I find that I've worked and worked at most things in my life that I've become relatively good at (slamming my head against the wall) until I uncovered some pivotal piece of information resulting in an epiphany, not making me an instant master of the subject in any sense, but allowing me to confidently proceed -- a "grokking" of the subject if you will. For me, this data is usually accessed in some sort of documentation or interaction with someone who groks the subject. I think I have a personal limitation in that though I excel at many matters considered analytical, my abilities are intuitively driven. Hope that makes sense.

My question is this: How have you come to awareness? Was there something you did, read, heard that flicked the switch in the recesses of your subconsciousness? What was your learning process like?

I'll share one, albeit minor, piece in the unlikely event there is someone here less aware than me. Some time ago, I was reading a book called Electronica Dance Music Programming Secrets, and realized the importance between the interaction of note lengths and filter envelopes that results in slightly different note lengths dramatically effecting the quality (is timbre the right word?) of individual notes, giving them movement, etc. This illustrates my point well, because I knew all of the pieces involved -- filter envelopes, note lengths, etc -- but had just never put two and two together.

Love to hear your thoughts...

What was your learning process like?

It's fairly simple. I stopped caring what other people were doing and focused on my own projects and expanding my own knowledge.

Electronica Dance Music Programming Secrets

See, that right there is where I'd stop. I'm happy to hear you found it useful, but -- for me -- reading someone else's opinion on how to write "electronica" seems counterintuitive, especially for a genre born out of creativity and experimentation.

As long as you know what the peices are, who cares how you put the puzzle together? As long as it works for you, thats what matters. I can't honestly say that I've had an epiphany on synthesis and music making, but if I were to have one I do believe it would on my own and not realized in the response of a question. Let it find you, Otherwise you'll never find it.

Two days before I left town for a month last december, a friend told me he had given up using Midi to program drums, instead he just directly loads the samples into perfromer, and edits the drum parts as audio. I stayed up the next two nights frantically putting tracks together doing that, and it has made making tracks a lot more intuitive and reliable for me. Now I don't use midi at all, and I am very happy about that.

It's fairly simple. I stopped caring what other people were doing and focused on my own projects and expanding my own knowledge.

Yeah, but isn't your knowledge based on other people's work. There's invaluable knowledge out there (More specifically this list is one of them) and to respond to the original post, I find the following are definetly very important:

The point is one never knows if one has really come to awareness, awareness can be full of deceit. At some point things appear to look clear and there is a sense of understanding and finally being there, then the next day it doesn't 'work' anymore and the insights appear limited. Which leads to what for me makes 'making music with as much control over synthesis as possible' such a nice and adventurous thing, it is like travelling to a strange land, everyday there are new discoveries when new places are visited. And there seems to be no borders around this wonderful land of synthesis. A bit like our planet, us humans have drawn borders, but the same humans proved that all natural borders like oceans and mountain ranges can be taken and so have ceased to be real borders. Now humans go moutaineering and ocean sailing for pure amusement. Which is a positive thought, leading to the notion that in the end, when all borders around limited musical, compositorial and synthesis abilities are crossed, all music will be nothing but amusement.

These days borders are created in the mind only and taking them seriously is per definition a limited view, and trying to effectuate borders by building fences is dangerous and all too often leads to death by war or famine for many. So, taking a lighthearted approach to synthesis and music in general is imho not a bad thing. Still, this is my awareness and maybe tomorrow I find out that I'm totally wrong, eg. that serious music is really serious and it will be proven in some court that I make 'entartete musik' instead and will be imprisoned, tortured and killed for 'not being serious'. (The notion of artistic freedom runs much deeper than just the right to do things your own way.)

I guess a healthy attitude is to get inspired by everything and trying out every new idea. It doesn't really matter where the inspiration comes from when it in fact does inspire. I am aware that this is a bit in contrast to our modern day consumerist culture where one 'buys what one needs' instead of 'makes what one needs'. I'm a bit oldfasioned in this, I have a bit of the 'renaissance mind' which on the surface might appear to be contra-economical, but is in fact quite productive.

Anyway, sound synthesis is only one of the tools used in the art of making music. And like in the process of mastering any tool one learns the most from the 'mistakes', eg. when picking up a hammer for the first time and hitting your thumb you know: that way it doesn't work. But the nice thing about synthesis is that there are only 'happy accidents', they cannot hurt, unless of course you literally blow your ears away. There are two things one can do with these happy accidents, 'promote' them to some new music theory by building a fence around them or keep them for what they really are: happy accidents that can be enjoyed by oneself and one's audience.

Every musical genre has it's style characteristics, but these are no laws, just 'things that work' and can be freely used. There is some subtle difference here between character and dogma. Eg. imho the main feature of a synthesizer should be the ability to play the sound in a dynamic and expressive way. This is not to bend the character of the sound into what the synth is expected to sound like in a certain genre, but instead to play the character in new and unexpected ways to add to the richness of a genre. And so to be able to improvise. This can be done by controllers like pitchsticks and modwheels or by using other oscillators and filters patched in an unconventional way. But also some nifty computer programming or NM patching can accomplish it, or whatever else that works.

Cause it is simple: when it works it works, and when it doesn't work one might possibly be on the exiting path of discovering something new. And when feeling a bit uncertain about this, well, all other people are as big a fool or wise guy as yourself, you can safely put your trust in that one!

Yeah, but isn't your knowledge based on other people's work. There's invaluable knowledge out there (More specifically this list is one of them)

In fact if you are clever enough, you should be able to stick just 6 patches in your synth, and use no more- ie writing *songs* using those signature sounds. I think this is a very important point to make, because in this world of "faceless *electronica* bollocks", it is often very hard to hear who is making what. Everybody (I hope) can spot Kraftwerk or Mouse on Mars or Aphex Twin etc a mile off because they rely on a set of sounds which become their signature sound (also there is the style that they PLAY those sounds in too). I think this is way more important than clambering over everybody else hoping to find new sounds altogether.

You have a point in that sonic signature is definetly important. You could argue also that being a good craftmen, you could turn any patch into yours by adding your own flavoring into it, but this takes the same learning curve as being able to write patch per se...

Two days before I left town for a month last december, a friend told me he had given up using midi to program drums, instead he just directly loads the samples into perfromer, and edits the drum parts as audio. >snip<

Well, using a sampler and a midi sequencer gives you pretty much the same flexibility, if not more, as you don't need to modify the actual audio in order to work. I used to work with audio directly, and it's great for visualization. But I kept feelign limited by the actual samples I was using -- after all, you're then limited to using samples and audio editors, rather than something like Kontakt. I guess I just don't see the difference. You're still hand-sequencing everything, you just can't swap out sounds nearly as easily.

Each to his own, I used to do it that way (for years), but only because I had very few other options. I spent the first 7 years of my music makeing trying to dig my self out of the digital hole of pure sample and loop based music ...due to the fact that I personally found it to eventually become a bit boring, and lacked the 'sub-flow' and inner groove that hardware sequencing with analog synths and percussion, and a touch of randomosity wield.

I've just always felt as well, that even a sampled loop being sequnced in a hardware sampler can give a touch more fluidness than using software to sequnce samples...not to mention, it makes it much easier to prepare to gig live since I dont have to worry about bringing my computer then.

I agree- but, to each his own. I work best with midi as, I think Derek(?) mentioned, it is so easy to swap out sounds and get things you didn't plan on... I work best with my old Akai S2800 sampler simply because I know it so well - I can practically edit programs with my eyes closed. It just depends how you work best. When I first got into sequencing I started with a lot of heavily-planned, painstaking deliberate sequence programming. But in recent years I have gravitated to a more "live" type of recording, as I believe a lot of the best moments are not consciously planned, and (as Miles Davis always said) usually the "first take" is the best. So I will pound out a beat or jam a bassline or whatever for a while first, and then go to the editing to "clean it up" a little (if necessary). I go back and forth from midi to audio, sampling bits and re-sequecning them, running the sequences through the NM, re-sampling, re-sequencing etc., etc. And it's different every day. You may get some good inspiration studying what others' methods are, and by dissecting others' works, but in the end, those methods just may not be what suits you. Just experiment, have fun, tweak, squeeze, blow, pound, slice, nudge, cut copy paste, quantize, unquantize, drag drop, squash, bend, timestretch, pitchshift, loop, process etc.

Ongoing.

The more someone feels they've mastered something, the less likely their ego is to accept what they perceive as input from a less 'masterful' source. Someone who soaks everything up, and hammers away whilst having fun is often capable of producing much more interesting things.

My question is this: How have you come to awareness?

I can tell you that I am still working on learning programing, and that the past tense of the question is wrong for me. I have to learn how best to articulate an idea each time I try to put stuff together, and all I have found out is that i need to remeber not to mistake, or equate, programing with music. It is easy to get lost in the ins and outs of things and forget the larger picture. That, and I need to treat instuments and sounds as if they are things I am collaborating with, not using to create.

The main reasons it changed my working life so much are that it ceased my reliance on external hardware, I just record my drum machine and work from there, and that manipulating audio is so intuitive for me. Maybe if I was using kontakt or something similar I would feel different, but making rolls, and tweaking audio feels more natural to me using thre audio editor. Plus being able to edit start and stop points, and crossfades, reversing, etc, is easier in the audio window for me.

I know there are advantages to using Midi, but not using it works better for me, and I think that is what epiphanies are all about, finding the way of looking at a problem that makes the most (intuitive) sense for you. As a teacher, I've seen that different people need to look at the same thing in different ways in order to understand it. It depends on what knowledge you have to draw upon. Music is so intuitive of a thing that you really need to understand what you are doing at a deep level in order to create anything approaching art. For me that is what epiphanies are- sudden jumps of personal understanding about the way things work, an understanding that lets you stop having to think about the process, and move on to the next level.

Just some thoughts.

Oh, from that point of view, I agree completely. I tried using hardware samplers and sequencing using hardware, and it's just so much more of a pain. I love seeing the waveform when I edit sounds, and seeing what my effects do to that waveform. it's a dual learning process then -- I train my ears *and* my eyes.

For me, I like seeing what I'm doing, rather than dialing up loop points based on numbers and an "approximation" of a waveform. I love using a mouse to just highlight a bit instead of use a series of buttons and dials to do the same thing.

I just prefer sequencing it in Midi because it's less destructive. But otherwise I agree with you. There are certainly times where I dump bits to audio and simply work from there, because it's easier.

You have a point in that sonic signature is definetly important. You could argue also that being a good craftmen, you could turn any patch into yours by adding your own flavoring into it .. but this takes the same learning curve as being able to write patch per se...

Ah well, it takes as long to make a patch as it takes to figure out someone elses. Making the patch oneself has the big advantage that from the start there is some notion about what the patch should do. Finding a patch that does just that is very time consuming, simply because what is needed might be in the patch but only after some serious tweaking. And to be honest, I have difficulty tweaking someone elses patches, mainly because I don't know where to begin. Most patches don't exactly look like the old familiar prepatched monosynths from way back.

In fact if you are clever enough, you should be able to stick just 6 patches in your synth, and use no more- ie writing *songs* using those signature sounds. Everybody (I hope) can spot kraftwerk or Mouse on Mars or Aphex Twin etc a mile off because they rely on a set of sounds which become their signature sound (also there is the style that they PLAY those sounds in too). I think this is waay more important than clambering over everybody else hoping to find new sounds altogether.

I can't even remember what I put in one of my own NM patches a couple of months ago. But that has much to do with the nature of the NM, it is so easy to put in a few extra things and then some more and then some more, save it on disk and forget about all the why's. I was brought up to painstakingly draw patchsheets on paper, it now seems such a relief not having to do that anymore. But it is very illusionary, as making paper patchsheets makes one very familiar with a patch, much more than simply clicking save. I remember having maybe five or six patches and using them all the time, on the NM I must have made hundreds, perhaps using the same five or six techniques but in a myriad of variations. It is quite hard to keep track, or more honest: I must confess I lost track completely. But what the heck if one can make a new NM patch in a jiffy.

That's alright Rob- You ARE the *DADDY* patcher!

(EggyToast) Well, using a sampler and a Midi sequencer gives you pretty much the same flexibility, if not more, as you don't need to modify the actual audio in order to work.

I must say that I've thought very hard about replacing my Emu E4 with an internal VST sampler, but the Emu is just sooo much more powerful than Logic's EXS24- and the converters have so much more weight too.

I must say that I've thought very hard about replacing my Emu E4 with an internal VST sampler, but the Emu is just sooo much more powerful than Logic's EXS24- and the converters have so much more weight too.

I'm in a Similar situation to Tom. I think about the convienience of software sampling a lot, but have yet to find the reliability, Sound quality and Flexibility of E-mu's chords in a Softo yet.

To me Kontakt has good features, Halion Sounds good, but neither has great sound and features of that chunk of metal sitting here in the Rack.

E-mu has been rumoured to be releasing E5 soft sampler with a USB interface to the Ultra series in the EOS range......But at NAMM the rumours became that E-mu would be releasing E5 as a PCI card. which would thwart my plans to go to a Notebook for sampling

(Reply to Justin Maxwell) I stopped caring what other people were doing and focused on my own projects and expanding my own knowledge.

Yeah, but isn't your knowledge based on other people's work. There's the Allen Strange book.

I must say that I've thought very hard about replacing my Emu E4 with an internal VST sampler, but the Emu is just sooo much more powerful than Logic's EXS24- and the converters have so much more weight too.

Get good convertors for the computer then. I do know the Emu sounds nice nice nice...

That depends on where in the chain you want the conversion (Ie. the tonality it provides). If you bounce mixes, it won't make any difference. If you want it on the samples/audio, you can use the Emu as a front end when sampling. If you want the converters on the sampled sounds playback only, you have to use the Emu.

I suppose the main difference is, with the Emu's, every note and layer on it can have different envelopes, filters and the like.- The EXS can only provide a single basic 'VA' style dynamics section on the whole patch. With the EXS, you don't use MIDI, so timing is audibly tighter. (including the dubious AMT and the like) The EXS is another process which can crash the system, but it loads everything up with the track.

IMHO, I think they're nice, but only really compared to 'project' cards and other samplers.

AFAIK, the E3xp was supposed to be the best sounding (Digital-wise) though I never AB'd the various models. (The E3 had analogue filters) I went into studios a few times where, for various reasons (Cookbook Dance producers :-) ), we had to port my samples/programs to an Akai (pre z series).

Most things sounded very clangy compared to the EMU and had everyone scratching his head (Akai are the standard, so why didn't it sound better?).

(Editing Note: from here the subject changes towards a different topic, which is normal during a Thread, BTW - WB)

Actually, I do use Akai's now and then, but it's hard to cover everything ina short post.One thing I really do like over the Emu, is the s5/6xxx and Zx adopted file system. ie. a generic system that is readable by most computers, therefore libraries, maintenance of files, backing up and editing is acheivable at a level you would expect from a pro machine. This is the reason I've moved towards software sampling for some jobs. Emu have IMHO, made some other really questionable choices in their system. (In much the same tradition as Macintosh, and I'm not bringing windows into the equasion, I just somehow expect more from Macintosh).

A while ago, I was emailing Emu with some ideas for functionality in their samplers. A DOS compatible file system. The ability to instantly dump all samples and programs that arn't needed. (ie. not referenced on the Multi page) - Though in EOS there is now sort of a way to do this. An automatic algorythm to chop up a long sample (of different pitches) find the fundamental in each slice, create a keymapped preset, ready to be looped and finished by hand. (I'd like one of these in my computer too): Instant Multisample presets.

An option of a 'modular' building block style filter section, with feedback and distortion using their 'cord' system. (a sampler section in the NM would be killer though).

I never even got a reply - maybe they're just not good ideas. Maybe like Roland they're way too clever to accept/acknowledge any user input. Either way, As the softsamplers get better, the hardware will disapear from my equipment list, except for some live work.

(Akai are the standard, so why didn't it sound better?).

Probably because, despite being made by a Japanese company, the AKAI was designed and made in England, home of the majority of magazines dedicated to electronic music?, and well........well, I don't know?- The AKAI is supposed to be tighter in its midi timing, but the Emu blows it away with its filters and modular-like matrix modulation programming. Yes it is a shame that the new E5 needs a board to make it work, but has anybody seen or heard the new VSTi sampler from MOTU???- This looks really promising.

It seems cool, it's MAS too. (for a MOTU product, you bet !) It was shown at Paris Apple Expo (but I wasn't there) And it's a french developement from the guys at Univers Sons /Plugsound

I do know the Emu sounds nice nice nice...

IMHO, I think they're nice, but only really compared to 'project' cards and other samplers.

But it s 16bit. It s nice...

Thinking of gettin a Z-series sometime, even though everyone says go Emu.

But it s 16bit. It s nice...

So what? I don't get all this fuss about 24bit this and 24bit that people then go chasing after sounds that are 8 bit etc. For example, vinyl definately sounds better than CD if it wasn't for the sound of the turntable rumble in the background (unless you are lucky enough to own a Linn Sondek or similar), but then those rumbles and crackles ADD to the sound making it warmer- what's wrong with a bit of hiss and slight lack of definition? I think lack of definition adds a certain mystery- your brain fills in the gaps and hears sounds and textures that aren't actually there, by compensating a bit. You don't get this -imo- with 24bit.

When it can be perfect, imperfection will be the new standard!

I think it has something to do with emotions.

For example, vinyl definately sounds better than CD

Now that I agree with completely.

If it wasn't for the sound of the turntable rumble in the background

Even with that... it still sounds better. I'm just a bit of a Neanderthal, really!!

(unless you are lucky enough to own a Linn Sondek or similar),

Aaaah!!! Fancy someone mentioning those! My God! I have one of those. Cost me an arm and a leg back in '76 I think, and it's been rumbling along very happily ever since. Not given me a lick of trouble in all that time. All I've ever had to do is replace the belt a couple of times. A really great piece of kit and one of the best buys I ever made!! Apart from the Nord, of course.

... but then those rumbles and crackles ADD to the sound making it warmer ...

Agreed. Not just wormer though. Kind of ... well ... rumblier and cracklier!

What's wrong with a bit of hiss and slight lack of definition?

Agreed again.

I think lack of definition adds a certain mystery- your brain fills in the gaps and hears sounds and textures that aren't actually there, by compensating a bit.

Agreed yet again.

You don't get this -imo- with 24bit.

Well ... that bit I'm not QUITE so sure about that.

OK ... but ... only if you do the same!

Well ... that bit I'm not QUITE so sure about that.

Kofi, everything I've ever heard in 24bit (although it's very high quality) has sounded; "Placed back in a mix" ie, if you try to mix it in with analogue or 16bit signals it sounds 'muddy'. I don't know if anyone else has encountered this?

I have had a Line6 Delay modeller that did this and a Boss VF-1 (sucessor to the SE-70)- both of which I ended up getting rid of because their definition was too light. (I much prefer the 'in your face' sound produced by analogue processors and 16-18 bit sound sources.

PS Vinyl rules!

Well ... that bit I'm not QUITE so sure about that.

Kofi, everything I've ever heard in 24bit (although it's very high quality) has sounded; "Placed back in a mix" ie, if you try to mix it in with analogue.

I think I know what you mean.

ie, if you try to mix it in with analogue or 16bit signals it sounds 'muddy'.

I wouldn't have chosen those words, but again I think I know what you mean.

I don't know if anyone else has encountered this?

A cautious "Yes" from me!! Probably because of a different choice ofwords.I have had a Line6 Delay modeller that did this and a Boss VF-1 (sucessor to the SE-70)- both of which I ended up getting rid of because their definition was too light. I.e. "less you can do with it"?? That's to say, all you ever got was "more of the same", rather than a variation in sounds across its spectrum?

I much prefer the 'in your face' sound produced by analogue processors and 16-18 bit sound sources.

I basically agree.

PS Vinyl rules!

I definitely agree.

But ... errrrr ... all of this, Tom, gets perilously close to that old chestnut of a debate about "digital versus analogue", with one lot saying "analogue rules, digital sucks" and the other lot saying the opposite. All that's generated is a lot of heat. As that zen Master, Sensei Roland said ...

When it can be perfect, imperfection will be the new standard

Bottom line ... I personally much prefer analogue. But I think it's also because it's what I grew up with. I've therefore formed the basic gut feeling that that's what things SHOULD sound like. However, there's a lot of people messing around with sound and sound design these days who've possibly never even seen a vinyl record, never mind had their hands on a nice Linn Sondek or similar. My children's friends think my record collection is "cool", but don't really take it seriously as a recording medium. They'd rather have their CD's.

The basic difference between the two, as far as I can see, is that of how recorded information is encoded. Analogue: a continuously changing signal; digital: the assigning of finite values to finite data over a finite periods of time. To an analogue device an incoming signal is continuously changing in level, while to a digital device it's something that's broken up into samples with each of those samples having a definite numerical value. That value is held for the entire duration of the sample, even though the period of the sample can be very short. The supporters of digital argue that the higher is the sampling rate, the more "accurate" is the sound. Contrariwise, the lower is the sampling rate then the less accurate is the resulting approximation to "the real thing". Given a high enough sampling rate then the real question becomes ... can a human really perceive that they're not "really" getting a "real" e.g. sine wave out of the device.

But ... IMO the above is a bit of a simplistic question in a musical context. There's never "only" the one factor. Take a chorus effect, for example. In a digital unit the oscillator doing the chorusing is digital. If it is running slowly then you can run into "problems" if the sampling rate is not particularly high. Same with a digitally controlled wah-wah effect. Here, the filter position is not infinitely variable but has to do a hop, a skip and a jump from one value to another.

Now ... the question of whether or not these are "real" choruses or "real" wah-wahs surely in the end depends upon what the person is used to, and the precise nature of the effect that they want to apply. It's very easy to call these artefacts "so-obviously-digital" ... but only when you've actually heard the analogue variety often enough to be able to make an informed and critical comparison. And even then, it becomes a question of which one a person prefers.

But ... even setting stuff down on TAPE alters it somewhat from "the real thing".

Or ... one can spend hours trying to decide upon a choice and placement of mikes in order to "get the best" out of a performance. Analogue has its own issues, and they're so often a part of the "tube versus transistor" debate. A tube amp has a very characteristic way of clipping sounds. That's what produces that very special distortion beloved by many electric guitarists.

Tubes round off the peaks of sound signals. As the volume is increased and the tubes are driven harder, so do those peaks become more and more flattened. The input sound is therefore increasingly "squashed" and "flattened". The spikes and "hard edges" are rounded off. This is what makes the whole thing sound so velvety smooth and "warm" and "rich". There's a constant change in the nature of the signal because it is a constantly variable one. Additionally, the signal has a "natural" amount of compression applied to it. So ... the harder the tube amp is driven, the "richer" it becomes. It never really sounds "harsh" in the way that's characteristic of digital and/or transistorized devices. Transistors and digital stuff don't only hard-clip audio signals. They can create harsh and sharp corners where there seemed to de none before. You end up with a signal that has hard and sharp tops and bottoms. And not only that, but when you crank the volume up you just make the harshness louder and not warmer.

Moral ... if you want to keep all that really annoying high end harsh sounding stuff out of your and your ears, then get a good tube amp. Immediate result ... "better" sounding (a little factoid from Kofi not to be mistaken for a "mere opinion"); "warmer" sounding (another little factoid from Kofi also not to be mistaken for a "mere opinion") music.

So simply by going to tape, you've immediately got some gentle rounding and compression going on. That's by the very simple nature of the medium. You just don't get that with digital. But ... that's because in it's own kind of way, a digital recorder has the possibility

to be "better". A good digital recorder working doesn't really DO anything to the sound. It "just" converts that sound "straight" to a string of samples and at a resolution that really does quite a good job of fooling the ear that it's "natural". If you throw a sound with lots of jagged peaks at such a converter, then that's what you'll get out. You'll get none of the "warmth" and "presence" that analogue recording seems to give. There's just not that rounding or compression.

Of course, the old digital devices were not nearly as "good" as the ones there are around now. And ... probably effects like overdrive should really always be done analogue, just as there are some effects you don't have a prayer of creating outside the digital medium. Overall, though, the unique characteristics given to a recorded sound by analogue treatments simply have no correspondence in the digital arena ... but the same applies the other way too. Yes ... people are designing some rather good algorithms to get closer and closer to "the real thing", but I sometimes wonder why they bother. But ... that's just me.

But once again ... you have to have something to compare your digital overdrive to before you can make such comparisons. Yes ... I totally agree that a digital overdrive gadget does sound a bit like crunchy glass in the ear, once you've heard "the real thing" ... but that's only because people like me feel that they already know what "the real thing" SHOULD sound like.

And personally ... I prefer the tube driven sound. For the same reason. IMHO it's what that effect SHOULD sound like. But ... I do think this is a personal preference. I do find it a bit hard to understand how anyone could prefer the digital variety once they've heard both ... but there's a lot of weirdos and wackos in the world and I guess it's best to just pray that people like that don't get their hands on guns and nuclear bombs and weapons of mass destruction otherwise we're all in trouble ... and then just leave it at that!

So, as far as I can see, Tom, this is a matter of choosing your favourite brand of poison. Why does analogue produce it's particular brand of effects? As far as I can see it's because it suffers from exactly the same problem that digital suffers from, and that's the intrinsic imperfection of the world. It's not exactly as if there's a simple choice between the digital problems of signal-to-noise and the analogue ones. Analogue has trouble too, and that's what gives it its character. All that stuff about distortion and compression is happening precisely because of the same issues of signal to noise that one basically has in the digital domain. This is partly why people argue for hours about "what are the best speakers" etc.

Signal-to-noise problems are intrinsic here, and so it just becomes a question of which particular kind of baggage you prefer. I don't see that this is a question of "rightness" or "wrongnees", although to be honest in my humble opinion anyone who "prefers" digital is a bit cloth-eared and a few trees short of a full forest but that's another issue.

Essentially, though, this question of tube and transistor, analogue and digital will probably never go away because it's humans who make the ultimate decision on "betterness" and "appropriateness". And that immediately means that there's more involved than just how the equipment "sounds" per se. Immediately involved in how it SHOULD sound ... and often in a specific context. And ... different people simply have a different idea on what "a good sound" is. And to those who've spent most of their lives listening to digital, they're usually pretty clear how things SHOULD sound -- no if's and's or but's!

My opinion? Pretty close to yours, I guess. I'm an unashamed Neanderthal and retrograde. I actually LIKE analogue. I like vinyl. I prefer it. But then again ... hey!!! ... I even like the sound of the crumhorn, the lute and the kora (which is still going strong, I might add!).

But ... truth is ... I also LOVE the sound of my modular. And ain't nothing analogue there. Except that nice red paint, maybe.

And as to what you said above ...

I much prefer the 'in your face' sound produced by analogue processors and 16-18 bit sound sources.

I agree. There's a nice "graininess" to 16-bit that you can really play around with. It's like going up a staircase ... you can put a creak in here and a slide there and really mess around with it. 24 bit doesn't let you in the cracks so easily. All depending on what you want to do, of course. But ... that said I'd rather record 24 if possible, because it's "better" ... and then downsample it to 16-bit if that's what I decide I want. Which is often, to be honest. In any case, it's where you're going to end up if you want CD's.

PS Vinyl rules!

I definitely agree. You got no quarrel whatever from me there.

Kofi how fast do you type?

(In reply to Friday's Child)

Don't get me wrong, I use digital all the time to record- recording on this powerbook is a hell of a lot simpler and more convienient than using tape (although I have often thought about getting a Revox to master onto (but there is that very clever Craig Anderton trick of recording through a revox, taking the the signal from the playback head and recording back into the computer- a trick still used for recording vocals because of tape's unique compression ability.). I think 24 bit is much better suited to recording entirely acoustic signals too in most cases, but 16 bit files use far less disk space too!!

I have had a Line6 Delay modeller that did this and a Boss VF-1 (sucessor to the SE-70)- both of which I ended up getting rid of because their definition was too light.

I.e. "less you can do with it"?? That's to say, all you ever got was "more of the same", rather than a variation in sounds across its spectrum?

Interesting, very interesting!- I think you hit the nail on the head here. I suppose one arguement that most people have for 24 bit is its 'dynamic range', but I find quite the oppersite;). This was the thing I observed when I tried out the Access Virus. Although the sound and interface were inpressive, it still sounded very 'flat'- odd. Perhaps it's down to the power of algorhythm programming- who knows? Isn't most setting up of digital signals done by maths and not ear??- Perhaps this could be the next stageforward? I know that you can tweek all the internal parameters of programs such as 'T-Racks'- getting a sweeter audio signal (actually T-racks is the one 24 bit processor that does sound good to my ears!

Long live BOTH digital and analogue!

Terryfunken had written: You don't get this -imo- with 24bit.

To which Friday's Child responded: Well ... that bit I'm not QUITE so sure about that.

Terryfunken had written: Kofi, everything I've ever heard in 24bit (although it's very high quality) has sounded; "Placed back in a mix"

I just was listening to a violin concerto (24 bit recording) and I never had the impression that the violin was placed back in the mix. Although there were some intruments that sounded is if the were in the back of the orchestra.

ie, if you try to mix it in with analogue or 16bit signals it sounds 'muddy'.

My guess is that "it" depends or how "it " is recorded and what "it" is that is recorded. "It" is never going to be better then the original (unless you use close micing in a acousticly terrible space you may get more likeble results). But in other cases you may like the distorted sound of the recording better.

Technicly spoken 24 bit 96 Khz is better and 24 bit 128 Khz even more so becouse it means less harmonic distortion. (btw. dynamic range is the same) You may still ending up liking the 16 bit or analog recording better. Maybe just becouse you mis the old familiar rumble, tiks and cracles. Or the smell of the vinil end the paper from the cover. (I personaly like the smell of the Scotch tape.) A taperecording on 15 or 7.5 inch p/s is technicly better then on 3 3/4 inch p/s on the same tapemachine with the same tape.

In the end you just use the most suiteble technic for the job at hand what ever that may be.

Kofi has written: So, as far as I can see, Tom, this is a matter of choosing your favourite brand of poison.

Well there you have it

I don't see that this is a question of "rightness" or "wrongnees",

Precisely. It all ends up being analog.

Honest in my humble opinion anyone who "prefers" digital is a bit cloth-eared and a few trees short of a full forest but that's another issue.

Yes that it is.

Essentially, though, this question of tube and transistor, analogue and digital will probably never go away because it's humans who make the ultimate decision on "betterness" and "appropriateness". And that immediately means that there's more involved than just how the equipment "sounds" per se. Immediately involved in how it SHOULD sound ... and often in a specific context. And ... different people simply have a different idea on what "a good sound" is. And to those who've spent most of their lives listening to digital, they're usually pretty clear how things SHOULD sound -- no if's and's or but's! My opinion? Pretty close to yours, I guess. I'm an unashamed Neanderthal and retrograde. As one of the old dinasours I second that.

PS Vinyl rules!

Beware. Here is what a narrow minded pal (me) would guess from your statements :

• One doesn't need no "features". Music is about being the best musician, not fun. You should never experiment with new features, which is a waste of time. Furthermore you should never buy new instruments, but stick with... err... your fingers and one natural instrument (bottle, stone, furniture, flute if you're lucky). So forget modular synths...
• One should never help the listener hear music. No record should contain more than one sine wave : the listener then can make his brains work to reconstruct the whole symphony you had in mind. In most cases though, silent tracks should be the rule.

Funny way to consider things from someone playing with a techno gadget like the modular.

(Editing Note: how much fun it is to be not agreed - WB)

A patch- especially for Dave the Rave (who doesn't send any patches- EVER- or if he does, they are very boring, because I don't recall any of them. The moral?- please don't take the piss on list, in such a personal manner, otherwise you will be made to feel like an idiot yourself.

I have to send public apologies to Terryfunken whom I never meant to offense. This was intended as a humoristic interpretation of his words, not an attack. Please excuse me. And yes I sent some pitiful patches, and I should hide in a hole forever for not being able to do a better job.

And yes I sent some pitiful patches

Which patches are those? I have never seen a pitiful patch. I would really like to see one!

and I should hide in a hole forever for not being able to do a better job.

That is just a little bit long, no? Ah well ... if you must do that then please don't forget to take your Nord Modular with you. I don't have mine at the moment so all I can do is doodle with the editor. It's not nearly so much fun!