ilovefuzz.com

I'm just saying that there's a difference between saying "I think this sucks balls" and "this sucks balls".
I don't give a fuck about what you like or dislike, and I just mentioned that I have some experience with these things to give some context about my answer.

Hah. I started a fight. ILF boner match achieved!!!

I just don't get the digital versus analog in anything. From what I've experience, the differences are subtle at best. Maybe in certain effects they are much more noticeable, but I just don't see it. I have owned some synth gear and for the most part it's been analog, but I couldn't have told you that based on the sound of it, it was simply because I knew it was. LOL.

Try getting a analog bitcrusher bros. Doesn't happen. Not true bit crushing at least. You'll have a sample rate reducer. Yet so many claim it's a bit crusher even though it's not.

My point is that digital can do more. Analog is great too. I just don't get why people get so hung up on one or the other.

jwar wrote:Try getting a analog bitcrusher bros. Doesn't happen. Not true bit crushing at least. You'll have a sample rate reducer. Yet so many claim it's a bit crusher even though it's not.

Well, actually you can .
The Alright Devices T-Wrex does that, and it's even continuous instead of being integer-based.

Quoting from Muffs :
"I suppose there is some ambiguity in the industry about bitcrushers. Sometimes you see something called a bitcrusher when it is actually a decimator. T-Wrex is fully analog, so it's obviously not a traditional bitcrusher, which is digital and usually achieved with a simple bit depth reduction. In T-Wrex's case, "bitcrush" means quantization of voltage (kind of, more detail below), and "decimation" means quantization of time, aka sample rate reduction.

T-Wrex achieves the bitcrushing effect not by quantizing to specific voltages like a pitch quantizer, but by quantizing the *change* in voltage. The core is an analog sample and hold, and the output is constantly compared to the input. When the two are sufficiently different (threshold set by the bitcrush amount), the sample and hold is triggered and the output "catches up" with the input. That's what creates the voltage stepping effect.

A pleasant side effect of this is that the bitcrush amount is fully continuous, instead of stepping suddenly from e.g. 12bits -> 11bits -> 10bits etc, like a naive digital bitcrusher will. This continuity is achievable in software although I can't think of anywhere I've seen it done. I've heard it called "smooth bitcrushing"

T-Wrex doesn't use much CMOS either! It's all done with opamps, OTAs, comparators, analog switches, and a couple of inverters.

I hope this clears up some confusion! T-Wrex is NOT just a sample rate reducer!"

Definitely interesting! I had no idea. I'll be checking into that. Thanks for the info!

Damn. I did not mean to foster an analog vs. digital debate here!

I think it is important to consider both sides and their uses and functions. I've plugged an Organelle into an Improbability Drive, and I've plugged analog synths through a Count To Five. I think dismissing analog or digital is doing yourself a disservice, and saying it doesn't matter is naive.

vidret wrote:have 0-coast, love it, gripes:

doesn't have filter, so you can't throw other stuff through it in the same way (you can still do pretty weird stuff with other stuff into it, but not like synth with a filter on)

have doepfer dark energy mk1, love it, gripes (because i think it could be similar to the mother 32):

one oscillator, but can kind of do two. It can get real and weird and nasty where I don't think the m32 can, but it doesn't have a sequencer or anything of the sort if we're comparing the two. (great filter imo, but less patch points than m32 or 0-coast).

microbrute sounds a bit "weak" in comparison to these, but it still covers a huge range, it's small and has a keyboard and a sequencer + 3 filters.

Thanks for the input!

PumpkinPieces wrote:Have an iPad

Try some of the amazing synth apps for the ipad if you haven't already. AniMoog, Nave, Thor, iKaossilator, iProphet, etc. The ipad also qualifies you for endless fun with the Roland Aira FX (virtual/semi to full modular).

oscillateur wrote:I'm just saying that there's a difference between saying "I think this sucks balls" and "this sucks balls".
I don't give a fuck about what you like or dislike, and I just mentioned that I have some experience with these things to give some context about my answer.

I believe you called me an idiot and told me my opinion was bullshit. You could just have said "I beg to differ, I think digital synths are fucking awesome. If I could program a digital synth to protrude a dildo and get it to fuck me in the ass til I came emulated waveforms all over the place, I would. That's how much I fucking love digital synths." But noo, you had to do the other thing. Me saying anything sucks, can never be anything more or less than my opinion, so the "I think" is useless.
I, too, have experience with digital synths. Mainly virtual analogs, the one's I said mainly suck. I still like some digital synths, like I say later on page 1, but for the most part, it's a pass.

Everyone knows that analog is best for house and trance.

Everyone knows digital is best for drum n' bass and tribal trance.

It is OK to use an admixture of analog / digital if you're doing something creative but really, you should stick to a genre, even if it's a micro genre, so you know what kind of gear to use.

I heard a guy used a COMPUTER ONLY SET UP to do a fidget house record and it blew my mind because fidget house can only be made on digital outboard gear, as everyone knows.

God help you if you are doing ambient because the only gear for ambient is a field recorder and a delay pedal. Everything else is not ambient but some other bullshit entirely. Check Wikipedia if you don't believe me, too lazy to paste link.

Believe me, I'm not anti-digital. I, like Barn, use both. I've used NI Massive heaps, the modular I'm planning has a phase distortion module. I'm amazed how Kevin Parker uses a fucking JV-1080 on Currents. I have big interest in wavetables, 8-bit, granular and so on. But I'd rather be without the majority of VA's, even though some, like I said the Virus' and also the Korg Prophecy and to some extent, the Nord Lead's, all pique my interest from time to time.

jwar wrote:Hah. I started a fight. ILF boner match achieved!!!

I just don't get the digital versus analog in anything. From what I've experience, the differences are subtle at best. Maybe in certain effects they are much more noticeable, but I just don't see it. I have owned some synth gear and for the most part it's been analog, but I couldn't have told you that based on the sound of it, it was simply because I knew it was. LOL.

I'm not fighting with anyone dude, just pure argument, no?

I mean no offence here, but it's kinda like an "outsider" wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a P and a J bass, cause they just sound like a bass, right? You have to have heard enough of the different things to be able to distinguish. If you haven't, then of course you can't make the call and it'll all just sound like a "synth". Good or bad.

I'd argue that the filter is the one area where not many companies have built satisfying (analogue sounding) digital models, but they *do* exist. I love the filters in U-he Diva, I love the Xerograph Deluxe. I don't know, maybe that's what people dislike about digital synths.

I like the idea of building a little synth rig around the Organelle as your poly voice.

To me, the 0-Coast is a fantastic complimentary synth.
It does such a good job of filling out space with interesting sounds that don't demand too much attention.

Add a cheap mono synth (brute or monologue) to get big gnarly filter action, you're set.

(I own an Organelle, 0-Coast, and Microbrute. 0-Coast and Brute really work well in unison).

actualidiot wrote:

jwar wrote:Hah. I started a fight. ILF boner match achieved!!!

I just don't get the digital versus analog in anything. From what I've experience, the differences are subtle at best. Maybe in certain effects they are much more noticeable, but I just don't see it. I have owned some synth gear and for the most part it's been analog, but I couldn't have told you that based on the sound of it, it was simply because I knew it was. LOL.

I'm not fighting with anyone dude, just pure argument, no?

I mean no offence here, but it's kinda like an "outsider" wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a P and a J bass, cause they just sound like a bass, right? You have to have heard enough of the different things to be able to distinguish. If you haven't, then of course you can't make the call and it'll all just sound like a "synth". Good or bad.

I'm basing it on my vast experience with gear in general. I've owned a fuck ton of pedals, noisemakers, and other things. I literally cannot tell the difference in some things. I think sure, I get it, but at the same time I don't. So maybe certain types of synths sound better one way than others.

I also have ears and even though I haven't owned a ton of the equipment, I have heard it or experienced it. So, I think my opinion is still valid.

We are BOTH entitled to have an opinion, yours is just coming from a different place than mine.

Of course we are J, but you originally said "from what I've heard/seen there's is very little difference", whereas my experience tells me that there is a difference. Whether other people can hear it or not.

Sometimes those differences are subjective.

What you hear as "essential" are irrelevant to others.