Analogue Versus Digital

#41

Well that's true, still won't change the fact that analogue is the daddy though!

Funny thing, I was just watching some of those organ videos, really is fascinating. Reading the comments on one of the videos, one guy joked that the organ he just heared has enough power to destroy the world! His comment got hundreds of likes. Then another guy posted something more factual stating that there are organs so powerful they exceed the structural capabilities of the buildings they're installed in. The power from them can literally bring the cathedral down if they set it that way, and windows actually do explode when played, due to the power and bass frequencies. So technically, some organs are so powerful, the building has to hande a sort of earthquake when it's being played if it has enough air pumped into it.

I thought that was a truly awe-inspiring thing to read, as in the true meaning of the word.
I still have the most ridiculous grin on my face just thinking about it :heart_eyes::grin:

Here it is, see the comment section if anyone fancies a fun read:

#42

Could write a lot bout this subject , but I'll try to keep it short:

I think both digital and analog are nice and supplement each other well. For examples some things are possible in the analog domain and som in the digital domain. For example wavetables are only digital and granular synthesis too. I dont see any reason to not us those because they are digital.

A true confession here, hope I won't be shamed... I actually never owned a real analog synth only virtual analog synths :wink: I used them ut never owned them.

#43

Same here, that's pretty much where digital shines for me as well :slight_smile:

Well I'll not be shaming you, I can't even afford the analogue synth I want, and it's not that expensive either:

#45

I think its time to question the topic of this post itself.

I am a little concerned about what I am reading in these posts, why are even trying to define the difference between the two, it is only relative by the tools we choose to use, and choice is the most important thing here. Even analogue can be considered fake, how many instrument makers over the years have tried to copy the great ones, is an inferior copy not fake ?, of cause it is, but does that also mean we don't have the choice to use it, of cause we have the choice.

Why don't we just look at Analogue and Digital as extensions of each other, even this post is digital, so it too must be fake, as fake as this topic.. :grin:

The only true natural sounds are those not manipulated by the human, tree falling in the woods, leaves rustling in the wind, tires screaching as the neihbour pulls out of the drive way, having to burp because you drank too much, the sound of my cat running from one end of the house to the next.

Music is un-natural, just another artistic medium manipulted by the human hand or other body parts if the case may be, but like all artistic mediums it has the ability to invoke emotions, yes I know it can be massively influenced by money, but thats a completely different discussion. And artistic expression is free and has no place to be judged just because of the tools you use, even though we all do it.

I do believe however that with music there is something else happening, and my reason for this, is vibrations, I do believe that vibrations are having a bigger impact on us then we have yet to learn, I am sure we have all expreienced and deep loud sound pass through our boddies, I have, I am not aware of any other artistic medium that is capable of that, and what are the vibrations actualy doing. Sound can sooth the savage beast, help to treat mental illnesses, and I am sure the list goes on, if it can do all this, Who gives a "insert that stuff that comes out of my ass here" which is better, and who am I to even judge it.

Would Andy Worhol have wasted time debating what type of paint to use, would Mattise have wasted time on what type of paint brushes to use, would Jimi Hendrix have wasted time debating on the best guitar to use, in some ways we are all have some of what Jimi's and Andy's etc have, stop thinking about what it can't do, and start working on what it can do, otherwise I recomend you get rid of it all together.
If you keep thinking of what it can't do, then you will only be capable of achieving within the boundaries this creates for you.

Axoloti - If I like it, then I will use it... thanks for letting me be part of something that appears to be well ahead of its time for making available so many options for manipulating sound, it is so much more accesible and affordible than any other product I've found available and I couldn't give a damn if it is analogue or digital.

Yes discussions are healthy, and great opportunities to learn from one another, but my possition on this topic is realy simple, "don't waste your time" and "don't be held back by boundaries".

Maybe you can change the topic to "Breaking through the Analogue versus Digital Boundaries."
:grin:

PS.. this will be my only opinion on this topic I post, if I respond, it is only to show that I am aware of any comments made.. because to comment further would put me at risk of accidently contradicting myself and I do believe I have made my point.
:grin:

#46

Well put it this way, if I were against digital it would be kinda pointless me owning an Axoloti!

