Experiment: Can you spot which is analog and which is digital? SH-101 vs TAL Bassline

[zerocrossing]

What I find the most interesting about these a/b comparisons isn't the truth, but the guesses and the descriptions. The last one of these that I participated in came in to about 50/50 with a lot of "I'm sure it's this one" on both sides.

Proof - there is no human discernible difference between analog and digital.

An informal poll on a web forum is hardly a standard that would be considered proof. It sure wouldn't stand up to any scientific scrutiny. At the very best it might point out that the difference is smaller and possibly masked by various factors along the way.

Yet... when I'm sitting in my studio playing with plug ins and hardware instruments (I don't own anything as vintage as a SH-101) I do feel confident that I hear a certain special character in the hardware synths that's missing from the software ones to some degree.

It's all in your head. Or ours, that is.

Maybe. But since there's no current way to get out of my head, I guess I'll have to go with it. I'd also like to point out that the a/b I spoke of was Diva against an OB8 doing very "bread and butter" type sounds.

https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electro ... -test.html

I for sure think that, for these types of sounds, software is more than adequate and can fool most people. Like a plastic vase can look like a very basic ceramic vase from a few feet away. Try chipping them and all of the sudden the difference becomes apparent. Hurl them on the floor and it's not even close. I still think there are aspects of analog that haven't been accurately emulated. Usually these are at more extreme situations.

[zerocrossing]

OK, for fun I listened to the clips. First of all, they're quite different to my ears. The first one almost sounds like it's got two oscs playing like some of the sub osc is bleeding in? The second one sounds a little bit "stiffer" to my ears... I'm going to say the second one is the software. While I hear a big difference, I don't hear a big qualitative difference... though the first one sounds a bit more "full."

Two things. I think more tweaking could happen to get these two closer. Second, this is another example of the type of sound that is pretty easy for software to emulate. I'd be curious to hear what some more high resonance snappy filter envelopes sound like on the two. Usually that's where the difference becomes more apparent.

[penguinfromdeep]

I think the first one sounds more full because it has more bass, I suspect the sub osc is higher thus makes the sound more bassy ... I might be wrong though. For sure Tal emulation sounds very good and is close to the hardware (Strobe can get close too as heard in Himalayas clips)

[zerocrossing]

I will post the result tomorrow.

It's soon to be the fourth day since you posted this.

[ZenPunkHippy]

What I find the most interesting about these a/b comparisons isn't the truth, but the guesses and the descriptions. The last one of these that I participated in came in to about 50/50 with a lot of "I'm sure it's this one" on both sides.

Proof - there is no human discernible difference between analog and digital.

But there is a distinct difference between the 2 samples. How to put that in to words is tricky, but one is slightly rounder and fuller sounding. It might be called "more 3D" sounding by some people. Is that the analogue or digital sample?

I don't know, hence I'm not prepared to post an answer - it would only be a guess, but I think it was sample #2 (I've since deleted the files).

So I think there are some people who would know immediately and with certainty - the problem is having the knowledge and experience to understand what differences to listen for, not that the sounds are too similar.

Would someone know in the context of a mix? Level up! That's debatable and would depend entirely on context.

Peace,
Andy.

[ZenPunkHippy]

This isn't gonna happen, but it would be really interesting to perform these kinds of tests on a stadium sized sound system while standing in the sweet spot.

I'd guess the subtle variations in amplitude would be much more apparent due to distance ...

[zerocrossing]

This isn't gonna happen, but it would be really interesting to perform these kinds of tests on a stadium sized sound system while standing in the sweet spot.

I'd guess the subtle variations in amplitude would be much more apparent due to distance ...

I would think the resonance of the space and all the reflections would make it harder to discern.

[mztk]

if you're in the same room as the real thing, you know the difference.
it has more 'presence' than anything digital.

soz, just saying that, and haven't listened to the audio yet - and, having
said it, i did put a synthedit project next to a real 101, and the comparison
was favourable. the synthedit project sounded better than a moog that
did the test.

but i'm pretty certain you can't set Tal Bassline running on a slow random LFO
hitting filter/resonance and get the same atmosphere coming from it. i could
listen to that for days...

ok, i listened to it. wav1 has a pulse sub that isn't on wav2, which has slightly
'fruitier' sound top, LFO to PWM or something. so i'll say wav2 is the real one,
and wav1 sounds pretty good.

[penguinfromdeep]

Bump

[Timfonie]

Bump

He might not show up anymore, having fun by making people curious without ever giving them the satisfaction of an answer.

(He may have cought the flu though.)

[Loki Fuego]

if you're in the same room as the real thing, you know the difference.
it has more 'presence' than anything digital.

I have a couple of analogue synths (though no SH-101), and the only difference I notice is that analogue synths clip more easily when you crank up resonance|detune oscillators.

I could do the same thing hardware vs. software, but I see no point in that, because if I will properly do similar sounds the results will be mostly random.

[paradiddle]

So the op bailed out leaving everyone hanging. Hahaha!

[zerocrossing]

I'm going to come down squarely in the "analog" hasn't been perfectly emulated camp. I spent a fair amount of time (again) trying to coax some of the same sounds I easily get from my ATC-x out of software synths. I could not do it no matter how hard I tried. But, here's the thing. It's not the just the actual tone I couldn't replicate. That's fairly easy and I commend software for doing a good job at this, though I seem to be able to get a nice meaty "knock" out of the hardware synth that's very hard to get with the software. What I seem to notice more is that the envelopes just don't seem to behave the same way. No matter what, the software couldn't quite do it. Today's experiment included Diva, Retrologue and Poly-Ana. As I've said before, Diva gets tons of praise, but if you can get past Poly-Ana's horrible UI (and I believe it's perhaps the worst of all commercial instruments of it's kind) it actually gets the closest to the vibe of the ATC-X.

This is where these a/b tests fall apart. They seldom, if ever, really tap into these aspects. That almost rubbery punch I get with the ATC-x and the warm but harmonically rich tone that's pretty easy to dial in is more difficult to emulate with software. No matter what I do the software always sounds "stiffer" to me. If you're doing a sound that has a fairly static filter and a basic ADSR you'll be fine with the software. It's not my imagination, I'm sure of it.

[mztk]

isn't digital condemned to be 'static' each time (unless fully circuit-modelled maybe)?
successive notes clones of each other? this is probably true of early plugins.
i was basing my response on a phase-y thing in the upper/mid range of sound2
- ha, and not just the fact that you'd obviously go for the fatter sounding sample.

[himalaya]

Digital is static, but there are synthesis techniques which help to create an organic sound, very much like that of a VCO oscillator. So in effect, each successive note is never a 'clone'.