Analog vs Digital - It's not just the synth

[WillNeverPost]

I used to think that digital synths, in particular VA's, could "easily" emulate the music (not just isolated sounds) that was made when analog synths were king. Emulating analog is, after all, the whole point of VA. But I have enlarged my thinking because it's not just about the output of the synth, it's about the entire production and recording "ecosystem" that the synth is used in. That can make a huge difference. (Here I am not talking about live use of these instruments - that's a different discussion but one worth having too).

 

I doubt there can ever be a perfect A-B comparison of a track that illustrates the differences but this one comes pretty close: "Relay Breakdown" by Larry Fast (Synergy). He originally recorded this for 1975's "Electronic Realizations for Rock Orchestra" (ERFRO). Most (probably all) of the signal chain was analog back then and there were only a few digital devices around (e.g., Oberheim's DS-2 sequencer).

 

Fast re-recorded it for the album "Reconstructed Artifacts" in 2002 and this time almost everything (including the synths) was digital. Same artist, same composition, different equipment hence I believe different thinking about how to use that equipment sonically. Very different result. Personally, I think the original version sounds better. But I admit my thinking may be biased because I was exposed to the original soon after it was created.

 

Original:

[video:youtube]

 

Reconstructed: (YouTube video was taken down, so here is a partial audio example)

http://www.allmusic.com/album/reconstructed-artifacts-mw0000459116

 

There are lots of other "reconstructions" on the more recent album. The "digital" versions sound very different to my ears (and IMO not as good) on all except the tracks from Fast's Metropolitan Suite, in which the original versions also used some digital synths - a Yamaha DX7 and an early sampler (even ERFRO used a "sampler" in the form of a Mellotron but very sparingly) - and were recorded digitally.

 

 

[J. Dan]

When you're recording, I get it. But I've owned many analogs, many va's. There is something very different, visceral in nature playing an analog live. It's just different. If you've never done it, you won't understand. It IS different. After you record it, sample it, model it. Whatever, it's all the same.

[ABECK]

Bruce Swedien used to like to record synths both direct and a mic'd signal in a room. I believe the CS80 stuff on Thriller was recorded this way. I don't know if the medium was 2" tape, or Sony DASH at the time, but it certainly sounds good to my ears.

 

[RABid]

... Fast re-recorded it for the album "Reconstructed Artifacts" in 2002 and this time almost everything (including the synths) was digital. Same artist, same composition, different equipment hence I believe different thinking about how to use that equipment sonically. Very different result. ....

 

 

Wasn't that 14 years ago? Digital instruments, recording and effects have come a long way in the last 14 years. Not saying there are exactly the same now, but I think we have reached a point where digital is ready to be its own thing.

[WillNeverPost]

I could not find a more recent example. Kind of tough to find something rerecorded by the same artist with the intention of making it sound pretty much the same (thereby allowing a direct comparison without a lot of other variables confusing the issue; as close as we can come to a controlled experiment).

 

In fact, chances are against find anything else like that. There's so much you can do nowadays with today's (digital) tools that likely no one would even consider trying to recreate something they did so long ago as closely as practical. They would put that effort into something new. Fast's recreations are an anomaly in that sense (he explains why he did it on his web site that I linked to).

 

My point (conjecture, really) is that today's digital tools and processes cause us to think differently about how we (the royal we) approach creating music than when we had nothing but analog tools and processes. Try as we might, it is then darned difficult to get the same analog "vibe" from the music, even with the help of the best VA synths.

 

I hope I'm expressing myself clearly; language is no barrier in my case but I'm trying to articulate and rationalize something I _feel_ when I listen to older recordings like ERFRO and other, early synthesis-heavy albums. Heck, it could be just nostalgia tainting my listening. But I think there is some essential truth here just below the surface. Of course, like Theo I could be putting this out for discussion in the wrong forum. If so, any better suggestions? The SNR on other forums where they discuss synthesizers seems to be pretty darn low (as I'm sure many of you know all too well).

[aronnelson]

VA is getting better and better. Just when I think they are so close, I turn on my Micromoog or my Minimoog and no way. Not yet. But I will admit it's closer to my Sequential Pro One in sound. Discrete rules!

[Tusker]

There is something very different, visceral in nature playing an analog live. It's just different. If you've never done it, you won't understand. It IS different.

 

+1000 Dan.

 

ZZZZZ, thanks for the great Larry Fast examples. A similar comparison can be made between Switched on Bach and Switched on Bach 2000. To me, the difference is audible. The original is alive.

 

In a Contemporary Keyboard interview, Carlos spoke of struggling to control the Moog oscillator intonation over more than two octaves. All that struggle seems to come through in the end.

[MikeT156]

VA's have come far enough along that they are acceptable for playing live. The old analogs had a great sound and robust filters. Staying in tune was a different matter. VA's eliminate the need for constantly tuning on stage, which on a stage during a live performance was more than a pain.

From what I've seen and heard, Dave Smith has created the right combination of analog components and digital controls in many of his synths. If I were ever in need of a new analog it would be one of his synths.

[aronnelson]

> The old analogs had a great sound and robust filters. Staying in tune was a different matter

 

I do remember hitting the tune button on my Oberheim, but my Sequential Pro One, Micromoog and Minimoog are in tune. Maybe during a hot day it will fluctuate a lot more.

[Al Coda]

 

I do remember hitting the tune button on my Oberheim, but my Sequential Pro One, Micromoog and Minimoog are in tune. Maybe during a hot day it will fluctuate a lot more.

 

I never had to hit a tune button on my Prophet-5, the Oberheim OB-8 and the Xpander,- or manually tuning Minimoog D and Taurus during performance once these warmed up before show for about 15 minutes.

Only the Roland MKS-80rev4 needed approx. 35 min. warmup time to be stable.

When there wasn´t enough time before show, the MKS-80 was the only one needing occasional tuning during show.

It´s autotune routine was very fast and it was possible to engage it via MIDI.

Even no biggie, I gave up using it live after some time.

 

A.C.