“Why Modern Digital Synthesis Is More Analog Than Analog” - Mark Barton
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- Link to Mark Barton's Paper - cherryaudio.com/news/why-mode...
____________________________________
🆓 EXCLUSIVE FREE CONTENT 🆓 ✅ Visit www.anthonymarinellimusic.com to sign up to our mailing list ✅
🎛 Learn how to be in command of any synthesizer & develop YOUR sound.
📫 Sign up to our mailing list to receive our EXCLUSIVE FREE CONTENT and be notified about what we've got planned for the future.
____________________________________
ABOUT THIS VIDEO
I'm delighted to invite super inventor, musician and all around warm-hearted interesting person Mark Barton to the channel for a sincere discussion about his white paper titled "Why Modern Digital Synthesis Is More Analog Than Analog". While comparing Analog vs Digital Instruments, we'll cover topics such as signal-to-noise differences, digital filtering, the psychedelic digital experience, if there are expressive digital instruments, acoustic vs electronic instruments, the advantages and disadvantages of endless possibilities vs embracing limitations and finally, the pro's and con's of unpredictability vs repeatability. We'll also discuss Mark's latest inventions at Cherry Audio and we'll tackle the question if selling all your electronic analog instruments makes sense in 2024. And please let us know if you're a buyer or seller after hearing from Mark.
Mark Barton is a brilliant audio engineer, with a list of accomplishments a mile long. In the 1970s, Mark designed the Pollard Industries Syndrum, which defined the sound of electronic drums for the disco generation. He's also done groundbreaking work in speech synthesis, including writing the MacInTalk text-to-speech system for the first Apple Macintosh computer, and designed the innovative Zeroscillator hardware synthesizer module for Cyndustries. For the past five years, Mark has been brining his talents to Cherry Audio with modules and bundles for Voltage Modular under the MRB Labs and Cherry Audio/MRB brands, and has contributed to the wildly popular instruments Miniverse, Novachord + Solovox, GX-80, Lowdown, Eight Voice, Rackmode Signal Processors, and, most recently, Synthesizer Expander Module and Pro Soloist
00:00 Intro (w/music)
00:42 Summary of Paper
01:18 Signal to Noise
02:23 Analog Electronics
02;49 Digital Reconstruction Filter
03:08 The Listener Doesn't Care
03:41 Are There Expressive Digital Instruments?
05:25 I Sold My 1969 Moog IIIc Modular Synthesizer to Anthony
06:12 The Digital Experience
07:44 CTA
07:54 Why Mark Sold All His Analog Instruments
10:22 Mark's History Designing Great Analog & Digital Instruments
11:13 Is Anyone Building Great Expressive Digital Instruments?
17:01 Music Matters the Most
17:51 Would You Want a Digital ARP 2600 if It Sounded the Same as Analog?
20:25 Acoustic VS Electronic Instruments Was The Original Argument
21:05 Endless Possibilities OR Embracing Limitations?
23:06 Embracing Analog Unpredictability
23:45 About Mark's Latest Inventions
24:44 Conclusion
26:17 Logo (music)
____________________________________
ABOUT ANTHONY
Anthony's musical touch as both composer and performer is connected with some of the most influential creative minds over the last 40 years. He’s composed and conducted original orchestral scores for over 80 feature films including Young Guns , Internal Affairs , The Man From Elysian Fields , 15 Minutes and Planes, Trains & Automobiles , been commissioned by the Los Angeles Philharmonic for his symphonic work "In the Family Way", written over one thousand TV commercials in a myriad of musical styles, co-founded Levels Audio Post (LA's premiere post production facility) and performed and arranged on big-box-office films and influential hit records such as Michael Jackson's Thriller .
His extensive work as a young arranger, orchestrator and performer for Quincy Jones , Jack Nitzsche , Lamont Dozier , Arthur Rubenstein and Giorgio Moroder was vital in launching his own career. His early years pioneering modular analog synthesizers along with his wide-ranging music scholarship positioned Anthony at the center of the music technology revolution. He attended the University of Southern California School of Music as a piano and composition major.
Website - www.anthonymarinellimusic.com
Instagram - / anthonymarinellimusic
Tiktok - / anthonymarinellimusic
Wikipedia - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_...
IMDb - www.imdb.me/anthonymarinelli - เพลง
![[TH] VCT Masters Shanghai Playoffs DAY 5 // 100T vs PRX | FUT vs TH](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q75pv359eP4/mqdefault.jpg)
I started in the box. All the options killed my creativity. Slowly my gear is growing and found being away from the screen, tactility etc. Is so refreshing and inspiring. Haven’t bought a plug-in instrument the last two years.
Similar path for the past 8 years .. wouldn’t sell the real stuff for anything. Constantly being attached to the mouse killed all my creativity. A think a mix is good. But I definitely don’t buy plugins anymore. Not a fan of the “ you will own nothing.. and like it “ mentality
keep lying to yourself in order to justify yourself buying new gear you won't use 😂
Nice but that’s the difference between gear and plugins. It’s not the difference between digital and analog. You can still buy digital gear if you don’t like to be in the box.
Here here!
@@jocee2257if you buy gear and don’t use it, it’s YOUR fault
One aspect of this conversation I didn’t hear enough about is how spending time with a single fixed system allows you to learn an instrument in depth. The ability to add and switch filters infinitely is useful if you understand the synthesis concepts, but when you are learning, can become overwhelming and potentially disruptive to the flow. There are so many times I see people learning techniques by moving to a physical instrument, then moving back to the digital one, they have a new attitude for usage in the digital realm.
Yea, and while you can force yourself to work within limitations in digital...it will never happen. And that is a great point...the only reason this guy can do "anything" he can imagine in the digital realm is because he has mastered concepts over decades of spending time with separate machines.
This so much. My first synth was a digital, and after 3 years I didn't know how to do anything much besides selecting presets. Then I bought a vintage Micromoog and I learned more about synthesis in 20 minutes sitting in front of this very basic 1 VCO, 1VCF synth than i had learned in years on the digital with it's everything-buried-behind-menus-on-a-tiny-LCD-screen interface.
(For reference this was back in the late '90s/early 2000s)
@@tt9660 yess! Me too with a grandmother-. No menus… just open canvas with basic parameters u must learn and master - the physics rules if synthesis… adsr , gate, filter , osc, waveform….etc
But how do you play them? Guitar player here just clicked randomly on this video? Do you just program them or do you have physical keys? Because if it is the former it isn't you making music but just programming like techno music.
@@EbonyPope You can use a midi keyboard controller, or in the case of analog synths with no keyboard and no midi, you can use a CV/Gate-enabled keyboard(this is how the original modulars were played). A significant amount of hardware synths don't have built-in keyboards these days to save on space and cost.
The best video info/debate ever. Finally, two people know what their talking about and bringing the conversation to a definitive end with me. I love my analog gear along with my digital synthesizers. So now I was right building on both and not selling anything.
I love the interview and you two geniuses 😊. Thanks for everything.
"so now I was right" lol -- yes, the "best interview ever" now confirms this -- the debate is over. hahah I love the enthusiasm.
The best compromise is certainly digital synths with a large controller that fits where you would want it, that's set up so you can use it quickly like the plugin interface with mouse, but have real time control
There is no "finally" about it, though. This same convo about the exact same concerns has been going on since the invention of digital audio in the 1960s.
It's development via VCR technology was quite remarkable, and well worth learning a lot more about . The extent to which musicians ares still mystified by "analog vs digital' talk is humorously absurd. e.g. the simple consequence of bit depth is concerning your dynamic range vs noise floor, and has nothing to do with "higher resolution sound", aliasing, continuous signals or higher detail.
A lot of this convo is about workflow, UI and input limitations of older gear ("it drifts...no recall!" etc). It has nothing to do with the consequences of sound generation and recording of analog vs digital conversion.
the Minimoog is not the most expressive synth? Bernie Worrell would disagree.
There is a reason why analog synths made a come back. And that’s the sound and the soul !
it's more because of the user interface and because of marketing
No. It's just a lot of people who got old and now can afford the good old times 😉
New generation of music makes never will use analog. Only just for fun. Same how tube amplifier D type kit it. Listeners cache only final product witch is more powerful with digital possibilities.
@@ruslanluzkovvery true i use all these thru vst and why make things more complicated its 2024
@@ruslanluzkovexcept prices questions I would be more prudent. Who would have guessed stratocaster/Les Paul is still a choice. Synth guitar ? Because of prices it is tempting buying a modelling amp, but better with a 'valve reactor', and for choosing good ol' Vox AC30... which is sold again, young people still listen to The Beatles, Pink Floyd.
They will use vst because they can access and play it with knobs on a nice midi controller.
Also check eurorack enthusiasm, cheap Arduino/ Raspberry, DIY synths... Not sure they enjoy so well too much clean gear, without angles
It can't be ONLY about the sound. You need to be inspired to use an instrument. I am inspired to touch & play with my analog synths, but then more often, I use digital plug-ins for many sounds because of the convenience, automation, and recall ability. So I have both, and I like both for different reasons.
A good midi controller literally solves this problem
it should be about the sound.
just because you use tools to make your work easier as a musical artist, those tools being easier to use or taking less work than setting up a moog to record, does not improve the quality of work. it might improve your efficiency as an artist, but not something that is going to matter to the listener, besides maybe more frequent realeases, but more =/= good.
I think having analog gear over digital gear does offer a potential slight improvement in quality, but it can really only offer a minor improvment over basic musicality, compared to someone with the same musical ability without some kind of analog instrument.
I think there are many paradigms of electronic music that are not explored.
The keyboard/daw music paradigm is honestly not that musically expressive and will and probably never can be expressive, and that's not compared to other electronic instruments, that is compared to all instruments and music making abilities.
True. But peep this, the Air Juno in the MPC is implemented so well and sounds so good, I stopped saving for an analog unit. It’s pretty inspiring the way it’s designed in the box.
True, but that's more of a hard vs soft debate. I have a digital sampling keyboard and effects pedals that are much better too use. Limited but they are good.. I have mechanical and electro-mechanical instruments which I certainly wouldn't get rid of. But analogue, I don't have a lot of analogue, mainly distortion pedals and amplifiers, it rarely gets beyond that much.
Would it matter if a delay pedal was digital or bucket brigade, my digital one is a drum emulation so it sounds more analogue than the analogue one.
@@donartyone3258what
I love this conversation.
So respectful. I love how you both give each other room to reason and listen.
Yes it is.
it's really nice to see that good friends can still do that in this days and age where bubbles are more like walls
Err ... Yes respectful, but one listened and gave too much room, whilst the other went off on their brain farts, rambling, guiding the conversation around to what *they* thought the discussion was about .. Even the title across thumbnail COMPLETELY misunderstands the very specific point the guest was making.
Mark Barton is the real deal. At the end of the day, it's all about what the artist can demonstrate from their soul. It may not connect with everyone, but Life will determine the rest. Great conversation. Thank you for sharing.
His ZeroOscillator has been one of if not ~the~ undisputed heavyweight analog "monster oscillator" for almost two decades. Unison ZO w/ a 2600 is perhaps the fattest sound I can make, or have heard anyone make since Howarth's bass patch for _Assault On Precinct 13._
I have a pretty extensive Cynthia-powered (modcan A) system; seven 6-packs fully packed. Wild yet purposefully-implemented stuff...like Serge and various odds and ends integrated with both Polyfusion and Wiard sensibilities.
Looking forward to hearing your art.@@shaft9000
@@shaft9000 His Cynthias zero osc is a utter pain in the arse to calibrate and get stable, million of trimmers its ludicrous.And it cost a fortune.
I’ve watched the whole growth of digital synthesizers and it’s utterly insane where we are at today… great video!
nah man, i grew up staring at screens. physical is what i want. and analog gives heart, soul, inspiration to figure stuff out. i can modify, repair. for me personally its about the feeling
Digital doesn’t have to mean plugins. Loads of intuitive and inspiring hardware digital synths out there
@@lyva ofc. idk if you answered to me or the other guy but thats why i choose the word physical. no doubt there is really nice pieces of digital gear. but a digital recreation of an old analogue circuit? why, unless the price is significantly lower. then comes the heart and soul part again. analogue devices are always gonna get personal with time and aging of components. allot of this is ofc up to user preference. some want digital exactness, 100% the same every time. like a CD. some want those imperfections.
@mrvein5934 Because digital recreation of an old analog circuit is cheaper. And you can get the exact same thing through an entirely digital plugin. Don't get me wrong, I like analog stuff, but we're at a point now we can make almost 100% faithful recreations digitally. And those are cheaper to build, cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to fix. And you can have a faithful recreation of the sound of an aged synthesizer (or not) instantly, as opposed to waiting decades for one to sound exciting enough.
@@Voxphyleliterally what i said, and i quote myself "digital recreation of an old analogue circuit? why, unless the price is significantly lower" so far we havent seen that. some brands i have made digital recreations like roland of for example the 808 (tr-08), still its more expensive than a behringer analogue recreation rd-8. and again im not bashing everything digital. cheaper to maintain tho? no, big brainchip goes bad in a digital unit and its a paperweight most of the time. a fully analogue circuit can almost always be repaired or modified. smd is not a problem.
@mrvein5934 I feel like you're not making a like for like comparison here, and just taking extreme examples. My Roland System-8 (that I just bought for $1000 after tax & shipping) can have the plug-out Jupiter-8 and Juno-106 on it. That's a fraction of what a Jupiter-8 would cost, and you could call it 3 synths in one. But if you compare new analog to new digital, analog is far more expensive.
As far as maintenance, a circuit board going bad is often an easier fix than the complex wiring of analog. I'm by no means highly experienced in electronics repair, but I've replaced circuit boards in TVs, Subwoofers, and a few other items, and as long as you can get the parts, it's a relatively easy task. Far easier for someone inexperienced than, say, the complex wiring of a vintage analog synthesizer.
Please don't sell your synthesizers Anthony!!
Seriously😂 DON'T DO IT Anthony!!!
I wonder what you would charge for the Minimoog that was used on the Thriller album? Like 100k? 😂
Ok Boomer . Lol .
Pleeease *listen* to that other great Italian, Anthony!
What if hr sells them to you?
Emulations and analog recreations are holding back real innovation despite how cool they are to mess around with. Really loved this video.
what's wrong with "analog recreations"? Synths are a pretty basic instrument... there's only so far you can go with it. If you're trying to talk shit on Behringer, their Deep Mind is no joke and pushed the limits of what a "synthesizer" can do. Not sure how much further you can push it or where else there is to go. Add more voices ? LOL
Would you mind elaborating on that? Because when it comes to digital synthesis, and emulated analog synthesis we have had so much innovation in the past 20 years and it doesn't really seem to slow down at all.
@@ninethirtyone4264 simple. Cloning a synth for a new platform is cool but now we just have that synth on a new platform. its like with videogames, they just keep re releaseing the same ass games year after year with tiny improvements all to milk us for nostalgia money. how about something new! like they said in the video, if bob moog was alive today designing a synth, it would be a BRAND NEW SYNTH that weve never heard before. not some moog ladder filter rerelease #636492. real innovation would mean new synthesis, new sounds, new interface. the only reason we still even care about 80s synths isnt becaue they are analog or anything but for the fact the synths were used in hit songs that we love. now within the last 20 years we have copies of the 80s gear and not much other than a few plugins to push things forward and even those plugins are mostly subtractive and fm synthesis which is old and well covered by now. the 70s-80s musicians that made the analog synths seem so cool only used those synths because they were state of the art and completely new at the time. we need that now more than ever. enough rehashing and re releasing nostalgia sales
Synths pretty much stalled from the mid 90s to mid 2000s but the digital synth explosion breathed new life into it all. Think about the entire genres of music based off of Massive and Serum that changed the game
@@ninethirtyone4264 What I would assume is being implied: Instead of really pushing the bar forward with all of the new capabilities that digital holds and innovating, the brightest minds in this industry are using their cycles on recreating existing instruments and achieving the exact sound of something made 50 years ago. A lot of time is spent re-making the sound of yesterday, rather than creating the sound of tomorrow.
Of course Mark Barton would say something like that. He develops the code for all those soft synths. I could never sell any one of my instruments. Once I have played it, a bond is formed and it can never be broken.
I tought the same thing hahaha that prós and cons list whatafukkk
I remember having the same arguments in art school, I started digital photography around 92. The professors and the professionals I knew weren't understanding what was coming. But it's the same arguments, tools are tools just matters what you do with them. But my professors who thought they were the gatekeepers of their craft had no clue what the cell phone and Instagram would transform their craft completely. I still develop B&W film but now if I use film it's somehow received differently. Like you're purposefully using film. It's funny how it never changes..
What's fun is that most of those people uses some kind of MPC / Circuit / Digitakt maybe with a Hydrasinth but they belive their soul would freeze in front of a computer.
YES,..10,000 times yes ;) (also photographer here)
@@eaman11 yeah, but see that is rhe funby thing because there are multiple arguements which are not related but can be by stretching terminology ;) but you are right,... it gets funny at times
So true. Another example is guitar players who cling to their old tube amps while the world moves on to digital modeling.
To be fair, early digital cameras were very crude compared to film. We now can exceed 35 mm film resolution in camesr but it took a while.
This is a discussion that could easily extend beyond synthesis. Twenty years ago, Line 6 was trying to sell us the dream of modelling guitar processors. We all ran out and bought a Pod, and it sounded okay but it wasn't going to take the place of our amps and cabs. Today, you have Fractal Audio Axe FX, Neural Quad Cortex, Line 6 Helix, Kemper Profiler and more, and they are truly amazing. The technology has come of age and the dream is now a tangible reality. My 6505+ sits in the corner of my studio, gathering dust while I use my Axe FX III because it sounds more like my amp than my amp ever did.
Ironically, while I've used my share of soft synths over the years, I still have a thing for hardware - I have a combination of analog, digital and sample based synths. I'm not inherently opposed to a synth with a hardware interface and software core, I just prefer knobs, sliders, switches and patch cables over working in my DAW. For me, it's not even about the sound - soft synths have long since reached the point of being able to make sounds that make me smile and I agree, to dismiss a synth on the basis of its being software or digital is shallow and shortsighted.
But how do you play them? Guitar player here just clicked randomly on this video? Do you just program them or do you have physical keys? Because if it is the former it isn't you making music but just programming like techno music.
I guess Mozart and co didn’t make music then? When they put pen to paper to score a piece, what’s the difference between that and ‘programming’? @ebonypope
@@mattward9312 What??? That is called composing. Sure you can compose also using a computer. But both of these guys were incredible players by all accounts which also played their own music. These things aren't even comparable.
Surely you could call it composing when you are programming but I think using pen and paper and writing symphonies is generally worlds above anything people do with those programs anyway. At least I never heard of a famous synth programmer. I think for good reason.
What cemented "amp simulations are good now" for me was finding out that Alex Lifeson played his guitars through MainStage and plug-ins for the last 2 Rush tours. Not only did everything sound great, he was able to get a much wider variety of tones so older songs sounded more like the original record.
@@EbonyPopehuh? You'd be surprised at the similarity of process then. You tell notes where to be, and electronically you arguably do more as you construct new instruments every time and not rely on the same violin again and again, nor a performer interpreting, you have to manipulate a computer to give you emotions. No famous ones are you kidding? Sometimes the music is simpler because repetition, but then sometimes there is aphex twin and other hugely complex work. What about stochausen even...the modern ones that used synthesis.
This is an incredible conversation I have always had with customers and clients being on the keyboard/electronic instrument retail end for over 30 years now. I love this honest, deep and true argument to both sides!! ❤ excellent content!!❤
Quickly becoming my fav Synth channel. Happy to help.
Awesome, thank you!🙏
@@anthonymarinellimusic Hey again, Anthony. Just wanted to drop a note that if you ever got curious to try a good analog-circuit modelled software then I recommend U-he Diva synthesizer. Take a gander at the User Guide for it. Howard Scarr, who is the main patch designer/author of the User manuals, is well-known sound designer and I think he was in the first all-synth band in England (Zorch). Diva is rad because they have modelled several belived analog (and a digital) designs and made a synth where,..get this... the patcher can mix and match the various modelled modules. I gotta say that some of the potential designs from mixed famous modules are absolutely stunning. Anyway, I stand behind everything U-he do but for the analog circuit lover in you then I highly recommend looking into that small developer. Again, have a browse in Diva's user guide to see just how much love went into it. I also love their ACE synth, which is justxa small semi-modular rack design with normalled connections to get started,...but the name ACE stands for "Any Cable Anywhere" lol... so you can patch the virtual audio cables to _almost_ any spot... w exceptions. Still not what one gets from -unconventional- patching but then again some esoteric routings Are actually possible and their behavior modelled. Have fun,...that's the main point to all of it huh ha 🤘
I am NEVER selling ANY of my old synths. - Period.
your wife will , just tell her or leave a note so she won't do it for the money you said you bought it for 😂 same story on my end brother
I’d like to offer you $600,000 for the least expensive analog synth you own. And even more than that for each and every other synth you own. No questions asked.
Oops. I just re-read your post and, based on my better understanding of your comment, I feel I must retract my previous offer. Don’t feel bad for me. I’m sure I can find someone else who may be more willing.
👍😉
Unless you’re desperate for money ya never get rid of gear. If its not costing you anything. Keep it.
Well, G.A.S. hoarding syndrome is not necesarily something to be proud of
I sold a few to save my business through lockdown and my business still went , guts me I let them go for a complete waste . Got a few left and like you Never again .
Man, I could listen to these 2 talk all day about everything and anything synthesis-related. Just good conversation happening with people who let the other talk and express what their ideas are. Good stuff.
For me, the noise is part of the sound of analogue that I like. I also love working in the box as well. I agree 100% with him on the workflow and getting your idea down aspect of pluggins. Having said that, I'll always keep my hardware because it's nice to step away from the computer from time to time.
Really solid, intelligent, reasonable discussion on a topic that definitely needs more addressing. Well done.
I own only one analog device, since I was 14 (now I am 59...). It's a Korg MS20. love it and I will never sell it. But I bought a huge list of VSTs and I use them live. Flexibility is wonderful, sound quality too. In a recording studio we are making some comparison with a real Prophet5 and an ARP Quadra. We are recording an album with software... So I am a software heavy user and proud. But...
I love the intimacy of being in contact with all the parameters to tweak everything in seconds with more fingers.
Today I love when designers of new devices use digital for a full programming experience and not for cloning old things.
Perfect examples are Osmose and Hydrasynth. This is the new frontier. Powerful tools, than can be only digital, of course.
you may want to consider beauty of both worlds...checkout a used ms-20ic (or ms20 mini) which interfaces brilliantly with the korg ms20 vst. And yes the cv cables are simulated in realtime too!
What a fab conversation, with neither of you trying to dominate; each listening to the other and giving thoughtful responses.
Bravo.
I am glad I sold all my analog synths and hardware (over 45 pieces!). The maintenance alone was a nightmare. I am vintage free. And couldn't be happier. You do you.
What do you use now? Like what did you like hardware controller wise and software.
Almost the same here, I’ve only kept the first two synths I ever bought as a teenager and only for nostalgic reasons. I’m happily mapping out my MIDI controllers for my most used virtual synths. No need for labeling, cabling, inhaling dust bunnies, half-normaling endless patch bays…
AA. Analog Anonymous.
hm well clearly ya just had way too many things aye.
Lol
Your point about "quirkiness and unpredictability" is so crucial, Anthony. At the heart of it all, the entire creative process is quirky and unpredictable. No matter how repeatable and smooth digital becomes, we, as the primary agents of creativity, will always be a bit messy. Our "signal to noise ratio" will always be less than perfect. Maybe that lack of perfection is a big part of uniqueness. Maybe instruments that mirror that imperfection or share it in some way enhance the creative process as much or more than hinder it. Because we are emotionally and psychologically always in flux, maybe we share a certain kinship with analog instruments that is stronger than what we have with digital. I see value in both digital and analog instruments, but the more we remove the variability, the unpredictability, the imperfection, it may turn out that we lose something in the creative process itself. And maybe there is something in us that likes and even needs the imperfect, the unpredictable and the unexpected. The element of surprise can be very wonderful.
I have digital synths with an "analog feel" knob to add quirks and wobbles.
There's analog, and then there is vintage analog...and _then_ there are the early 1st gen polysynths; well before the I.C. & Z-80-laden '80s were in full force.
I mean the ones that have a discrete voice board per-voice inside, a la Korg PS-3100/3200/3300, CS-50/60/80, OB-X, prophet5 rev1 and JP-4 / 8. They can behave wilder than monosynths a decade+ older than they are. The combined age of a thousand+ wide-tolerance parts and perhaps another mile+ of wiring stuffed into a tight space that is causing VCOs to change with temperature (have to let them warm up for 30-60 minutes, usually)....this confluence of variables is where the "more alive" reputation comes from. It also eventually goe$ into oblivion without maintenance. _Iow, owning any of these things aint all fun and unicorn farts!_ [although ime the Japanese manufacturers have tended to build the more reliable ones]
The same model can play/sound/behave _very_ differently than another specimen that's neglected, or been beat to hell and gone.
i.e. It's one thing to have digital algo that modulates the "stability" of an oscillator or other imperfection in a linear system that is inherently stable - therefore, every deviation must be specified in the algorhythms
vs a 98+% analog system that starts out comparatively noisy and primitive, and only goes downhill from there. By 30+ years most of the circuit can become quite unstable and awash in noise and/or fail to stay in tune for any useful length of time.
Great video but this topic should not be about digital vs analog.
I wrote a series of three "papers" (i.e. articles, like Mark B.'s article) on this subject 12 years ago, with almost identical points to Anthony's here. Mark B. seems to be stuck in the decades-old digital vs analog debate (an engineer's POV), while in fact the musician's focus (like Anthony's here) is rather on SOFTWARE vs HARDWARE. Even back in 2012 software emulations were really good and largely indistinguishable in the mix and I made the same points Anthony M. is making here: tangible interface, immediate control, parallel control with many fingers vs mouse, feel and inspiration of a "real instrument" and individual character, etc. are what matter far more than oscilloscope-zooming. A few more points to add:
- The CS80, Continuum, etc. are *far more* real instruments than a mass-made plastic whistle or a "thumb piano" - Mark might have meant to refer to acoustic vs electronic instruments instead of "real vs electronic"
- I would have liked to hear why Mark keeps using the mouse (after mentioning MPE) - also, another great topic to explore is fully mapped controllers, which largely solve the tangible and multi-gesture issues but not the rest of software drawbacks. The mouse is the engineers' tool, musicians prefer to interact with specialty tools called instruments.
- Many digital synths (Hartmann Neuron as an extreme example) are extremely inspiring and hands-on, again, making the analog vs digital debate pointless; it's about hardware *instrument* vs software interface.
(source: my 30 years as composer, synthesist, synth beta-tester for various brands, teaching professor of electronic music, owner of a 50-synth electronic music studio that I'm considering selling for a completely different reason;)
"The mouse is the engineers' tool, musicians prefer to interact with specialty tools called instruments." - I love this.
If not for going all-plugin, why else are you selling your synths? Will you still make more DBZ music without them?
21:05 I think this is the biggest issue with digital: it's overwhelming.
There is so much choice and so many variables at play that you get lost in them, while with a set of physical instruments you have to make do with what you have and you can spend only so much time fidgeting around before you hit their limits.
On digital, you can do absolutely anything and you might find out you've wasted an entire day producing zero music because you've been messing around and obsessing over every single tiny variable in the equation that digital offers you.
Sometimes we're like kids: we need limitations, without them, we don't have the responsibility to know where and when to stop.
Amazing, well-said, and about time. Thanks so much for this conversation!
Whenever this topic comes up; I always tell people, go for the workflow that you prefer.
When I was young, analog synths were the norm, but samplers were coming out. I gravitated towards sampling which naturally led to computers and software. I was always a clicker and a menu diver.
Some of my closest musician friends would ask me how I could stand not working with physical knobs … I just could. It’s my preference.
My music “sounds” very analog, and I’ve had analog lovers in awe when I tell them my productions are 100% digital in the box.
I’m equally in awe of what they can create with stacks of synths … cuz all the cables and fx routing etc make my head spin
But workflow workflow workflow workflow. Whatever gets your musical juices flowing. Whatever gets from what’s in your head out into the world is the “best”.
Incredible discussion , I have to compliment you Anthony this is one of the best expressive intelligent discussions on analog vs digital synthesis
Great episode
Really really nice interview, Anthony! Wonderful to see you again!
Seth Meyers has a segment called "This is the kind of story we need right now". Well, this is the kind of thoughtful conversation we need right now. Thanks so much for taking the time.
Sea Captain would approve.
Agreed
Dont bring Seth Meyers into this
Coming from Barton, someone who has built analog, designed digital recreations, programmed and played both, this is a credible evaluation of the how good digital has become today. Perhaps the biggest benefit of analog is the theatre it can create in videos taken of it. It films well with these massive walls of knobs and stacks of keyboards. Perhaps build a studio of touch screen, video walls with all of your plug in GUI's up on hi res displays so the user can walk around a back drop of knobs. One thing I prefer with hardware is you remember you have it and use it. You have to update digital software and remember it is on the hard drive of your sound producing computers.
Yes @downpatmusic , I was thinking of creating a giant wall print of synths that I wish I could afford let alone had room for, but even better to add a huge touch screen!!!!!
I must say Cherry Audio has definitely upped the game when it comes to plugins sounding like actual analog.
Cherry Audio makes great plugins, this was a great interview! Thanks for making it!
Thank you for bringing the digital conversation to the channel, Anthony!
This is probably the best thing I have seen on TH-cam
Mark is a brilliant circuit designer but I've heard these arguments before. It all reminds me of that scene in The Matrix where the guy thinks he's eating a steak.
Everything has a place. I just played a gig last night and all of my sequences amd their sounds were under total recall via an Akai Force, but my synth solo voice was the new muSonics synthesizer.
Obviously Mark is working with Cherry on a soft version of the 900 series modular, and I'm sure it's going to sound great and have infinite power, but I'm still going to keep working on the hardware because it's just not the same, and I have minor tweaks I want to make here and there. If you make a "virtual 900" it kind of cosmetically and feature wise needs to stay completely within the parameters of the original. Because I'm making hardware I can take a different approach, but that's a discussion for another day.
I saw this happen in 94. Working at SIR NYC, the analog vs digital
tape vs Digital conversation was a daily thing.
Drummers (session )were being replaced by MPCs.
Rock was being replaced by rap.
Then artists like d’Angelo and Erykah Badu caused a resurgence of “analog.”
B3s and Rhodes 73 rentals were flying off the shelves.
Don’t forget “CD quality vs vinyl!”
(CD quality was disdained. Ha!)
This is basically the same argument.
Tech guys vs musicians.
Artists believing that nuance matters.
Tech guys believing that nuance is a romantic myth and that they can create nuance for you in 31 flavors.
Guys selling their old gear only to buy it back later.
Tech guys tech.
Musicians play.
Actually I love it.
It’s that one debate that everyone is right at the same time.
The tech can get rid of all his gear and go computer.
The musician can keep all his gear but also go computer.
This is so about individual personal choice it’s ridiculous.
What screws everything up is when you drop rules in the midst of a process that is totally, permissibly, all about you!
YOU!
The next guys opinion means dick.
My wife just told me that a saying around her job is…
“Don’t YUCK my YUM!”
Profound!
Congrats from my deepest Heart for reaching 100k Subscribers ❤️🎉🍾This Channel is a mindblowing Treasure. Getting Lessons from a True Master is so meaningful to me. So.. many thanks to Anthony & his Team! for every Minute of your Channel’s Content ✨☯️💫
My comparison would be my Fender Tube amp vs my Orange CR120 solid state amp: I played the Orange for years, live shows and recording. It was the amp that everyone touted as "warm", "analog" [which it is], "tube like", etc etc etc. I loved and still love the amp. But one day I thought to A/B it with my Fender Twin. Figured they would sound ballpark similar... not the same tone, but I wouldn't necessarily prefer one over the other. Wow, I was horribly wrong. With distortion and a lot of pedals the difference was more minimal. Absolutely clean and letting notes ring out. The tube amp was by far more articulate, subtle, beautiful. Rich overtones that the solid state amp just couldn't do. I remember getting lost with the Fender amp, just playing these ringing note lines and taking in the pure beauty of the sound. I never would have thought or guessed it would be that different. And how pretty my tube amp sounded. I guess my point is: I think it's similar in the synth world. The digital recreations are just not there. You might not notice buried in a mix... [just like a lot of pedals on my solid state amp]. But the difference is there. It's audibly noticeable and not better or the same. It's worse.
For people who lack the budget, time, and space for analog synths, digital virtual instruments are a fantastic alternative. If you're a gear enthusiast and love the look of a vintage spaceship-like studio, analog is the way to go. But if you prefer convenience and the ability to extensively edit your performances afterward, digital is ideal. There's no single "best" option - it depends on your priorities and preferences.
the problem with early digital is not just that it lacked the resolution, but even just very recently they'd absolutely have to optimize the hell out of it in ways to make it efficient that also make it really flat. Calculating a sine wave is computationally really expensive. So they'll calculate it once, save it to memory, and then just read that off of memory. But that means it's exactly the same on each loop. With analog there would be subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) fluctuations. Also in digital programming data flows only one direction -- functions have an input and output. But in analog, electricity flows both ways on a wire, so affecting something towards the end of the chain can affect something higher in the chain. Of course digital today is finally getting really nuanced in modeling all the great aspects of analog. The Cherry Audio stuff I've tried is great.
This note from @Thoracius , just made me think of how all my analog poly synth’s sound lo-fi and seriously why do people still enjoy listening to vinyl recordings?
Even ordered harmonic distortion perhaps.
But how do you play them? Guitar player here just clicked randomly on this video? Do you just program them or do you have physical keys? Because if it is the former it isn't you making music but just programming like techno music.
Anthony, you said like 15 brilliant music creation insights in this that I found myself wanting to write down and share with others
Great discussion! The ability to exchange ideas is NOT a completely lost art!
I especially liked your use of the idea of gluttony. It reminded me of reading the book Screw Tape Letters for a Philosophy class in college days …
I absolutely LOVE this interview! It gets right down into that existential dilemma about the tyranny of choice and the folly of omnipotence. I did not perceive Mark as “arrogant”, but rather as the mirror reflection of the zealots he mentions @ 19:00. Anthony gets to the crux of his counter-argument @ 16:04, that “more isn’t better music”, and says it even more humbly when he counters Mark with “I’m defined by my limitations.” It’s not like I needed any more proof of why I like so much how Anthony carries himself. If he’s reading this, I’d just offer my huge thanks for starting this channel, and simply keep being you :)
I love the analog depth and amount of expression but I literally have all my synths wrapped in plastic rn 😅 plugins won 🏆 lol
Keep going Anthony Marinelli. This is Interesting TH-cam Channel. So many exciting videos.
...and what a wonderful, thought-provoking and enjoyable conversation. Thank you gentlemen!
This guy looks like he's the hitman for Griselda Blanco
I have some thoughts about the conversation:
1. The debate analog vs digital is mostly from people who had the pleasure of living the days where analog was common. Future generations get used to the tools available to them; Shakespeare wrote with pen, Hemingway with typewriter and Garcia Marquez with PC, yet all wrote their mind with them. Same with music; I certainly don’t “miss” analog because I’ve had a synth to play, only a PC and I’m happy with it.
2. To emulate analog is a big thing, because to emulate quirkiness is to emulate 1 models of THOUSANDS of models. How do you average the quirkiness? That’s certainly a debate for Moogs and Prophets emulations. So it’s difficult to fit analog to digital.
3. Limitations can be seen as bad, but I don’t think so. A piano has 88 keys and that’s IT. Yet, this instrument plays +300 years of music, from Bach to Prokofiev, why do you want more? How many filters are enough? Just the ones you need before your mind struggles with choice anxiety.
I am 24 yo, I’ve never played an analog, I don’t miss what I’ve never had, but I’ll keep making music, and if I stumble with a HW Synth I’ll receive it happily.
Amazing content, very valid points on both sides. Two brilliant guys speaking freely on a topic, no strings attached. Lovely and very enjoyable.
Love this convo - so many great points!
Fantastic conversation. So many great perspectives covered on this divisive subject. Honest and authentic from front to back.
This was a great conversation, very polite but genuine conversation from you Anthony. Stay powerful.
Nice avatar
@@d3maccusurs is cool too my friend, stay powerful
@@rustyapellido4611 haaha ty - there arent engouh radiohead fans representing the synth scene haha - its all edm. radiohead and pink floyd are the GOATS ahaha.
I am 100% a defender of digital synths and I am glad to see people that see digital audio for what it is rather than living with myths like "stepped waves". But there were a few things where I was kind of dissatisfied with the discussion.
The main thing being that in the conversation, analogue/digital was largely equated to physical/virtual, which is absolutely not the case. Analogue/digital refers to the engine, whether you are generating waves directly through discrete components like capacitors and transistors, or whether the waves are being calculated as digital data. There are so many digital HARDWARE synths which were almost completely left out of the discussion until Mark brought up sneakily changing the circuitry of the 2600 from analogue to digital (so this is mostly on Anthony). Also a mouse is a digital device: it calculates the data and outputs it through USB, a digital data protocol.
Mark however also mentioned something misleading, that they're called "analog" electronics because they're supposed to create an "analog" of pressure waves (sound). There is in fact a distinction between "analog" and "analogUE". The correct term for the electronics is "analogUE", which means "relating to or using signals or information represented by a continuously variable physical quantity such as spatial position, voltage, etc.". The term "analogue" is used in electronic engineering regardless of whether you are working with audio or not, and whether you are trying to recreate something or not, it just means that you're never converting the information to ones and zeroes. "Analog" does mean "a thing comparable to another". So the correct title of the paper should have been "Why Modern Digital Synthesis Is More Analog Than AnalogUE".
Ironically, comparing the Stradivarius to analogue synthesizers is quite fitting, since the Stradivarius is seen as something legendary and incomparable whereas it ALSO fails against blind tests. People believe the Stradivarius is superior in the same way that others believe analogue is superior where it all turns out to be bias. (There is a study on Stradivarius blind tests: www.thestrad.com/blind-tested-soloists-unable-to-tell-stradivarius-violins-from-modern-instruments )
I fully empathize with Mark talking about the pros of digital synths: the reliability, the consistency, the ability to SAVE PRESETS most of all, and besides digital synthesizers are just cheaper, more compact, and offer more polyphony. And plenty of digital synths have a bunch of hands-on controls like physical knobs and faders. Some people might prefer the imperfections of analogue in terms of sound and that is a valid reason to prefer analogue, but other than that, the only other reasons nowadays to stick with analogue are either familiarity, nostalgia, or a false sense of superiority.
I’m a long time synth lover. Bought my first analog “ARP Odyssey” in 1977. Then a Model D, Micromoog. Memorymoog, Roland Super Jupiter and others. My very favorite sawtooth came from the Odyssey and when GForce released the Oditty2 I suddenly wondered what those oscillators and filters would sound like polyphonically. I bought the GForce plugin just to try it and absolutely loved the ARP sound as pads. Did the same thing with their version of the Minimoog. It opened up a new world to me as a composer. I rarely use those two hardware pieces anymore, but for nostalgic reasons I won’t be selling them.
I enjoyed this conversation very much especially the fact that it was made in a room built of analog synths! 😊
What a wonderfully refreshing discussion! Thank you both so very much!
Great conversation! I really agree with how digital instruments need to focus more on evolving their interfaces to allow us to express easily with more depth. This has already started to happen, with things like macro knobs and xyz pads. There are also some really cool controllers being developed like the Linstrument, which looks amazing and unique.
What a refreshing conversation. Thank you.
Thank you for having Mark on, this was a great video
100% agree
After years of producing professionally, I've found that great part writing for me is mostly the layering of simple patches that both contrast and compliment each other. This concept seems to apply not only to classical orchestration, record production, but also many artistic disciplines (cooking, painting, architecture, etc.). That being said, for my purposes, I really don't need wild digital synths with limitless oscillators and options, because in the end of the day I just don't think that is the best way to achieve balance in a song, especially one where vocals are the featured part. Great video Anthony!
this is my favorite video of 2024. thank you! it's so refreshing to hear!
thank you Anthony for bringing this to us, you have vindicated my way of thinking, now I don't feel so alone.
I'm totally with this guy. I love building and sharing presets.
Anthony buying the IIIc is the real winner of this video.
Well this one blew up on fb…
Great interesting interview!
Thank You so much, sir!!
I think it's great we have a choice to go with whatever floats our boat. I'm a hardware guy myself but that's just down to me being hands-on.
Great discussion. Thanks for introducing us to Mark’s paper and having him on the channel. One minor thing, if possible, summarize the guest’s career when the video starts. It felt rushed here at the end and it’s valuable to know where the guest “is coming from” and their “authority” on the matter. Also, SAM, brings Commodore 64 memories. Thanks!
I forgot to add... thank you Mark and Anthony for your contributions to the music world! Keep it coming :)
Great video and wonderfull content. Thank you.
With the advent of 64-Bit-processors about 15 years ago, it was clear to me that software instruments and DAWs are the way to create sounds and music. So I sold my analog gear completely about 12 years ago and started to produce exclusively in the box and never looked back.
I think the main appeal with analog enthusiasts in regard to sound quality is the warmth. I’ve never heard a digital synth translate the warmth because I think it’s enveloped with the noise. You lose warmth with the noise. Digital is great for creating crisp sounds but I like the warmth of analog like with vinyl and tape. I use both to get the balance I like. Great video! Thank you for sharing.
Amazing conversation! I’m glad I use both and through the years I’ve found the perfect way between hardware and software. I can’t say one is better than the other. They both have their purpose within my studio. Analog synth users often have a lot of loyalty to the big brands like Moog, Sequential, Oberheim and Roland, but I think newer developers like Behringer do an amazing job as well.
At the end of the day; It’s about what each producer loves and feels comfortable with. Even though I like the process of music creation, I’m also very big on endresult and I think you can create amazing funky basslines without a Minimoog and amazing warm thick poly sounds without a Juno-106 or a Prophet 5, but yeah I also totally get why people would want those machines!
This is one of the best conversations I have ever seen, two brilliant minds talking about a topic that I am passionate about, (by the way I always regretted having sold my moogs (Source, Memorymoog, Polymoog, Realistic)
This is exactly the discussion I wanted to listen to.
@4:57 “It’s the music in us that gets to the listener through whatever that instrument.”
Well said. No matter if it’s digital or analog, it’s up to the musician to make it something special.
Excellent interview Anthony! Love your approach…it would have been easy to say “Analog is better, your crazy” but what a balanced discussion. Always learn from your vids. Thanks!
I had a really good time watching this video, thank you for that !
Brilliant conversation ! I appreciated all the arguments on both side and the fact the only thing to put first is the quality of the music...
People are different, some will more apreciate digital things, some others will be more inspired by analog machines...I think today, most of composers used both to take advantges from each...On my side, I must admit i love "soulful objects", and analog gears are very powerful and inspiring to me on that point...Some kind of magic in the defaults and the fact you can't have some presets... With Analog, i had the impression you're really in the present moment, considering creativy comes often from limitations, and happy accidents, when you are open to their potential...
I agree with Mark. I've done the same with my old hardware and since then I only use VSTi(s) in the box. The instruments (VSTi) options to choose from, are huge and the wallet also thanks me. About the sound I don't feel like I've lost something or any quality whatsoever, rather the opposed and I guess Anthony is making an huge confusions about player expressiveness and hardware manipulation (engagement). VSTi are also played using the same type keyboards with knobs, pretty much like synths are. Such hardware is called "MIDI controllers" (there are good ones and not so good ones to choose from). About existing too many VSTis, to the point that it "paralises" the musician, well, it all depends on you (the musician) and it is a question of discipline /choice. Choose 2, 3 or 4 VSTi synths that you like the most and be minimalist that way. Also, from my point of view, mixing ethnic acoustic instruments concept with synths in the same conversation is always a bad idea. For the musician /player, Synths are Synths, Violins are Violins and nothing ever will change that, so, such things don't mix in that way, even when there are a lot of libraries emulating full orchestras with an astonishing quality and playability. Stay safe.
Brilliant interview, have a read of that paper tomorrow. I bought a barp 2600 precisely for its limitations, something out of the box as well, love the thing. I'm going for a hybrid set up, certainly dont need anymore plugins.
Thank you for sharing this. It pretty well summarizes the feelings of both "camps". I had a similar discussion about 20 years ago with Dave Smith about hardware vs software synths. Dave argued that a hardware synth would have a characterized sound palette, that would make you feel you are playing a specific "instrument", that would make it different from another hardware synth, with different sound creation capabilities (different filters, oscillators, features, etc.). But this video makes it clear that you cannot argue against feelings... and this is not necessarily a bad thing....
Thanks for this conversation, I was on the edge of my seat. One point of criticism if I may, I thought you never allowed to finish a point to your guest, I would love to hear more about analogue vs digital from him.
Extremely interesting interview and thank you for posting it! Affirming the points Mark Barton made, one of the plugins I use in my DAW is Arturia's "CS-80 V". With its settings for modulation, aftertouch, mod wheel, LFO tweaking, etc., it goes far beyond what the original Yamaha "CS-80" was capable of. The creativity is limitless.
Thankfully there were original analogue synthesizers back then that gave birth to today's synth plugins.
I think personality is a key factor in all this. Some like the puzzle and the fight. It’s inspiring to them. Others prefer streamline. There’s no right or wrong here. Beautiful discussion.
16:19 - Such a valid point about “More is not always better” !!! The average music consumer / listener / audience, can only focus on THREE items in a composition at one time. Adding more to a mix tends to confuse the listener. The most profound musical compositions most audience members recall easily, or hum along to the most, generally only have one or two distinct parts and not multi-layered “fat” or “complex” sounds. And you don’t have to look far… there are great examples on this channel of the Michael Jackson hit songs breakdown… those memorable musical lines basically consist of one or two major elements (and maybe some layers for added effect). More, doesn’t automatically equate to “better”
Wonderful discussion! I'm in the plug-in camp these days...but hey, play what makes you happy. Started with analog ( because there was no digital in 1976...) and sold most of my synth collection over the years. Extra points for the West LA Music hat....talk about vintage!
One of the most interesting conversations I've ever seen in my life about this "controversial subject, hardware versus software". I believe that this subject would yield more videos (not to mention articles). Just like in life, there are not just black and white, there are shades of gray. Both options (hardware or software) are challenging, interesting, fun, exciting and we live in a time where the number of options is almost infinite. This video reminded me of the time when the movie in the cinema was so good that I would watch it 2 or 3 times in a row!
What a great video! I loved it!
just thinking… sometimes we need some calm when creating… to breath, feel, laugh, take coffee, enjoy the magic on Music without being just efficient and skilled. I loved Marinelli's clever questions. Anyway, it is a quite interesting chat. Thanks
Nice talk. I feel it is a personal preference as well. I can see Marks point of the freedom of digital when creating sounds. I bought a Kurzweil K2000 ages ago and thought it would be able to create anything for me and soon got into the "ahh, I just wish I had another of that...." , and at that time I also always wished that the filters that was in the machine did not sound as nice as on that Moog or Oberheim. But I agree, that was the old days, now VST can sound as good as I ever wish. But I also feel that Anthony is right about "More isn't always better music". That is truly what it comes down to for me. What ever the instrument is - the most important thing is how well you as an artist can connect to it and use it. There are songs made on the most ridgid and user unfriendly interfaces that are lovely pieces of music that millions love. Just think of the cult songs made on the Nintendo games. People still love them. I confess I have also digressed far into the gluttony of possiblilties. The hardest part of music making for me is always finding where to start. Which one of my synths? Which VST? Which Preset? Start from scratch? Start with melody? Start with base? Start with drums? It is truly an agony of options.
Thanks for the conversation
Its always been about affordability and work flow for me. Back in the early 80's, I became a true believer in the promise of digital audio and it's taken way longer to get here than I had hoped, but I think we finally made it - affordable and user friendly digital recording and synthesis software that is indistinguishable from much more expensive analog hardware. All you need are some nice MIDI controllers and it doesn't feel like you're using software at all.
Fantastic interview, decades of wisdom, respectful, calm, the spoken truth: "Creation just by thinking about it", "Almost like a psychedelic experience". :)
I liked this discussion a LOT! Thank you both. I am an experienced electronics engineer and have been building analogue synths since the 80s. Take the Minimoog. All of the electronic analogue circuits used switching to get the waveshapes out.
The oscillators were just charging a capacitor and then shorting it out, so I defy you to hear any difference if done digitally. The same goes for the envelope shapers. No difference there then!
In my humble opinion, it is the Bob Moog Ladder filter that gets the discussion more intense.
Digital versions use a different approach, they do NOT create digital code to create the Ladder but rather use state variable filters. These still get 24dB per octave slope and sound the same to my ears.
I, too, am a musician, and for me, synthesisers are instruments, whether analogue or digital - I think both types should focus on the performer and build a great human interface for a great performance synthesizer ...
Your opinion Mark?
This is an amazing discussion between quite possibly two of the most experienced and knowledgeable individuals in this field. It's interesting to see two different personalities discuss sound synthesis. This field is an intersection of art and science, and I think it's obvious who leans more towards art and who leans more towards science. There were so many valuable points made here. Anthony's mention of self discipline in regards to limitations I think is extremely important. You can scroll down and see all the comments here (and elsewhere) about how having too many options is a reason that people prefer to use hardware. In reality, all you need is self discipline and you can enforce those limitations on yourself. "How would you feel if someone replaced all the analog circuits in your 2600 with digital circuits and patch memory but it sounded exactly the same?" ..... "Happy."
I got started with digital synth in Ableton, and they've only been getting better, but it got me interested in hardware synths and modular and using the real thing out in meat space forced me to learn a great deal more about what was going on which made me better at using digital instruments. The only preference I can honestly say I have is that whatever sort of learner/creative I am is better stimulated by hardware instruments, but the end result is almost always a combination and I go to the sound that seems to most satisfy whatever Form I'm attempting to approximate. Lovely video.
Good convo. I want more of this.
I recently got into analog. I found my most used plugin, by far, was Repro 5 followed somewhat distantly by Diva. Everything else was a blip compared to the consistency with which I used those two (though some Cherry Audio did get used more than others). My midi controller is tightly integrated into Logic and I’ve assigned my faders and encoders to get most of the plugin controls I need all immediately accessible.
I got a Pro 800 to test what a hardware workflow would be like. Keep in mind on my Repro 5 I have physical controls mapped so it’s not like I didn’t have a tactile experience. Even with that, the experience of the Pro 800 is just better from the perspective of a musician (traditional instruments). And to me it is more of an “instrument”. The time I put into a patch is greater but the length of time I use the patch is MUCH more. Once I have a patch, I use it for hours and days. On Repro I am preset browsing more than playing sometimes and it’s like creative paralysis from too many choices. I am always tweaking even after something should be “done”. Analog also presents problems that need creative solutions in a way plugins don’t.
As for the sound, I prefer the noise and instability of analog but I know it isn’t objectively better or worse at this point. Plugins sound fantastic and inconsistency can be programmed in so I don’t think that is a strength of analog anymore.
I just ordered a K2 (MS20 mini looked worse unfortunately) and look forward to controlling it with my guitar. Plugins are definitely the more economical solution and I can see why analog is a rabbit hole for so many people. I’ve never really wanted a new plugin in the way I feel with analog synths, similar to the feeling of wanting a new instrument that can offer something an old one couldn’t or will compliment other instruments.
The convenience and fidelity of plugins can’t be beat but convenience doesn’t drive creativity. At least not for me, and with so much time spent learning traditional instruments I get that a similar feeling with analog. He says “you can only do so much” with analog but for me that’s a feature, not a bug.
This was a great conversation. In the early 2000s I sold all my gear and went completely digital. Something was missing so I decided to stop buying gear again and now I have a full studio again with gear. However, I also use a ton of virtual instruments on my computer which I love daily cherry Audio is one of the companies that I use plug-ins by and also Arturia and the list goes on.
I think digital and analog and digital synthesizers. Physical ones are all great and they all play in the sandbox together nicely. I will never sell my gear again. I might put it away. I also might sell a piece here and there that I’m not using but to sell all of it that won’t happen not this time been there done that bought and made the T-shirt , thank you gentlemen that was a great conversation! 👍🏻