhornet or something. Even when friends came by with their dog he suddenly raised his ears being on alert when the sound played in a song I created containing that sound.
Now after some time had passed I bought a psychedelic trance record and guess what, it contained this sort of sound aswell BUT it was synthesised and just didn´t have the sonic impact compared to the original bear-version. So where was or is the difference? The difference is the synthesised sound lacked those special gutural harmonics occuring within the bear´s throat or wheresoever and thus sounded boring in comparison. Was it more accurate? It surely was, it was just missing that special feel the bear created and what if not feeling or at least emotions it is when it comes to music?

And btw I´m talking about harmonic content, a certain complexity in sound, variations in waveforms, not noise.
If its those things you're after you should only use acoustic instruments instead of synthesizers. The very concept of synthesizers is that the soundwave is planned.

But we're digressing because you don't get what I am getting at. In my very first post here in this thread I pointed out that if you want EXACTLY that sound some device or instrument makes then use it. It would be a waste of CPU cycles to emulate it to perfection. But the fact remains that the sound of that instrument is also somewhat accidental, not "better" because it sounds like it does. And the other fact is that the PLANNED outcome of a digital algorithm is much closer to the concept that that of an analog device. ESPECIALLY when the analog device is "vintage" because it sure as heck went out of spec a decade ago.

The point is that ANALOG IS NOT BETTER, just different and more prone to problems.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

06 Jun 2016

What it is to understand here is I´m talking about hardware like found in a modular, may it be analog or DIGITAL. I´m talking about newly bought + manufactured equipment. Not any drifting or quirks because of it´s age or time it´s been manufactured at or anything alike.

I´m talking about the qualtiy in sound itself I hear from hardware or to be more specific a modular in this case (because it´s the only true hardware synth I got hands-on experience with). I at least can tell from here, a modular sounds immediate + present with a distinct rich character (may it be analog or digital) like you can hear in the demos I posted. So one could argue if you prefer this sort of soundquality compared to software to date, hardware or once again a modular delivers a value worth going for, at least it does here.

Wether it´s better is still a personal preference of course, like it is with mentioned food example wether you prefer a freshly cooked meal compared to canned food. Ruling out hardware because everything has already be done in software is more likely a bold statement, not holding up well from personal sonic experience.

normen wrote:
moofi wrote:If a perfect sine is the most pleasing sound there is, why don´t all songs consist of perfects sinewaves, even though they technically actually do if you look at fourier series :-D, still, a song inahbiting merely sinewaves being sonically identifiable as those sounds generic and steril or in other words like General-MIDI computersongs :-D We are acustomed to "non-perfect" sounds all over as the sound of a pure sinewave is artficial, non-existant in nature, maybe except for tinitus and who likes tinitus anyway? It´s those "imperfections" we are excited by. Reason, even virtual synthesis algorithm either try to replicate non perfect variations of a pure (sine-)wavefrom or at least transform a pure waveform into a waveform differing from the "perfect" shape. What are all those plugins for emulating hardware (tapesaturation, springreverb, analog vibe,etc.) or altering a sound in special way, for if a sinewave is already the optimum there is?

An experience comes to mind. During studies we went drawing animals at the zoo. I thought aswell of interesting sounds to capture and took a Mini-Disc recorder (at the time) along. Arriving at the bearhouse, I noticed a bear licking his paw. While doing so, he made a sound reminding me of a quickly sequenced 303 with filtercutoffmodulation. I was quite fascinated by that sonic occurance and later on loaded it into a an AKAI-sampler where I increased its playbackspeed by at least an octave so it went at least twice as fast. It sounded like a cyberhornet or something. Even when friends came by with their dog he suddenly raised his ears being on alert when the sound played in a song I created containing that sound.
Now after some time had passed I bought a psychedelic trance record and guess what, it contained this sort of sound aswell BUT it was synthesised and just didn´t have the sonic impact compared to the original bear-version. So where was or is the difference? The difference is the synthesised sound lacked those special gutural harmonics occuring within the bear´s throat or wheresoever and thus sounded boring in comparison. Was it more accurate? It surely was, it was just missing that special feel the bear created and what if not feeling or at least emotions it is when it comes to music?

And btw I´m talking about harmonic content, a certain complexity in sound, variations in waveforms, not noise.
If its those things you're after you should only use acoustic instruments instead of synthesizers. The very concept of synthesizers is that the soundwave is planned.

But we're digressing because you don't get what I am getting at. In my very first post here in this thread I pointed out that if you want EXACTLY that sound some device or instrument makes then use it. It would be a waste of CPU cycles to emulate it to perfection. But the fact remains that the sound of that instrument is also somewhat accidental, not "better" because it sounds like it does. And the other fact is that the PLANNED outcome of a digital algorithm is much closer to the concept that that of an analog device. ESPECIALLY when the analog device is "vintage" because it sure as heck went out of spec a decade ago.

The point is that ANALOG IS NOT BETTER, just different and more prone to problems.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3932
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:What it is to understand here is I´m talking about hardware like found in a modular, may it be analog or DIGITAL. I´m talking about newly bought + manufactured equipment. Not any drifting or quirks because of it´s age or time it´s been manufactured at or anything alike.
Thing is, there's ZERO mystery in DSP. Any digital process carried out by integrated circuits (that is not exploiting analogue behaviour within digital circuits) can be easily replicated in software in full exactness.

