What happened to analogue?
p...@see_my_sig_for_address.com
and wrote:
Because the ana forests are almost depleted, and we can't keep
cutting them down just to make sounds from the logs....
>People say that virtual analogue synths aren't as good as the oldies. People
>are sampling them and putting them on digitals to simulate analogue sound. Why
>don't people just make more analogues? If we did it before, we can do it
>again...
>
>---------------------------
>baudfrog at aol.com
>andrewcp at gis.net
>bitsmart at bitsmart.org
>
>"What kind of music is that? It's electronic! Yeah, so's my vibrator, but I
>don't have to listen to it for an hour and a half."
>http://www.bitsmart.org/
Paul
>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~>~~
pjm@(remove this part )pobox.com
My ( newly revised ) WWW site is at http://www.pobox.com/~pjm, featuring free HVAC software.
The Sci.Engr.Heat-Vent-AC and Alt.HVAC FAQ is at http://www.elitesoft.com/sci.hvac/
Do you want to help stop a spammer ? Call the President of Smart Systems
International, Mr. Joseph Riley, at 702-734-0044, and let him know what you
think of Marc Popeck's spamming of the HVAC groups ! Help him to understand
that spamming is abuse, it is not how you do business here !
Pete Schaefer
Not everyone says that. The only thing I missed from the old analogs
were the knobs. But, now the in-vogue thing is to plaster tons of knobs
all over the place, so we get that back.
What I don't miss from the old analogs:
1. Relatively noisy analog circuits
2. Temperature sensitivity (i.e. frequency drift in the oscillators
as things warmed up)
3. Component tolerance drift as the units aged.
4. Sensitivity to dust in the pots (encoders are much more robust)
5. Limited types of function generators (saw, triangle, square, sine,
and pulse were about all we ever had)
Think about how much instrument you can get for $2000 today vs
what you could get 10 years ago. Now make the adjustment for
devaluation of the dollar and compare again. There's really no
comparison.
Pete
DJ Gmork
DJ Gmork
P.S. Tree hugger.
rive...@my-deja.com
Pete Schaefer <scha...@qnet.com> wrote:
> Think about how much instrument you can get for $2000 today vs
> what you could get 10 years ago. Now make the adjustment for
> devaluation of the dollar and compare again. There's really no
> comparison.
Not only that... But the factories, etc that built the old analog synths
are no longer made for building synths with analog components. To mass
produce analog synths would require redesign of many factors of a
business such as roland. Causing huge prices.. But, no fear, there are
people still making analog synths.. Go check out the FR-777, or the
Original Syn..
Jared
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Godrot
heavy and bulky. To have any kind of synth that could cut it in today's
marketplace, it would have to be 64 note polyphonic, and at least 12 part
multitimbral, with flexible patchable routing into at least three envelope
generators, blah blah blah. To squeeze that amount of analogue circuitry
into a synth would result in a synth the size of a Rolls Royce, and about as
expensive. It might sound terrific, but only Jean Michel Jarre would be able
to afford one.
Give me virtual analogue anytime.
Godrot
synth...@hotmail.com
virtual. I have a Nord Modular and it sounds every bit as good as the
minimoog I sold to buy it. For only a few hundred more than I paid
for the minimoog I now have 16 voices, modular flexibility, 4 part
multitimbral, midi, four outputs, vocoder, free software updates, and
a warranty. That's tough to beat.
S
On 21 Nov 1999 04:47:53 GMT, baud...@aol.cometodaddy (DJ Gmork)
wrote:
>People say that virtual analogue synths aren't as good as the oldies. People
>are sampling them and putting them on digitals to simulate analogue sound. Why
>don't people just make more analogues? If we did it before, we can do it
>again...
