Anthony Marinelli channel

[GovernorSilver]

He's been uploading videos frequently so maybe his channel merits its own thread.

 

Interview with Mark Barton, who worked on the Pollard Syndrum,  Macintalk for Mac, some stuff for Cherry Audio, etc.   I think Barton had just sold the modular sitting behind him to Marinelli

 

 

[CyberGene]

I’ve been following him since the very beginning when he used to have just a hundred of views. Very humble and knowledgeable guy, it’s fantastic to be able to hear and see how he made the sounds for Michael Jackson’s Thrilller. He started recently collaborating with Dr. Mix.

[DroptopBroham]

Now Marinelli is a youtuber I can get behind, routinely putting out intelligent and interesting content. This is what youtube should be.

[Jim Alfredson]

He is entertaining and I like his videos where he discusses patching ideas with the ARP 2600 and using effects. He knows that thing in and out. A true master of the instrument.

[DroptopBroham]

8 hours ago, jazzpiano88 said:

you do realize that Anthony is older than Rick, don’t you?   If you’re using your own logic, you may need to go ahead and do the honorable thing.

You do realize that Marinelli is genuine and creating real content, don't you?

 

Beato creates marshmallow fluff and clickbait all while heavily pushing ads for his arpeggio and ear training courses and his double cutaway Gibson down your throat in his attempt to be the next Mr. Beast, Dude Perfect, PewDiePie or Dobre Bros. His condescension and smugness are cloying and nausea inducing. "But he's introducing the world to the genius of Donald Fagen and his judicious use of Mark Knopfler on The Most Complex Yacht Rock Song of All Time." Yeah, no, Beato is still a grifter trying to pry those greenbacks from your inflation decimated paypal account.

[Tusker]

Thank you Governor. A great discussion. So passionate and thoughtful.  🙏

 

I agree with Mark. The digital sound design experience is often far more productive and creative. And software modulars are the pinnacle of this. For now.

 

That's different from being able to perform a piece in an engaging way. An Expressive E Touche sits on a desktop. Despite being more expressive, it's never going to look as heroic (or phallic 😄)  as the Moog IIIC's ribbon controller.

[TommyS]

I certainly like his videos......

[kpl1228]

Saw the Thriller one w Phillinganes. Terrific!

[jazzpiano88]

The topic of the video is an interesting one:    Digital is better at Analog than Analog.

 

He argues it from a Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range argument.    To boil it down in simple terms, a digital synth has a reconstruction filter to convert the digital representation into an analog waveform that theoretically can be as accurate as you want it to be. (it's an infinite series of sinc functions for those who know Oppenheim and Schafer).   What his means is that, for example, a digital synth can produce a sine wave that is more accurate (less distortion and noise) than an analog synth.  Extend that to more complex waveforms, filters, etc....

 

From a practical point of view he said he's never released a soft synth until it could pass a double blind comparison with analog.

 

Anthony basically agrees but argues that the unpredictability and imperfect nature of analog sometimes produces something desirable that can't be replicated by digital.

 

 

[CyberGene]

I’ve read somewhere that we subconsciously enjoy imperfect (approximate) representations of something we know, because it makes our brain fill in what’s missing. Examples are: black and white photography, since the brain has to imagine color. Or, 24 fps cinema since the brain has to interpolate movement from what’s rather insufficient frame rate (compare the dreamy cinematic look of films versus the ultra smooth high fps of a modern broadcast that actually looks too boring and dull). 
 

I guess the same applies to analog synths that are never perfect waveforms and periods. Our brain needs to interpolate that to the ideal one. Or maybe my analogy is wrong, never mind 😀

[sunspot]

So much quality music production knowledge has been lost, grateful that guys like Anthony are documenting their past experiences for us to enjoy.

[jazzpiano88]

17 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

I’ve read somewhere that we subconsciously enjoy imperfect (approximate) representations of something we know, because it makes our brain fill in what’s missing. Examples are: black and white photography, since the brain has to imagine color. Or, 24 fps cinema since the brain has to interpolate movement from what’s rather insufficient frame rate (compare the dreamy cinematic look of films versus the ultra smooth high fps of a modern broadcast that actually looks too boring and dull). 
 

I guess the same applies to analog synths that are never perfect waveforms and periods. Our brain needs to interpolate that to the ideal one. Or maybe my analogy is wrong, never mind 😀

 

I was surprised that photographic film is making a comeback.   The only thing is, the first thing people do after processing their analog film is they digitize it to show it to someone.     It's kind of along the lines of digitizing the output of your Vinyl.   Digital Vinyl is better than (or equal to) Vinyl.

[ProfD]

35 minutes ago, jazzpiano88 said:

Anthony basically agrees but argues that the unpredictability and imperfect nature of analog sometimes produces something desirable that can't be replicated by digital.

 

Right. 

 

I found it funny that Mark Barton says, yeah, I sold off my analog gear mainly because I'd created every sound that it could do. 

 

While Anthony Marinelli *understood* what Mark was saying, he still wants to believe there is still some magic left in those boxes of VCOs and VCAs and holes filled with wires of spaghetti.😁

 

Reminds of the guy with the comb over hairdo who refuses to let it go. 🤣😎

[CyberGene]

I had a brief photography period around 2008-2013 which started with regular DSLR-s and gradually went through so many things that I ended up with medium format B&W films that I developed myself 🤣 Anyway, something interesting from the latter is I experimented with Rodinal stand development and it’s a pretty interesting technique where you use a very low concentration of developer with no agitation. This means that the chemistry will get exhausted more around dark elements (which are translucent on film). Leaving it for longer than the usual time then means that naturally the dark areas won’t get too dark. Or, ultimately it would be almost like a local contrast, e.g. HDR that is a side effect of the process. You can simulate that process with an effect in a digital workflow on a digital source image but what I actually deduced from the whole this thing was that with film photography there’s this unpredictability that can lead to interesting results without any deliberate attempt. I’m not defending film photography or vintage analog synth mania since I abandoned both of them. But I kind of understand the fascination with the chaotic nature of analog synths and images 🙂

[Jim Alfredson]

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

Right. 

 

I found it funny that Mark Barton says, yeah, I sold off my analog gear mainly because I'd created every sound that it could do. 

 

While Anthony Marinelli *understood* what Mark was saying, he still wants to believe there is still some magic left in those boxes of VCOs and VCAs and holes filled with wires of spaghetti.😁

 

Reminds of the guy with the comb over hairdo who refuses to let it go. 🤣😎

I agree with Barton that digital has gotten to the point where it is better at 'analog' than analog. To me there's a big caveat, though.

Marinelli briefly touched on the interface aspect. That's the big problem. Yes, softsynths are amazing. Pigments by Arturia is one of the best sounding synths of all time, hardware or software, imo. And it can basically do anything. BUT... it simply isn't as fun to use as a big old knobby synth. The interface of analog synths inspires you to mess around, experiment, and play! Until the issue of tactile inspiration can be solved, I don't think digital will replace analog.

With that physical nature of the 'real deal' comes an immediacy as well. A vintage Minimoog is FAST. It responds instantly to your touch. I can get my computer down to about 3ms latency, which is tiny and is all but undetectable... and yet... it does seem to affect my connection to the instrument. I think that's where some of the disconnect comes from.

[CyberGene]

20 minutes ago, Jim Alfredson said:

BUT... it simply isn't as fun to use as a big old knobby synth. The interface of analog synths inspires you to mess around, experiment, and play! Until the issue of tactile inspiration can be solved, I don't think digital will replace analog.

That’s true, however it has a caveat too, for me at least. With those synths that support loading presets, it becomes a bit disorienting to not see the actual knob positions. I really hated that aspect of my Novation Peak and more recently the Sequential Take 5 which is why I sold them both. I much prefer my Hydrasynth with its LED ring encoders and multiple OLED screens next to them to show values and names. But I love my Behringer Model D the most (forget about the B, I know your opinion, imagine I speak about a Moog 😀) where there are no presets, what you see is what you get! That’s my most fun synth to use, all pots always at the correct value. Vintage analog soft synths at least have this advantage of showing you all these knobs/sliders/switches reflecting the actual values. 

