Does the average listener really care if its analog?
- KVRAF
- 1707 posts since 1 Mar, 2010 from Paris
I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
Free banks for soft synths | ghostwave.fr | soundcloud.com/ghostwaveaudio
- KVRAF
- 7750 posts since 13 Jan, 2003 from Darkest Kent, UK
I don't like encouraging violent/disruptive behavior but this new 'sport' I've read of where people score points by knocking the phones out of people like this by lobbing things at them sounds like something I'd turn a blind eye to...BBFG# wrote:And as soon as he started playing we noticed the iPhones spring up in the air and these front rowers turn their heads and start talking to each other without paying any real attention to the band or being polite enough for the few of us that were.
- KVRAF
- 5223 posts since 20 Jul, 2010
I'd turn a blind eye to them getting punched in the face. Mostly because people who disregard other's enjoyment of these events are selfish as all getup... and plus I'm a wussGaryG wrote:I don't like encouraging violent/disruptive behavior but this new 'sport' I've read of where people score points by knocking the phones out of people like this by lobbing things at them sounds like something I'd turn a blind eye to...BBFG# wrote:And as soon as he started playing we noticed the iPhones spring up in the air and these front rowers turn their heads and start talking to each other without paying any real attention to the band or being polite enough for the few of us that were.
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
- KVRAF
- 15018 posts since 26 Jun, 2006 from San Francisco Bay Area
Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.Karten wrote:I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.
Now, am I going to go out and dust off my film camera? Not a chance. Not sure where I'd even get film and processing from. (though I bet a Google search would quickly tell me) More importantly, I've long decided that the pain in the butt of chemical photography isn't worth the added quality. Photography isn't my main art form though, and if it was I might seek out the very best process to get the image quality I wanted.
So... VSTs are the digital camera of electronic music. They do stuff that traditional hardware synths can't and can sound very good, but as good as a great analog? I don't quite think so. Not yet at least. But I will say that they make sense to use because of the added functionality they provide which can spark inspiration just as well as a great sounding hardware analog.
Zerocrossing Media
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
- KVRAF
- 7380 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.zerocrossing wrote:Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.
I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.
My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.
- KVRAF
- 15018 posts since 26 Jun, 2006 from San Francisco Bay Area
What you're saying is that because you don't care no one should? It's true, most people don't care... because they don't take the time to care. The result is usually the crap-a-fication of everything. Don't poop on someone else's parade because you can't be bothered to walk.foosnark wrote:I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.zerocrossing wrote:Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.
I'd say that even with today's amazing cameras you'd still get a more pleasing image with the film. Don't even get me started on the printing process. I've yet to see a digital print as beautiful as a platinum print... and, of course, it's been a long time before digital photography really hit pro levels at all.
My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.
Zerocrossing Media
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
4th Law of Robotics: When turning evil, display a red indicator light. ~[ ●_● ]~
-
- KVRAF
- 7809 posts since 28 Apr, 2013
Film gives what it gives partly because of its chemical limitations. 'Color' is broken down to the primaries of red, blue, green. Knowing your 'zones' helps create/manipulate the picture to trick our senses into believing something that is there because it's suppose to be there (interpolation is a wonderful thing). Digital captures more but leaves less to the person's interpretation by those interpolations. Paint often captures much by the mixture and values of its primaries and neutrals but still has the ability to leave much to the imagination.foosnark wrote: I don't know that much about photography, but my guess is whether film or digital happens to look better could be dependent on the subject matter. And "better" is a totally subjective term, where some might prefer the opposite version than you did while others won't even see a difference. Or it's just too subtle a difference to tell.
My wife constantly asks my opinion on A/B comparisons of minor changes in her artwork, and while I can see the difference, often my answer is "they're both good, neither one is 'better' and this detail doesn't affect enjoyment of the overall piece." And then I'll pick one arbitrarily, and she will usually go with the other one anyway, and it turns out fine.
And perhaps, digital vs. analog happens much in the same way for our ears. Equally, it could be said that DJs and molly in a rave bombard the senses in plurals to specifically overload their audience to submission.
My wife paints too (as do I), but the last thing foosnark said about A/B comparisons reminded me how she would bring me in to see these stages of her work and each time I would say they were great. When she was done, I would ask to see the six or seven paintings I saw her do and there would only be one because she kept painting it until she was content enough to let it go.
