No, it isn't "condemned" to anything. And it's not "digital", it's software. Your "analogue" also gets "digital" as soon as you record it in your computer. And software can be as "dynamic" behaving as analogue, since oscillators can be programmed to be "free running", which is what causes that "randomness", and usually we have that option in today soft synths.mztk wrote: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.
Experiment: Can you spot which is analog and which is digital? SH-101 vs TAL Bassline
-
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Last edited by fmr on Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5627 posts since 23 Mar, 2006 from pendeLondonmonium
True, the attack can be very difficult to get right in software.zerocrossing wrote:IWhat I seem to notice more is that the envelopes just don't seem to behave the same way.
<snip>
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.
-
- KVRist
- 440 posts since 22 Feb, 2014
Are you "sure" that is "correct"?fmr wrote:No, it isn't "condemned" to nothing. And it's not "digital", it's software. Your "analogue" also gets "digital" as soon as you record it in your computer. And software can be as "dynamic" behaving as analogue, since oscillators can be programmed to be "free running", which is what causes that "randomness", and usually we have that option in today soft synths.mztk wrote: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.
-
- KVRAF
- 11093 posts since 16 Mar, 2003 from Porto - Portugal
Are you sure you "know" what you are talking about? BTW, did you guess?LimboLoves wrote:Are you "sure" that is "correct"?fmr wrote:No, it isn't "condemned" to anything. And it's not "digital", it's software. Your "analogue" also gets "digital" as soon as you record it in your computer. And software can be as "dynamic" behaving as analogue, since oscillators can be programmed to be "free running", which is what causes that "randomness", and usually we have that option in today soft synths.mztk wrote: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.
Fernando (FMR)
-
- KVRAF
- 5948 posts since 19 Jun, 2008 from Melbourne, Australia
What's the point of guessing when the OP done a runner?
... space is the place ...
-
- KVRAF
- 3176 posts since 13 Jun, 2004
didn't he promise 101s for everyone who got the correct answer?
hey fmr, i dig what you're saying: software being totally bendable etc.
but without some effort, a software will tend to produce exactly the
same note/sound each time, won't it?
as for 'digital', it isn't a dirty word with me, the tx802 is one of the
finest old synths out there. some digital gear is eminently replaceable
with software, but hardware especially analogue has some sort of
oompf going on, phase, etc. hard to pin down, as we know, but a lot
of people can't tell the difference between a wav and a mp3.
there's nothing worse for music creation than having to spend ages
getting something 'sounding good'. much better to have something
that sounds good all the time, so you can get on with being creative
and innovative with it. that can be a problem with 'digital', it can
sound crap a lot of the time, and that applies to some plugins, that
may go way out there, but don't really sound like anything, or 'fit'.
this doesn't apply to tal bassline, of course. i don't have the latest
version, but i've liked/appreciated it since the 1st one came out.
hey fmr, i dig what you're saying: software being totally bendable etc.
but without some effort, a software will tend to produce exactly the
same note/sound each time, won't it?
as for 'digital', it isn't a dirty word with me, the tx802 is one of the
finest old synths out there. some digital gear is eminently replaceable
with software, but hardware especially analogue has some sort of
oompf going on, phase, etc. hard to pin down, as we know, but a lot
of people can't tell the difference between a wav and a mp3.
there's nothing worse for music creation than having to spend ages
getting something 'sounding good'. much better to have something
that sounds good all the time, so you can get on with being creative
and innovative with it. that can be a problem with 'digital', it can
sound crap a lot of the time, and that applies to some plugins, that
may go way out there, but don't really sound like anything, or 'fit'.
this doesn't apply to tal bassline, of course. i don't have the latest
version, but i've liked/appreciated it since the 1st one came out.
-
- KVRAF
- 3176 posts since 13 Jun, 2004
don't forget the EFM clone of the electro harmonix mini synth
that came out around the same time. that's good too.(damn,
got offered the cardboard backed one for 50quid ages ago,
should've had it really..)
that came out around the same time. that's good too.(damn,
got offered the cardboard backed one for 50quid ages ago,
should've had it really..)