Sometimes your "hardware" is actually running software anyway.

That on no way invalidates what you've heard in your hardware, it would just be untrue to attribute it to not running on a general purpose microprocessor. With DSP, the sound is purely down to the choices in the algorithm. The DSP in your digital modular units would sound exactly the same in software - that's the raw nature of DSP (again, presuming no hardware flaws or exploitation of analogue behaviour, which is pretty much NEVER done on microchips, ever, except this one time an AI got creative with circuit design).

Taking the time to investigate what the exact sound difference is goes a long way. You might discover that you had everything you needed all along.

There is also the converters, ... they all have a sound.

One thing that comes to mind is that I always preferred Playstation's pixel aliasing, perspective distortions and dither EC drift over the N64's GPU that fixed all of those technical errors. I knew what was going on and why it was technically bad, but it just looked more alive at the time.
Last edited by avasopht on 06 Jun 2016, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
normen
Posts: 3431
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Jun 2016

moofi wrote:What it is to understand here is I´m talking about hardware like found in a modular, may it be analog or DIGITAL. I´m talking about newly bought + manufactured equipment. Not any drifting or quirks because of it´s age or time it´s been manufactured at or anything alike.

I´m talking about the qualtiy in sound itself I hear from hardware or to be more specific a modular in this case (because it´s the only true hardware synth I got hands-on experience with). I at least can tell from here, a modular sounds immediate + present with a distinct rich character (may it be analog or digital) like you can hear in the demos I posted. So one could argue if you prefer this sort of soundquality compared to software to date, hardware or once again a modular delivers a value worth going for, at least it does here.

Wether it´s better is still a personal preference of course, like it is with mentioned food example wether you prefer a freshly cooked meal compared to canned food. Ruling out hardware because everything has already be done in software is more likely a bold statement, not holding up well from personal sonic experience.
See, you could make the same argument for typewriters compared to computers and laser printers. But nobody would be so dense to actually do that, that only happens in audio apparently. For typewriters everybody would be fine with saying "I just like a piece of paper with the quirky typewriter style printing better than a laser printed piece of paper" or "I like the sound it makes when I use it" instead of insisting theres some "magic" about typewriters.

User avatar
moofi
Posts: 1024
Joined: 19 Jan 2015
Location: hear

06 Jun 2016

Yes, I hear you, code is code and that´s what I´ve always been saying if you remember our talk at PUF :-)
So the responsible component is at least seemingly to be found outside the code, though from a response by Sean Costello (Valhalla) at Muff´s of me saying I still prefer the sound of Valhalla-DSP within TipTop Audio´s Z-DSP (the module he wrote the cartridge code for) compared to his VST-plugins he mentioned there is a difference in code between programming the chip of mentioned module and a difference in processing thus potentially resulting in a different sound compared to the VST-plugins:

moofi: "Btw I´ve been listening to the VST-plugin Valhalla demos for a potential post-production option and I have to say I still prefer the Valhalla in Z-DSP by quite a bit. The plugins are certainly good sounding aswell they just render a bit too clean with lesser impact (?) in comparison I find and somehow lack the truely magic character I hear from the modular version."

Sean Costello: "The algorithms in the Halls of Valhalla are pretty different than anything I have done in the plugin space. In addition, the actual math (i.e. numerical processing) in the Z-DSP is pretty weird, and is probably adding some sort of cool low level grunge to the reverb signal.

Sean Costello"

So there is already a difference within the algorithms or chips themselves potentially leading to differing results.

Being no electrical-engineer or DSP-coder at all I cannot comment any further on the exact difference leading to different results, I can merely listen and tell a difference from what I hear (only thing I can possibly do is show some waveforms to compare in addition). And of course there is more than just a chip but actual circuitry involved in a module or between module chips resulting in an analog signal path throughout the modular where there could be things happening not happening in a purely virtual plugin. Like said I´m no expert to tell where it comes from, just mere experience by listening while playing with a modular or listening to recordings.

Aswell gonna record some sounds using digital modules only (except for an output module bringing modularlevel down to linelevel for recording).

avasopht wrote:
moofi wrote:What it is to understand here is I´m talking about hardware like found in a modular, may it be analog or DIGITAL. I´m talking about newly bought + manufactured equipment. Not any drifting or quirks because of it´s age or time it´s been manufactured at or anything alike.
Thing is, there's ZERO mystery in DSP. Any digital process carried out by integrated circuits (that is not exploiting analogue behaviour within digital circuits) can be easily replicated in software in full exactness.

Sometimes your "hardware" is actually running software anyway.

That on no way invalidates what you've heard in your hardware, it would just be untrue to attribute it to not running on a general purpose microprocessor. With DSP, the sound is purely down to the choices in the algorithm. The DSP in your digital modular units would sound exactly the same in software - that's the raw nature of DSP (again, presuming no hardware flaws or exploitation of analogue behaviour, which is pretty much NEVER done on microchips, ever, except this one time an AI got creative with circuit design).

Taking the time to investigate what the exact sound difference is goes a long way. You might discover that you had everything you needed all along.

There is also the converters, ... they all have a sound.

One thing that comes to mind is that I always preferred Playstation's lack of anti aliasing, perspective distortions and dither drift over the N64's GPU that fixed all of those technical errors. I knew what was going on and why it's technically bad, but it just looked more alive at the time.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests