Definiton of "analog sound"

The Lounge General Discussion
26

To understand what is missing in the digital domain, a quick read about signal processing and especially analog to digital conversion is interesting.

To do such conversion, one usually samples every x ms. This makes it impossible to capture signals that are faster than 2x ms (Nyquist-Shannon).
The second side-effect of the conversion is that the value that is sampled is converted in a number. This process necessarily degrades the original signal.

Aliasing, but also clipping are digital artefacts that can sound harsh, artificial whereas analog distorsion (when components are used out of their comfort zone) can bring a character, a warmth that is looked for.
I think that’s where the defaults of digital conversion are the most obvious, the one I really dislike. But even these can be used musically.

Nowadays you will have pure analog signals controlled by digital processors, or very precise digital emulations of analog components, and even powerful hybrid analog+digital synths.

For me the best example of analog warmth is Moog distorsion.
An interesting hybrid architecture is the one of Novation Peak. Really pushing things in an interesting direction.

But I would never go 100% analog.
Neither Eventide Space effects nor Digitone clean FM would be achieved in a pure analog domain,m. I love both units immensely.
And I’m not talking about samplers or Mutable Instruments lovely modules…

Interesting times for synth heads !!

3 Likes
27

I’m noob with synths but when i bought two dreadbox analog synths i noticed what really means analog. It’s simply alive. The sound is more mystic and also the oscilators goes out of tune if they arent warm. Also sometimes they sound like shit and horrible but when you keep playing it/tweeking filter, then suddenly it’s so beautiful and warm sound. I love it, ruff and tuff.

1 Like
28

Is it stereo 96 khz 24 bit ?

data-brain
data-brain500×476 103 KB

2 Likes
29

I don’t know, you should open a support ticket and find out.

2 Likes
30

“To do such conversion, one usually samples every x ms. This makes it impossible to capture signals that are faster than 2x ms (Nyquist-Shannon).
The second side-effect of the conversion is that the value that is sampled is converted in a number. This process necessarily degrades the original signal.”

I think this is actually untrue - samples below the nyquist can be reconstructed as analogue signals perfectly (give or take anti-aliasing filters and good or bad DAC). It’s not the same as Mp3 compression.

this stuff is quite good on why!

https://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
https://xiph.org/video/vid2.shtml

Generally the stuff people love about analogue recording are things that are actually making the recording LOWER fidelity, but adding character.

I think most people’s quest for analogue in the synth world is about inaccuracy. Call it “mojo” if you like, but isn’t it basically that something non-perfect sounds more interesting than something being reproduced perfect everytime.

31

Thanks for your Input! I really have no straight oppinion, thats why I started this topic. What I most like about analog synth is the user interface. Its just fun to have a physical box instead of plugin. Nothing new so far :smiley:

32

Exactly. Same as vinyl - lots of people think it sounds better than digital. No, you like it because it sounds worse!

33

oh you´re gonna eat those words.
that is so not true.

what makes you think that?

I can think of a dozen synth sounds that while created analog will definitely make people think “digital”.

any square wave-with-fast-arpeggio aka chiptune sound can be created 100% analog for example, but I bet you people will think of them as digital.

FM can be 100% analog, and most people associate that with being purely digital.

just off the top of my head.

2 Likes
34

well quite.

Although there’s an interesting question here about whether fidelity “automatically” = “better”.
It probably doesn’t, otherwise we wouldn’t be EQ-ing or adding reverb to recordings or compressing drums or whatever.
This book is really interesting about how that argument started right at the beginning of recording things:

1 Like
36

I’d keep it simple : analogue sound - Moog, vintage Roland, SCI etc.

not analogue sound - Elektron A4, Rytm.

:smile:

37

( runs away )

38

As @sezare56 points out, all what we hear is “real analogue” sound. So we are talking about sound generation and perception of sound.

Technically speaking …

I guess, there will be no dispute about analogue sound, if the complete sound creation is made of analogue circuits only. But if the sound is created completely or partialy with digital devices there is the question, is this a “digital sound” then?

I would say, it depends and I will try to explain …

Human Perception of Sound …

Our perception of sound has developed by evolution and has a quite long time been under the influcence of sounds generated by the natural environment only. Those sounds have been created all mechanically - maybe with the exception of the thunder, which has some electro-mechanical origin.

Most mechanically created sounds of nature have the characteristic that they are never stable or constantly keeping a tone. There is much fluctuation to natural sounds, which is sometimes quite subtle, but it’s there in any case, and that has been ingrained as “natural” in our brains for tens of thousands of years. Everything, which does not fit in this archtype of sounds, has a pretty good chance to be perceived as “un-natural”.

AFAIK, the very first electronic instruments have been based on analogue electronic parts and circuits, which had broad margins with respect to their physical properties and which where quite sensitive to fluctuations of the environmental temperature additionally. This - no wonder - created sounds with a lot of unstability and fluctuations, and which seems to fit quite well to our perception of “natural-like” sounds.

The first digital instruments had very low digital quality, compared to standard parts of today. Low sampling rates caused aliasing, low bit-rates didn’t get all the detailed information of “natural-sound”. The results have been sound artifacts, which our perception was not used to hear. Additionally the algorithmic processes of early digital instruments generated a flow of numbers, which translated to a much more accurate sound, than any natural sound could be.

Those two issues have been early addressed and became also attributes of “digital sound”, which had been called, as an example:

  • “cold”, which IMO is the lack of fluctuation and addition of strange frequencies, or
  • “too HIFI”, which IMO is too clean and too accurate, or
  • “metallic”, which is the result of aliasing and had not been treatet good enough with anti-aliasing. Aliasing creates artificial frequency “side bands”, which are often perceived as “wrong” or “metallic”.

IMO “digital sound” could be described as:

  • having a considerable amount of aliasing, other digital artifacts, or too much lack of natural fluctuations, or
  • which is technically only possible with digital and/or algorithmic processes

We have many digital instruments today, which are capable to generate sounds, which most listeners could not tell apart from a real analogue source, even in an A-B comparison :wink:

Now back to the initial question … what could be “analogue sound”?

IMO “analogue sound” is equivalent to a sound, which is perceived as “natural sound”. And this would be independent from the true sorce of the sound.

I hope this post was not "too extensive " :wink:

2 Likes
39

I think the OP just meant analogue synth, not sound. :smile:

1 Like
40

Analogue has a presence in space that digital has not yet come close to achieving: rich, thick, flat and thin (comparatively) come to mind here. This matters less in a busy mix where many things are taking up space.

In addition, As mentioned, when push comes to shove and the two are driven hard, analogue behaves more believably than digital; digital just starts falling apart.

Analogue is just better conversion.

Which is not to say it’s better. Digital can do things reality can’t do (or finds very difficult)

1 Like
41

One thing that looks to be missed in this conversation (Unless I overlooked) is clipping.

Since Digital signal is just basically 0’s and 1’s, once you hit start clipping a sound, it will hard clip, hitting an absolute peak and sound very bad.

Analog is different, as it is a signal usually measured in voltage, instead of hitting a hard peak, it will round itself off, and allow (In a digital way of thinking) to go above the 1 that would be hard clipped in the digital domain.

This is a big factor in the difference as to why analog can sound warmer, instead of being a hard clip, the higher voltage ends up just causing a warmer distortion of sound instead. Add to this the slight imperfections of voltage paths, gives you analog drift and the other quirks that make analog gear its own sound.

Hope this is some helpful input =)

3 Likes
42

I am remembering the days, when the compact disc was invented. I was really happy and invested all my money into trash metal records. I think the music was a lot more hifi than before, because the signal to noise ratio was so much better in comparison to all my vynil records i had before.
Also the experience were different, before i had to move the record arm to the beginning, where with CD i could now listen on repeat the new napalm death album.

Ok, i still believe there is a special quality in good electronics - i listened to records on a standard amplifier and my friend replaced the standard op amp vs a op amp used normally for video applications, with much higher frequency resolution, and it improved the result quiet a bit.

From my perspective that “analogue” sound is a well rounded sound build with quality electronics, with good SNR and a low harmonic distortion in the circuit.

It isnt so much the digital vs analogue, i think it equals more to low distortion low noise or at least a pleasant noise.

2 Likes
43

Analogue sound and digital sound are identical twins. Both seperated at birth.

44

For me “analog sound” is simply pleasing distortion/overdrive; be it true analog, or a really good algorithm.

2 Likes
45

I agree 100% with the content of the video. For me analog sound is above all:

  • Drift in oscillator pitch
  • Slight presence of noise in the output
  • Soft filters
  • Warm distortion

Digital simulations have became more than competent at simulating that. I’m amazed daily by the quality of the emulation of VSTs like u-He Repro-5. There’s an impressive blind test here:

I do like using analog synths though, but it’s more because there’s something unique to the creation process and a lot of sounds found by sheer serendipity. I learnt a lot more about synthesis since I use analog synths, and that knowledge I can apply in digital simulations.

2 Likes
46

One thing that is interesting with some old analog kit is that each instrument sounds like an individual thanks to tolerances, component decay, etc.

My SCI Pro One doesn’t sound identical to the one my buddy owns. They can be more like traditional hand made instruments in this regard. This is one aspect that I appreciate with these synths.

Oddly, the fantastic softsynth clones of these synths still don’t capture the sound of the overdriven audio input or that of a filter sweep with resonance cranked to 100%, IMHO. I’m not sure why that is.