I didn't start an Analogue Vs Digital debate thread. This thread was originally part of another thread, it was spun-off (understandably) from another where they were talking about digitally modeled instruments. The point I was making is that no matter how good the techniques and technology gets for digitally modeling an instrument, it will always be burdened by the quantization of digital.

What I'll never understand is why the digital evangelists out there just cannot accept the obvious. At the end of the day, digital is a man-made 'system'. Every digital sound-making device you own is made using analogue components, they've just been miniaturised and arranged into a microcontroller or whatever. It only gets the name "Digital" because those analogue components have been arranged in such a way as to intentionally create a quantization system.

I don't understand why people find it so hard to accept that. I mean what's the problem with admitting that something that is superior, is indeed superior?

Years ago, I used to get extremely annoyed at people who could not understand the simple reasons why analogue is the superior technology. It must be, because without it the other cannot exist, and you cannot get better than real. But I see conversations on YouTube and can tell right away, who is genuinely curious and who is simply unwilling to accept facts.

I stopped getting angry and started laughing at them many years ago. This Analogue Vs Digital debate thing, it's probably one of the most interesting debates you will ever come across wherever you read it. And I think the problem, really, isn't so much people not believing it, than the sheep-like behaviour of people in general.

A person who grows-up surrounded mainly by digital devices is going to latch-on to digital by default. The problem is they never had a quality analogue Hi-Fi system sitting in their living room, or a fancy analogue synth sitting on the keyboard stand in their bedroom. Those same people will happily spend a fiver on a 'Mixing App' and actually think they have an SSL mixing console in their pocket, and that it's "All thanks to the wonders of digital technology".

It's hilarious, there's a reason the real beast is so large, it's called real-word physics!

So all they really have is a digital fake in their pocket. So ya see, you made your point, but you missed the whole point of the original post, that fakery is no match for reality :grin:

Oooooooooh ... just look at the one on top ... it's just ... it's ... it's absolutely beautiful :heart_eyes:

#47

eerrr ... your beautiful analog sound wave appears to be digital :wink:

technology (digital and otherwise) provides an alternative, things do not have to be organised into a hierarchy, its not always black and white.
are trees superior to roses? rolling hills inferior to mountain? a horse to a car?
it doesn't matter if waves cant exist without the sea, I can appreciate the crashing of waves against a rock face, without feeling the sea and rocks are superior to the waves.

I've seen no evidence of 'digital evangelists' here, all defences to digital, have not implied once, that digital was superior, all have merely said its different, an alternative, a choice.

it is you who keeps crying, its digital fake, bow before the analogue superiority... honestly I don't get.
frankly, I think your probably trolling...

anyway, I for one am glad, my senses are not so finely tuned, that I cannot appreciate other forms of sound. I just accept what I hear, and if I like it, that's cool... digital, analogue, acoustic - whatever.

I'm out of the topic too... its been interesting, thanks everyone for their insights.

mod note: btw, if you feel the topic does not reflect accurately the discussion, as the OP, you are able to edit it. I just ask you keep in the in lounge category.
(when I split topics , I just use a title which I feel seems to reflect the discussion - but don't spend too long thinking about it, as the OP can change)

#48

Not trolling at all, Mark, and it was childish to suggest so.

I was prepared for this sort of outcome, which is why I tried to resist posting in the first place. The outcome is always the same. In a world where most are brainwashed by the media and technology giants, the biggest fight of all in this, are other people, "the masses".

The forum is full of digital evangelists, because not one of them has had the balls to agree with me on a forum about a digital device. You yourself have just liked a post made by someone who missed the whole point of the original one, and then attacked the guy posting the facts.

You are a digital evangelist!

As for being glad about how your senses are tuned, no, that was completely pointless. I'm not one of those who go around saying I cannot bear to listen to digital audio. The point of my original post, as pointed out, is that no matter how advanced digital modeling of an instrument gets, it will be burdeded by the quantized nature of digital.

Two can take the attitude you just took. It's just as easy for me to say right, I've said my bit, let's see if there's anyone here with the balls to agree with facts, rather than fiction.

Very disappointed in your comment, Mark!

#49

There's a difference between "crying" and pointing-out facts, and all I've done here is point out facts.

Crying is what every digital evangelist on the planet would have to do if analogue did not exist.
Without analogue, there would be no digital, so then they'd be bwaaaaaaaaah!

That's crying, it's also a fact :smiling_imp:

#50

Thank's for pointing out I could edit the original post of the thread. I've taken the opportunity to add a small note to the first post, but I think it'll die-off now anyway.

These threads only ever last for as long as the digital evangelists think they have even the slightest chance of proving the impossible (which of course they never manage to do).

#51

It's more like this:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pigeon_chess

#52

Sorry dude, but I'm still waiting for the answer to that very simple question I asked. The one that is impossible to answer truthfully without losing the debate:

If digital is the daddy then why does it require analogue technology in order to exist?

As you're a math guy, you must be aware that math exists simply to measure the analogue world. The existence of math makes no difference to the existence of the world around you. Nature, physics etc, none of it cares one little bit about the existence of math or digital calculations and quantization. Both are subsets of the real world. Math is there to 'measure the daddy' in order to discover his secrets, so again:

If digital is the daddy then why does it require analogue technology in order to exist?

#53

Why do we use an analog drum machine like the 808 if there are real drums?

If the answer is: because we can synthesize sounds which can not be achieved by real world instruments.

You also answered the question why you should use digital solutions and why they are superior in certain cases: because the offer sounds you can not synthesize with real world instruments or analog synthesizers.

if the real question is: why you should simulate an analog instrument?
you also have to answer: why you should simulate an acoustic instrument?

#54

I completely agree with what you just said, but that's a different debate and you're misunderstanding my point.

My point was simply that due to the nature of digital being a 'quantized' system, the weakness in digital modeling of instruments is always going to be that it's built upon a quantized system.

People are quick to jump on me for that and assume I'm critisizing, when actually, it's more sympathy than anything because no matter what the clever math guys like Sputnki do, they have to fight quantization.

So while it sounds like I'm having a bash at digital, or the math guys, nothing could be further from the truth.

#55

I never said "digital is the daddy" or "digital is better (or superior) than analogue" or anything like that.
You put those words in other people mouths.
What i'm trying to prove is that your superiority claims are based on wrong assumptions, because discrete is not less natural than continuous, because quantization is not what leads to sound degradation, and because analog instruments are no more real than digital instruments (in fact they both exist).
What we're all trying to say to you is that strong claims require strong foundations, that you repeatedly fail to show.

#56

I already said, way back when I replied to Mark's first post, the reason I was using the word "fake".

I also demonstrated my use of the word earlier today, when I said that people who buy an SSL mixing app for example, do not have a real SSL analogue mixing console in their pocket - they have a digital fake.

Should be obvious I'm not suggesting an instrument is fake because it's digital. If I were, that would be like me saying real YAMAHA DX7s do not exist. Anyway, I'm pleased to see you have finally admitted that analogue is the daddy, even if it was indirectly.

As for Mark, well, I've decided not to speak to him for at least a week, due to him thinking I might be a troll :wink:

#57

I am not a musician.
I am here as an audio signal processing design engineer.
I really enjoy listening to musicians talk about fidelity.

But you are missing the point.
When you play the music (signal) from your instrument it is accurate.
You then distort it by not standing in a clear space.
Your performance area distorts the sound you hear - differently to how your listener hears it.
But then you amplify or record the music and that changes it even more.
And then most amusingly of all, you play it back and that changes it again.

Analogue is different to Digital. Digital is different to Digital.
If you haven't worked out that it isn't about perfect reproduction yet you need to listen more.

#58

You are missing the point that the analogue way is the superior carrier of sound.

#59

It's the ONLY carrier of sound :smiling_imp:

#60

that's the beauty of playing live and the beauty of playing an acoustic instrument. in every room it will not only sound different, but also resonate and react differently. it is among the first things you have to learn/accept/appreciate when playing an acoustic instrument in different locations.

#61

Inferior or superior, you are kidding right ?????
No such thing...