SH101s are cool :)

[Analog Warriors]

Originally Posted by jasedee

Seriously? And, the synths I use is Virus, which is definately not comparable to SH101.....not even the same league!!!

that's bullshit ... without one thing, they are not compareable ... the SH101 prdouces dark'n dirty basslines that viritual analog hardware owners can't even imagine, of course the 101 isn't that flexible like a Virus *lol* how could it be ? It's only monophonic with 2 VCOs with sub oscilator ... the only modulation source is one triggerable LFO - no you cant's compare them. But you should't talk about the SH101 like that - it's no DJ toy and it really has nothing to do with a groovebox. 101s where used in many famoust tracks in the 80's and are still a part in big studios.

i love my grey one ... and i would never give it away !

[Analog Warriors]

Originally Posted by jasedee

Seriously? And, the synths I use is Virus, which is definately not comparable to SH101.....not even the same league!!!

that's bullshit ... without one thing, they are not compareable ... the SH101 prdouces dark'n dirty basslines that viritual analog hardware owners can't even imagine, of course the 101 isn't that flexible like a Virus *lol* how could it be ? It's only monophonic with VCO with saw, square/pulse plus the sub oscilator ... the only modulation source is one triggerable LFO - no you cant's compare them. But you should't talk about the SH101 like that - it's no DJ toy and it really has nothing to do with a groovebox. 101s where used in many famoust tracks in the 80's and are still a part in big studios.

i love my grey one ... and i would never give it away !

[jasedee]

Originally Posted by Analog Warriors

that's bullshit ... without one thing, they are not compareable ... the SH101 prdouces dark'n dirty basslines that viritual analog hardware owners can't even imagine, of course the 101 isn't that flexible like a Virus *lol* how could it be ? It's only monophonic with VCO with saw, square/pulse plus the sub oscilator ... the only modulation source is one triggerable LFO - no you cant's compare them. But you should't talk about the SH101 like that - it's no DJ toy and it really has nothing to do with a groovebox. 101s where used in many famoust tracks in the 80's and are still a part in big studios.

This whole thread was one big misunderstanding.....In fact I thought he was talking about the SH32. And at the same time I think I was just being a bit of a bitch.

[Analog Warriors]

well, i agree with that - i should have read the other pages of the threat, too !

the SH32 is a DJ toy and a groovebox

[Timo]

So, filters aside, why is it that VAs can't match the rawness and character of classic analogue synths, such as the SH101, TB303, JP8, etc.?

I know they can't (I wasn't suggesting they could), but why don't VA coders/programmers rectify this?

[Analog Warriors]

good question,

i think the main reason is the time ... the components build in the vintage instruments are old - and the way they are produced for shure is another than it's today ... modern producing technologies are so excellent and perfect - so they sound perfect. That can never match the rawness and character of old and for shure kind of worse produced components

[DIGITAL SCREAMS]

Originally Posted by Timo

So, filters aside, why is it that VAs can't match the rawness and character of classic analogue synths, such as the SH101, TB303, JP8, etc.?

I know they can't (I wasn't suggesting they could), but why don't VA coders/programmers rectify this?

If VA programmers could.....then I guess they would. True analog components naturally vary, they all interconnect via voltages and because of this...they produce harmonic imperfections which we percieve as desirable (often described as rawness/warmth/presence etc). These imperfections just happen....they are not engineered that way. Now, with digital software....unless you 'program in' these kinda imperfections your going to get very acurate sounds. Hmmm im not sure im making sense. I think the code needed for filters and oscilators etc is very complex....and the time/resources to incur variations is not possible in software yet. Take the TAE of the Arturia synths.....thats a step in the right direction...however, when coders try to program in oscilators that drift, filters that dont track perfectly, 'dirty' virtual vca's and the like...there is still an audiable element of precision. The fact of the matter is....for randomness and rawness...analog components is where its at...and it will always be that way. My analogy of VA is....real time control of sample play back. Ah...i hear you scream...but the fact of the matter is...thats what it sounds like to my ears. Try listening to some real analog poly sounds. Listen to the way those sounds come out of the speakers and enter the listening space. You dont get that VA....and in my opinion will never get that froma digital instrument.

Hence the revival in analog synth manufacturing...

Its an interesting debate. Now, ive had jamming sessions with guitar players etc...and I always find analogs (such as the P5 and JP8..sorry to keep on about this) stand head to head better and in a more satisfying way than VA's do. I think when using VA's you have to be particularly careful with your decision(s) as to what other instruments you want to include. For instance P5 strings and bass go really well with heavy electric guitars......when I did this with the Virus....the Virus sounded like it was unable to breath. This is just my opinion....

DS

[Tomer=Trance]

but as music and technology evolves maybe (this might be hard for some) analog will not be needed anymore or atleast subatractive sounds will be less commonly used.

i think were spending too much time looking at the past insted of looking at the future and developing new methods of synthesis and sound manipulation.

what do you guys think?

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Tomer=Trance

but as music and technology evolves maybe (this might be hard for some) analog will not be needed anymore or atleast subatractive sounds will be less commonly used.

i think were spending too much time looking at the past insted of looking at the future and developing new methods of synthesis and sound manipulation.

what do you guys think?

Often to get further into the future, you need to understand the past...

Where advances in computing DSP are brought into play, the gap between real analogue and hardware-emulation is going to get narrower and narrower. Look at MiniMonsta, for eg.

[DIGITAL SCREAMS]

Originally Posted by Tomer=Trance

but as music and technology evolves maybe (this might be hard for some) analog will not be needed anymore or atleast subatractive sounds will be less commonly used.

i think were spending too much time looking at the past insted of looking at the future and developing new methods of synthesis and sound manipulation.

what do you guys think?

Im all for people developing new forms of synthesis. But new is not always better in terms of sound. There is a reason why most people enjoy traditional, warm analog sounds.....it just sounds good. How many enjoy cold, thin and aliasing sounds from hell? Hence the Casio cz synths were never that popular. There is a fine line between using new gear that sounds great in its own right....and using older gear to make up for the characteristics missing.

I think the reality is....people who've spent alot of time using real analogs have difficulty moving over to VA (not so much FM synths or wavetables). VA will run its course one day.....how many VA's do we need? How about VA's which come with routable analog filters (which allow for 8 voice poly)? That would be a welcome change.....but its kinda been done already (ESQ-1).

I dont know what the answer is

DS