>
Ian Kemmish
>
>The problem is that analogue circuitry is often unreliable and expensive,
>heavy and bulky. To have any kind of synth that could cut it in today's
A datapoint I came across recently -- Wendy Carlos' boxed set features som
epages from a Moog catalogue from the mid-60's. The original (unstable)
oscillators retailed at around $200 each. Allowing for the usual
rule-of-thumb halving in the value of money per decade, this means that for the
same equipment today, you would be paying around $2000 *for a single
oscillator*. (And remember that Moog went bust - a viable company would
probably want to charge a profit mrgin too:->)
This is why people collect these as antiques, and coddle them.
Of course, you can compromise:
Going to integrated circuitry (e.g. Curtis chips, if you can still get them)
saves you some money, but loses you some anorak customers.
Going to digitally-controlled oscillators saves you some more money, but loses
you some more anorak customers.
Going to DSP emulations saves you yet more money, but loses you even more
anoraks.
Do you spot a trend? :-) Different people sit at different points on this
curve, and defend their chosen position with an almost religious zeal. But
it's all fundamentally a matter of personal taste.
Of course, if you want a harpsichord these days, you don't buy an antique - you
build it yourself, either from a kit or from a set of plans. The plans for
Moog's circuitry have been published, and the patent may well have expired.
You'd have to subsitute modern transistors, but you could always build one
yourself.....
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Ian Kemmish 18 Durham Close, Biggleswade, Beds SG18 8HZ, UK
i...@five-d.com Tel: +44 1767 601 361
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Behind every successful organisation stands one person who knows the secret
of how to keep the managers away from anything truly important.
Leiter
> >Why
> >don't people just make more analogues? If we did it before, we can do it
> >again...
>
> Few and far between.. but it is still being done!
>
> A few quick examples:
>
> The best of the bunch seems to be the Waldorf Pulse. I want one.
An excellent unit.
XvomiterX
pros:only $400. most virtual analog synths are alot more from what i have seen.
fat-ass sound! perfect for what i do which is just recording.
cons: noisey circuitry (sp?), goes out of tune. big, very big. i think i would
trade it for a moog source cuz souces have patches, are smaller, and i like
them a little bit more. thats it htough
lsdfkjhgpherg
it has dcos which never go out of tune... Mine doesn't
anyway.. perhaps you have probs with yours..
Joseph N. Hall
>
> People say that virtual analogue synths aren't as good as the oldies. People
> don't people just make more analogues? If we did it before, we can do it
> again...
Some old analog gear may have distinctive characteristics owing to hardware
quirks, but the future is so clearly in virtual/software synthesis. With
software-based synthesis all a manufacturer needs is programming and DSP
expertise. Analog or hybrid synthesis, on the other hand, requires
specialized chipsets that are useful for almost nothing else and are
therefore very difficult to obtain, let alone design and produce. Nevermind
that with digital synthesis you *should* be able to get any sound you like,
one way or another.
People buying "vintage" analog hardware right now should realize that its
utility is going to be severely limited relative to what will emerge in
soft/virtual synthesis in the coming years. I have a soft spot for old
hardware myself, but I'm starting to realize that in the near future it'll
mostly just be taking up space in my rack.
-joseph
Paul Nagle
"@5sigma.com> wrote:
>People buying "vintage" analog hardware right now should realize that its
>utility is going to be severely limited relative to what will emerge in
>soft/virtual synthesis in the coming years.
The DX7 fooled many into believing this back in 1983, myself included.
A costly mistake.
No instrument's "utility" changes with the release of another,
different instrument. All can be used side by side according to
preference.
Paul
Paul Nagle pa...@softroom.co.uk
http://www.softroom.co.uk
latest CD: Lore - available from http://www.neuharm.demon.co.uk
David Mason
> DJ Gmork wrote:
>>
>> People say that virtual analogue synths aren't as good as the oldies. People
>> are sampling them and putting them on digitals to simulate analogue sound. Why
>> don't people just make more analogues? If we did it before, we can do it
>> again...
Because 'true' analog synths tended to be erratic, didn't stay in tune, were not
MIDI compatible etc etc. What do you consider "analog"? - classic synths such as
the Roland JX8P and Juno 106 used digital oscillators - essentially wavetables -
so in fact were an early use of sampling to generate the fundamental waveforms.