[jazzpiano88]

Another aspect of the discussion was the reproduction of the acoustic instrument (e.g. Stadavarius Violin or Steinway piano) that still has a long way to go.  Piano wise it seems like the only manufacturer who has made serious inroads is Yamaha with the Avant Grand.   But even that is half brute force replicating the piano action.   The amplification aspects almost seem like the insurmountable bottleneck even as the waveform creations become more and more accurate.   Not sure how a manufacturer economically resolves all three in general (action, accuracy, and amplification) but Yamaha has come close from what I hear.  

[ProfD]

1 hour ago, Jim Alfredson said:

Marinelli briefly touched on the interface aspect. That's the big problem.

 

... it simply isn't as fun to use as a big old knobby synth. 

With that physical nature of the 'real deal' comes an immediacy as well.

Right. The fun factor and immediacy in analog sound design is inspiring and it sparks creativity. Those factors cannot be discounted.😎

[Tusker]

Agree completely with the comments about interface and amplification problems. (upstream and downstream) The discussion of these upstream and downstream problems illustrates how completely the central problem is solved.

 

On the interface question, digital lags analog in some ways. It leads analog in other ways.

 

That leaves the colossal problem of amplification. Where are the visionary Donald Leslies of today? Please come forward. 🙏🙏

[JoJoB3]

Seems like a cool, genuine dude to this day.  Definitely some right time-right place history. 
This one's a bit Guitar Centery though (but who cares, it's just a jam).
 

 

[Jim Alfredson]

10 hours ago, CyberGene said:

That’s true, however it has a caveat too, for me at least. With those synths that support loading presets, it becomes a bit disorienting to not see the actual knob positions. I really hated that aspect of my Novation Peak and more recently the Sequential Take 5 which is why I sold them both. I much prefer my Hydrasynth with its LED ring encoders and multiple OLED screens next to them to show values and names. 

Yes, endless encoders can be a drag if there's no reference to where they are set for any given patch. I really like the sliders on the Kurzweil Forte7/8 because they have LED bars next to them that show where they are set. Unfortunately they dropped that feature on the K2700.

I like the regular pots on the later Sequential stuff like the Prophet X. Pass-through mode is fine for me and the screen tells you where the values are set.

 

[Floyd Tatum]

Perhaps the "interface problem" of digital (computer-based) synths is one area where "artificial reality" goggles could be a solution.   The AR goggles could be programmed to create an artificial "knobby interface", and the user has only to reach out and turn the AK's (artificial knobs 🙂) - of course, the knobs only exist in his mind, but so what?   As long as music comes out the other end, problem solved, maybe....??

[Floyd Tatum]

I wasn't joking - I can see it working.   I'm not sure the technology's there yet, but it probably will be before long.

[Old No7]

12 hours ago, Jim Alfredson said:

... it simply isn't as fun to use as a big old knobby synth. The interface of analog synths inspires you to mess around, experiment, and play! Until the issue of tactile inspiration can be solved, I don't think digital will replace analog.

With that physical nature of the 'real deal' comes an immediacy as well. A vintage...

 

10 hours ago, ProfD said:

Right. The fun factor and immediacy in analog sound design is inspiring and it sparks creativity. Those factors cannot be discounted.😎

 

Call me old school -- and you'd be correct -- but for all those reasons above, I don't ever see myself playing virtual instruments from a computer as I really enjoy having a purpose-built keyboard in front of me.

 

To me, I find there's a very strong mental connection to the board as well (tradition, history, reliving past gigs, old songs or sounds to emulate, pride of ownership, etc.), besides all the physical aspects of the keys, knobs, and sliders, etc.

 

Plus, after 9 to 11 hours spent on a work computer every day, the very LAST thing I want to do is to start up yet another computer...................  Ugh...

 

Old No7

[jazzpiano88]

The discussion on knob-ness has little relevance when discussing analog vs digital.

 - Both analog and digital (non vst) synths have knobs.

 - Both analog and digital have the issue of knob not showing the active value (except for analogs that don't save patches or have workarounds, a small use case of vintage and select newer synths).

