The sound of modern synths ???

[Moon]

I recently bought 2 CD's from JMJ. I had this music on vinyl, but after 30 years of age, I decided to buy the digital onces.

When listening to the newly mastered CD's something struck me: the sounds of these 30 year-old synths just sound so more musical too me than our modern synths. I can't get rid of the feeling that these ols sounds seem to be so more 'vivid' and 'alive'. They just sound more 'organic', like real old)fashion acoustic instruments.

Ok, new synths sound cleaner, but to me, modern synths have lost something in their evolution. They lost some 'heart'.

Or... maybe I'm getting to nostalgic... still... there's something about these old music...

Anyone share my feelings on this ? 

Moon

[folderol]

I think what you're probably missing is not the synth quality exactly, but the lack of frequency/phase lock. With the old analogue synths each part of every voice (including envelope shape) had a variable element, and was never quite the same twice. Modern synths generate everything from a common clock signal, and even 'random' elements have some predictability. Even if played in mono mode, there will be a rigidly fixed interval between (say) E and G.

One thing you never hear of these days with respect to electronic organs is the term 'free phase'

[Oren]

Yes, that unpredictable mix of sound ingredients set those old synthesizers apart.

I think that's one element that makes ZynAddSubFX sound so attractive to me - after the sound is generated, it can be processed by a selection of digital effects, as an integral part of the synthesizer's design. These digital effects, as they work together to shape the final character of the sound, can create some spontaneous aural phenomena.

There are times when that "Shuniji" synth from H.G. Fortune can come up with some very complex audio textures, also. It exhibits that unpredictable quality as the various "components" or parameters change and interact.

[elwoodblues1969]

Ohhh yeah...this very concept is one of the main attractions for me with the Propellerhead software...six different types of synthesis,a wide array of parameters & infinite methods of combinations,so that you never come up with the same sound twice!
Thank God for modern synthesizers,as it's never been so affordable to achieve the sounds you want.

When I still had my Alesis Ion,I had most of the classic styles of synthesis & I could not differentiate between the sound of old analog versus the analog modeling types of today....the emulations are really that good & sooo cheap to own!
Having this sort of flexibilty & power in a midi sequencer application is sooo integral to what I do,& I cannot imagine ever needing anything beyond what I'll have to work with.

The Propellerhead software is in the mail & I'm just waiting on my back-ordered midi controller.

-Thom

[Moon]

Yes, modern synth are more affordable... but stil they lost something. I guess the transistor based instruments did not function so precise as their digital counterparts, which explain where they got their character from.

Guess what I want to say is that I love the sound of those ancient instrument    ...allthough I could never make music without modern ones.

Moon

[Marc JX8P]

Some synths - like my Fantom Xa - has a parameter setting for patches that allows you to set the 'Analogueness' of each patch, which comes down to adding a little drifting of the tuning. I've often found that adding bits of randomness does work wonders if you want to create analog warmth. Actually, recently I've become the proud owner of a Doepfer modular synth (more later) and to my surprise this trick even worked there in what is essentially a purely analog context! For example, I patched the random voltage of a noise module into the filter where I used it to very subtly modulate the filter cutoff. The change in sound was amazing.

What I'm basically trying to say is: the nice thing about what we have now is that randomness and noise are no longer a given but can be added or not purely on an aesthetic base. And while I love my new Doepfer and I enjoy the quirkyness of having to tune it each and every time I use it, I'm really thankful that all my other stuff remains in tune!

[rharv]

yeah, they sounded unique and full of character,   but is anybody else here old enough to remember the incredible Pain in the butt it was to recreate that exact sound every night?   Those dials were not exact, and the house voltage even had an affect!

It is more conveneient and accurate as things are now,  but I think we miss some of the creativeness of having to 'dial in' our sounds...

[folderol]

You mean like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWJcOP-LFvY

[Marc JX8P]

You mean like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWJcOP-LFvY

This raises the question 'Why?' on so many levels...

[kara]

You mean like this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWJcOP-LFvY

This raises the question 'Why?' on so many levels...

[rharv]

Exactly what I was talking about.

Nicely done

[folderol]

As a matter of interest I have tried to reproduce Tomita's whistle on several modern synths (yes including Zyn.) and have so far failed.

I suspect the reason is that his MOOG is working not one, but two variable elements to the filter on pink noise. The first controls broadband pitch, but the other one I think is an ADSR varible Q element. That is the only way I can imagine that you could get the distinctive breath noise that so accurately immitates a real whistler. As the whistle develops the breath noise rapidly narrows it's bandwidth (not its amplitude) then disappears completely into the pure tone.