What hardware synth would you choose?

[AxeD]

Exactly what mr. Bag said just now. But I'd maybe turn it around. Digital tries to make 'round' shapes from 1's and 0's, so
you need high sample rates to make it seem actually round. Same as with pixels.

I don't really prefer one over the other though. It's kind of like modern recording studios, you go through quite a bit
of hassle (and money) to get analogue working together with digital. Talking about a hybrid setup of course.

[wolf89]

Man there's no need to have some shitty long debate about the intricacies of synths. Nobody cares. You've not even answered the original question: "What hardware synth would you choose?"

Whoever asked, the MIDI -> Megadrive cartridge thing is a 'game' cartridge for a Sega Megadrive (Genesis) which has a MIDI input connector. Allows you to interact with the sound chip via MIDI. Can't wait to get one. Think there's one for NES and SNES too but I don't have those consoles.

Oh well in that case you're essentially playing a Yamaha YM2612 sound chip then? It's got a couple other sound chips too but still, it's that dirty low grade 90s FM synthesis that you get from a megadrive. I do like the harshness the megadrive had. Meant a lot of the soundtracks went for metal-ish compositions or sounding kind of a bit techno compared to the SNES which would attempt more realistic instrumental sounds and scores.

Anyway on the subject of hardware synths it really depends what you're after.

On the analogue front Moog I have found (though I was only using older Moog stuff when I tried) have a really thick warm sound with quite clean buttery filters.

If you compare them to something like a Korg MS-20 (which I own) you'll find that the MS-20 has really gnarly dirty sounding filters in comparison (which I personally love).

Pretty much all companies takes on analogue will have little differences like this which is really one of the main draws for going down the analogue route for me.

Generally I have found most of the new analogue stuff I've tried (DSI stuff and the like) has a slightly more clean and controlled sound. Again it's down to taste as to whether you like it.

My advice for that kind of thing is to try and hear as much as you can of it and compare it.


Analogue vs digital there is a difference. Really obviously a difference.That "they both make a speaker move using electricity" argument is insanely retarded. Whether one is better than the other is also really bit of a pointless argument as it's about using what is possible sound wise from each to their strengths.

In addition to the sonic properties that hardware and software offer there is also the way in which they shape your work to take into account too. Jamming patterns out on my DSI Tempest yields very different results to programming drums with a mouse or being able to logically build up a patch with physical routing of cables on a modular system is different to being sat at a computer creating sounds.

[futures_untold]

Re: software vs hardware, tis is the biggest bullshit argument ever. Both digital and analogue work using electricity making a speaker move the air around us which we perceive as sound. Neither has the edge when it comes to this, both do the same thing.

I already beefed people for going off-topic in here, but fuck it. What you said isn't true and they don't both do the same thing. They couldn't be further apart.
Analogue synths process voltage through a circuit to make sound. A circuit built from imperfect components. Voltage which has no sample rate. Software synths are a program which pass a digital signal to your soundcard. 0's and 1's. Specific, perfect instructions. It's taken us 14 years of VSTi development to get this close to virtual analogue sounds and we're still not there.

It's not a bullshit argument at all. Compare a Moog to a Moog VSTi - they don't sound the same. Digital signals are completely different to analogue signals.

@ £10 Bag

Maybe my understanding of this area is flawed?

My thinking is that after the D/A conversion, the net effect is the same for both digital and analogue synths, i.e. an electrical current driving a speaker. If the D/A sample rate is high enough, it won't matter because humans can't hear the difference between the 'limited' sample rate and the 'unlimited' analogue signal.

Regarding comparing a Moog for a Moog VST. You're right to say they won't sound the same, but if we start adding variations and imperfections to the VST output using distortion and chorusing etc, we can get it in the same ballpark quickly.

So hardware vs digital. Hardware is quicker for the rich sound out of the box, but considering we can set up and save VST effects chain to include VST synth/distortion/pitch drift/chorussing that advantage is moot. Then digital has the flexibility as mentioned earlier in the thread.


@wolf89

Workflow style is always a personal preference and there is no real comparisson between mouse clicking and hands on wiring. If softsynth people like having a hands-on workflow, they have the option to rig up various types of controllers.


Back on topic, I do love the sounds of the Nord Lead synths and Korg Tritons, regardless of their underlying synthesis method.