 

 

[Tusker]

Yes, I think we might all be referencing slightly different use cases as we think about our preferences. Some us are expressing a preference for OKPF (one knob per function) synths versus non OKPF synths. Others are talking about the immediacy of direct analog control versus a slower digitally mediated control environment. These issues matter. Still others (me) are thinking about how virtual patch cords never need repair and how nice it is to have an infinite number of them. YMMV. 😅

[jazzpiano88]

2 hours ago, Tusker said:

Yes, I think we might all be referencing slightly different use cases as we think about our preferences. Some us are expressing a preference for OKPF (one knob per function) synths versus non OKPF synths. Others are talking about the immediacy of direct analog control versus a slower digitally mediated control environment. These issues matter. Still others (me) are thinking about how virtual patch cords never need repair and how nice it is to have an infinite number of them. YMMV. 😅

 

Makes sense!  

 

Aside....

We also discussed above preferences for the vintage experience based on personal experience with, and love for, the gear at the time.

I'm a collector of vintage calculators.   Both early early simple 4 function, like a Royal Digital 88M (my first as a 12 year old kid), and then the vintage scientifics used in college TI 59. HP's (35, 25, 41C, 15c, etc).   And a fan of Ham Radio gear from my youth..  T599D, R599D, TS520,  FT101. 

My Juno 106 is prized for being my first synth, regardless.

[AROIOS]

On 3/4/2024 at 1:21 PM, jazzpiano88 said:

The topic of the video is an interesting one:    Digital is better at Analog than Analog.

 

He argues it from a Signal to Noise and Dynamic Range argument.    To boil it down in simple terms, a digital synth has a reconstruction filter to convert the digital representation into an analog waveform that theoretically can be as accurate as you want it to be. (it's an infinite series of sinc functions for those who know Oppenheim and Schafer).   What his means is that, for example, a digital synth can produce a sine wave that is more accurate (less distortion and noise) than an analog synth.  Extend that to more complex waveforms, filters, etc....

 

From a practical point of view he said he's never released a soft synth until it could pass a double blind comparison with analog.

 

Anthony basically agrees but argues that the unpredictability and imperfect nature of analog sometimes produces something desirable that can't be replicated by digital.

 

 

99.9% of audio laymen know nothing about Fourier Transform or Nyquist–Shannon Theorem, yet love to blame the "jagged edges of digital waveform" that only exist in their vivid imagination.

[AROIOS]

On 3/4/2024 at 1:59 PM, jazzpiano88 said:

 

I was surprised that photographic film is making a comeback.   The only thing is, the first thing people do after processing their analog film is they digitize it to show it to someone.     It's kind of along the lines of digitizing the output of your Vinyl.   Digital Vinyl is better than (or equal to) Vinyl.

It's part nostalgia, part snobbism, and part simple human nature.

I look at film snobs and their "wine critic" style language with cringe, as I do most self-claimed audiophiles. But what they see and hear, are often more than just imagined fair dust.

A key aesthetic of films is their luminance response curve, which elevates the darkest pixels and compresses the brightest ones.

My hypothesis of why that's pleasing is simple: extreme darkness or brightness reduce our ancestors' chances of survival.

[Tusker]

7 hours ago, AROIOS said:

It's part nostalgia, part snobbism, and part simple human nature.

 

Indeed. It's a very human problem. How can we know what we haven't experienced? The past speaks loudly and the future is unknown.

 

The most intuitive interface I have ever seen is for a recently released beta version of a free synth. For me it's better than knobs, because you can actually see sound and shape it. On an analog synth (and I love analog synths!) I have to imagine things like: 

- a  pulse wave adding even harmonics as you change the pulse width 

- a  triangle wave sounding like a low passed saw wave

- A saw wave and a square wave (down an octave) together sounding like a saw wave

 

But these all require imagination. Or blind chance. But in a freely drawable wavetable synth on a big screen, you can see sound and shape it. The free synth is Zebrallete 3. Draw a sound. Hear it. This changes sound design. And who knows what will come after that? Part of our discussion is the struggle between the future and the past.