I told her what a waste. She got her feelings hurt that I thought she was wasting too much paint. I told her, "no, it's just that you aren't using enough canvas".
What digital gives me is the release from wasting tape like I did back in the early days before digital. (I also take 100 times more photos).
And the 'average listener' (still a misnomer or oxymoron to me) probably only wants a DJ to decide that for them.
- KVRAF
- 12557 posts since 7 Dec, 2004
Yes.
Next question.
Next question.
Free plug-ins for Windows, MacOS and Linux. Xhip Synthesizer v8.0 and Xhip Effects Bundle v6.7.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
The coder's credo: We believe our work is neither clever nor difficult; it is done because we thought it would be easy.
Work less; get more done.
- KVRAF
- 25508 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly betterzerocrossing wrote:Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.Karten wrote:I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
-
- KVRAF
- 7809 posts since 28 Apr, 2013
Not sure about that, Ansel Adams photography still stops me in my tracks. 90% of the time, digital is what you find at the local car wash and produces the 'nice, but so what' effect you just walk by.pdxindy wrote:90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly betterzerocrossing wrote:Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.Karten wrote:I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
- KVRAF
- 7380 posts since 9 Jan, 2003 from Saint Louis MO
No, what I'm saying is... what I said, surprisingly enough. Nothing hostile was intended.zerocrossing wrote:What you're saying is that because you don't care no one should?
If you want to use film cameras and analog synths, I'm not stopping you. Just don't judge other people's work based on whether they do the same.
If you think analog is better due to sound (or image), that's your opinion, but you should recognize that not everyone is going to share your opinion.
If you think analog is better because it encourages your creativity or gives you a better workflow, then by all means go for it! But understand that your audience only cares about the result, not the process or equipment.
- KVRAF
- 3321 posts since 2 Jul, 2007
I don't think the average listener cares what instruments are on any recording whatsoever. Why should they? It is all part of the song as a whole and that is what they are listening to.
BBFG# mentioned paintings. Do you care what specific color of blue was used - cobalt or Prussian - in any painting?
Except for maybe guitar solos.
BBFG# mentioned paintings. Do you care what specific color of blue was used - cobalt or Prussian - in any painting?
Except for maybe guitar solos.
- KVRAF
- 5223 posts since 20 Jul, 2010
I can't get enough Prussian blue in my guitar solos.
http://sendy.bandcamp.com/releases < My new album at Bandcamp! Now pay what you like!
- KVRAF
- 25508 posts since 3 Feb, 2005 from in the wilds
A great artist will do amazing work regardless...BBFG# wrote:Not sure about that, Ansel Adams photography still stops me in my tracks. 90% of the time, digital is what you find at the local car wash and produces the 'nice, but so what' effect you just walk by.pdxindy wrote:90% of the time the digital photograph will be better... usually significantly betterzerocrossing wrote:Sure, but what about if all else is equal? Meaning what if the same exact shot is taken with a film camera and a digital camera? Same lens, photographer, subject, etc.Karten wrote:I think it only matters to the person playing the analogue synth.
Analogue doesn't necessarily mean great sound. In the wrong hands, any synth will sound bad.
Just like in photography, a great digital photo will always better than a crappy one on film.
Today, the photo quality of digital is better than film... particularly in color. You can get good skin tones with todays digital cameras under conditions that you would not even have bothered with on film. The color accuracy today far exceeds what you used to get with film under a wide range of conditions.
And back in the film days, I would carry multiple cameras with different speed film when on assignment. Now I can have one camera that can shoot under lighting conditions I would only have dreamed about back then.
You can take actions shots (people moving for example) in situations you could not have done with film.
-
- KVRAF
- 5812 posts since 27 Jul, 2001 from Tarpon Springs, Florida, USA
Keep in mind that audio aficionado’s prefer analog and are willing to pay big bucks for it. They are not however your average listener. On one occasion I did hear a LP played on an high equipment and was very impressed however an A/B test with a CD would have been more scientific.
I know the discussion is on music gear but made the comment to show that some people with discerning ears and lots of money prefer analog.
I know the discussion is on music gear but made the comment to show that some people with discerning ears and lots of money prefer analog.
My Studio: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7760&p=7777146#p7777146