(PS, is it me or does no-one have much to discuss on DSF right now, hence the debates in recent threads lol)

[AxeD]

Yeah okay Wolf, but a Tempest is a tool made by god himself. If you fart on it you get a better drum loop than any Battery project.

[ieatfunk]

Yeah okay Wolf, but a Tempest is a tool made by god himself. If you fart on it you get a better drum loop than any Battery project.

Another off-topic discussion here.. What the fuck is Battery?! I bought it in Komplete 8 and I've never once used it. What's the point over just using Maschine or whatever?

[futures_untold]

Yeah okay Wolf, but a Tempest is a tool made by god himself. If you fart on it you get a better drum loop than any Battery project.

Another off-topic discussion here.. What the fuck is Battery?! I bought it in Komplete 8 and I've never once used it. What's the point over just using Maschine or whatever?

Battery existed before Maschine. It likely influenced the development of Maschine.

[wolf89]

The point is that the analogue circuitry in a synth has it's own character futures_untold.

Saying that it all sounds the same is like saying all amps driving speakers sound the same as they're all doing the same job.

[webstarr]

I've got an Arturia Minibrute, i'd highly recommend it. Great layout for workflow and value for money.

[futures_untold]

The point is that the analogue circuitry in a synth has it's own character futures_untold.

Saying that it all sounds the same is like saying all amps driving speakers sound the same as they're all doing the same job.

At the micro level of the hardware vs digital debate, then yes, different circuits have their own character and sound different. These characteristics can be appealing to some. If that's you, great!

At the macro level of the debate regarding enjoying music (played out of a speaker), then the way the music was created simply doesn't matter to many people.

When we enjoy music, do we really sit there saying 'this is rubbish because clearly that's a Moog VST, not a hardware Moog...'? Some people may, but I don't. I just appreciate whatever is coming out the speaker, however it was created.

So given the desired end result (the creation of good music to play via a speaker system), I believe that digital synths (with added effects if required) have the edge over hardware because they are so flexible and can cover hardware sounds and more.

If we are talking synthesised guitar vs real guitar, then I'd opt for the real guitar because the way it is played influences the aesthetic quality of the music. Hard and softsynths are mostly both played using a keyboard, so the playing style is similar. A great sax or guitar part is harder to program digitally.

[ieatfunk]

I feel iff you're not constantly active listening to music as a musician then you're not gonna progress much

[futures_untold]

Sorry for the tangent rant, I've been procrastinating from doing my work all morning

[__________]

Maybe my understanding of this area is flawed?

You said it

[futures_untold]

Maybe my understanding of this area is flawed?

You said it

Help me learn my friend for clearly I am a

This is my highly generalised understanding of music technology:

-----------------------------

- Computer + soundcard = Devices which operate using electrical currents passed through a bunch of electric circuits to auto-magically create variations in an electrical current sent to an attached speaker.

- Hardware synth = A device which operates using electrical currents passed through a bunch of electric circuits to auto-magically create variations in an electrical current sent to an attached speaker.

- A speaker = A device which operates using an electrical current to auto-magically cause a magnets to move backwards and forwards, in turn causing pressure changes in any medium around the speaker.

- Transfer medium = A bunch of molecules of any medium such as air or water which vibrate at different rates according to pressure exerted on it by various mechanical means (in our case the moving speaker). The movement of the molecules eventually is detected by the human ear.

- The human ear = A biological device which senses changes in pressure and auto-magically converts the sensed changes in pressure into an electric current.

- The human brain = A biological device that auto-magically uses electric currents received from the ear + chemicals and gooey stuff to create the perception and appreciation of music.

-----------------------------

The details of all the technologies involved and my understanding of them don't really matter, because the end result is electrical devices being used to somehow create music people enjoy.

Both computers and dedicated analogue synths work using electricity in various ways to cause a connected speaker to create changes in air pressure. The changes in air pressure are what we perceive as sound or music.

Yes I readily admit that our aesthetic enjoyment of the sounds we hear can be tied to the quality of the electrical devices we are using (especially amps and speakers). Because a modern computer is so flexible in modelling other systems, so long as a computer has a decent soundcard set to a high enough sampling rate, it can match the 'perceived audio quality' of an analogue synth every time. Even if the modelling is imperfect, by the time a producer has added effects to ensure the general qualities of the sound match those from a hardware synth, the end result is the same.