A distinction should also be made between synths that use analog samples and synths
that use analog modelling to mathematically model the way an analog synth works
(e.g Roland JP8000, Clavia Nord lead, Rebirth etc etc). The difference in sound
quality and expressiveness is clear. People always look at the past through rose
tinted glasses, but imagine telling your keyboard player in the 70s - 'Right, I
want you to set up such and such a sound. I want the LFO assigned to a filter which
will be synchronised to your drum machine at a rate of 16th triplets.
I want a perfectly in time arpeggiator going and I want you to be able to alter
the filter, resonance, volume, chorus level and cross modulation with one hand".
Chances are they'd either start crying or look at you as if you were a lunatic.
To me, it's like the argument between records and CDs. I hate records, I'm clumsy
and am always scratching them. True, if you fork out enough dosh for a deck you'll
get sound quality that CDs will never achieve, but the convenience of sticking a
disk in the machine and flicking between songs wins (for me) every time.
There are so many stages in the production chain that can make or
break a sound that at the end of the day, I don't think it really matters where
your sound comes from. You can pay 10 grand for an decent reel to reel, or you can
buy a HDR for under a grand, and get some serious effects processing
and studio functionality thrown in. Like it or not, digital is here to stay (until
the next thing comes along I suppose!). I've never looked back since buying my
first analog modelling synth - it's made practically all my old analog gear
redundant. By the time it's been through a compressor, effects, eq etc and sitting
in the mix, you'd be hard pushed to say "that's an AM synth" and "that's a true
analog" - the technology is there, so I say make the most of it cos things have
never been so accessible and affordable as now.
Cheers,
Dave
--
----------------------------------------------------------
| |
| Check out my debut trance release, 'Alpha-1' at |
| http://www.mp3.com/madmagnus/ |
| |
| StudioHeadz - check out MadMagnus' Studio Resources at |
| http://www.madmagnus.freeserve.co.uk |
| |
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Squat
> What do you consider "analog"? - classic synths such as
>the Roland JX8P and Juno 106 used digital oscillators - essentially wavetables -
>so in fact were an early use of sampling to generate the fundamental waveforms.
This statement is TOTAL BS. There is no wavetable technology in either
of these boards.Please get your facts straight before giving "expert"
advice.There is a difference between a digitally controlled oscillator
and a digitally generated one.
Joseph N. Hall
>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999 04:48:19 -0700, "Joseph N. Hall" <" <news>
> "@5sigma.com> wrote:
>
> >People buying "vintage" analog hardware right now should realize that its
> >utility is going to be severely limited relative to what will emerge in
> >soft/virtual synthesis in the coming years.
>
> The DX7 fooled many into believing this back in 1983, myself included.
> A costly mistake.
Why on earth would you think that. It didn't use a synthesis technique
that could produce the same sounds. With software-based synthesis you
will eventually be able to get any sound at all if you have enough
computing power and the right software. The beginnings of this are
clear enough, and 5 years from now it'll be much harder to argue that
you "need" an old analog box because you can't get the same sound from
a more modern instrument.
> No instrument's "utility" changes with the release of another,
> different instrument. All can be used side by side according to
> preference.
I said "relative to." What's the point in having a rack full of
equipment that will be emulated more or less completely in a single
DSP-based modular or in a desktop computer.
If you want all that stuff there, fine. For a long time I felt my
old synthesizers did tricks that new ones couldn't. I see that
era coming to an end within 10 years, and probably more like 5. I
will keep one or two around for sentimental reasons but any other
reason will be a rationalization.
-joseph
R 2morrows
Mono/Poly and my MPU 101. The warmth and feeling of the ever-changing patches
are things you just can;t get form a Supernova. Everything has its place and I
don't think analogue will disappear ever,as long as there are old farts like me
who like the instability, as well as the SOUND!!!!