Neither hardware synths nor computers have an edge when it comes to driving speakers. Both are used to the same end, which is why the hardware vs software synthesis debate is bullshit. So long as we enjoy the music created, the debate of hardware vs software remains an issue of other factors, such as enjoying a hands-on workflow or price.

-----------------------------

Btw, I'm only posting to keep myself distracted from other shit I should be doing and have no beef with anyone.

Peace y'all!

[wolf89]

They do it in very different ways. Again this like claiming that all home stereo equipment should sound the same as it does the same job.

The only time where this could be applicable is the idea of a digital synth designed to exactly replicate a piece of hardware (like a Minimoog VST or something_ and even then I have found in my experiences that there is a clear difference.

[SunkLo]

For the record, vsts pass around data in double precision floating point values, which is about 4.5 quadrillion values. It's works out to 52 bit. Compare that to the 16 bit audio you listen to and tell me you can hear the difference between software's 52 bits and analog voltage resolution. Keep in mind, the increase from 16 bit to 17 bit is a doubling of possible values. So the bit depth of 52 bit is 16 bit doubled 36 times. Everything gets quantized to 16 or 24 bit after the output anyway, but don't think that digital is lacking any precision in its internal processing before spitting out a wave.

The character of analog circuitry comes from individual discrete components not being as precise as a computer. Analog circuits are basically lazy which adds a degree of randomness into them. Randomness can be good, precision isn't always the best. Try and make a groovy drum pattern while staying locked on the grid, it'll sound like shit. But that doesn't mean analog is inherently better, just that it does that lax random vibe really well. If you program in those micro variations you can achieve that same vibe while still maintaining the digital level of control over everything else. Weighing the pros and cons, soft synths are a no-brainer to me.

The main reason I started posting in this thread is because OP said he though analog synths where what set the pros apart. Which is ridiculous in my opinion. If you want to invest in production, there are many other things to put your money into that will give you a better boost than buying an analog synth. Get a bunch of midi controllers, get some new software, upgrade your monitoring, treat your room, buy some high end headphones to reference your mix on, add some ram to your production pc, buy some samples or Kontakt libraries, get a UAD card and some plugins for it. You could have a Mytek, some nice Adams and a super treated room. You could buy an 1176 or some other hardware compressors. You could get a Neve clone preamp to run your audio through. Hell I'd get an analog summing box before I got an analog synth. There are lots of better ways to invest that kind of money that will get you closer to pro gear level.

[wolf89]

The character of analog circuitry comes from individual discrete components not being as precise as a computer. Analog circuits are basically lazy which adds a degree of randomness into them. Randomness can be good, precision isn't always the best. Try and make a groovy drum pattern while staying locked on the grid, it'll sound like shit. But that doesn't mean analog is inherently better, just that it does that lax random vibe really well. If you program in those micro variations you can achieve that same vibe while still maintaining the digital level of control over everything else. Weighing the pros and cons, soft synths are a no-brainer to me.
.

This was my point basically aside from soft synths being a no brainer at which I would depart from that and say that personally I use each to it's own individual strengths. I mean even the fact that analogue shit goes out of tune on it's own can be used to affect.

[SunkLo]

Yeah but you can just as easily route a random oscillator to the pitch value and control exactly how much it goes out of tune and how quickly, all while saving yourself $3500.

[snappy]

i think that analog and their digital emulations pretty much sound the same, but the imaging doesn't.
and btw am i the only one that thinks moogs are overhyped these days when there are beasts like vermona out there.

[wolf89]

Yeah but you can just as easily route a random oscillator to the pitch value and control exactly how much it goes out of tune and how quickly, all while saving yourself $3500.

Not the same. Point was about actually not having exact control. Was just using it as an example anyway. Just saying that in my experience my hardware I have offers different possibilities to my software.

Each have their own strengths. I don't see the point in acting like one is supreme somehow.

[SunkLo]

Not saying one is supreme. But when it comes time to weigh the cost vs any perceived sonic improvements, it seems like a massive waste of money unless you've already got a pretty competent studio set up with near perfect monitoring and good conversion.

I'd say software can emulate analog to about 98%, whereas analog's ability to do the inverse is severely limited. The modulation is an issue as well, automating parameters is a pretty big pain in the ass and requires re-recording audio with every change you make. Were money not an issue though, I'd probably pick up a few analog synths just for the fun factor. I just don't see it as a wise investment if you're lacking other things that I'd prioritize over a synth.